Florida PSC Mulls Pole Dispute Timelines

Cable and wireless industry officials urged quick action on pole access disputes when the Florida Public Service Commission starts regulating pole attachments next year. PSC staff heard testimony at a partially virtual Wednesday workshop about draft rules for handling pole attachment complaints, the agency's opening hearing on implementing a law enacted in June (see 2108120062). The rulemaking process will “lay out what the sandbox is going to look like,” said former PSC Chairman Ronald Brise in an interview.

Lawmakers required the PSC to propose rules by January to regulate pole attachments and mediate disputes. It will become the 23rd state, in addition to the District of Columbia, to reverse preempt FCC pole attachments authority. Written comments are due Sept. 15 on the proposed complaint process, said Adria Harper, a senior Office of General Counsel lawyer.

Expanding into pole attachments could mean more telecom work for the commission in a deregulated state. It was “very light” when Brise was on the commission 2010-18, limited mainly to designations and contract arbitration, he said Wednesday. “So, not a whole lot.” The PSC must implement what the legislature passed this year, and “I don’t think this represents an interest by the commission to expand its jurisdiction into other areas of telecom,” said Brise, now a Gunster government affairs consultant.

PSC jurisdiction might advantage some who think local adjudication is quicker, while FCC jurisdiction may benefit entities covering multiple states because it means a uniform and more predictable process, with a “formula that you know works,” said Brise. Energy companies might prefer dealing with disputes locally rather than at the communications-focused FCC, just as telecom companies might if it were an issue involving the less familiar Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “At the state level, the energy companies definitely engage a whole lot more,” especially where utility regulators don’t regulate telecom, he said. Gunster represents telecom and energy clients, though not in this proceeding, Brise said.

The Florida commission would have to act on complaints within 360 days, under the proposal in docket 20210137-PU. Communications Act Section 224 requires a state to act on complaints within 180 days or within a period prescribed by state law if it doesn’t exceed 360 days. In comparison, FCC rules require the commission, except in extraordinary circumstances, final action in 180 days on complaints where a cable TV or telecom provider claims it was denied access or 270 days for other kinds of complaints.

Florida Internet & Television “can live with” 360 days to resolve rate disputes, counsel Floyd Self of Berger Singerman told the workshop. “In an ideal world, we would love to see the 360-day number reduced, but ... sometimes 360 days would be a good outcome.” Self suggested a 90- or 120-day shot clock for resolving complaints about denial of access.

Crown Castle wants a 180-day limit on addressing pole access complaints, given connectivity's importance during the pandemic, said Associate General Counsel-Government Relations Rebecca Hussey. CTIA Counsel-External and State Affairs Matt DeTura agreed on the need for a shorter timeframe for such complaints.

All three telecom industry officials sought clarity on draft language stating that a pole owner or attacher that wants to ask the commission to establish an “alternative cost-based pole attachment rate ... must provide the methodology with the complaint or with the response.” Florida rules should “expressly reference” the FCC rate formula to clarify what any suggested alternative method would be replacing, said Self: Voluntary agreements are “always the preferred outcome."