FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,286
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
("CPUC").315 As a prerequisite to the CPUC's acceptance of a request for resolution of a pole attachment
access dispute, the parties must escalate their dispute to the executive level within each company to
attempt good faith efforts at negotiation.36
100. We believe a similar requirement should be incorporated into the Commission's rules.
Consequently, we are revising Commission rule 1.1404(k) to require that there be "executive-level
discussions" (i.e., discussions among individuals who have sufficient authority to make binding decisions
on behalf of the company they represent) prior to the filing of a complaint at the Commission. In
addition, we encourage parties to meet face-to-face for these executive-level discussions, because our
experience shows that in-person meetings create an environment more conducive to reaching agreement
than when communications occur only by telephone or written correspondence. The revised rule
1.1404(k) now states:
The complaint shall include a certification that the complainant has, in good faith,
engaged or attempted to engage in executive-level discussions with the respondent to
resolve the pole attachment dispute. Executive-level discussions are discussions among
representatives of the parties who have sufficient authority to make binding decisions on
behalf of the company they represent regarding the subject matter of the discussions.
Such certification shall include a statement that, prior to the filing of the complaint, the
complainant mailed a certified letter to the respondent outlining the allegations that form
the basis of the complaint it anticipated filing with the Commission, inviting a response
within a reasonable period of time, and offering to hold executive-level discussions
regarding the dispute. A refusal by a respondent to engage in the discussions
contemplated by this rule shall constitute an unreasonable practice under section 224 of
101. Further, in our desire to encourage pre-planning and coordination among pole owners and
attachers to the greatest extent, and as early in the process, as possible, we will consider in any
enforcement proceedings whether such coordination has taken place. Especially in the case of extremely
large orders, or in a case of special circumstances (such as poles on tribal lands, environmental
sensitivities, new or experimental or unconventional attachments, pendency of special permits), the
question of whether attachers and pole owners have coordinated at an early stage will be material in our
consideration of whether terms and conditions are just and reasonable.
102. In addition, a number of commenters expressed concern about the length of time it takes
for the Commission to resolve pole attachment complaints,17 and some advocated the creation of new
processes for handling pole attachment complaints.hs Although we do not believe that the current record
warrants creation of new pole attachment complaint rules, we acknowledge the commenters' concern.
We believe that the new processes adopted elsewhere in this Order will have the effect of expediting the
pole access process. And, to the extent that access disputes remain a problem, we will make every effort
315 NextG Comments at 26-27. See Coalition Reply at 15 ("the ability to take the dispute to the next level in the
[other party's] organization would be useful").
316 CPUC Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion into Competition for Local Exchange
Service, Dec. No. 98-10-058 (Oct. 22, 1998).
317 See, e.g., Level 3 Comments at 17; Comcast Comments at 30-32; Charter Comments at 23; Florida IOUs
Comments at 41; NCTA Comments at 50-52; Ohio Comments at 2-3; TWTC/COMPTEL Comments at 35-37;
TWTC/COMPTEL Reply at 42-43; TWC Reply at 21-23.
31s CTIA Comments at 11-13; TWTC/COMPTEL Comments at 35-37; T-Mobile Comments at 14; Level 3
Comments at 17-18; MetroPCS Comments at 20-22; TWTC/COMPTEL Reply at 42-43; Verizon Reply at 6. But
see EEI/UTC Reply at 39-40 (no "rocket docket" for pole attachment complaints).
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/m1/458/: accessed March 21, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.