Maine PUC Weighs Next Steps on Pole Attachments
Maine should harmonize its Chapter 880 pole-attachment rules with recent FCC rules changes, Comcast and Charter Communications commented last week at the Maine Public Utilities Commission. However, the cable companies disagreed with various Maine Connectivity Authority (MCA) recommendations contained in a recent report. Versant Power, an electric utility that owns poles, said Maine needn’t make more regulatory or legislative changes.
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.
A 2023 state law required that the Maine PUC study pole-attachment requirements’ effect on broadband expansion (docket 2023-00300). The PUC will tap research from a recent MCA report and issue final findings and recommendations Dec. 1 to the state legislature. One concern the MCA report flagged was “complex and opaque” pole attachment processes (see 2408260036). Maine is one of 24 jurisdictions that don’t follow FCC pole rules. Pennsylvania, another state that went its own way, synced with the federal rules last month (see 2409260066).
Charter and Comcast said "the only regulatory change necessary to advance the legislature’s broadband mandate is for the PUC to further update its Chapter 880 rules to conform with the FCC’s regulatory framework for pole attachments." While Maine's and FCC pole attachments rules are similar, adopting federal changes from 2023 -- including to make allocation of pole replacement costs more equitable -- would advance state broadband goals, the cablers commented. The FCC changes include clarifying instances when the owner rather than the attacher should pay a pole replacement cost. "These targeted amendments to the Chapter 880 rules, in addition to making broadband deployments more economical, would also provide greater consistency and uniformity of pole access terms,” the companies said.
Charter and Comcast disagreed with the MCA's suggestion for a bill that would let pole owners assess penalties for unauthorized attachments. “In the context of the thousands of interactions we have had with our pole-owning counterparts in Maine, we are not aware of systemic or widespread problems that would warrant the adoption of such a dramatic recommendation,” said the cable companies: Pole contracts already include ways to deal with unauthorized attachments.
The companies also disagreed with an MCA recommendation to standardize pole agreements. "One size may not fit all.” And Comcast and Charter recoiled at the report saying that communications attachers have incentive to use poor construction practices. "Not only are communications providers contractually obliged to conform their work with multiple overlapping sources and tiers of safety standards, but we deeply care about our quality of work because poor workmanship and unsafe attachment practices jeopardize worker and public safety, and the physical integrity -- and operational performance -- of our communications networks.”
Versant balked at any new bills or rules for pole attachments. “Maine is already at the forefront nationally in pole regulation,” and the data shows electric pole owners follow the rules, it said. The process will get even better, said the utility, when everyone uses Alden One, a joint-use software system that Versant and Central Maine Power (CMP) developed, which provides a centralized database for pole attachments. “What is needed now to address [broadband] deployment times is not more rulemaking proceedings,” said Versant: Rather, broadband ISPs must "comply with existing rules,” meet obligations under pole attachment agreements, and ensure that “their contractors adhere to well-established nationally recognized industry and safety codes.”
CMP was disappointed with the MCA report, which it said “conveys bias against pole owners, makes inaccurate statements, and recommends solutions in search of a problem.” That’s despite pole owners and attachers agreeing “that Maine has a very strong legal and regulatory framework for pole attachments; that the pole attachment process works; and that it is improving,” commented CMP. The power company disagreed pole attachment costs, data and timelines are opaque. "The issue is that some stakeholders simply don’t know the rules for pole attachments, or they don’t like the rules and refuse to accept them."
Crown Castle and GoNetspeed said the PUC “should not mess with its success -- at least not too much." Be wary of proposals for safety requirements that don't, "or only marginally, enhance safety but slow or impede deployment,” the broadband companies warned. Cutting red tape is good, they said. However, when trying to improve the one-touch, make-ready process, the PUC "should guard against imposing additional requirements that slow the process.”
The wireless industry supported an MCA recommendation to establish a pole-attachments working group. Several other states have such groups, which open communication between pole owners and attachers, said CTIA.
Significant costs from Alden One "are being unreasonably and unjustly recovered from electric ratepayers,” Maine’s public advocate office complained. The PUC should recommend that the legislature end this practice, the office said, and use the influx of federal broadband cash to pay for the system instead.