DOCSLIB.ORG

February 5, 2020 Via ECFS Marlene J. Dortch, Secretary Federal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
February 5, 2020 Via ECFS Marlene J. Dortch, Secretary Federal 1001 G Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20001 tel. 202.434.4100 fax 202.434.4646 Writer’s Direct Access Timothy A. Doughty (202) 434-4271 d o u g h t y @ k h l a w. c o m February 5, 2020 Via ECFS Marlene J. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission Office of the Secretary 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: The Potomac Edison Company’s Answer to Complainant Verizon Maryland LLC’s Pole Attachment Complaint (Proceeding Number 19- 355; Bureau ID Number EB-19-MD-009) Ms. Dortch: Please find attached the Public Version of The Potomac Edison Company’s Answer to Complainant Verizon Maryland LLC’s Pole Attachment Complaint in Proceeding Number 19- 355; Bureau ID Number EB-19-MD-009. Sincerely, Timothy A. Doughty Attorney for The Potomac Edison Company Enclosures cc: Rosemary McEnery, Enforcement Bureau Anthony DeLaurentis, Enforcement Bureau Washington, D.C. Brussels San Francisco Shanghai Paris This document was delivered electronically. www.khlaw.com PUBLIC VERSION Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 _____________________________________ ) ) Verizon Maryland LLC, ) Complainant, ) ) Proceeding Number 19-355 v. ) Bureau ID Number EB-19-MD-009 ) The Potomac Edison Company, ) Defendant ) _____________________________________ ) TO: ENFORCEMENT BUREAU THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY’S ANSWER TO THE POLE ATTACHMENT COMPLAINT OF VERIZON MARYLAND LLC Robert M. Endris Thomas B. Magee FirstEnergy Service Company Timothy A. Doughty 76 S. Main St. Keller and Heckman LLP Akron, OH 44308 1001 G Street NW (330) 384-5728 (phone) Suite 500 West (330) 384-3875 (fax) Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] (202) 434-4100 (phone) (202) 434-4100 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for The Potomac Edison Company Dated: February 5, 2020 PUBLIC VERSION SUMMARY There are numerous reasons why Verizon’s Complaint is unfounded, requiring either the Complaint to be dismissed or the relief it requests otherwise to be denied. Verizon was required to terminate its existing joint use agreement with Potomac Edison before filing this Complaint but it failed to do so. Verizon easily could have terminated the existing joint use agreement while preserving its right to take future action, just as it did against Florida Power & Light Company several years ago, pursuant to the Commission’s “sign and sue” option for ILECs. Verizon’s claim that it lacked the ability to terminate the existing joint use agreement with Potomac Edison is incorrect, and so Verizon’s request to modify the existing agreement for Verizon’s unilateral benefit should be dismissed for failure to comply with this threshold requirement. Verizon’s illegitimate interpretation of Commission rulings and its intransigence in negotiations with FirstEnergy have led the parties to this complaint proceeding. Verizon improperly demanded that FirstEnergy agree to applying only the new telecom rate despite this unreasonable negotiation position being contrary to the instructions Verizon received in the Verizon v. FPL Order. It is apparent that Verizon has been trying to bully FirstEnergy into accepting a very low rental rate with large refunds while maintaining the advantages that Verizon has in the joint use agreements. The 2018 Third Report and Order does not apply to this proceeding because the agreements at issue have not been “newly-negotiated” or “newly-renewed.” The Commission established distinct conditions under which its new presumptions would apply, and Verizon’s tortuous interpretation of those conditions would render those distinctions moot. For this and other reasons, the 2018 Third Report and Order does not apply to the agreements at issue in this i PUBLIC VERSION proceeding. Moreover, Verizon ignores that any such new presumptions or burden of proof, even if they did apply, would apply only with respect to Verizon’s claims for after the March 11, 2019 effective date of the 2018 Order. FirstEnergy does not have, and never did have, bargaining leverage over Verizon— another threshold condition the Commission established for review of joint use rates. In the 2011 Pole Attachment Order, the Commission reserved its judgment whether a difference in relative pole ownership could constitute bargaining leverage, and like every aspect of the rules governing ILEC/Electric joint use relationships, the Commission determined to analyze on a case-by-case basis whether bargaining power exists. The facts in this proceeding show no bargaining leverage. Even if any bargaining leverage existed, as indicated by the 2011 Pole Attachment Order, it is mitigated where there is a “less-costly alternative[s] for the incumbent LEC to pole deployment” which “would reduce any possible disparity in the relative bargaining power of the parties.” This is precisely the situation in this case. First, FirstEnergy offered to place Verizon on an equal footing with its CLEC competitors by giving Verizon the CLEC