December 7, 2007
VIA MESSENGER
Mrs. Susan M. Hudson, Clerk
Vermont Public Service Board
112 State Street, Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-2701
Re:
Comments on Proposed Revisions To Vermont Public Service Board
Rule 3.700
Dear Mrs. Hudson:
At the Public Service Board’s (Board’s) invitation, Verizon Vermont (Verizon VT or
Company) submits these comments on the proposed amendments to Board Pole
Attachment Rule No. 3.700 (Rule 3.700). The draft amendments to Rule 3.700 were
proposed by the Department in response to Section 6 of Act 79 (H.248), enacted during
the 2007 legislative session.1
Verizon VT appreciates and supports the efforts that the Department of Public Service
(Department) has expended relating to the advancement of broadband and wireless
communications infrastructure throughout the State. Verizon VT is committed to
continue its assistance of this effort and resolve the outstanding issues, in order to permit
the benefits contemplated by Act 79 to be achieved as quickly as possible.
The Board originally adopted Rule 3.7002 and approved Verizon VT’s PSB Tariff No.
263, Verizon VT’s Pole Attachment Tariff, to facilitate access to Verizon VT’s poles and
1
Sec. 6. 30 V.S.A. § 209(g) is added to read:
(g) For the purposes of board rules on attachments to poles owned by companies subject to regulation
under this title, broadband service providers shall be considered “attaching entities” with equivalent rights
to attach facilities as those provided to “attaching entities” in the rules, regardless of whether such
broadband providers offer a service subject to the jurisdiction of the board. The board shall adopt rules in
accordance with chapter 25 of Title 3 to further implement this section. The rules shall be aimed at
furthering the state’s interest in ubiquitous deployment of mobile telecommunications and broadband
services within the state.
2
Originally adopted November 15, 1985 and amended effective September 01, 2001.
to promote consistency in treatment among pole attachers, subject to review on a case by
case basis. To that end, Verizon VT is submitting comments to elaborate on a limited
number of issues that are critically important to the Company’s ability to manage its pole
plant, provide a safe work environment for its employees and promote nondiscriminatory
access to poles the Company owns (either solely or jointly) in Vermont.
General Issues
There is no dispute that safety is of paramount concern and that any attachments must
comply with all applicable safety requirements, including the National Electric Safety
Code (NESC). Safety is a most important factor since telecommunications cables may
accidentally become electrically energized and other hazards may occur, if strict
adherence to the latest applicable safety requirements are not followed, unqualified
personnel are allowed to place any attachment in the supply space or the appropriate
safety space is not maintained.4
As indicated in the November 20, 2007 public hearing, there appears to be a fundamental
disagreement concerning the appropriate location on the pole of Broadband Service
Provider attachments. The Department apparently believes that attachments could be
placed within or above the safety space consistent with NESC requirements. Tr. 11-2007 (Cotter) at 61-62. See Draft Rule section 3.707(A)(4). The electric utilities believe
that this could result in unsafe conditions. Tr. 11-20-07 (Williams) at 17, (King) at 49.
Verizon VT indicated that there must be a 40 inch safety space between a Broadband
Service Provider’s attachment and the communications space.5 Tr. 11-20-07 (Fenoff) at
30.
This fundamental issue affects the Rule’s provisions relating to where the attachments
may be located. For this reason, the issue must be resolved before the Rule is finalized.
Resolution in advance of the Rule’s adoption is also appropriate because many aspects of
the issue are generic, rather than dependent on the specific circumstances. Verizon VT
believes that the Act 79 Safety and Reliability Group is an appropriate vehicle for
addressing the issue.
Verizon VT must also have an opportunity to make conforming changes to its Tariff No.
26 before the Rule is implemented. Otherwise the Rule will conflict with the Tariff.
3
Per Final Order in Docket No. 6553, Verizon VT filed its revised Tariff December 29, 2003 for effect
February 14, 2004.
4
Attached are copies of photographs of broadband service provider attachments on poles not owned by
Verizon VT.
5
NESC Rule 230(F)(1)(b) governs communications cables in the supply space and provides that any
attachment in the safety space is treated as a neutral conductors meeting NESC Rule 230(E)(1), and
therefore, the forty (40) inch safety space must be maintained below the attachment. The NESC only
recognizes supply attachments (i.e. electric supply conductors, electric fiber cable) and communications
attachments. The NESC does not address antenna type attachments.
Some participants have claimed that the Rule 3.706(D)(2)(a) definition of usable space permits attachments
within the 40 inch safety space. This is incorrect. The Rule’s definition was intended only to affect the
pole rental calculation and not any safety issues.
