Pole Riders Reject Wireless Access Petition in New York
A CTIA petition to ease wireless industry access to New York utility poles met resistance from utilities, a wireline telco and New York City. The wireless association wants the New York Public Service Commission to apply existing pole attachment requirements to wireless providers so it can quickly deploy small cells and distributed antenna systems (DAS) that are critical to 5G services. In comments Monday in PSC docket 16-M-0330, other companies on the poles disagreed with CTIA’s claim that New York poles are largely inaccessible to wireless providers. The wireless industry is urging states to update siting and pole attachment rules.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“Reforming pole attachment rules is a national issue,” a Wireless Infrastructure Association spokesman said in a statement emailed Tuesday. “Just over half of the states follow the FCC’s rules, while the rest of them certify that they have enacted their own regulations.” WIA supported the CTIA petition in comments and has worked in many states to update rules to bring fair rates, terms and conditions to wireless providers, the spokesman said. “We continue to advocate for pole attachment regulations that promote the timely deployment of broadband services in both federal regulatory and judicial proceedings as well as state regulatory proceedings around the country. To date, we have represented our members and the wireless infrastructure industry in Ohio, Arkansas, California, Washington, Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas and New York.” Last month, WIA CEO Jonathan Adelstein reported progress updating rules in California (see 1607150055).
New York trails other states in wireless-friendly regulations for pole attachments, CTIA said. The association listed Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, Utah and Washington as states that have issued “regulations setting standards, rates, and timelines for wireless attachments -- in many cases, simply by affirming that pole attachment regulations apply identically to wireline and wireless attachments." The PSC can reduce barriers by updating pole attachment rules to more closely parallel the FCC 2011 pole attachment order and extend the rules to wireless, WIA said. "The regulatory uncertainty created by the lack of guidelines for wireless attachments has led to delay in the deployment of more advanced services that customers have come to expect in New York.”
But New York utilities and Frontier Communications rejected the petition, saying the state’s pole attachment rules are already nondiscriminatory. ConEdison, Central Hudson, NYSEG and other power companies said in joint comments that existing policies appropriately recognize that wireless attachments aren't traditional wireline pole attachments and the price and terms for them should be determined through private negotiations. "While the Petition frequently cites to FCC and other state jurisdictions, the fact remains that the Commission has been ahead of those jurisdictions with a proactive and comprehensive regulatory framework for pole attachments that balances the needs of both attachers and distribution utility customers,” they said.
“The requested relief is unnecessary and will only serve to skew the regulatory balance the Commission has established for competitors,” Frontier wrote. Wireline attachments are generally uniform from pole to pole, but wireless attachments vary and each type presents different operational and safety issues, Frontier said. “The prices and terms for such wireless attachments, because they are inherently non-standard, should continue to be determined through private negotiations.”
The utilities said CTIA gave no “demonstrable evidence” showing wireless companies experienced delays or that any utility provides discriminatory access to the industry. CTIA claims poles are inaccessible to wireless, but the utilities said "the opposite is true; and thousands of such attachments have been deployed in New York State under the current policy and without controversy or dispute, and within reasonable timeframes.”
CTIA said members are "encountering real, significant obstacles to mobile broadband deployment, to the detriment of consumers and businesses throughout the State.” Wireless companies "face delays in every stage of this process," it said. "Contract negotiations are put on indefinite holds, and permit application and engineering reviews drag on interminably -- moving even more slowly than the local zoning process. And pole owners often impose impossible-to-meet engineering and design requirements, the purpose of which is to exclude wireless facilities outright."
New York City raised concerns the CTIA petition could stunt the city’s own efforts to spread wireless broadband. "Between private property and the City’s pole program, the telecommunications industry enjoys robust wireless infrastructure availability with multiple competitive options and/or solutions for the potential deployment of current and next generation technologies,” the city said. "Given the success of wireless broadband deployment through the current processes in New York City, the City is skeptical that the dramatic changes to the Commission’s regulatory framework would garner the stated desired result of a more rapid build. To the contrary, we are concerned that such a change would hamper the City’s ability to direct City resources towards creative solutions for expanded wireless deployment opportunities, such opportunities that the carriers may very well want and benefit from.”
The PSC should maintain local oversight of pole attachments, said New York City. "For example, the City’s consideration of aesthetic, technical, administrative (e.g., historic district review), and safety solutions for multi-tenant and multifrequency uses is paramount to successful City operations.” Imposing a state shot clock for pole access could create a large backlog of work for the city, it said.