agreement and CLEC rates for all of its attachments, both new and existing, and by transitioning Verizon out of the pole owning business. Verizon did not accept FirstEnergy’s offer, but FirstEnergy’s offer shows that FirstEnergy did not have bargaining power. Second, Potomac Edison needs to access Verizon’s poles, just as Verizon needs to access Potomac Edison’s poles, and this mutual dependency protects each party from unilateral outcomes as well as from having its attachments abruptly removed from the other’s poles. This conclusion is supported by basic economics and the facts of this case, which include evergreen provisions that ensure Potomac Edison cannot ever terminate and remove Verizon’s attachments ii PUBLIC VERSION from Potomac Edison’s poles. If there is no feasible option but to continue with the existing joint use arrangement, neither party has bargaining power over the other to dictate disproportionate terms or conditions of joint use. Finally, the conclusion that neither party has bargaining leverage over the other is further confirmed by Verizon itself. After the rental rates were last negotiated by Verizon, Penelec and Met-Ed in 2009, Verizon’s Norman Parrish praised the memorandum of understanding containing the new rates as fair and equitable, stating: “With the execution of this MOU Verizon PA and FirstEnergy can finally have a common rate structure that is fair and equitable for all the Joint Use Agreements between both companies in Pennsylvania.” He also noted that the joint use rate issue had been “amiably resolved.” Fair and equitable is the opposite of unjust and unreasonable, and this statement of mutual fairness by Verizon is additional evidence in this proceeding that FirstEnergy did not exercise bargaining leverage when the rental rates were last negotiated. Even if it were appropriate for Commission to review rates in this case, which it is not, Verizon’s joint use agreement with Potomac Edison provides considerable advantages to Verizon relative to competitive LECs, including, among others, much lower make ready expenses, an enormous speed to market advantage, and the ability to profit by serving customers that new entrants cannot. Verizon’s joint use agreement with Potomac Edison allowed a pole distribution network to be constructed that accommodated Verizon’s attachments without the need for the same make- ready time and expense that CLECs and other competitors face. This means that for poles owned by Potomac Edison, Verizon’s competitors incur every year, on average, more in make-ready costs per attached pole than does Verizon. Based on this information alone, Verizon iii PUBLIC VERSION is not similarly-situated to its competitors. As a result, granting Verizon the same attachment rate that is paid by CLECs, as Verizon is requesting, would give Verizon an even greater financial advantage over its CLEC competitors. The competitive advantage to Verizon of its “built to order” joint use attachments is also apparent because Verizon need only overlash existing facilities or simply light existing dark fiber capacity to reach new and expanded business opportunities which most, if not all, of Verizon’s competitors cannot reach because of the cost and expense of installing new facilities to compete. And for Verizon’s relatively few new attachment applications, Verizon need not submit labor- intensive pole profile sheets and photographs of the poles with its applications, and Verizon pays no application fees. Verizon is also subject to much more lenient overlashing rules and avoids the five-year field audit costs that Verizon’s competitors must pay. Moreover, Verizon consumes more pole space and pole loading capacity than its competitors, and the benefit to Verizon of its lowest position on the pole becomes obvious when considering that if Verizon were not the lowest attacher, its facilities would need to be placed 3.5 feet above the lowest attacher, rather than the one foot required of its competitors, so that an additional 2.5 feet of pole space is in effect occupied by Verizon’s larger and heavier facilities and cannot be occupied by another attacher. The negotiating history also demonstrates a lack of bargaining leverage. In addition to offering rate concessions amounting to per year, FirstEnergy alternatively offered to place Verizon on an equal footing with its CLEC competitors for all of Verizon’s attachments, both new and existing, by giving Verizon the CLEC agreement and CLEC rates and by transitioning Verizon out of the pole owning business. Verizon rejected that offer in favor of its existing joint use agreements.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bellsouth V. Louisville
    Case 3:16-cv-00124-DJH Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-124-DJH LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants. * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case centers on a dispute over access to utility poles in Louisville, Kentucky. In February 2016, the Louisville Metro Council enacted a “one-touch make-ready” ordinance outlining new procedures for the installation of communications networks on utility poles in the city. Make-ready work generally consists of moving or rearranging existing wires and attachments on utility poles to make space for new attachments. One-touch make-ready policies, such as the one implemented by the Louisville Metro ordinance at issue here, seek to avoid delays by having all make-ready work performed at the same time by a single crew. Plaintiff BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (AT&T) disputes Defendant Louisville Metro’s right to permit new users of utility poles to rearrange existing attachments on the poles in order to complete their own make-ready work. Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket Nos. 40, 53) AT&T requests that the Court declare the ordinance unlawful and enjoin its enforcement. (D.N. 40-1, PageID # 384) Louisville Metro insists that the ordinance is a valid exercise of its authority to manage public rights-of-way. (D.N. 53-1, PageID # 498) The Court heard oral argument on the cross-motions on April 25, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Chancery Court of Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District Davidson County
    IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF TENNESSEE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAVIDSON COUNTY NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. _______________ ) Chancellor ______________ ACCESS FIBER GROUP, INC.; AMERICAN ) FIBER SYSTEMS, INC.; BELLSOUTH ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LCC; ) COMCAST OF NASHVILLE I, LLC; ) CROWN CASTLE NG CENTRAL, LLC; ) DUKENET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; ) EXTENET SYSTEMS, INC.; GOOGLE ) FIBER TENNESSEE, LLC; LEVEL 3 ) TELECOM OF TENNESSEE, LLC; ) METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF ) NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, ) TENNESSEE; TENNESSEE TELEPHONE ) COMPANY; WINDSTREAM KDL, ) LLC; and ZAYO GROUP, LLC, ) ) Defendants / Parties-In-Interest. ) REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiff Nashville Electric Service states as follows for its request for declaratory relief involving Access Fiber Group, Inc., American Fiber Systems, Inc., Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC, Comcast of Nashville I, LLC, Crown Castle NG Central, LLC, DukeNet Communications, LLC, ExteNet Systems, Inc., Google Fiber Tennessee, LLC, Level 3 Telecom of Tennessee, LLC, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Tennessee Telephone Company, Windstream KDL, Inc., and Zayo Group, LLC: INTRODUCTION 1. This action is the result of the direct conflict between prior agreements entered into by NES (the “Agreements”) and the recently-enacted One Touch Make Ready Ordinance (the “OTMR Ordinance”). NES is asking this Court to declare its rights and obligations in light of that conflict in an effort to avoid a potential breach and piecemeal, protracted, and expensive litigation. 2. Due to regulations related to the attachment of equipment on poles and engineering requirements for the maintenance of those poles, when a new entity wishes to attach its equipment to a pole, prior attachments often must be moved to make room for the new attachments (“Make Ready Work”).
    [Show full text]
  • One Touch Make Ready Hot Topic.Indd
    ONE TOUCH MAKE READY IS A “HOT” TOPIC “Dig once” policies, which involve laying conduit or can subsequently attach its wires, cables or fi bers. The fi ber optic cables underground, have been hailed as process can often take months. excellent strategies due to their time-and cost-saving Under OTMR, the new provider is given permission to features. The idea has strong bipartisan support in either rearrange ALL of the other existing providers’ Congress and has been praised by the American Cable wires, cables and fi bers itself, or hire a qualifi ed Association, the Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Council, contractor to do so. As a result, all of the attachments and Next Century Cities (which focuses on supporting can be rearranged at the same time. communities in their goal to ensure fast, aff ordable, and reliable Internet service). Proponents of OTMR cite its cost-saving advantages, as well as reduced work crew noise and disruptions to However, a more recent strategy, called “one touch neighborhoods, traffi c backup, and temporary service make ready” (OTMR), while being hailed by some interruptions for residents. The most signifi cant benefi t stakeholders as an equally wise concept, is getting they cite, though, is the fact that new providers are able some pushback. to attach their wires, cables or fi ber much faster than Hogan Lovells, LLP, an international law fi rm focusing before, cutting the time it takes for residents to receive on corporate law, noted in a recent blog that, “We new services from several months to sometimes just a often take for granted the ability to leave home, head few weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Background One Touch Make Ready