Specific Language Changes
In addition, Verizon VT also suggests specific language changes that the Board should
incorporate in the amended rule, as reflected in the attached redlined versions of the rule.6
1. Definitions — § 3.702(C). Verizon VT proposes that the Board modify the language
of this section in two ways. First, Broadband Service Providers should be required to
meet both, rather than either, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements
(receipt of a license and FCC-compliant equipment). Receipt of an FCC license should
not eliminate the requirement that equipment meet FCC specifications. Second, the cited
FCC regulation relates to equipment operating within specified frequency limits. Unless
equipment using other frequencies will never be used, the section should reference
applicable FCC requirements, rather than 47 C.F.R. § 15.247.
2. Definitions — § 3.702(E). Verizon VT suggests that the distribution system
definition be eliminated. There is nothing in the Rule’s authorizing statute (30 V.S.A. §
209(g)) that creates any need for the definition.
3. Rental Calculation — § 3.706(D)(1)(b). For purposes of the pole rental calculation,
Rule 3.706(D)(1) assumes that each type of attaching entity occupies a specified amount
of space, which can be varied only through a special study of the space actually occupied
by a particular type of attachment and introduction of a separate tariffed rate for the
specific equipment. The draft Rule provides that Broadband Service Provider should be
charged at the two-foot rate for all attachments on a pole, unless a special study is
conducted. This is inappropriate.
Unlike the mature Cable Television industry attachments, which are standardized by
equipment specifications, with only a small number of vendors supplying the industry,
there are numerous Broadband Service Provider vendors manufacturing widely varied
pieces of equipment, with multiple configurations of antenna infrastructure that are
currently in use today. Broadband equipment varies greatly in type and size, from up to
98 inches in length and weigh up to approximately 100 pounds.
Verizon VT contends that it would be burdensome to undertake special studies to review
each type of specialized equipment to be used by each Broadband Service Provider and
develop separate tariffed rates for each type of equipment. Instead, the Rule should
provide that the rate for Broadband Service Providers will be based on the actual number
of feet occupied multiplied by the one foot rate.
4. Definition of Unusable Space --- § 3.706(D)(2)(b) This section should be revised to
permit adjustment of the amount of unusable space without the need for a special study,
for the reasons identified in the discussion of the previous section. An adjustment would
be appropriate, for instance, if an attachment is located below Verizon VT’s facilities.
6
One redlined version identifies all proposed changes to the current rule. The other version also identifies
how Verizon VT’s proposed changes (outlined) affect the Department’s proposed revisions.
5. Non-Exclusive Right of Access — § 3.707(A)(4) This section should be revised in
two respects. First, the reference to wireless telephone providers should be deleted. The
phrase is not defined and would expand the Rule beyond the scope of the authorizing
statute, which refers only to broadband service providers. 30 V.S.A. § 209(g)
Second, as indicated above, the safety issue must be resolved and appropriate language
relating to the location of Broadband Service Provider attachments must be included in
the Rule. In addition, any attachments must comply with all applicable safety
requirements, not merely the NESC.
6. Non-Exclusive Right of Access — § 3.707(A)(5) This section is intended to permit
the provision of electric or telecommunications service to the Broadband Service
Provider’s attachment on the pole. Tr. 11-30-07 (Bentley) at 56, (Chase) at 58. The
section was not intended to permit retail customers to “receive Internet service at the pole
from WISPs.” Tr. 11-30-07 (Chase) at 58. This is consistent with the authorizing
legislation’s reference to “equivalent” treatment of broadband service providers, because
the current Rule does not provide for other attaching entities to interconnect with retail
customers on the pole. The section, however, suggests otherwise by referring to
“customer premises.” It should be revised to eliminate this ambiguity.
7. Applications for Attachment and Make-ready Work — § 3.708(C) The added
phrase “starting from the date the application is submitted” is unnecessary and
inappropriate. Section 3.708(E)(2) makes clear that the time begins to run when the
application is received, assuming all necessary permits have been obtained. This
requirement is necessary because, among other things, there may be delays in submitting
the required payment. Tr. 11-30-07 (McClallen) at 16.
8. Miscellaneous. The provisions in Sections 3.708 (C)(3) and 3.708 (E)(c) to “on more
than 3%” should be changed to “on 3% or more.”
Verizon VT is providing electronic copies of this filing to Companies (or their
representative) listed on the sign-in sheet from attendees at the November 20, 2007
Public Hearing and the November 27, 2007 Workshop. Verizon VT requests copies of
any other comments submitted to the Board regarding the Amended Rule 3.700.
Yours truly,
Pamela J. Porell
cc:
Department of Public Service