FCC Wireline Deployment Efforts Draw Much Industry Support, Local and Utility Concern
FCC efforts to spur wireline broadband advances sparked a strong response, as scores of parties submitted a wide range of views on a rulemaking notice and related items aimed at removing barriers to fiber network deployment. Telecom, cable and fiber providers generally supported the commission's direction, backing steps to ease pole attachments. Incumbent telcos also sought reduced copper-retirement regulation, but CLECs and consumer and labor groups opposed relaxation. Numerous localities and some state interests opposed possible FCC pre-emption of their oversight, and the electric utility industry objected to any heavy-handed pole-attachment intervention, though some supported "one-touch, make-ready" (OTMR) changes if properly conditioned.
The FCC adopted a three-part item in April that seeks ways to speed construction of advanced wireline broadband infrastructure: an NPRM proposed steps to facilitate pole attachments and copper retirements, and to streamline telecom service discontinuance requirements under Section 214 of the Communications Act; a notice of inquiry (NOI) explored using FCC Section 253 pre-emption authority to prohibit enforcement of state and local barriers to broadband deployment; and a request for comment (RFC) invited input on when carriers must obtain FCC permission to discontinue a telecom service (see 1704060046). About 130 comments, many highly detailed, were filed in docket 17-84 in recent days, with the deadline Thursday and dozens posted Friday. Some parties continued to seek deadline extensions (replies are due July 17).
ILECs backed plans to ease pole attachments, copper retirements and service discontinuances. USTelecom urged the FCC to adopt "meaningful reforms" to pole attachment regulations, including by adopting the agency's proposed presumption of "just and reasonable" rates under the most-recent ILEC telecom formula. Verizon said the FCC should authorize OTMR, which streamlines pole-attachment changes, and AT&T said such an approach should be "balanced." CenturyLink said the FCC should "proceed carefully" on pole-attachment changes but backed some "improvements," and it urged the FCC to return to its pre-2015 copper-retirement rules and reduce discontinuance regulation. Frontier Communications said all broadband providers should pay the same just and reasonable pole rates. ITTA said several 2015 and 2016 tech-transition measures, including additional copper-retirement notice duties, increased burdens and inequitable treatment. WTA stressed simplifying discontinuance obligations and NTCA proposed streamlined access for small broadband providers to utility-owned poles.
Cable interests focused on pole attachments, with NCTA urging steps to expedite and reduce the cost "of installing common configurations of fiber and advanced electronics" in networks to counter recent utility efforts to constrain such deployment. It also opposed "extreme forms" of OTMR and sought a "right touch" approach that attachers be given adequate notice to do make-ready work. Comcast sought FCC "steps to address state and local processes" impeding broadband, and Charter Communications asked the FCC to interpret its Section 253 authority broadly. The American Cable Association proposed numerous pole-attachment changes.
Other fiber and telco competitors also sought pole-attachment help. Google focused on OMTR and said it allows contractors, preapproved by utility pole owners, to perform all make-ready work -- including by moving existing attachments -- "eliminating unnecessary and expensive delays." Incompas backed OMTR and pole-attachment rate actions, and said the FCC should keep copper-retirement notification rules and strengthen discontinuance requirements. Windstream opposed rolling back the copper-retirement and discontinuance rules but backed targeted changes. Lumos Networks supported various pole-attachment changes.
Consumer groups and others also opposed scrapping copper-retirement and discontinuance rules, including AARP (here), the Communications Workers of America (here), Public Knowledge (here) and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and others (here).
Localities opposed en masse possible FCC pre-emption of their authority. "The Wireline NOI is deeply troubling, because it is such a clear example of the creeping expansion of federal regulatory power over local affairs," said the city of Alexandria and counties of Arlington and Henrico in Virginia. The National League of Cities also said it was troubled by various FCC proposals and ideas, and urged the agency to work collaboratively with localities. New York City (here), Chicago (here), Philadelphia (here), San Antonio and other cities (here), San Francisco (here) and numerous others filed additional comments. NARUC (here) and state public utility commissions in California (here), Ohio (here), Pennsylvania (here) voiced concern about possible FCC intrusion on their jurisdiction.
Electric utilities objected to most possible FCC pole-attachment intervention. Ameren and other major utilities said they "strongly oppose the Commission's proposals to further strip pole owners of cost recovery, and shift additional costs to electric ratepayers." Alliant Energy and others said many of the proposals would not only increase costs but potentially compromise safety. The proposals "will have the unintended effect of impeding nationwide efforts to deploy smart grid infrastructure and develop smart communities by unnecessarily increasing costs" to electric consumers and diverting resources from grid modernization, said the Edison Electric Institute. The American Public Power Association said several FCC proposals and ideas would exceed its authority. A Coalition of Concerned Utilities said in a 195-page filing that pole owners must be fairly compensated but said it would support the use of OTMR work on poles subject to a number of conditions.