USF Not for Cataloging Pole Attachments, Maine PUC Warned
Don’t misuse Maine USF to pay for a pole attachments database, a state senator and the cable industry told the Maine Public Utilities Commission. The PUC received mixed reviews by Friday’s deadline, in comments on a staff proposal to split the system’s costs 60-40 between pole owners and attachers, with the attachers and telephone pole owner Consolidated Communications able to recover the cost through state USF.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Maine PUC is considering Alden One, a joint use software system developed by electric pole owners Versant and Central Maine Power (CMP) that would provide a centralized database for pole attachments. Debate over who should pay and how much continued from previous comment rounds (see 2208150032).
Pole owners and attachers should equitably share costs, state Sen. Trey Stewart (R) wrote in docket 2021-00321. "Pole owners gain efficiencies with a new system and … should finance most of the cost of this upgrade,” said Stewart: But don’t use Maine USF to pay attachers’ share. “This proxy method may diminish accountability and cost transparency and” doesn’t follow the legislative intent for Maine USF, which is for providers of last resort, and telecom relay service and other rural needs, he said. If Maine USF has an excess of cash, “perhaps the PUC should explore a reduction in the monthly surcharge paid by Maine customers rather than new ways to spend these consumer generated resources.”
Funding via Maine USF raises legal and policy concerns, said Comcast, Charter Communications and two other cable companies. It would be inconsistent with Maine’s Chapter 880 pole attachment rules “and discriminatory as to Versant and CMP,” they said. “It is far from clear whether the proposed reliance on [Maine USF] even would be permitted under the fund’s enabling statute and regulations.” The system would mostly benefit pole owners that already recover costs through attachment rent, application fees and electric rates. And it would help internet-only providers that don’t even contribute to Maine USF, cable said.
Cablers cautioned that Maine USF may not always be flush with cash. Using it for Alden One “could open the door again to instability and turmoil,” they said. "During these difficult inflationary times, placing additional burdens on Maine consumers in this fashion seems unfair and ill-advised." No other state has used USF this way, they added.
The USF proposal “has merit,” countered Crown Castle, GoNetspeed and Great Works Internet in joint comments. Increasing broadband deployments and access helps Maine citizens and the economy, the pole riders said. “Ensuring that USF funds are being well-spent for the ultimate benefit of Maine citizens will provide additional incentive to the Commission, the pole owners, and attachers to cooperate to create and maintain a system to serve the greater good, not just the interests of any particular constituency.”
Versant and CMP disagreed with the proposed 60-40 cost split. Attachers should pay 80% of Alden One’s costs since, “but for the need to accommodate pole attachers, the joint use software system would not be needed.” An argument could be made to require attachers to pay 100%, but the electric pole owners recognize owners will benefit, too, they said.
Electric ratepayers shouldn't have to pay anything “because the purpose of the database is to facilitate and accommodate pole attachments by third parties,” said Maine's Office of Public Advocate. “The system clearly primarily benefits the pole attachers.” OPA didn’t comment on the plan to use Maine USF, which consumers pay through their phone bills.