[1st-mile-nm] Trump's FCC to gut Net-Neutrality rules, affects pole attachmentRe: Pole Line Attachment Guide

[John Brown]

Now with FCC Chairman Pai wanting to gut the 2015 Net-Neutrality
order, and lack of State rules, many broadband providers are
no longer permitted to use the Poles.

Under the Wheeler Net-Neutrality order, Rule 224 (Pole Attachment) was
afforded to Broadband providers.

Previously to get pole attachment you had to become a CLEC.  A
regulatory regime from the mid 1990's.
Many broadband providers, including Google Fiber, do NOT wish to be a
CLEC and operate under those
very outdated rules.

This is another STRONG reason why our State needs to have clear,
concise, equitable pole attachment rules...




On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:49 AM, John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com> wrote:
> I feel John Brown's frustration.  We have to deal with the rural electric coops who are even exempted from the FCC's Pole Attachment Order, even more than with municipal owners. The difference we experience from the two is that the municipalities react to attachment requests as if their pole assets can be used as a contribution to broadband expansion while the electric coops see attachments as a revenue generating mechanism and an aged  pole replacement strategy.  Of the 3 coops operating in our service area, two strive to enter the broadband arena themselves and use their pole assets anticompetitively to their advantage.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of John Brown
> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:59 PM
> To: Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org>
> Cc: 1st-mile Nm <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>
> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Pole Line Attachment Guide
>
> Not sure what point Richard is attempting to make.
>
> All states that presently do not have a State level set of rules fall under the Feds.
>
> This however DOES NOT prevent New Mexico, or any other such state from adopting their own set of rules.
>
> The challenge here in NM, is that pole owners have a history of
>
> a) requiring NDA's and other such agreements to gag new attachers from discussing something that is already open.
> b) not wanting to engage
> c) not willing to present a federally compliant attachment agreement.
> d) not willing to present such agreement in a reasonable period of time
> e) stalling (you could say thats (a) above.
>
> In the end this leaves entrepreneurial businesses / new entrants  with little to no chance of getting on the poles.
> Effectively asserting a monopolistic control over the ability to deploy affordable broadband
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote:
>> A subject that keeps coming up on this list.
>> New Mexico is under FCC jurisdiction, as noted in the article.
>> Additional Pole Line attachment resource links are at article end.
>>
>> http://nextcenturycities.org/next-century-cities-guide-to-pole-attachm
>> ents/
>>
>> RL
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director
>> 1st-Mile Institute     505-603-5200
>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504,
>> rl at 1st-mile.org     www.1st-mile.org
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm