While state broadband officials wait for a billion-dollar federal investment to connect West Virginia, disputes over poles keep the state unplugged and disconnected.
After six months of deliberations and input by a dedicated pole attachment task force, the Public Service Commission suggested “more work” was needed at “future hearings.” Commissioners did not act on several proposals and are waiting for more input from utilities and internet companies.
Utilities objected to proposals from broadband officials that would require more transparency to resolve disputes holding up the state’s billion-dollar broadband expansion.
These include a universal pole inspection database, requiring pole owners to submit annual reports on attachments and creating a new working group of broadband officials.
Since the task force issued its recommendations, the Commission heard from pole owners — Frontier Communications, First Energy and Appalachian Power — who had numerous objections and urged the PSC to consider the financial toll on utilities.
“It would be premature to initiate such a requirement with the information currently before the Commission,” officials wrote, explaining why they did not create a database with the condition of utility poles.
Pole owners have been accused of slowing down broadband expansion in the state by unfairly charging internet providers for attachments and other pole costs.
Read more
Frontier, a company that jointly owns poles in the state and supplies broadband, said it is in a middle position on the various proposals raised in the task force meetings.
The company wrote, “we’ve bitten our tongue more than once in an effort to try to achieve consensus.” Frontier said it did not have the data available to create a new database for pole inspections and argued that, broadly, regulators should not place “new cost burdens” on companies.
A pole inspection database would offer more transparency for internet providers and broadband officials, the West Virginia Office of Broadband argued. And though the PSC wrote it was a “worthwhile endeavor,” the commission couldn’t make a definitive ruling without more information.
Appalachian Power and its subsidiary Wheeling Power wrote that creating a pole database would be “impossible” and would not “move the needle for broadband deployment.”
The PSC wrote that it would be “beneficial” for utilities to provide annual reports on attachments but chose not to rule on the requirement.
These reports would’ve included information on pole attachments, including permitting, the number of requests and how long it took the company to approve the attachment as recommended by the task force.
First Energy and its subsidiaries Mon Power and Potomac Edison filed comments arguing the Commission should reject these proposals from state broadband officials based on “the questionable benefits of the requests.”
The PSC did act to implement the task force’s recommendations for a new resolution process to handle disputes, approve a list of contractors provided by pole owners, and mandate that the list be updated every quarter starting in June.
Two months ago, the task force created to find solutions to pole issues and find common ground between utilities and internet providers released watered-down recommendations to the PSC.
The task force featured representatives from utility and internet companies alongside state broadband officials and met twice before the recommendations were issued.
Some ideas from the state’s broadband office and enhancement council were considered but not implemented, as utilities voiced objections.
The task force wrote that one of the proposals went beyond the scope of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadband in other states.
Once the new hearings yield more discussion on pole mandates, the Commission could revise its pole attachment guidelines.