FCC Web Documents citing 1.1403

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.pdf
  • ``removal of facilities or termination of any service to those facilities, such removal or termination arising out of a rate, term or condition of the ... pole attachment agreement.'' We agree that the challenged provisions, on their face, patently conflict with the plain language of our rules. NPTC's defense seems to be that the 60-day minimum notice provision of rule 1.1403 applies only if NPTC removes the attachments, not if it directs Salsgiver to remove them. NPTC offers no rationale for making such a distinction, nor can we find one in the rule or its adopting order. Moreover, such a distinction would make no sense. Accordingly, we direct NPTC, within 60 days, to amend the Pole Attachment Agreement to provide at
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.pdf
  • 5. Even if DQE CNS's letters were vague, however, that problem was certainly cured by DQE CNS's submissions here, and thus cannot serve as a basis for NPTC's continuing denial of access. In any event, the applicable rule does not mandate any particular level of specificity about the services to be provided over the requested attachments, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403; and NPTC apparently knew about DQE CNS's Tariff and Certificate of Public Convenience. See Complaint, Exhibit 6 at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1409(b). Response at 7-8, ¶ 13 (citing NPTC August 19 Letter at Complaint, Exhibit 6); 13-18, ¶¶ 30-54. In correspondence with DQE CNS, NPTC referenced DQE CNS's purported plans to offer ``dark fiber'' for lease as an additional
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.pdf
  • 0.311, that NextG's Complaint against PSE&G IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Complaint for Denial of Access to Utility Poles and Request for Expedited Treatment, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed Dec. 21, 2007) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C § 224. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1404 47 U.S.C. § 224(f). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(a). Response of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (Jan. 22, 2008) (``Response'') at vi, 13-34 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 224(c) (1) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.1406). Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed April 25, 2008) (``Joint Request''). Joint Request at 1, ¶ 2. Joint Request at 1-2, ¶ 3. Federal Communications Commission
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.pdf
  • ) ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY CO., LLC, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION FOR TEMPORARY STAY Adopted: February 19, 2010 Released: February 19, 2010 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 6, 2010, petitioners RB3, LLC and Arklaoktex, LLC, d/b/a Reach Broadband (``Reach'') filed a Petition for Temporary Stay pursuant to section 1.1403(d) of our rules seeking to stay the removal of Reach's attachments to poles owned by respondent Oncor Electric Delivery Company (``Oncor''). Petitioners stated that they filed the Petition in response to a Notice of Need to Remove Attachments that Reach received from Oncor on December 22, 2009. On February 12, 2010, petitioners filed a motion to withdraw their Petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1476A1.txt
  • different utilities, such as notifying the utility of the need for make-ready work or to requesting rectification of pre-existing safety violations. Some agreements, such as here, provide for an optional engineering survey to identify any special conditions affecting the proposed attachment. See Old Agreement §2.2, New Agreement §2.2. An application may be denied only in limited circumstances. See 47 C.F.R. §1.1403(a). Lack of capacity on a particularly facility does not automatic entitle a utility to deny an application. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 at ¶¶ 1162-1163 (1996). Response at p. 18. Response at p. 19, n. 28. In addition to partial surveys done in 1987 and 1992 (see Respondent's Answers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2712A1.txt
  • ) GRANTING TEMPORARY STAY Adopted: November 16, 2001 Released: November 21, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: On October 31, 2000, the above-captioned Petitioner filed a petition for temporary stay ("Petition") with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") against the above-captioned Respondent pursuant to Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Pole Attachment Act") and Section 1.1403 (d) of the Commission's Rules. The Petition was filed in response to notice from Respondent that it was increasing Petitioner's pole attachment rate from an annual per pole rate of approximately $5.00 to $53.35. In this Order, we hold the Petition in abeyance, pending a status report by the parties concerning their negotiation in good faith of a new pole
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2713A1.txt
  • for Temporary Stay ) Adopted: November 16, 2001 Released: November 21, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: On October 25, 2000, the above-captioned Petitioner filed a petition for temporary stay ("Petition") with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") against the above-captioned Respondent pursuant to Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Pole Attachment Act") and Section 1.1403 (d) of the Commission's Rules. The Petition was filed in response to notice from Respondent that it was increasing Petitioner's pole attachment rate from an annual per pole rate of $0 to $53.35. In this Order, we hold the Petition in abeyance, pending a status report by the parties concerning their negotiation in good faith of a new pole attachment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2714A1.txt
  • ) GRANTING TEMPORARY STAY Adopted: November 16, 2001 Released: November 21, 2001 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: On November 7, 2000, the above-captioned Petitioner filed a petition for temporary stay ("Petition") with the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") against the above-captioned Respondent pursuant to Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Pole Attachment Act") and Section 1.1403 (d) of the Commission's Rules. The Petition was filed in response to notice from Respondent that it was increasing Petitioner's pole attachment rate from an annual per pole rate of $5.83 to $53.35. In this Order, we hold the Petition in abeyance, pending a status report by the parties concerning their negotiation in good faith of a new pole attachment
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2923A1.txt
