Wireless Says Utilities Often Gouge on Pole Attachments

Connie Durcsak, senior director, industry services, at PCIA, told us Monday that the issue is huge for her members, especially those installing distributed antenna systems (DAS). “The very distributed nature of this architecture requires that you have some sort of vertical solution that is distributed in a manner that you can provide reliable coverage, generally down at the street level,” she said. “Utility poles are probably the number one attachment target for a DAS system.”

Companies installing DAS face discrimination, PCIA and its DAS Forum said in an FCC filing. “DAS providers are forced to pay purported ‘market rates’ that substantially exceed the utilities’ regulated telecommunications rates,” the groups said. “DAS providers also face protracted negotiation times and other needless delays due to their lack of negotiating power.” The groups asked the FCC to require that when possible DAS systems be installed at the top of poles, where they work best, at no added cost.

Carriers and tower operators face nonrefundable application and engineering fees of as much $45,000 for pole attachments, along with installation fees of $80,000 to $100,000 and high inspection fees, CTIA said. “Electric utility pole owners also charge well above the Telecommunications Rate, arguing that the rate of wireless attachments cannot be determined using a formula because wireless attachments are subject to significant variation.” High fees and laggard review “serve the electric utilities’ interests to prevent competition or capture monopoly pole rental rates.”

Carriers also install antennas on rooftops, in commercial buildings and wherever else they can, CTIA said. But electric poles “are often the only practicable form of infrastructure that may be located in residential areas,” the group said: “Wireless attachments on electric utility poles allow carriers to increase signal strength (i.e., to improve indoor coverage), improve quality of service (i.e. to eliminate ‘dead spots’ and dropped calls), and bring new, innovative broadband services to more Americans.”

CTIA, PCIA and the Wireless Communications Association argued that fair pole-attachment rates and practices are critical to wireless broadband deployment. “An inability to obtain fair and equitable access to poles may force the provider to postpone service to consumers whose broadband options have long been limited to incumbent cable modem or DSL service providers,” WCA said. “This would be very difficult to square with the Commission’s broader agenda for promoting facilities-based competition via wireless.”

Carriers’ claims were answered by electric utilities, which argued that protecting the electrical grid’s integrity should be paramount. “Establishing regulatory parity between all providers of broadband services will help promote competition between providers of broadband services, but establishing such parity should not come at the expense of pole owners or electric consumers,” the Edison Electric Institute and Utilities Telecom Council said in a filing. Electric utilities need more protections, not less, the groups said.

FCC pole-attachment rules should change to allow greater “flexibility for electric utilities to protect and maintain the safety and reliability of critical electric infrastructure, and to facilitate responsible use of such infrastructure by attaching entities,” the groups said. “The Commission should clarify the limits of its jurisdiction over safety, reliability, and engineering standards and defer to state, local, and utility standards to ensure safety and reliability in a variety of operating conditions.” -- Howard Buskirk

* * * * *

More cable operators argued against an FCC proposal to raise their pole-attachment rates (CD March 10 p12). Cable operators enjoy a lower rate than incumbent phone companies, but s’ higher fees guarantee them more rights and exempt them from other payments, Comcast said. “Only Commission review of the joint use agreements between ILECs and electric utilities will allow for a true ‘apples to apples’ comparison of pole rights and obligations, and such a review should be undertaken as a part of this rulemaking,” it said. Moreover, as phone and electric companies enter the pay-TV and broadband markets, they have business incentives to hurt cable operators with “abusive pole rates and practices,” Comcast said. In fact, cable operators overpay pole owners, Comcast said. Besides attachment fees, cable operators also pay “make ready” fees, “change out” fees and “line shifting” fees, it said. The FCC should let CLECs, but not ILECs, pay the lower cable attachment rate, Time Warner Cable said. “The text of the statute, the legislative history of the Communications Act and the Commission’s own precedent make clear that the Commission lacks the authority to sweep incumbent LECs within Section 224’s protective veil,” it said. Verizon said the commission should set a uniform rate for broadband service providers. The lopsided rate structure discourages investment and network build out, it said. “The broken system needs to be repaired by establishing a common rate formula that applies to all attachments by providers of broadband services,” Verizon said. Likewise, bringing parity to the pole attachment rate rules would promote broadband deployment, AT&T said.