FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,408
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re: Implementation of Section 224 of the Act, WC Docket No. 07-245, A National Broadband
Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51
Re: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment: Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of
Broadband Deployment by Improving the Policies Regarding Public Rights of Way and
Wireless Facilities Siting, WC Docket No. 1 1- 59
While not the most exciting of issues, the Commission's pole attachment rules are
nonetheless critical to our nation's broadband deployment effort. I, therefore, commend the
Chairman for re-opening the pole attachment debate last spring and following through with some
Our action today will help promote continued broadband deployment throughout our
country.' Our guidance regarding so-called "make ready work" will provide more certainty, help
streamline the process and ultimately speed new entrants' efforts to deploy broadband. Also, the
Commission's use of its authority under Section 224 of the Act to adopt a new
telecommunications pole rental rate formula - generally lowering the attachment rate to the
current "cable rate" - will more effectively encourage competition in broadband deployment.
In concept, I would have liked to have seen a similar move to parity in regard to pole
attachment rental rates for ILECS. But I understand that not all of the ILECS may be similarly
situated vis-a-vis their competitors, because the ILECs are also pole owners and may enjoy
certain benefits due to their joint use agreements with the utilities. On the other hand, this order
still does provide some relief to ILECs and their customers, where appropriate. Pursuant to our
action today, the ILECs will now have an opportunity to file complaints with the FCC and argue
why the rates, terms or conditions in their agreements with the utilities are not just and
reasonable, as allowed by Section 224.
Regarding a related matter before us today, I hope the Notice of Inquiry on public rights
of way solicits useful information that can assist the FCC's continued efforts to encourage
broadband deployment. I caution, however, that the FCC should be mindful of its limitations and
only use this information in areas where it has jurisdiction.
In sum, 1 commend all of the staff who worked so diligently on all of these infrastructure
issues and look forward to working with my colleagues as we learn from the various stakeholders
who file in response to the notice.
The nationwide effect of this order is limited. For example, the Commission can only exert jurisdiction
over pole attachment issues in areas where these access issues are not regulated by a state. See 47 U.S.C.
224(c). Also, pole attachment arrangements that involve cooperatives are not under our jurisdiction. See
47 U.S.C. 224(a)( I). Nevertheless. each incremental move will make a difference in America's broadband
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/m1/580/: accessed March 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.