ISPs Urge FCC to Deny Bids to Reconsider Pole Attachment, Pre-emption Decisions
Broadband interests opposed requests of electric utilities and others to revisit an FCC August decision aimed at streamlining pole attachments and removing state and local barriers to broadband deployment, including moratoriums (see 1808020034). Telco, cable and fiber parties filed against a Coalition for Concerned Utilities (CCU) petition to reconsider pole-attachment rate and process changes in the order. Some also objected to the recon petitions of the Smart Communities and Special Districts Coalition (here), County Road Association of Michigan (here) and New York City (here) targeting a pre-emption declaratory ruling (the latter also targeted part of the pole order). Oppositions were posted through Tuesday in docket 17-84.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Verizon said the FCC should deny the petitions. "Reforms are supported by substantial evidence" and are "vital to promoting broadband and 5G deployment," said the telco. NCTA opposed the CCU, New York City and Smart Communities petitions: "the Commission should reaffirm both its policy on overlashing of pole attachments and its decision that state and local moratoria" on telecom service and facility deployment violate Communications Act Section 253(a). NTCA opposed the utility and Smart Communities petitions that "seek to undo" provisions that would enable its RLEC members "to access certain utility poles at reasonable rates, terms and conditions and to avoid being stymied in their attempts to bring new and upgraded communications facilities to rural consumers by state or local laws and policies."
CTIA targeted the petitions on the moratorium ban. "As the Commission rightly concluded, moratoria 'strike at the heart of the ban on barriers to entry that Congress enacted,'" said the group. "The Commission interpreted Section 253 to prohibit express as well as de facto moratoria because it found that both do precisely what the statute bars: they 'prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.' The Ruling was well within its authority."
Several oppositions focused on the utility petition. The FCC "correctly established a presumption that, for newly-negotiated and newly-renewed pole attachment agreements between ILECs and IOUs [investor owned utilities], ILECs will receive comparable pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions as similarly situated telecommunications attachers," said USTelecom. It said the agency "reasonably concluded that ILECs have no leverage to get IOUs to the bargaining table to negotiate a new agreement." ITTA urged rejection of CCU's "attempt to perpetuate long outdated disparities in the pole attachment structure." Citing a one-touch, make-ready approach, codification of overlashing precedent and other changes, the Fiber Broadband Association said the rules "will accelerate network upgrades and new deployments nationwide."
The coalition "fails to identify any material error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration and relies on arguments that the Commission has considered and rejected," said AT&T. CCU "only seeks to have the Commission re-litigate matters it has already decided," agreed the American Cable Association.