FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,312
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
meaning remained the same" in the various versions of the bill.494 These parties also argue that legislative
history shows that Congress intended the formula to be based on who benefits from the pole.495 For
example, the Florida IOUs assert that "[t]he legislative history shows that the various versions of the bill
embodied a variety of positions on which entities benefit, and how much they benefit. But all versions
focused on the beneficiary-based approach.'"96 These utilities believe that this means Congress intended
fully allocated costs to be used.497 By contrast, certain cable commenters' interpretation of the legislative
history is that there were significant differences in the "cost" and "beneficiary" language of the various
bills, and that, "[i]n contrast to the House, the Senate's telecom rate formula never required 'fully
165. We are not persuaded that the legislative history shows that the House's interpretation of
"costs" for purposes of its proposed amendments applied equally to the interpretation of language in the
Senate bill - let alone the final language adopted in the conference agreement. In contrast to the
legislative history of the House bill, which expressly provided that "[t]he new provision directs the
Commission to regulate pole attachment rates based on a 'fully allocated cost' formula," legislative
history of the Senate bill was silent on the definition of the "costs" at issue. We also note that the
House's interpretation of "costs" is summarized among "the differences between the Senate bill, the
House amendment, and the substitute agreed to in conference" in the Conference Report.499 In any event,
the statutory language describing the costs at issue was different in the conference agreement than in
either the House or Senate versions. In particular, the House and Senate versions referred to pole rate
setting based on "the cost of space,"'5 whereas the adopted language of section 224(e) refers to "the cost
of providing space."50' As discussed above, in defining the lower end of the range of reasonable rates
under section 224(e), we focus on those costs arising from the actual provision of space for pole
attachments, as opposed to costs that arise regardless of the absence or presence of attachments.s02 We
find our approach consistent with the statutory language actually adopted, regardless of the House's
interpretation of "cost" for purposes of its unadopted amendments to section 224.
494 Florida IOUs Reply at 44-45; Letter from Eric B. Langley on behalf of Florida IOUs to Ms. Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245, at 3-6 nn.12 & 13 (filed Nov. 8, 2010) (Florida IOUs Nov. 8, 2010 Ex
Parte Letter). Florida IOUs also argue that, "Importantly, every version of section 224(e) ... used the term 'space'
to modify 'cost' and included unusable space in the formula." Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).
495 See, e.g., Florida TOUs Nov. 8, 2010 Ex Parte Letter at 4-5 ("Congress intended the formula to be based on who
was benefiting from the pole, not based on who caused the incremental cost of attachment.") (emphasis in original).
496 Florida IOUs Nov. 8, 2010 Ex Parte Letter at 4.
497 See, e.g., Florida IOUs Nov. 8, 2010 Ex Parte Letter at 4-5.
498 Comcast Reply at 9 ("In fact, S. 652 initially recognized 'that the entire pole ... other than the usable space is of
equal benefit to all attachments of entities that hold an ownership interest in the pole... and therefore [the
Commission must] apportion the cost of the space other than the usable space equally among all such
attachments.'") (emphasis in original) (citing S. 652, 205(b)(2)(A)). Comcast also points to another version of the
Senate bill that references an allocation based on "cost of providing space" and "cost of space" without defining
either, which Comcast contends, indicates the bill did not equate the two phrases. Comcast Reply at 10 n.26.
499 H.R Rep. No. 104-458 at 113, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 124 (Joint Explanatory Statement of the
Committee of Conference) ("The differences between the Senate bill, the House amendment, and the substitute
agreed to in conference are noted below, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by
agreements reached by the conferees, and minor drafting and clerical changes.").
soo See Communications Act of 1995, H.R. Rep. No. 104-204, 104th Cong. 1st Session, at 24 (1995);
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. Rep. No. 104-23, 104th Cong. 1st Session, at 87
501 47 U.S.C. ( 224(e)(2), (e)(3) (emphasis added).
502 See supra para. 161.
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.
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/m1/484/: accessed March 29, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.