Final Copper Retirement and Pole Attachment Items Have Changes From Drafts

In a few places, the copper retirement NPRM was expanded in the final version, which added specificity about the potential effect of rules changes. The language on the proposed forbearance from all Communications Act Section 251(c)(5) requirements now asks about the effect of the “potential loss of a significant number" of switched access lines on the “ability of critical infrastructure industries or government agencies to maintain critical operations and services." A paragraph on Section 214 discontinuance was tweaked to ask about the effect on customers who “may experience a gap in service” as a result.

A section on replacing the adequate replacement test and the alternative options test with a single rule that would apply to all technology transition discontinuance applications also saw changes. The final version now asks whether the FCC “should consider streamlined processing in any other instances, including those listed in the forbearance section” of the NPRM. It now also asks about “any other considerations that we should take into account regarding the adoption of a single, consolidated rule, particularly regarding the potential impact on consumers?”

The final version notes, as the draft did, that in 2018, the commission considered whether to replace the adequate replacement test “with a simple requirement that a discontinuing carrier show that any fixed or mobile voice service, including interconnected VoIP, is available to qualify for streamlined treatment” but declined to do so.

The NPRM asks whether the answers to the questions that prompted the FCC not to act are the same today. “Are the answers to these questions the same for any other types of customers or communities?” says text added to the final version. “How do prices for these various types of services compare to prices for legacy wireline services?”

The final NPRM asks about “other evidence the Commission should consider regarding the relative prices of facilities-based interconnected VoIP service and legacy voice service.” It also adds a question on whether mobile wireless service network performance and pricing are “comparable to that of legacy voice services.” Other questions were tweaked to seek comment on wireless networks as an alternative to traditional wireline service.

The approved notice adds a paragraph raising questions suggested by Incompas on resold services (see 2507220065). Are facilities-based carriers “conducting technology transitions discontinuances usually or always the only entity offering that service in the area?” the NPRM asks. “If so, how frequently is this occurring? In those situations, are our discontinuance requirements necessary for the protection of resellers’ customers?”

Another added paragraph seeks comment on the definition of lower-speed data telecommunications service. The NPRM proposes axing application filing requirements associated with grandfathering such services. “We seek comment on whether we should upwardly revise our proposed definition of lower-speed data telecommunications service given the rapidly increasing bandwidths of networks today,” the NPRM now asks. “Specifically, should we define the term using speeds at or below 45 Mbps symmetrical or some other threshold? What are the benefits and drawbacks of using each speed tier in the definition?”

The FCC also added questions about the use of low-data services by public safety answering points. “What percentage of 911 traffic currently flows over low-speed data telecommunications services, and are carriers considering plans to migrate off those services short- or long-term?” the NPRM now asks.

The final NPRM also includes a paragraph asking more broadly about other issues. “We seek general comment on any other potential revisions to … discontinuance regulations that might help facilitate the transition to next-generation networks and advanced communications services,” it now asks. “We also seek comment on any other Federal, state, or local requirements that inhibit or impede the transition to next-generation networks and services.”

Pole Attachments

The pole attachment item released Friday (see 2507250040) is explicit in narrowing when attachers must provide written, advance notice about a pole attachment order, adding language that caps the requirement at 6,000 poles, or 10% of a utility’s poles in a state. The item also includes added language stating that the meet-and-confer requirement after that advance notice is for orders that are either more than 3,000 poles or more than 5% of a utility’s poles in a state.

The approved item also added language barring utilities from putting application size limits in combination with application frequency limits that effectively restrict the number of pole attachments attachers can seek in a given time frame.

The approved order also includes language making clear that new attachers can use utility-approved contractors for self-help estimates for make-ready work above the communications space. Self-help, make-ready estimates above the communications space require that the new attacher use a utility-approved contractor, the agency said.

The approved item says Altice’s proposed requirement for refunds by utilities missing survey and make-ready timelines (see 2507170033) “could penalize the utility for missed deadlines that may be beyond the control of the utility.” It rejected the refund idea.