  • ) Petitioner ) ) File No. PA 00-008 v. ) ) Georgia Power Company, ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: October 30, 2002 Released: October 31, 2002 By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 7, 2000, the City of Dublin filed a petition for temporary stay ("Petition") against Georgia Power Company pursuant to the Pole Attachment Act and Section 1.1403 (d) of the Commission's rules. On November 21, 2001, the Cable Services Bureau released an Order, DA 01-2714, holding in abeyance the Petition pending the parties' good faith negotiation of an annual pole attachment rate pursuant to the Commission's rules and Teleport v. Georgia Power Company. On October 24, 2002, the parties' submitted a joint notice of settlement and request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2924A1.txt
  • ) Petitioner ) ) File No. PA 00-006 v. ) ) Georgia Power Company, ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: October 30, 2002 Released: October 31, 2002 By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 25, 2000, the City of Sandersville filed a petition for temporary stay ("Petition") against Georgia Power Company pursuant to the Pole Attachment Act and Section 1.1403 (d) of the Commission's rules. On November 21, 2001, the Cable Services Bureau released an Order, DA 01-2713, holding in abeyance the Petition pending the parties' good faith negotiation of an annual pole attachment rate pursuant to the Commission's rules and Teleport v. Georgia Power Company. On October 24, 2002, the parties' submitted a joint notice of settlement and request
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1555A1.txt
  • supplement the record, however. Having failed to do so on this issue, the record is now closed.) As indicated below, the refund we order to be paid to Time Warner accrues from the date on which Time Warner was added to the proceeding - i.e., March 13, 2001. Complaint at 2, at 5, ¶ 15. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(d), and simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the Cable Operators filed a Petition for Temporary Stay of Gulf Power's announced termination of access to its poles unless the Cable Operators paid the higher rate. Petition for Temporary Stay, File No. PA 00-004 (filed July 10, 2000) (``Petition for Temporary Stay''). The parties filed multiple submissions pertaining to the issues
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1703A1.txt
  • d/b/a Verizon Rhode Island, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-MD-007 Adopted: May 14, 2003 Released: May 15, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On April 21, 2003, Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. (``Fibertech'') filed a petition for temporary stay pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(d) requesting, among other things, that the Commission prohibit Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Rhode Island (``Verizon'') from terminating its pole attachment agreement with Fibertech and removing any Fibertech cables from Verizon poles. Because the parties have agreed to mediate their dispute within the next several weeks, we issue a limited interim stay, as set forth below, in order to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1774A1.txt
  • Complainant, ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MD-005 ) Duquesne Light Company, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 22, 2003 Released: May 27, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we reject a Petition To Stay Termination Of Pole Attachment Rights that complainant Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C., (``Fibertech'') filed in this matter pursuant to sections 1.1403(d) and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules. Fibertech's Stay Petition asks the Commission to stay any attempt by defendant Duquesne Light Company (``Duquesne'') either to terminate a pole attachment agreement between Fibertech and Duquesne or to remove or seek removal of Fibertech's facilities from Duquesne's poles, pending the Commission's decision on a complaint that Fibertech filed against Duquesne alleging that Duquesne
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2613A1.txt
  • days' advance notice of any pole attachment rate increase. Georgia Power asserts that there is ``no reason to presume a rate increase from this provision,'' and that, if there is a rate increase, notice of ``any possible increase'' has been given more than 60 days in advance. We agree with the Cable Operators that the rate provision is unreasonable. Section 1.1403(c)(2) of the Commission's rules states that a ``utility shall provide a cable television system operator or telecommunications carrier no less than 60 days written notice prior to . . . [a]ny increase in pole attachment rates . . .'' Blanket notice of a possible rate increase is not equivalent to notice of an actual rate increase. Accordingly, the New Contract's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3947A1.txt
  • on other competing carriers in the future. See Virginia Arbitration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 27274, para. 478 & ns. 1958-99. 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(4). Section 224 provides for the regulation of pole attachments on poles owned by utilities including local exchange carriers, electric, gas, water, steam, or other public utility. 47 U.S.C. § 224; see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403. Cavalier Direct Testimony of Ashenden at 8-10; Cavalier Brief at 48-49. This process is referred to as the ``make-ready'' process. This means that Verizon, the power company, the cable company, and any other attached competitive LEC each send out separate field teams to determine the impact on their respective attachment and to take any necessary steps to accommodate the planned
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-959A1.txt
  • Company, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: April 6, 2004 Released: April 7, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On February 12, 2004, American Fiber Systems, Inc. (``AFS'') filed a complaint against Kansas City Power and Light Company (``KCPL'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 1.1403 and 1.1404 of the Commission's rules. AFS initiated the Complaint in response to a primary jurisdiction referral by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 2. KCPL is an electric utility operating in, among other places, the Kansas City, Missouri area, where AFS seeks to attach to KCPL's poles for the purpose of offering telecommunications services to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1583A1.txt
  • Bureau: On May 20, 2005, the complainant, Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Time Warner (``Time Warner Cable''), filed a motion to withdraw with prejudice the Complaint that it filed against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``Southwestern Bell'') on December 3, 2004. In short, the Complaint alleges that Southwestern Bell violated section 224 of the Communications Act and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's rules by refusing to grant Time Warner Cable access to Southwestern Bell's conduit along the Queen Isabella Causeway in Texas. The Motion states that the parties ``have successfully negotiated a settlement to their dispute,'' and that, as part of that settlement, Time Warner Cable has agreed to withdraw its Complaint in this proceeding. We are satisfied that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-440A1.txt
