FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,262
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
infrastructure such as fiber placed closer to end-user locations, and wireless antennas used to fill in
coverage areas and expand capacity.'120
42. Upon review of the record, we conclude that it is appropriate to apply the timeline to both
wired and wireless attachments.121 We find no reasonable basis for applying a timeline disparately to
wired or wireless attachments as such. Concerns in the record relate to the facts that wireless attachments
are commonly located in, near, or above the electric space, and the attachment request may be for a type
of equipment for which engineering specifications have not already been developed. We address those
concerns by adopting two modifications to our basic timeline for wireless attachments by
telecommunications carriers and cable operators that are located above the communications space. The
first modification is that an extra 30 days is added for make-ready performance for wireless attachments
above the communications space, to account for: (1) safety concerns related to equipment being placed in,
near or above the electric space; and (2) the fact that, at present, there is less experience with application
of state timelines to attachments above the communications space. The second modification to the
general timeline is that the remedy for failure to meet the timeline for wireless attachments above the
communications space is a complaint remedy rather than the self-effectuating contractor remedy for
failure to perform timely survey and make-ready that applies to requests to attach in the communications
space.'22 Based on the record, we find the self-help remedy for survey and make-ready performance
would not be appropriate for attachments that generally are located in, near, or above the electric
space."23 To accommodate the unique issues facing these requests for attachment, we establish an
additional 30 days after the maximum time allowed for attachment requests in the communications
space-178 days total.'24
43. We further conclude that the appropriate avenue for seeking a remedy for failure to meet
the timeline for wireless attachments above the communications space is a complaint filed through the
FCC's complaint procedures for unreasonable delay on the part of the utility. We also adopt a rebuttable
presumption in such proceedings that access has not been provided on just and reasonable terms and
conditions. In such a case, a demonstration in a complaint that the timeline has been exceeded shifts the
burden to the utility to demonstrate that additional time is warranted. We find a rebuttable presumption is
appropriate in this context because wireless attachers above the communications space will not be able to
avail themselves of the self-help remedy we provide for attachers in the communications space.
Accordingly, we expect that shifting the burden of proof to the utility will deter unreasonable delays for
wireless attachments above the communications space. The remedies available in such a complaint
proceeding would include mandated access within a specified time frame and in accordance with
'2o See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 2, 6 (arguing that wireless providers operate in a fast-moving, intensely competitive
industry, so speedy access to poles is just as important to wireless attachers as it is to wireline attachers, if not more
so); DAS Forum Comments at 20 (arguing that DAS attachments also include wired attachments that should be
deployed on the same timeframe to ensure predictability and efficiency of deployment); MetroPCS Comments at 11
(stating that a timeline is appropriate to ensure a level playing field between wired and wireless providers).
121 See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 9 (stating that "it often takes T-Mobile as much as four months to negotiate a
master agreement with a cooperative pole owner and sometimes much longer - even as much as 18 months or more
-- to negotiate with an uncooperative one"); CTIA Mar. 15 Ex Parte at 2 ("CTIA proposes to extend the wireline
timeline for pole owners to grant physical access to wireless attachers by 30 days to 178 days total."); PCIA Mar. 15
Ex Parte at 1 ("Make ready for wireless pole top attachments must not exceed the Commission's proposed make
ready timeline, plus an additional 30 days.").
122 See supra Part III.A.3.
123 See, e.g., Oncor Comments at 44-45 (describing the problems with a contractor remedy for access above the
communications space); Florida IOUs Comments at 29-31 (same); see also infra para. 33 (discussing attachments
above the communications space).
'24 CTIA Mar. 15 Ex Parte at 6-7.
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.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
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/m1/434/: accessed August 18, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.