Utility pole attachment proceeding at FCC heats up

The Federal Communications Commission is being flooded with comments regarding its Further Notice of Proposed RuleMaking on plans to change rules around utility pole attachments, which among other things tries to bring the cost for telecommunications service providers to attach equipment to utility poles more in line with the costs cable providers pay.
Although the order impacts wired telecom and cable operators, wireless service providers deploying Distributed Antenna System (DAS) networks would also benefit from the new rules proposed by the FCC. As such, The DAS Forum, CTIA, NextG Networks, T-Mobile USA Inc. and other wireless industry players commented on the need for new rules. Not surprisingly, utility companies that submitted comments are generally unhappy with the proposal.
The FCC is proposing new rules for utility pole attachments as part of its National Broadband Plan, designed to bring Internet access across America, especially in rural areas. Specifically, the agency is trying to address disparity in prices utility companies charge pole attachers; timelines during the attachment process; and ways to resolve disputes in a timely manner.
The DAS Forum, a group within PCIA, proposed a 90-day timeframe for utility companies that do not have a standard for wireless pole attachments to work with wireless companies to establish a standard.
The Forum also addressed cost disparities. “The commission must affirm that wireless attachers are subject to the telecom rate and not monopoly rates. DAS Forum members report a wide disparity in the rate charged for wireless attachments, ranging from tens-of-dollars to over a thousand dollars per year. There is no justification for a utility to charge these illegal rates that are significantly above the regulated rate for wireless attachments. While a wireless attachment may occupy more space than a wired attachment, and therefore proposes that the wireless attachment rate should be equal to the telecom rate times that amount of usable space occupied above one foot.”
TW Telecom and Comptel, which represents competitive local access communications providers (CLECs) , said the FCC needs to be able to fine utility companies that do not comply with the new rules. “To begin with, the record shows that utilities continue to insist on including in pole attachment agreements provisions that have been deemed unlawful by the FCC, and utilities often engage in other conduct that has been deemed unlawful by the FCC. The utilities apparently believe that they have little to lose by ignoring FCC decisions.”
In a 110-page filing, The Alliance for Fair Pole Attachment Rules – a coalition of large utility companies including Duke Energy Corp. and Southern Co. – said the FCC’s proposed rules do the opposite of the intended purpose. “In stark contrast to the Alliance’s recommendations, the FNRPM does precisely the opposite of what the Commission’s own findings warrant: it focuses almost exclusively on pole owners, without distinguishing between electric utilities (who have only the best interests of their own ‘infrastructure at heart’) and ILECs (who ‘can make no such claim.’) ”
A group of utility companies calling itself the Coalition of Concerned Utilities said the FCC’s proposed rules do not take into account the safety of its workers or the true cost to the utility when allowing attachments to their poles. “For decades, communications companies have attached their facilities to tens of millions of utility poles across the country without incurring the substantial cost and inconvenience of constructing and maintaining their own distribution systems. In return for making their internal distribution systems available to attachers, utilities have been ‘rewarded’ with unfair and discriminatory pole attachment rates, countless unauthorized attachments, myriad safety violations and innumerable administrative burdens. Electric utilities should not be required as a matter of public policy to jeopardize the safety and reliability of their systems or to subsidize the deployment of broadband or other services for the benefit of third party communications companies under any conditions, much less ones that would have little practical benefit. Even if they made sense from practical and policy perspectives, most of the Commission’s proposals exceed its statutory authority.”
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio suggested the FCC adopt a plan similar to its in which disputes must be addressed in a hearing within 30 days and a ruling must be issued 30 days after the hearing.