FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,298
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
importance of technological neutrality," and thus "tentatively conclude[d] that all categories of providers
should pay the same pole attachment rate for all attachments used for broadband Internet access
service."403 The Pole Attachment Notice went on to tentatively conclude, however, that "the [uniform]
rate should be higher than the current cable rate, yet no greater than the telecommunications rate.'"4
134. In the 2010 Further Notice, however, the Commission declined to pursue that approach
for several reasons. The Commission explained that pursuing uniformity by increasing cable operators'
pole rental rates - potentially up to the level yielded by the current telecom formula - "would come at the
cost of increased broadband prices and reduced incentives for deployment.'"'4 Instead, the Commission
sought to limit the distortions present in the current pole rental rates "to increase the availability of, and
competition for, advanced services to anchor institutions and as middle-mile inputs to wireless services
and other broadband services," some of which potentially could be classified as telecommunications
services.406 Accordingly, in the Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on alternative
approaches for reinterpreting the telecom rate formula within the existing statutory framework, including
a specific Commission proposal based on elements proposed by TWTC. As the Commission noted, this
approach was consistent with the National Broadband Plan's recommendation to establish rates "as low
and close to uniform as possible" based on evidence that the uncertainty regarding the applicable rate
"may be deterring broadband providers that pay lower pole rates from extending their networks or adding
capabilities (such as high-capacity links to wireless towers).'""407 This uncertainty results from the risk
that, by offering services that potentially could be classified as "telecommunications services," a higher
telecom rental rate might then be applied to the broadband provider's entire network."08 The Further
Notice explained that the record likewise bears out these concerns.'
B. The New Telecom Pole Rental Rate
135. After review of the extensive filings in this proceeding, we adopt a modified form of the
Further Notice's proposal as the new telecom rate. Under this new approach, explained in detail below,
we revise the section 224(e) rental rate for pole attachments used by telecommunications carriers to
provide telecommunications services. As we explain in detail below in Part V.B.2, Congress gave the
Commission authority to interpret section 224(e), including the ambiguous phrases "cost of providing
space ... other than the usable space" in section 224(e)(2) and "cost of providing usable space" in section
224(e)(3). Exercising that authority, we identify a range of possible rates, from the current application of
the telecom rate formula at the upper end, to an alternative application of the telecom rate formula based
on cost causation principles at the lower end. Within that range, we seek to balance the goals of
promoting broadband and other communications services with the historical role that pole rental rates
have played in supporting the investment in pole infrastructure, and thus define the "cost of providing
space" on that basis.
136. As explained below, we believe the telecom rate should be lowered to more effectively
achieve Congress' goals under the 1996 Act to promote competition and "advanced telecommunications
403 Id. 20209, para. 36.
4os Further Notice, 25 FCC Red at 11913, para. 118.
407 NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN at 110-1i1 & n. 11 (citing a filing with the Commission by Bright House explaining
the deterrent effect of higher pole attachment rates on offering new, advanced services to anchor institutions like
49 Further Notice, 25 FCC Red at I 1912, para. I 16 (noting examples cited by cable operators of the negative effects
that a higher pole attachment rate would have on deploying new, advanced services).
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/m1/470/: accessed July 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.