FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,278
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
81. We disagree with Fibertech and others who argue that utility control of the electric space
improperly delays attachers "from timely completing their work" in a meaningful way.238 With regard to
attachment of facilities in the electric space, if a utility's legitimate concern over safety conflicts with an
attacher's concern over timeliness, the statute already resolves the conflict in favor of the utility.239
Additionally, we agree with MetroPCS that, if a wireless carrier consents to the utility's specified
contractor to work above or among the lines, additional contractors should not be required to work with
antenna equipment.24 We agree that a single contractor with the proper qualifications may be all that is
D. Joint Ownership
82. In the Further Notice, we proposed to require owners to consolidate authority in one
managing utility when more than one utility owns a pole and to make the identity of this managing utility
publicly available.24' We decline to adopt the proposed rules relating to joint ownership,242 but we clarify
and emphasize that we expect joint owners to coordinate and cooperate with each other and with
requesting attachers consistent with pole owners' duty to provide just and reasonable access.23
83. After careful consideration of the record, we find that the potential benefits of these
proposals do not justify the likely costs. We are convinced by evidence in the record that, on balance,
consolidating authority in a single managing utility would create substantial administrative burdens for
the managing utility.244 The proposed rule would have required joint owners of millions of poles to
confer and designate a managing utility, even though the vast majority of those poles would not be subject
to pole attachment requests in the near future, if at all. In addition, because the joint owners typically
consist of an electric utility and an incumbent LEC, which have different rights under section 224(f)(2)
and often have different competitive incentives vis a vis a new attacher, there exists a real possibility that
it may be difficult to ensure that only the electric utility is actually asserting section 224(f)(2) rights.
84. We emphasize, however, that joint ownership or control of poles should not create or
justify a confusing or onerous process for attachers. Thus, for example, we would consider utility
procedures requiring attachers to undergo a duplicative permitting or payment process to be unjust and
unreasonable.4 Avoiding such duplication might involve, for example, joint owners establishing a
single administrative contact point for all pole attachment applications--or joint owners agreeing, and
informing the attacher, that one of the owners will be the attacher's point of contact for a specific pole
238 See, e.g., Fibertech Comments at 4-5; T-Mobile Comments at 13.
239 47 U.S.C. 224(f)(2).
240 MetroPCS Comments at 15. This responds to a proposal in our Further Notice that utilities be required to admit
among the power lines contract personnel with specialized communications-equipment training or skills that the
utility cannot duplicate, such as work with wireless antenna equipment. Further Notice, 25 FCC Rcd at 11894-95,
241 Further Notice, 25 FCC Rcd at 11895-96, paras. 72-73.
243 See 47 U.S.C. 224; see also Cable Telecommunications Association of Maryland, Delaware and the District of
Columbia, et al. v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and Bell Atlantic - Maryland, Inc., File No. PA 00-001,
Order, 16 FCC Rcd 5447, 5450, para. 7 (Cable Serv. Bur. 2001) (CTA v. BGE) ("It is unreasonable to expect
attachers to separately negotiate agreements with more than one pole owner for attachment to a single pole that is
jointly owned."). "Joint ownership" also includes situations in which the pole is controlled, if not actually owned,
by two entities.
244 See Coalition Comments at 74; ITTA Comments at 6.
245 See CTA v. BGE, 16 FCC Rd at 5450, para. 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/m1/450/: accessed November 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.