FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,280
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
work is complete.254 It also sought comment on alternatives, including schedules of payments used in
comparable situations in other commercial contexts.2s
88. Based on the record before us, we decline to adopt the Utah rule or any other schedule of
payment for make-ready work at this time. Although a staggered payment system might motivate pole
owners to perform make-ready work more quickly, as some commenters point out,256 it would also
unfairly expose them to a greater risk of non-payment for make-ready work necessary to accommodate
attachers.27 The record contains little evidence that up-front payment is a barrier to telecommunications,
cable, or broadband deployment,258 but, as the Coalition indicates, attaching entities frequently lose
contracts for new business, change routes or ownership, go out of business, or experience other
difficulties that cause make-ready costs to remain unpaid after work has been completed.29 In any of
these situations, a utility might be unable to recover its costs if required to accept payment for make-ready
work in stages. A staggered payment system would also administratively burden utilities26 and, in some
cases, could actually delay the make-ready process.26' Moreover, up-front payment is both consistent
with the way that utilities charge other customers for construction work,262 and either encouraged or
required by a number of state tariffs.263 For these reasons, we are persuaded that any benefit that might
result from the proposed rule likely would be outweighed by its costs.
3. Data Collection
89. We decline to adopt requirements regarding the collection and availability of information
about the location and availability of poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way. In the Further Notice, we
sought comment on the type of data that would be beneficial to maintain, how such data should be
collected, the scope of the task, and potential benefits.264 The record before us indicates that the burdens
of such a data collection are outweighed by the potential benefits. EEI and UTC, for instance, report that
a database of their members' assets would take years and hundreds of millions dollars to create, then
256 See, e.g., ACA Comments at 9; TWTC/COMPTEL Comments at 15-16. But see, e.g., Verizon Reply at 35
(asserting that staggered make-ready payments would not provide any incentive for completing make-ready work
faster because the timing of make-ready work is often determined by numerous factors that are outside of pole
owners' control); HTI Reply at 17 (arguing that installment payments would increase costs for attachers and often
delay the completion of make-ready work).
257 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 28; EEI/UTC Comments at 38; ITTA Comments at 6-7.
258 See, e.g., Sunesys Comments at 19 ("oppos[ing] the Utah rule proposal because it is unfair to utilities"); Verizon
Reply at 35 (arguing that staggered payments would not improve access to poles).
259 Coalition Comments at 77.
26o See, e.g., HTI Comments at 17 ("Utilities, unlike contractors, are not in the business of providing construction
services and do not have expertise or resources devoted to managing installment payments."); Oncor Comments at
261 See, e.g., EEI/UTC Comments at 38 (asserting that up-front payment streamlines the make-ready process).
262 See, e.g., HTI Reply at 17 (pointing out that utilities would need to halt make-ready work if payments are not
received in a timely fashion); Florida IOUs Comments at 32; Coalition Comments at 77.
263 See Ameren et al. Comments at 19-20 ("utility tariffs routinely require payment in advance for the total
estimated cost of requested construction"); Alliance Reply at 53-55 ("Electric utilities are also subject to State
regulations that can further complicate -or preclude altogether - any such scheme for payment of make ready").
264 See Further Notice, 25 FCC Red at I 1897, paras. 75-76.
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/m1/452/: accessed January 21, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.