    DISCLAIMER: This document is intended to be a tool for education and information. It offers ​ a list and summary of applicable state legislation that Next Century Cities is aware of. This document is not intended to provide legal advice, or to be a legal analysis or a comprehensive list of all relevant statutes. We offer these links and information for illustration and reference purposes only, as a starting point for analysis by interested parties. We note also that practice in the field can sometimes differ from the language of a statute. Background Utility poles have become one of the great battlegrounds in the effort to expand next- generation internet network infrastructure deployment. Pole access determines whether a new provider is able to easily and cost effectively bring broadband infrastructure to a community. This in turn plays a significant role in the level of competition, and the services available to local businesses and residents. However, gaining access to these poles is often a long, difficult, and expensive process, making the barrier to entry incredibly high. A significant portion of utility poles are not owned by municipal governments, but rather by electric utilities or telecommunications companies. When a new provider enters the market, they must contact the owner of each utility pole to which they would like to attach. Each company with pre-existing wires or attachments on the pole must then be asked to perform “make ready” work. For a pole to be made ready, the owner of each attached wire must separately visit the pole and, if necessary, move its wire to create space for the new provider.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 November 2015 Competition in Broadband and Video Programming
    ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN SIMPLIFYING THE MAKE- READY PROCESS FOR POLE ATTACHMENTS November 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Competition in broadband and video programming brings consumers better service at lower prices. Competition, in turn, comes from service providers deploying communications networks. Like any other major construction project, however, the process of deploying new broadband facilities on utility poles can be disruptive. The flow of both sidewalk and road traffic can be disturbed, work can be noisy, and construction equipment can be an eyesore. Existing federal and state laws and regulations give certain communications service providers the right to attach their network lines to existing poles owned by electric utilities and incumbent local telephone companies.1 These laws and regulations govern the access rights and obligations of pole owners on the one hand, and communications attachers such as cable operators, competitive carriers, and broadband providers on the other. But they do not address a concern that arises in just about every community—how to effectively, efficiently, and safely manage use of the public rights- of-way. One way for municipalities to reduce the inconveniences that accompany deployment of modern broadband networks is to adopt “one touch” make-ready policies. “Make-ready” is the process by which a pole owner and communications attachers prepare a utility pole for a new attachment of fiber, cable, or other equipment. Traditionally, each communications attacher comes to the site with a construction crew and relocates its own attachment on a pole to make room for the new attacher. This results in a utility pole and its surrounding area becoming a construction site several times over, just for the deployment of a single new broadband or video programming network.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION at A
    STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of Albany on March 14, 2019 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John B. Rhodes, Chair Gregg C. Sayre Diane X. Burman James S. Alesi CASE 16-M-0330 - Petition of CTIA – The Wireless Association to Initiate a Proceeding to Update and Clarify Wireless Pole Attachment Protections. ORDER APPROVING PETITION IN PART AND CONTINUING PROCEEDING (Issued and Effective March 14, 2019) BY THE COMMISSION: INTRODUCTION On May 20, 2016, CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a Petition1 pursuant to Public Service Law (PSL) §119-a requesting that the Commission: (1) grant wireless carriers non-discriminatory access to utility poles; (2) establish and enforce timelines for entering into access agreements, completing the permitting and make-ready review processes, and granting final approval to wireless attachers; (3) extend its expedited dispute resolution process to wireless attachers; (4) adopt a rate methodology for wireless attachers; and, (5) adopt other pro-competitive policies, if necessary. 1 Case 16-C-0330, Petition of CTIA - The Wireless Association to Update and Clarify Wireless Pole Attachment Protections (filed May 20, 2016) (Petition). CASE 16-M-0330 Under 47 U.S.C. §224(c), States are permitted to exercise authority to regulate pole attachments in place of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); and New York has in fact exercised its jurisdiction over pole attachment issues through the reverse-preemption mechanism allowed under that federal statute.2 The Commission, therefore, takes steps here to provide wireless providers with reasonable and equitable access to utility pole infrastructure located in the public rights-of- way (ROW).
