More Comments on Pole Attachments

Sometimes, even big telephone and cable companies can love the Federal Communications Commission.

In a proceeding on pole attachments, AT&T points out to the FCC that, with the exception of the electric company commenters, most of the commenters in this proceeding have agreed with the FCC's fundamental premise that rates for pole attachments should be as low and as close to uniform as possible. In fact, these commenters whole-heartedly agree with the FCC's observation that different rates based on the classification of the attacher "distorts attachers' deployment decisions," especially "with regard to integrated, voice, video, and data networks." And they embrace the many other good public policy reasons for adopting a low, uniform broadband pole-attachment rate for all attachers. In spite of the consensus (or maybe because of it), these same commenters, however, resist applying this same reasoning to pole attachments by ILECs. Those who resist applying this reasoning to ILECs attempt to justify their obvious intellectual dishonesty by clinging to the assertion that this result is driven by the terms of § 224. They are mistaken. AT&T believes the FCC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments both by a cable television system and by a provider of telecommunications service. AT&T believes it was Congress's intent that pole attachments by ILECs be covered by this grant of authority, because ILECs are included within the term "provider of telecommunications service."

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents large cable operators, writes that the FCC's proposal to set a fixed pole attachment rate for broadband services at the higher of the marginal cost proxy or the cable rate under Section 224(d) serves the critical national policies of increasing broadband competition, deployment and adoption and does so in a manner that is true to Section 224(e) and ensures that pole owners are fully compensated for any costs caused by attaching entities.
Comments (AT&T)