  • Adopted: February 17, 2005 Released: February 17, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On December 3, 2004, Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') filed a complaint against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``Southwestern Bell'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and sections 1.1403(a) and 1.404 of the Commission's rules. Time Warner owns and operates a cable television system in Texas. Southwestern Bell, a subsidiary of SBC Communications, Inc., provides telecommunications and other services in Texas. Southwestern Bell owns or controls conduit along the Queen Isabella Causeway (``Causeway'') in Texas, which it uses for wire communications. The Causeway provides the only bridge to South
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1.txt
  • section 224(a)(1) of the Act. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Entergy violated section 224 by imposing on the Cable Operators a variety of allegedly unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory terms and conditions of attachment. The Complaint further alleges that Entergy unlawfully denied complainants Comcast and Alliance access to its poles, in violation of section 224 of the Act and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's pole attachment rules, by imposing a permitting freeze on their attachments. Entergy filed a Response to the Complaint in which it denied Complainants' allegations. Entergy's Response also raised a number of defenses, including that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint insofar as Complainants seek a determination regarding the reasonableness of Entergy's choice and application of engineering
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-494A1_Erratum.doc
  • section 224(a)(1) of the Act. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Entergy violated section 224 by imposing on the Cable Operators a variety of allegedly unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory terms and conditions of attachment. The Complaint further alleges that Entergy unlawfully denied complainants Comcast and Alliance access to its poles, in violation of section 224 of the Act and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's pole attachment rules, by imposing a permitting freeze on their attachments. Entergy filed a Response to the Complaint in which it denied Complainants' allegations. Entergy's Response also raised a number of defenses, including that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint insofar as Complainants seek a determination regarding the reasonableness of Entergy's choice and application of engineering
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4721A1.txt
  • ``removal of facilities or termination of any service to those facilities, such removal or termination arising out of a rate, term or condition of the ... pole attachment agreement.'' We agree that the challenged provisions, on their face, patently conflict with the plain language of our rules. NPTC's defense seems to be that the 60-day minimum notice provision of rule 1.1403 applies only if NPTC removes the attachments, not if it directs Salsgiver to remove them. NPTC offers no rationale for making such a distinction, nor can we find one in the rule or its adopting order. Moreover, such a distinction would make no sense. Accordingly, we direct NPTC, within 60 days, to amend the Pole Attachment Agreement to provide at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-472A1.txt
  • 5. Even if DQE CNS's letters were vague, however, that problem was certainly cured by DQE CNS's submissions here, and thus cannot serve as a basis for NPTC's continuing denial of access. In any event, the applicable rule does not mandate any particular level of specificity about the services to be provided over the requested attachments, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403; and NPTC apparently knew about DQE CNS's Tariff and Certificate of Public Convenience. See Complaint, Exhibit 6 at 2. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1409(b). Response at 7-8, ¶ 13 (citing NPTC August 19 Letter at Complaint, Exhibit 6); 13-18, ¶¶ 30-54. In correspondence with DQE CNS, NPTC referenced DQE CNS's purported plans to offer ``dark fiber'' for lease as an additional
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1046A1.txt
  • 0.311, that NextG's Complaint against PSE&G IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Complaint for Denial of Access to Utility Poles and Request for Expedited Treatment, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed Dec. 21, 2007) (``Complaint''). 47 U.S.C § 224. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1404 47 U.S.C. § 224(f). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(a). Response of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (Jan. 22, 2008) (``Response'') at vi, 13-34 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 224(c) (1) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.1406). Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed April 25, 2008) (``Joint Request''). Joint Request at 1, ¶ 2. Joint Request at 1-2, ¶ 3. Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2258A1.txt
  • Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15449, 16058-107, paras. 1119-240 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (Part XI.B. ``Access to Rights of Way''). Id. at 16067-68, para. 1143. See generally 47 C.F.R §§ 1.1403-.1418 (section 224 complaint rules). In addition, under current Commission rules, an attacher may execute a pole attachment agreement with a utility, and then later file a complaint challenging the lawfulness of a provision of that agreement. See, e.g., S. Co. Svcs., Inc. v. FCC, 313 F.3d 574, 582-84 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Implementation of Section 224 of the Act; Amendment of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-279A1.txt
  • ) ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY CO., LLC, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION FOR TEMPORARY STAY Adopted: February 19, 2010 Released: February 19, 2010 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: On January 6, 2010, petitioners RB3, LLC and Arklaoktex, LLC, d/b/a Reach Broadband (``Reach'') filed a Petition for Temporary Stay pursuant to section 1.1403(d) of our rules seeking to stay the removal of Reach's attachments to poles owned by respondent Oncor Electric Delivery Company (``Oncor''). Petitioners stated that they filed the Petition in response to a Notice of Need to Remove Attachments that Reach received from Oncor on December 22, 2009. On February 12, 2010, petitioners filed a motion to withdraw their Petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291012A1.txt
  • Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15449, 16058-107, paras. 1119-240 (1996) (Local Competition Order) (Part XI.B. ``Access to Rights of Way''). Id. at 16067-68, para. 1143. See generally 47 C.F.R §§ 1.1403-.1418 (section 224 complaint rules). In addition, under current Commission rules, an attacher may execute a pole attachment agreement with a utility, and then later file a complaint challenging the lawfulness of a provision of that agreement. See, e.g., S. Co. Svcs., Inc. v. FCC, 313 F.3d 574, 582-84 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Implementation of Section 224 of the Act; Amendment of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-292A1.txt
  • 42, vacated by settlement, 2002 FCC LEXIS 6385 (Dec. 3, 2002)). Complaint at 28, ¶ 65. Complaint at 31, ¶ 70. Similarly, in Cavalier Telephone, unlike here, there was no evidence of a long delay in challenging make-ready procedures. Complaint, Singleton Affidavit at 2-7, ¶¶ 4-9. Complaint at 28, ¶ 65. Complaint at 29, ¶¶ 66-68. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(c). Complaint at 26, ¶ 62. Georgia Power argues that, under the Agreement, Knology has waived its right to assert claims against Georgia Power. Response at 21 (citing Complaint, Exhibit 1 (Section 8.2: Time to Bring Claims)). As explained above, however (see Section III(A)(1), supra), the Agreement does not exclusively govern the parties' relationship, as the Commission has independent jurisdiction to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-187A1.txt
  • a nondiscriminatory basis; and (5) a utility may not favor itself over other parties with respect to the provision of telecommunications or video services. See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16071-74, paras. 1151-58; see also id. at 16074-85, paras. 1159-86 (adopting guidelines). See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16067-68, para. 1143. See generally 47 C.F.R §§ 1.1403-1.1418 (section 224 complaint rules). See Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16068, para. 1143; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 18049, 18051, paras. 4-5 (1999) (Local Competition Reconsideration Order) (allowing parties flexibility to reach agreements on access subject to dispute resolution mechanism
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-84A1.txt
  • on the appropriateness of breaking down make-ready into five stages, as well as the length of each stage. Stage 1 - Survey: 45 Days. As current rules dictate, a request for access continues to trigger a 45 day period for the utility to respond. We propose that, as the first stage of our timeline, we should retain existing Commission rule 1.1403(b). A ``request for access'' is a complete application that provides the utility with the information necessary to begin to survey the poles. The current rule gives utilities 45 days to provide a written explanation of evidence and information for denying the request for reasons of lack of capacity, safety, reliability or engineering standards. The rule is functionally identical to a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-50A1.txt
  • can be exercised contingent on the attacher's agreement to make payment in advance for the survey. We emphasize that any negotiations regarding a pole attachment agreement must be conducted in good faith, and that dragging out negotiations on the master agreement while the clock is stopped on a particular application would not be considered reasonable. We also conclude that section 1.1403(b) of our rules, which generally requires that a utility approve or deny pole access within 45 days of a request, continues to apply to all requests for access under section 224, independent of any application of the timeline. For example, if the requested access concerns attachment in the electric space on a pole, attachment to a duct or conduit, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-96-325A1.pdf
  • AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 1. Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 2. The table of contents of part 1 is revised to read as follows: * * * * * Subpart J - Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures 1.1401 Purpose. 1.1402 Definitions. 1.1403 Duty to provide access; modifications; notice of removal, increase or modification; petition for temporary stay. 1.1404 Complaint. 1.1405 File numbers. 1.1406 Dismissal of complaints. 1.1407 Response and reply. 1.1408 Number of copies and form of pleadings. 1.1409 Commission consideration of the complaint. 1.1410 Remedies. 1.1411 Meetings and hearings. 1.1412 Enforcement. 1.1413 Forfeiture. 1.1414 State certification. 1.1415 Other orders. 1.1416 Imputation
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • basis of the concerns listed in section 224(f)(2) (capacity, safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering principles), the assessment of such factors must be done in a nondiscriminatory manner, and denials will be very carefully scrutinized where the requesting party is a competing telecommunications carrier. 584 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16067. 585 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(b). 586 We reiterate that lack of capacity on a particular facility does not entitle a BOC to deny a request for access. Sections 224(f)(1) and 224(f)(2) require a BOC to take all reasonable steps to accommodate access in these situations. If a telecommunications carrier's request for access cannot be accommodated due to a lack of available space, a BOC must
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • 224. A. Requirements for Access to Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights-of-Way 81. Requirements of the Act Section 224 of the Act outlines the jurisdiction over regulation of access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way and describes the standard for just and reasonable rates for such access. 82. Requirements of the FCC's First Order in CC Docket No. 96-98 Under rule 1.1403, a utility shall provide any carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it. Notwithstanding this obligation, a utility may deny any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way where there is - 42 - engineering purposes. B. 83. In Section III of its Statement, BellSouth offers access to poles,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2923A1.html
  • ) Petitioner ) ) File No. PA 00-008 v. ) ) Georgia Power Company, ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: October 30, 2002 Released: October 31, 2002 By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 7, 2000, the City of Dublin filed a petition for temporary stay ("Petition") against Georgia Power Company pursuant to the Pole Attachment Act1 and Section 1.1403 (d) of the Commission's rules.2 On November 21, 2001, the Cable Services Bureau released an Order, DA 01-27143, holding in abeyance the Petition pending the parties' good faith negotiation of an annual pole attachment rate pursuant to the Commission's rules and Teleport v. Georgia Power Company.4 On October 24, 2002, the parties' submitted a joint notice of settlement and request
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1555A1.html
  • to supplement the record, however. Having failed to do so on this issue, the record is now closed.) As indicated below, the refund we order to be paid to Time Warner accrues from the date on which Time Warner was added to the proceeding - i.e., March 13, 2001. 3 Complaint at 2, at 5, 15. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(d), and simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the Cable Operators filed a Petition for Temporary Stay of Gulf Power's announced termination of access to its poles unless the Cable Operators paid the higher rate. Petition for Temporary Stay, File No. PA 00- 004 (filed July 10, 2000) (``Petition for Temporary Stay''). The parties filed multiple submissions pertaining to the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1703A1.html
  • ) File No. EB-03-MD-007 ) v. ) ) Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a ) Verizon Rhode Island, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER Adopted: May 14, 2003 Released: May 15, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 21, 2003, Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. (``Fibertech'') filed a petition for temporary stay pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(d) requesting, among other things, that the Commission prohibit Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Rhode Island (``Verizon'') from terminating its pole attachment agreement with Fibertech and removing any Fibertech cables from Verizon poles.1 Because the parties have agreed to mediate their dispute within the next several weeks, we issue a limited interim stay, as set forth below, in order to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1774A1.html
  • ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MD-005 ) Duquesne Light Company, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 22, 2003 Released: May 27, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we reject a Petition To Stay Termination Of Pole Attachment Rights1 that complainant Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C., (``Fibertech'') filed in this matter pursuant to sections 1.1403(d) and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules.2 Fibertech's Stay Petition asks the Commission to stay any attempt by defendant Duquesne Light Company (``Duquesne'') either to terminate a pole attachment agreement between Fibertech and Duquesne or to remove or seek removal of Fibertech's facilities from Duquesne's poles, pending the Commission's decision on a complaint that Fibertech filed against Duquesne3 alleging that Duquesne
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2613A1.html
  • advance notice of any pole attachment rate increase.100 Georgia Power asserts that there is ``no reason to presume a rate increase from this provision,'' and that, if there is a rate increase, notice of ``any possible increase'' has been given more than 60 days in advance.101 36. We agree with the Cable Operators that the rate provision is unreasonable. Section 1.1403(c)(2) of the Commission's rules states that a ``utility shall provide a cable television system operator or telecommunications carrier no less than 60 days written notice prior to . . . [a]ny increase in pole attachment rates . . .''102 Blanket notice of a possible rate increase is not equivalent to notice of an actual rate increase. Accordingly, the New Contract's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-292A1.html
  • by settlement, 2002 FCC LEXIS 6385 (Dec. 3, 2002)). 180 Complaint at 28, 65. 181 Complaint at 31, 70. 182 Similarly, in Cavalier Telephone, unlike here, there was no evidence of a long delay in challenging make- ready procedures. 183 Complaint, Singleton Affidavit at 2-7, 4-9. 184 Complaint at 28, 65. 185 Complaint at 29, 66-68. 186 See 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(c). 187 Complaint at 26, 62. 188 Georgia Power argues that, under the Agreement, Knology has waived its right to assert claims against Georgia Power. Response at 21 (citing Complaint, Exhibit 1 (Section 8.2: Time to Bring Claims)). As explained above, however (see Section III(A)(1), supra), the Agreement does not exclusively govern the parties' relationship, as the Commission has independent jurisdiction
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-959A1.html
  • Company, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: April 6, 2004 Released: April 7, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On February 12, 2004, American Fiber Systems, Inc. (``AFS'') filed a complaint1 against Kansas City Power and Light Company (``KCPL'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 and sections 1.1403 and 1.1404 of the Commission's rules.3 AFS initiated the Complaint in response to a primary jurisdiction referral by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.4 2. KCPL is an electric utility operating in, among other places, the Kansas City, Missouri area, where AFS seeks to attach to KCPL's poles for the purpose of offering telecommunications services to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1583A1.html
  • 1. On May 20, 2005, the complainant, Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Time Warner (``Time Warner Cable''), filed a motion to withdraw with prejudice1 the Complaint that it filed against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``Southwestern Bell'') on December 3, 2004.2 In short, the Complaint alleges that Southwestern Bell violated section 224 of the Communications Act3 and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's rules4 by refusing to grant Time Warner Cable access to Southwestern Bell's conduit along the Queen Isabella Causeway in Texas.5 The Motion states that the parties ``have successfully negotiated a settlement to their dispute,''6 and that, as part of that settlement, Time Warner Cable has agreed to withdraw its Complaint in this proceeding.7 2. We are satisfied
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-440A1.html
  • February 17, 2005 Released: February 17, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 3, 2004, Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') filed a complaint1 against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``Southwestern Bell'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 and sections 1.1403(a) and 1.404 of the Commission's rules.3 2. Time Warner owns and operates a cable television system in Texas.4 Southwestern Bell, a subsidiary of SBC Communications, Inc., provides telecommunications and other services in Texas.5 Southwestern Bell owns or controls conduit along the Queen Isabella Causeway (``Causeway'') in Texas, which it uses for wire communications.6 The Causeway provides the only bridge to
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-494A1.html
  • 224(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Entergy violated section 224 by imposing on the Cable Operators a variety of allegedly unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory terms and conditions of attachment. The Complaint further alleges that Entergy unlawfully denied complainants Comcast and Alliance access to its poles, in violation of section 224 of the Act and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's pole attachment rules, by imposing a permitting freeze on their attachments. Entergy filed a Response to the Complaint in which it denied Complainants' allegations. Entergy's Response also raised a number of defenses, including that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint insofar as Complainants seek a determination regarding the reasonableness of Entergy's choice and application of engineering
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4721A1.html
  • of facilities or termination of any service to those facilities, such removal or termination arising out of a rate, term or condition of the ... pole attachment agreement." 27. We agree that the challenged provisions, on their face, patently conflict with the plain language of our rules. NPTC's defense seems to be that the 60-day minimum notice provision of rule 1.1403 applies only if NPTC removes the attachments, not if it directs Salsgiver to remove them. NPTC offers no rationale for making such a distinction, nor can we find one in the rule or its adopting order. Moreover, such a distinction would make no sense. Accordingly, we direct NPTC, within 60 days, to amend the Pole Attachment Agreement to provide at
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-472A1.html
  • 5. Even if DQE CNS's letters were vague, however, that problem was certainly cured by DQE CNS's submissions here, and thus cannot serve as a basis for NPTC's continuing denial of access. In any event, the applicable rule does not mandate any particular level of specificity about the services to be provided over the requested attachments, see 47 C.F.R. S 1.1403; and NPTC apparently knew about DQE CNS's Tariff and Certificate of Public Convenience. See Complaint, Exhibit 6 at 2. 47 C.F.R. S 1.1409(b). Response at 7-8, P 13 (citing NPTC August 19 Letter at Complaint, Exhibit 6); 13-18, PP 30-54. In correspondence with DQE CNS, NPTC referenced DQE CNS's purported plans to offer "dark fiber" for lease as an additional
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1046A1.html
  • 0.311, that NextG's Complaint against PSE&G IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Complaint for Denial of Access to Utility Poles and Request for Expedited Treatment, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed Dec. 21, 2007) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C S: 224. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1404 47 U.S.C. S: 224(f). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1403(a). Response of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (Jan. 22, 2008) ("Response") at vi, 13-34 (citing 47 U.S.C. S: 224(c) (1) and 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1406). Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed April 25, 2008) ("Joint Request"). Joint Request at 1, P: 2. Joint Request at 1-2, P: 3. Federal Communications Commission
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-279A1.html
  • ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY CO., LLC, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION FOR TEMPORARY STAY Adopted: February 19, 2010 Released: February 19, 2010 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On January 6, 2010, petitioners RB3, LLC and Arklaoktex, LLC, d/b/a Reach Broadband ("Reach") filed a Petition for Temporary Stay pursuant to section 1.1403(d) of our rules seeking to stay the removal of Reach's attachments to poles owned by respondent Oncor Electric Delivery Company ("Oncor"). Petitioners stated that they filed the Petition in response to a Notice of Need to Remove Attachments that Reach received from Oncor on December 22, 2009. 2. On February 12, 2010, petitioners filed a motion to withdraw their Petition
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000482.doc
  • us with any compelling reason that would warrant an extension of time. Section 1.1407(a) of our Rules provides for a response to a complaint and a reply by the complainant to the response, and further provides that "[e]xtensions of time to file are not contemplated unless justification is shown pursuant to Section 1.46 [and e]xcept as otherwise provided in Section 1.1403, no other filings, and no motions other than for extensions of time will be considered unless authorized by the Commission." We will rule on the jurisdictional issue in our normal course of consideration of the Complaint based on our three established pleadings, and when we have a full record on which to base our consideration. We therefore deny an extension
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001250.doc
  • within 45 days of receiving a complete application for a permit. We have previously stated that the Pole Attachment Act seeks to ensure that no party can use its control of facilities to impede the installation and maintenance of telecommunications and cable equipment by those seeking to compete in those fields. We have interpreted the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403 (b), to mean that a pole owner "must deny a request for access within 45 days of receiving such a request or it will otherwise be deemed granted." We conclude that Respondent is required to act on each permit application submitted by Complainant within 45 days of receiving the request. To the extent that a permit application includes a large
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1996/fcc96325.pdf
  • AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 1. Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows: PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 2. The table of contents of part 1 is revised to read as follows: * * * * * Subpart J - Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures 1.1401 Purpose. 1.1402 Definitions. 1.1403 Duty to provide access; modifications; notice of removal, increase or modification; petition for temporary stay. 1.1404 Complaint. 1.1405 File numbers. 1.1406 Dismissal of complaints. 1.1407 Response and reply. 1.1408 Number of copies and form of pleadings. 1.1409 Commission consideration of the complaint. 1.1410 Remedies. 1.1411 Meetings and hearings. 1.1412 Enforcement. 1.1413 Forfeiture. 1.1414 State certification. 1.1415 Other orders. 1.1416 Imputation
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98271.wp
  • basis of the concerns listed in section 224(f)(2) (capacity, safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering principles), the assessment of such factors must be done in a nondiscriminatory manner, and denials will be very carefully scrutinized where the requesting party is a competing telecommunications carrier. 584 Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16067. 585 47 C.F.R. § 1.1403(b). 586 We reiterate that lack of capacity on a particular facility does not entitle a BOC to deny a request for access. Sections 224(f)(1) and 224(f)(2) require a BOC to take all reasonable steps to accommodate access in these situations. If a telecommunications carrier's request for access cannot be accommodated due to a lack of available space, a BOC must
