Groups Seek Minor Changes to Draft FCC Pole Attachment Order, FNPRM
Utility pole owners, ISPs and advocacy groups widely backed the FCC's efforts to expedite the pole attachment application process in a draft order, declaratory ruling and Further NPRM that commissioners will consider during an agency meeting next week (see 2311210043). Some sought additional clarification of definitions and transparency requirements. Others urged the FCC to add specificity to the application review process.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Most industry groups and providers sought targeted changes to the draft. Crown Castle Fiber asked the FCC to require that pole owners share information about their poles prior to a prospective attacher filing an application or complaint. "Disclosure by pole owners of available information earlier in the attachment process will result in more informed applications and improve speed to market," the company said in multiple meetings with commission aides, according to an ex parte filing posted Thursday in docket 17-84.
The draft items are "carefully crafted and balanced," said the Edison Electric Institute in separate meetings with Wireline Bureau staff and aides to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner Brendan Carr and Commissioner Nathan Simington. "The FNPRM asks thoughtful and appropriately scoped questions to address the sufficiency of the Commission’s rules in view of recent Federal funding opportunities to further the deployment of broadband to unserved and underserved areas," EEI said.
The group sought minor clarifications, including cost sharing rules when a pole replacement is required "at the time of an attachment request due to defect or deterioration." EEI also joined the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Utilities Technology Council in a meeting with an aide to Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, saying the FCC should clarify rules for cost causation "when a pole must be replaced for any reason other than lacking capacity to support a new attachment."
The Coalition of Concerned Utilities asked the commission to revise draft language on refiled pole attachment applications following receipt of a pole inspection report in a letter. Representing more than a dozen electric utility pole owners, the group warned that the draft could enable attachers to "abuse" the 45-day deadline for reviewing applications by eliminating the current 10 business-day rule for reviewing applications for completeness and notifying attachers about whether an additional review is needed.
Some advocacy groups lobbied commission aides in separate meetings on cost allocations for pole replacements and make-ready costs. "Cost allocation is perhaps the biggest source of disagreement and delay between pole owners and attachers," said the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition. SHLB urged the FCC to establish a "defined processing timeline" for pole applications with at least 3,000 poles in the final order, which the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council echoed in a call with a Starks aide. SHLB also backed requiring pole owners to provide new attachers with certain information about poles. The Consortium for School Networking and State Educational Technology Directors Association raised similar concerns in separate meetings with aides to Commissioners Anna Gomez and Starks.
Altice raised concerns about certain "ambiguities" in the draft in separate meetings with Wireline Bureau staff and an aide to Commissioner Brendan Carr. It sought additional clarification on the definition of a "red-tagged pole," noting the current definition "may allow pole owners to continue the practice of shifting pole replacement costs to attachers where the pole owner should have replaced the pole in the ordinary course of business." The FCC should also expand the type of information pole owners must provide to attachers, such as outside plant records, pole attachment audits, recent surveys or inspections performed for other attachers and accident-related or general maintenance records, Altice said. The company also met separately with aides to Commissioners Starks and Simington.
A coalition of electric utility companies, which included Southern Company, Oncor Electric Delivery Company, Entergy Corporation, Duke Energy Corporation, American Electric Power Service Corporation and Ameren Services Company, told a Rosenworcel aide it backed the draft's decision to avoid adopting NCTA and Charter's proposal to shift the majority of make-ready pole replacement costs to pole owners. "The only conceivable benefit of a make-ready pole replacement to an electric utility is when the replacement ... happens to meet the then-unknown future needs of the electric utility," the group said. NCTA sought "stronger language and additional examples" in the final declaratory ruling regarding cost allocations to "ensure that pole owners are not able to shift the entire cost of pole replacements to attachers" when a pole replacement is not solely caused by the new attachment in multiple meetings with FCC aides and Wireline Bureau staff.
USTelecom asked the FCC to remove a reference to fully depreciated poles in the final order, saying the "depreciation status of a pole says nothing about whether the pole needs to be replaced." USTelecom encouraged the commission to otherwise not "substantively change the draft order and upset the appropriate balance it strikes," which Verizon echoed in a meeting with a Rosenworcel aide.