FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,259
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
present, there is less experience with application of state timelines to attachments at the pole top, and in
those circumstances, it is appropriate to err on the side of caution.'02 Also, for reasons we discuss
separately below, we follow state models that allow additional days for make-ready for large orders
within a single state.'03
34. We find that the benefit of requiring the utility to notify existing attachers of needed
make-ready outweighs the relatively small burden of providing such notice. The requesting entity's
interest in broad notification is typically strong, whereas a utility's additional burden in copying
additional known attachers is minimal. The statute requires pole owners to notify in writing "any entity
that has obtained an attachment so that such entity may have a reasonable opportunity to add to or modify
its existing attachment."'4 When the notice requirement is triggered by a prospective attacher's
acceptance of a utility's estimate, we interpret the word "any" to encompass as broad a range of attachers
as is practicable, including not only cable system operators and telecommunications carriers, but also any
attaching joint users or joint owners, and, if their address is known to the utility, entities with attachments
that the utility believes to be unlawful.
35. Several utilities contend that they should not be required to actively manage and
coordinate make-ready.'0s We agree. Utilities may fulfill their section 224(f)(1) access obligation by
performing make-ready themselves, by contracting out the direction and management of make-ready, or
by cooperating with existing attachers' contractors to ensure make-ready is timely. The "just and
reasonable" standard in section 224(b) gives utilities the flexibility to develop and implement procedures
for meeting make-ready obligations. However, the notification-in-writing requirement that we adopt is
appropriate both because section 224(h) expressly requires written notification by the pole owner, and
because of the potential legal and practical consequences if entities with existing attachments are not
36. Completion by Owner: If make-ready is not completed by the date specified in the
utility's notice to entities with existing attachments, a utility, prior to the expiration of the 60-day notice
period (or 105-day notice period in the case of larger orders), may notify the requesting attacher in writing
that it intends to assert its right to complete all remaining work within 15 days. In such cases, the utility
will have an additional 15 days to complete make-ready. If make-ready remains unfinished at the end of
the 15-day extension, the attacher may assume control of make-ready at that point (Day 148 of the
timeline, or Day 193 in the case of larger orders).'07 Thus, we permit a pole owner to assert its right to 15
(Continued from previous page)
such facilities could fall over onto power lines in high wind conditions or in heavy wet snow conditions resulting in
102 Some states with timelines apply their pole attachment rules to wireless equipment, while others do not
Compare, e.g., Utah Admin. Code R746-345 ("[T]hese rules apply to any wireless provider."), with NY Comm'n
Wireless Proceeding at 6-7 ("[W]e will not apply the Pole Attachment Order and Policy Statement to wireless
o03 See infra paras. 63-67.
104 47 U.S.C. 224(h)(providing that "whenever the owner of a pole ... intends to modify or alter such pole ... the
owner shall provide written notification of such action to any entity that has obtained an attachment ... so that such
entity may have a reasonable opportunity to add to or modify its existing attachment").
o05 See, e.g., Ameren et al. Comments at 11 (arguing that Commission authorization cannot mitigate other
substantial liabilities to which pole owners may be exposed in resorting to such "self-help" remedies, including loss
of service); Oncor Comments at 23 (stating that Oncor is not in the communication make-ready business and does
not want to be); Florida IOUs Comments at 21-22 (urging the Commission to avoid putting pole owners in the
untenable position of coordinating the sequence and timing of rearrangement for existing attachers).
106 47 U.S.C. 224(h).
07 See infra Part III.A.3.
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/431/: accessed February 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.