Equalizing Cable, Telecom Pole Rates Draws Broad Support

A dozen utilities and several associations in their industry dismissed requests by telcos that the rates be decided in an open rulemaking. They sought action on the petition. Comments from the communications industry raised few points that hadn’t been brought up in a 2008 rulemaking on pole attachments, said the eight-company Coalition of Concerned Utilities. Many initial comments in the current proceeding stressed the effect of rates on broadband (CD Sept 28 p11), and the replies debated the merits of dealing with the matter in response to the petition or the rulemaking. The petition “raises a current controversy” that “as a matter of administrative efficiency can and should be addressed through a declaratory ruling,” said the Edison Electric Institute and the Utilities Telecom Council.

The “plain text” of Section 224(e) of the Communications Act makes it clear that the telecom rate applies to cable interconnected VoIP services, the petitioners said. But the commission hasn’t clarified that, said American Electric Power, Duke, Southern Co. and Xcel. “As a result, non- productive disputes between cable companies and electric utilities persist, while cable companies continue to reap a discriminatory, market-distorting advantage relative to their CLEC competitors in the form of a subsidized pole attachment rate,” they said. “Virtually ignoring the point of law in the Petition, the Cable Industry’s comments on the Petition seek to lead the Commission into a thicket of procedural delay,” including by deferring the issue to the rulemaking, they added.

Applying the telecom rate formula to VoIP would double or triple what cable operators pay for each pole attachment to provide broadband, the NCTA said. “The opening comments revealed strong support among broadband providers for the approach advocated by NCTA” for telecom carriers to pay the same as cable, the group said. There’s been “a rare showing of unanimity cutting across a broad spectrum of industry groups, cable, CLEC and ILEC commenters,” Comcast said. “The power companies provide no support for their bizarre position that raising pole rents for cable VOIP attachments (in essence, for all broadband attachments) would somehow help promote broadband deployment and competition.”

The FCC and every court and public service commission that has considered the matter have rejected claims that operators are subsidized by utilities, noted six state and regional cable groups and Mediacom. The Massachusetts Department of Telecommunication and Cable said it supports a unified pole attachment rate. “The MDTC agrees with the suggestion advanced by other commenters that the FCC already has a pending proceeding for broadband pole attachments in which it tentatively concluded that a unified rate for attachments may be appropriate.”

Verizon said, “There is overwhelming support in this and the broader pole attachment proceeding to move to a single, uniform rate for all broadband pole attachments. If the choice is between the two existing rates as electric companies propose, the Commission should adopt the lower cable rate as the uniform rate for all broadband attachments.” There’s “overwhelming support” for a single broadband rate and disagreement centers on whether it should be accomplished through a declaratory ruling or a rulemaking, CompTel said. It agreed with the petitioners that the current “rate disparity” gives cable operators an “unfair advantage over other telephone providers.” However the commission acts, it should “adjust the inputs to the telecommunications carrier formula so that it yields rates equal or close to the rates currently yielded by the cable formula.”