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/in-region_applications/bellsouth_sc/bs271sc.pdf
  • 224. A. Requirements for Access to Poles, Ducts, Conduits and Rights-of-Way 81. Requirements of the Act Section 224 of the Act outlines the jurisdiction over regulation of access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights-of-way and describes the standard for just and reasonable rates for such access. 82. Requirements of the FCC's First Order in CC Docket No. 96-98 Under rule 1.1403, a utility shall provide any carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it. Notwithstanding this obligation, a utility may deny any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way where there is - 42 - engineering purposes. B. 83. In Section III of its Statement, BellSouth offers access to poles,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030527.html
  • 418-2470. News Media Contact: Lauren Van Wazer at (202) 418-0030 [6]DA-03-1778A1.doc [7]DA-03-1778A1.pdf [8]DA-03-1778A1.txt Released: 05/27/2003. TARIFF TRANSMITTAL PUBLIC REFERENCE LOG. WCB. Contact: Reference Information Center at (202) 418-0270 [9]DOC-234848A1.pdf [10]DOC-234848A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FIBER TECHNOLOGIES NETWORKS, L.L.C. V. DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY. Denied Fibertech's Instant Request for a Stay for failing to demonstrate the irreparable harm required under Section 1.1403(d) of our rules. Dismissed as moot the Petition To Stay Termination of Pole Attachment Rights. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 05/22/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-1774). EB [11]DA-03-1774A1.doc [12]DA-03-1774A1.pdf [13]DA-03-1774A1.txt AZTECA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (AZTECA AMERICA). Granted the Petition for Waiver filed by AZTEC International Corporation. Dismissed Petition for Temporary Waiver filed by AZTEC International Corporation. Action by: Chief, Media
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2923A1.html
  • ) Petitioner ) ) File No. PA 00-008 v. ) ) Georgia Power Company, ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: October 30, 2002 Released: October 31, 2002 By the Assistant Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On November 7, 2000, the City of Dublin filed a petition for temporary stay ("Petition") against Georgia Power Company pursuant to the Pole Attachment Act1 and Section 1.1403 (d) of the Commission's rules.2 On November 21, 2001, the Cable Services Bureau released an Order, DA 01-27143, holding in abeyance the Petition pending the parties' good faith negotiation of an annual pole attachment rate pursuant to the Commission's rules and Teleport v. Georgia Power Company.4 On October 24, 2002, the parties' submitted a joint notice of settlement and request
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1555A1.html
  • to supplement the record, however. Having failed to do so on this issue, the record is now closed.) As indicated below, the refund we order to be paid to Time Warner accrues from the date on which Time Warner was added to the proceeding - i.e., March 13, 2001. 3 Complaint at 2, at 5, 15. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(d), and simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the Cable Operators filed a Petition for Temporary Stay of Gulf Power's announced termination of access to its poles unless the Cable Operators paid the higher rate. Petition for Temporary Stay, File No. PA 00- 004 (filed July 10, 2000) (``Petition for Temporary Stay''). The parties filed multiple submissions pertaining to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1703A1.html
  • ) File No. EB-03-MD-007 ) v. ) ) Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a ) Verizon Rhode Island, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER Adopted: May 14, 2003 Released: May 15, 2003 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On April 21, 2003, Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C. (``Fibertech'') filed a petition for temporary stay pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(d) requesting, among other things, that the Commission prohibit Verizon New England, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Rhode Island (``Verizon'') from terminating its pole attachment agreement with Fibertech and removing any Fibertech cables from Verizon poles.1 Because the parties have agreed to mediate their dispute within the next several weeks, we issue a limited interim stay, as set forth below, in order to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-1774A1.html
  • ) ) v. ) File No. EB-03-MD-005 ) Duquesne Light Company, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: May 22, 2003 Released: May 27, 2003 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order, we reject a Petition To Stay Termination Of Pole Attachment Rights1 that complainant Fiber Technologies Networks, L.L.C., (``Fibertech'') filed in this matter pursuant to sections 1.1403(d) and 1.1415 of the Commission's rules.2 Fibertech's Stay Petition asks the Commission to stay any attempt by defendant Duquesne Light Company (``Duquesne'') either to terminate a pole attachment agreement between Fibertech and Duquesne or to remove or seek removal of Fibertech's facilities from Duquesne's poles, pending the Commission's decision on a complaint that Fibertech filed against Duquesne3 alleging that Duquesne
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2613A1.html
  • advance notice of any pole attachment rate increase.100 Georgia Power asserts that there is ``no reason to presume a rate increase from this provision,'' and that, if there is a rate increase, notice of ``any possible increase'' has been given more than 60 days in advance.101 36. We agree with the Cable Operators that the rate provision is unreasonable. Section 1.1403(c)(2) of the Commission's rules states that a ``utility shall provide a cable television system operator or telecommunications carrier no less than 60 days written notice prior to . . . [a]ny increase in pole attachment rates . . .''102 Blanket notice of a possible rate increase is not equivalent to notice of an actual rate increase. Accordingly, the New Contract's
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-292A1.html
  • by settlement, 2002 FCC LEXIS 6385 (Dec. 3, 2002)). 180 Complaint at 28, 65. 181 Complaint at 31, 70. 182 Similarly, in Cavalier Telephone, unlike here, there was no evidence of a long delay in challenging make- ready procedures. 183 Complaint, Singleton Affidavit at 2-7, 4-9. 184 Complaint at 28, 65. 185 Complaint at 29, 66-68. 186 See 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(c). 187 Complaint at 26, 62. 188 Georgia Power argues that, under the Agreement, Knology has waived its right to assert claims against Georgia Power. Response at 21 (citing Complaint, Exhibit 1 (Section 8.2: Time to Bring Claims)). As explained above, however (see Section III(A)(1), supra), the Agreement does not exclusively govern the parties' relationship, as the Commission has independent jurisdiction
