FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,313
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
166. Likewise, the legislative history does not demonstrate that the Commission's rate setting
must focus on the "benefits" parties receive from attachments, rather than on the costs associated with
attachment. For one, the discussion of "benefits" in the House and Senate bills focused on how to
allocate costs among pole owners and attachers, rather than the meaning of the "costs" to be allocated, as
even some utilities concede.503 Further, the House and Senate bills took starkly different approaches, with
the House bill requiring third-party attachers to bear a greater share of the unusable space on the pole than
required under the Senate bill.54 Ultimately, moreover, we note that none of the "benefit" language from
either the House or Senate bills was adopted in the conference agreement's amendments to section 224.
167. Telecom Rate Relative to Cable Rate. Contrary to certain utilities' arguments, neither
differences in the text of section 224(d) and (e) nor legislative history require that the telecom rate be
higher than the cable rate.505 For example, some commenters cite the fact that section 224(e) does specify
a methodology for allocating costs that is not present in section 224(d).506 Others argue that the
temporary, initial use of section 224(d) to establish pole rental rates for telecom carriers pending
Commission implementation of section 224(e) implies that those rates-must be different, or that the
telecom rate must be higher than the cable rate.s50 Section 224(e) gave the Commission two years to
adopt regulations "to govern the charges for pole attachments used by telecommunications carriers to
provide telecommunications services,"5's and in the interim, pole rental rates for telecom carriers would
be based on section 224(d).509 Section 224(e) further provided that, following the adoption of
implementing regulations, "[a]ny increase in the rates for pole attachments that result from the adoption
of the regulations ... shall be phased in equal annual increments over a period of five years."510
503 See, e.g., Florida IOUs Nov. 8, 2010 Ex Parte Letter at 4-5 & n.18 (arguing that "the early legislative history
indicates that the general understanding of 'costs' included both capital and O&M costs, and the disagreement was
over apportionment of those 'costs."') (emphasis in original). Insofar as those arguments reflect an underlying
assumption that the costs at issue must be fully allocated costs, we reject the view that the legislative history
compels us to adopt such an interpretation of "costs" under section 224(e). See supra paras. 162-165. Nor does
Florida IOUs citation to certain statements of Sen. Hollings lead us to reach a different conclusion. Although
Florida IOUs cite Sen. Hollings's comment in S. Rep. 104-23 that "utilities ... continue to express concern that the
revised formula will not compensate them adequately for their costs of building and maintaining the poles")
(emphasis in original), he also said that "The current law sets the rates charged to cable companies for using these
poles. The new language in the bill expands the scope of the provisions to include other providers of
telecommunications services. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that all users pay the same amount."
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. Rep. No. 23, 104th Cong. 1st Session at 65
(1995). Thus, we do not view Sen. Hollings's statements, taken as a whole, to demonstrate a clear view on the
"costs" (or "benefits") to be used in setting pole rental rates, particularly because they reflect the views of a single
5" Comcast Reply at 9 n. 24 ("Thus, from the outset, the Senate view was that the 'cost' of unusable space was of
equal benefit to the pole owners' attachments (not third party attachments as the House bill provided) and directs
that the cost of that pole space be divided equally among 'such attachments' (i.e., the pole owner attachments, not
third party attachments). This early version of the Senate bill went on to explain that a third party attacher benefits
from the unusable space on a pole 'in the same proportion as it benefits from the usable space'-directly contrary to
the House approach.").
m See, e.g., Alliance Comments at 83-85; EEI/UTC Comments at 71-73 (citing section 224(e)(4), (d)(3)); Oncor
Comments at 61.
5o See, e.g., Alliance Reply at 23.
50so7 See, e.g., Alliance Comments at 85; EEI/UTC Comments at 71-74; Oncor Comments at 60.
5 47 U.S.C. 224(e)(1).
5o9 Id. at 224(d)(3).
510o Id. at 224(e)(4) (emphasis added).
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/m1/485/: accessed April 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.