    [Show full text]
  • Friday-August-3-2018
    Click here for the online version. This e-mail was created for [email protected] Friday, August 3, 2018 Volume 6 | Issue 151 FCC Makes One-Touch Make-Ready a Reality By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief FCC Commissioners Michael O’Rielly, Brendan Carr and Jessica Rosenworcel The FCC passed a one-touch make-ready (OTMR) policy for utility pole attachments yesterday, saying the update will speed the safe and affordable deployment of broadband wireless infrastructure. The change will allow one attacher, usually the last, to perform all the work for the new attachment; it provides for a remedy if an original attacher is unhappy with the outcome. Pole overlashing of existing wires is allowed, without first seeking the utility’s approval, so all pole space can be efficiently used. It ensures telecoms pay rates comparable to cable and other industries for pole use. The Report and Order makes clear the FCC will preempt, on a case-by-case basis, existing local laws, to allow providers access to poles for restoration work after a disaster. A declaratory ruling emphasizes the Telecommunications Act bans state and local moratoria that prevents wireless infrastructure deployment. Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said during the vote that while many localities “get kudos” for making the broadband deployment process more efficient, some state and local governments delay projects and use pole attachment rates as “shakedown bounties.” He said: “State and local governments have been on notice for decades. Congress wants them to stop making decisions based on aesthetics.” (For industry reaction, see story below: “Industry Applauds FCC ‘Keeping Foot on The Gas’ for OTMR”) Continue Reading NATE Members Log In About the Late Payment Issue Inside Towers asked the National Tower Erectors Association what members had to say about payments for tower work being stretched out from 90 to 120 days on average.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the STATE of CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY
    Before the STATE OF CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY ) PURA Investigation of Developments ) Docket No. 19-01-52 in the Third Party Pole Attachment Process ) ) COMMENTS OF CTIA CTIA1 respectfully submits its comments in response to the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority’s (“Authority’s”) Notice of Request for Written Comments entered July 22, 2019 (the “July Notice”) in the above-captioned docket. I. INTRODUCTION The July Notice references suggestions from commenters that the Authority consider allowing applicants to perform some or all of the survey and make-ready phases of the pole attachment process using approved contractors. The July Notice also states that the Authority is considering adopting such an approach, and requests proposals for modifying the existing attachment process.2 CTIA appreciates the Authority’s attention to this issue, as the existing attachment process3 is failing, threatening state deployment goals. The Authority’s process for small cell approvals is working well, but those approvals are of little value if approval of the applications to connect the fiber associated with small cells is delayed. The Authority’s focus on the survey and 1 CTIA – The Wireless Association (“CTIA”) (www.ctia.org) represents the U.S. wireless communications industry and the companies throughout the mobile ecosystem that enable Americans to lead a 21st century connected life. The association’s members include wireless carriers, device manufacturers, and suppliers as well as app and content companies. CTIA vigorously advocates at all levels of government for policies that foster continued wireless innovation and investment. The association also coordinates the industry’s voluntary best practices, hosts educational events that promote the wireless industry and co-produces the industry’s leading wireless tradeshow.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Power Reply Comments.Pdf
    DELIVERED VIA EMAIL October 19, 2020 Kentucky Public Service Commission Administrative Regulations Working Group P.O. Box 615 Frankfurt, Kentucky 40602-0615 [email protected] RE: Kentucky Power Company’s Reply Comments regarding Proposed Chapter 807 KAR 5:0XX, Access and Attachments to Utility Poles and Facilities Dear Sir or Madam: Kentucky Power Company (“Kentucky Power” or the “Company”) hereby respectfully submits the following reply comments regarding proposed Chapter 807 KAR 5:0XX, Access and Attachments to Utility Poles and Facilities. Kentucky Power appreciates the Public Service Commission of Kentucky’s (“Commission”) consideration of Kentucky Power’s suggestions below as the Commission finalizes utility pole attachment rules for the Commonwealth. 807 KAR 5:0XX – Section 1. Definitions. Section 1(9) The Commission’s proposed Section 1(9) definition of a “new attacher” expressly (and correctly) excludes “a utility with an applicable joint use agreement with the utility that owns or controls the pole to which it is seeking to attach.” AT&T proposes to delete this important exclusion and, more broadly, to “expressly mandate non-discriminatory pricing, even for entities that have or had joint use agreements…” AT&T Comments at 1. In other words, AT&T is proposing that the Commission replace the long-standing cost sharing arrangements between telephone and electric utilities (joint use agreements) with the tariffed rate. The Commission should reject AT&T’s proposal because it is anti-competitive, because it would be operationally disruptive, and because it would shift significant costs to electric utilities’ customers. As set forth in Kentucky Power’s initial comments, the vast majority of ILEC networks have already been deployed through joint use agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Centurylinktm
    CenturyLinkTM Pamela Sherwood Hollick Assistant General Counsel 4625 W 86 th Street Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46268 Telephone: 317.713.8977 [email protected] January 13, 2020 VIA Email for Electronic Filing: [email protected] Honorable Michelle L. Phillips Secretary New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350 Re: Case 16-M-0330 – Initial Comments of CenturyLi nk Communications, LLC, Level 3 Communications, LLC, Broadwing Communications, LLC, WilTel Communications, LLC, Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc., Global Cr ossing Local Services, Inc., TelCove Operations, LLC, and Level 3 Telecom of New York LL C (the “CenturyLink Operating Companies”) Dear Secretary Phillips: On behalf of the CenturyLink Operating Companies, e nclosed please find the above-referenced Initial Comments for filing with the Commission. Please acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this f iling. Should you have any questions concerning this filing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sherwood Hollick Assistant General Counsel Enc. BEFORE THE STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ) Petition of CTIA - The Wireless ) Association to Update and Clarify ) Wireless Pole Attachment Protections ) Case No. 16-M-0330 ) INITIAL COMMENTS OF CENTURYLINK ON WIRELINE POLE ATTACHMENT ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMISSION’S NOVEMBER 12, 2019 NOTICE SEEKING COMMENTS On November 12, 2019, the New York Public Service Commission (“Commission”) issued a Notice Seeking Comments in the above referenced docket, which has been expanded to include not only wireless pole attachment protections, but also wireline pole attachment issues. In its Order, the Commission directed further consideration be given to both wireless and wireline attachment policies, including improvements to streamline the make-ready, survey and construction processes.