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-959A1.html
  • Company, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: April 6, 2004 Released: April 7, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On February 12, 2004, American Fiber Systems, Inc. (``AFS'') filed a complaint1 against Kansas City Power and Light Company (``KCPL'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 and sections 1.1403 and 1.1404 of the Commission's rules.3 AFS initiated the Complaint in response to a primary jurisdiction referral by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.4 2. KCPL is an electric utility operating in, among other places, the Kansas City, Missouri area, where AFS seeks to attach to KCPL's poles for the purpose of offering telecommunications services to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1583A1.html
  • 1. On May 20, 2005, the complainant, Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P. d/b/a Time Warner (``Time Warner Cable''), filed a motion to withdraw with prejudice1 the Complaint that it filed against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``Southwestern Bell'') on December 3, 2004.2 In short, the Complaint alleges that Southwestern Bell violated section 224 of the Communications Act3 and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's rules4 by refusing to grant Time Warner Cable access to Southwestern Bell's conduit along the Queen Isabella Causeway in Texas.5 The Motion states that the parties ``have successfully negotiated a settlement to their dispute,''6 and that, as part of that settlement, Time Warner Cable has agreed to withdraw its Complaint in this proceeding.7 2. We are satisfied
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-440A1.html
  • February 17, 2005 Released: February 17, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On December 3, 2004, Texas and Kansas City Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') filed a complaint1 against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (``Southwestern Bell'') pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 and sections 1.1403(a) and 1.404 of the Commission's rules.3 2. Time Warner owns and operates a cable television system in Texas.4 Southwestern Bell, a subsidiary of SBC Communications, Inc., provides telecommunications and other services in Texas.5 Southwestern Bell owns or controls conduit along the Queen Isabella Causeway (``Causeway'') in Texas, which it uses for wire communications.6 The Causeway provides the only bridge to
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-494A1.html
  • 224(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Entergy violated section 224 by imposing on the Cable Operators a variety of allegedly unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory terms and conditions of attachment. The Complaint further alleges that Entergy unlawfully denied complainants Comcast and Alliance access to its poles, in violation of section 224 of the Act and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission's pole attachment rules, by imposing a permitting freeze on their attachments. Entergy filed a Response to the Complaint in which it denied Complainants' allegations. Entergy's Response also raised a number of defenses, including that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint insofar as Complainants seek a determination regarding the reasonableness of Entergy's choice and application of engineering
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-4721A1.html
  • of facilities or termination of any service to those facilities, such removal or termination arising out of a rate, term or condition of the ... pole attachment agreement." 27. We agree that the challenged provisions, on their face, patently conflict with the plain language of our rules. NPTC's defense seems to be that the 60-day minimum notice provision of rule 1.1403 applies only if NPTC removes the attachments, not if it directs Salsgiver to remove them. NPTC offers no rationale for making such a distinction, nor can we find one in the rule or its adopting order. Moreover, such a distinction would make no sense. Accordingly, we direct NPTC, within 60 days, to amend the Pole Attachment Agreement to provide at
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-472A1.html
  • 5. Even if DQE CNS's letters were vague, however, that problem was certainly cured by DQE CNS's submissions here, and thus cannot serve as a basis for NPTC's continuing denial of access. In any event, the applicable rule does not mandate any particular level of specificity about the services to be provided over the requested attachments, see 47 C.F.R. S 1.1403; and NPTC apparently knew about DQE CNS's Tariff and Certificate of Public Convenience. See Complaint, Exhibit 6 at 2. 47 C.F.R. S 1.1409(b). Response at 7-8, P 13 (citing NPTC August 19 Letter at Complaint, Exhibit 6); 13-18, PP 30-54. In correspondence with DQE CNS, NPTC referenced DQE CNS's purported plans to offer "dark fiber" for lease as an additional
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1046A1.html
  • 0.311, that NextG's Complaint against PSE&G IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Alexander P. Starr Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division Enforcement Bureau Complaint for Denial of Access to Utility Poles and Request for Expedited Treatment, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed Dec. 21, 2007) ("Complaint"). 47 U.S.C S: 224. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1404 47 U.S.C. S: 224(f). See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1403(a). Response of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (Jan. 22, 2008) ("Response") at vi, 13-34 (citing 47 U.S.C. S: 224(c) (1) and 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1406). Joint Request to Withdraw Complaint with Prejudice, File No. EB-07-MD-004 (filed April 25, 2008) ("Joint Request"). Joint Request at 1, P: 2. Joint Request at 1-2, P: 3. Federal Communications Commission
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-279A1.html
  • ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY CO., LLC, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION FOR TEMPORARY STAY Adopted: February 19, 2010 Released: February 19, 2010 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On January 6, 2010, petitioners RB3, LLC and Arklaoktex, LLC, d/b/a Reach Broadband ("Reach") filed a Petition for Temporary Stay pursuant to section 1.1403(d) of our rules seeking to stay the removal of Reach's attachments to poles owned by respondent Oncor Electric Delivery Company ("Oncor"). Petitioners stated that they filed the Petition in response to a Notice of Need to Remove Attachments that Reach received from Oncor on December 22, 2009. 2. On February 12, 2010, petitioners filed a motion to withdraw their Petition