Industry Disagreement Continues on Pole Replacement Cost Rules
Industry continued to disagree whether the FCC should revisit its cost allocation framework for utility pole replacements or attachments, in reply comments posted Monday in docket 17-84 (see 2206280066). Central to the debate was whether pole owners directly benefit from pole replacements and how much information owners should be required to disclose to requesting attachers.
The current cost allocation system is "unfair and interferes with the deployment of broadband," said NCTA. Pole owners "directly benefit from pole replacements" and the FCC should clarify that they "must agree to replace a pole for an attacher in the same circumstances that would lead it to replace the pole for its own needs," it said. Altice backed NCTA's proposal that an attacher "presumptively would be responsible only for the replaced pole’s remaining net book value.”
“The only question is the degree to which the pole owner benefits and what portion of the pole replacement costs it must accordingly bear," said ACA Connects. Attachers "regularly encounter unreasonable pole replacement charges and practices that slow or limit their network builds," the group said: There’s “more than ample evidence that utilities’ unreasonable pole replacement charges and practices are materially inhibiting deployment.”
Current pole replacement rules "are in need of reform," said Charter. There's "widespread agreement that the pole owner practice of demanding that attachers shoulder the full cost of replacement poles is a significant barrier to broadband deployment," it said. The “absence of formal complaint proceedings about pole replacement costs is not evidence that the status quo works well,” Charter said. New attachers shouldn't be required to "bear any financial responsibility" when a requested attachment isn't the cause for a replacement, said T-Mobile.
The “standards regarding the allocation of pole replacement costs is not settled or working well for both pole owners and attachers,” said the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition. Any allegations of "unauthorized attachments or abandoned equipment" could be "discovered and remedied more efficiently if the pole owner properly maintains up-to-date records concerning its infrastructure," the group said.
Pole replacement and attachment cost disputes "continue to represent a significant barrier to efficient and economical broadband deployment for competitive providers," said Incompas. The group backed Crown Castle Fiber and the Brattle Group's proposed allocation formula, saying it "carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders." The FCC should also establish a “subscription-based digitized utility database in which pole owners can provide specific data,” Incompas said. Pole owners "have monopoly power because they possess exclusive control over an asset that attachers must access," said Crown Castle Fiber. They "should share more critical information with attaching parties," it said, because it would "benefit both attachers and pole owners."
NATOA noted the FCC's authority on pole attachments doesn't apply to municipal or public power poles. The proceeding "provides no indication that the Commission may extend the reach of this rulemaking to municipally owned poles," NATOA said, and "any allusion to the contrary in the record should be ignored." The FCC should “expressly affirm” any new rules “do not apply to municipal and public power poles,” it said.
Others asked the FCC to reject proposals to reform current cost-allocation rules. There's "no need for the commission to adopt new rules to address unsubstantiated assertions about conduct that violates existing rules," said Verizon, which Lumen echoed in similar comments. The FCC already "correctly rejected" claims that pole owners "directly benefit" from replacements, Verizon said, and it "cannot presume that a pole owner would be made whole if paid the net book value or depreciated value of its poles."
Current pole replacement rules "ensure communications companies pay their own deployment costs and do not result in cross-industry subsidies or force ILECs to subsidize their competitors," said the Edison Electric Institute. Claims that pole owners benefit from prematurely replacing poles are “speculative,” EEI said, and "proposals to fast-track" the complaint process provide "not enough time for due process."
The FCC should "reject the self-interested proposals of the cable industry," said AT&T. Calls to "shift pole replacement costs to pole owners would almost certainly impede broadband deployment by creating a disincentive to voluntarily replace poles lacking capacity.” The "bulk of the allegations are either beyond the scope of the federal pole attachment statute or are covered by the commission’s existing rules," said USTelecom. Any changes would "undercompensate pole owners, create risk that some pole owners will deny access to their utility poles, and result in pole owners and existing attachers subsidizing new attachers’ deployments," it said. The record also "does not establish a basis for placing all pole access complaints on the accelerated docket," USTelecom said.
Utilities "promote broadband access by providing pole replacements on a voluntary basis," said the Utilities Technology Council, and the FCC should "ensure that utilities are able to recover their pole replacement costs." Voluntary "pole replacements would no longer be economically viable for a regulated utility" if costs are shifted to pole owners, said Dominion Energy and Xcel Energy in joint comments: Pole replacements “are not the impediment to broadband deployment that they have been portrayed as being.”