Pole Owners, Attachers Disagree on Need for Tighter FCC Attachment Application Rules

Utility companies and some industry groups urged the FCC to maintain its current rules for pole attachment application processes, noting the commission recently adopted new rules to help facilitate the process to expedite and streamline broadband deployment. Some ISPs said process delays remain and backed FCC-established timelines for larger pole attachment orders. Reply comments were posted Thursday in docket 17-84 (see 2402140048).

The FCC's proposed changes will "frustrate electric companies’ ability to manage workflow and fuel disputes, without expediting" the pole attachment application process, the Edison Electric Institute said. Current rules "encourage pole owners to work side-by-side with communications companies that deliver broadband services to American homes and businesses in the most timely and cost-effective manner possible," the group said. EEI urged the FCC to instead encourage attachers to "engage early and negotiate with" pole owners without commission-mandated timelines. There is "widespread agreement" that there is a shortage of "qualified contractors" for make-ready work, said the Utilities Technology Council. It is "unreasonable to believe that requiring utilities to meet defined timelines for larger orders" will promote broadband deployment, the group said.

A coalition of utility companies said "many attachers believe that it is the pole owner’s responsibility to get a network built." Replacing the "good faith negotiation" requirement with a timeline "only serves to entrench this misguided perception," said the coalition of Southern Co., Oncor Electric Delivery, Entergy, Duke Energy, American Electric Power Service and Ameren Services. The FCC's current rules "already best facilitate application processing and make-ready" while allowing for flexibility, said USTelecom. The group urged the FCC to "allow its just-adopted [rapid broadband assessment team] process to work and restate its commitment to its current rules," which Dominion Energy and Xcel Energy echoed in similar comments.

Incompas disagreed, saying the record "reflects significant concerns from competitive providers and new attachers that the current make-ready framework for large pole orders ... does not adequately address the needs of new attachers." The FCC "must adjust its rules in order to ensure a timely process for large pole orders," Incompas said. Altice cited pole owners' "failure to process applications in a timely manner" and "arbitrary pole-per-application limits" as reasons for its deployment delays.

The FCC should "accelerate deployment by adopting a fixed timeline not only for make-ready but also for all stages of the process" for orders exceeding the commission's definition of a "large order," said Crown Castle Fiber. The company disagreed with utilities that cited labor shortages as the reason for not acting in a timely manner. It also asked the FCC to bar utilities from "imposing practical and/or administrative impediments."

A fixed timeline for pole attachment applications exceeding 3,000 poles is "essential to facilitate the thousands of pole attachments," said NCTA. The group also sought commission action to "facilitate attachers’ use of qualified contractors." The proposed changes would "reduce ambiguity for both pole owners and attachers," said ACA Connects. The timeline "would not undermine utilities’ flexibility under the commission’s rules to deal with unforeseen circumstances," the group said.