    [Show full text]
  • July 12, 2018 FCC FACT SHEET* Accelerating Wireline Broadband
    July 12, 2018 * FCC FACT SHEET Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment; Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling - WC Docket No. 17-84; WT Docket No. 17-79 Background: This Third Report and Order would adopt a new framework for the vast majority of pole attachments governed by federal law by instituting a “one-touch make-ready” (OTMR) regime, in which the new attacher may opt to perform all work to prepare a pole for a new attachment. OTMR should accelerate broadband deployment and reduce costs by allowing the party with the strongest incentive to prepare the pole to efficiently perform the work itself. This Declaratory Ruling would conclude that section 253(a) of the Communications Act prohibits state and local moratoria on telecommunications facilities deployment. What the Report and Order Would Do: • Permit new attachers to elect an OTMR process for simple make-ready for wireline attachments in the “communications space” on a pole. o Establish safeguards in the OTMR process to promote coordination among the parties and ensure that new attachers perform work safely and reliably. o Retain a multi-party process for other new attachments where safety and reliability risks are greater, while making some modifications to speed deployment. • Codify the Commission’s existing precedent that permits attachers to “overlash” existing wires without first seeking the utility’s approval while allowing the utility to request reasonable advance notice of overlashing. • Eliminate outdated disparities between the pole attachment rates incumbent carriers must pay compared to other similarly-situated cable and telecommunications attachers.
    [Show full text]
  • PLUS: Special Section on ACAM/CAF • Maximize Opportunities • Deliver
    Volume XI, Issue 2 walkerfirst.com/skinny-wire Logistics Solutions for Telecom Professionals PLUS: Special section on ACAM/CAF • Maximize opportunities • Deliver profitable services • Partner selection criteria • and MORE! Give your data centers an extra edge… The 1FINITY Transport Series Open, Disaggregated 1RU Blades for Data Center Interconnect (DCI) If you’re looking to control the cost of space and power as you plan for future bandwidth growth, 1FINITY™ Transport blades cut through these challenges. For open-source, pay-as-you-grow architecture and dependable, disruption-free service, choose a flexible, simple, efficient 1FINITY solution. Forge a DCI solution that’s right for your business. Talk with Fujitsu. Or find out more on the Web by visiting us.fujitsu.com/telecom. 1FINITY T100 1FINITY T400 The 1FINITY T100 blade is the key to dense, The 1FINITY T400 blade is a 1 Tbps Layer 1 efficient transponding of 100 GbE connections aggregator supporting 10 x 100G-BaseR service onto a DWDM system. With this solution, interfaces and 25 x 40 GbE client interfaces. An eight 100 GbE connections are transponded optional 4:1 breakout cable can also be used to onto four 200 Gbps wavelengths. The T100 reach 100 x 10 GbE interfaces on the client side. provides industry-leading density in a modular The T400 combines with the 1FINITY T100 platform that is easily managed with an SDN for data center interconnect, delivering network controller. industry-best aggregation density. Fujitsu Network Communications • 2801 Telecom Parkway, Richardson, TX 75082 Tel: 888.362.7763 © Copyright 2017 Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. FUJITSU (and design)® and “shaping tomorrow with you” and 1FINITY™ are trademarks of Fujitsu Limited in the United States and other countries.
    [Show full text]