A cable television system, a telecommunications carrier, or an association of such entities may file a complaint alleging that it has been denied access to a utility pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way and/or that a rate, term, or condition for a pole attachment is not just and reasonable. MDRD handles pole attachment complaints filed with the Commission. An incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) or an association of such carriers may file a complaint alleging that a rate, term, or condition for a pole attachment is not just and reasonable.
Representative Cases
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Texas v. AEP Texas, Inc.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 22-357, Bureau ID No. EB-22-MD-004 (2023)
The Enforcement Bureau granted in part a complaint filed by an incumbent LEC against an electric utility, alleging that the rates the incumbent LEC pays for the use of the utility’s poles are unjust and unreasonable. The Bureau also resolved several issues disputed by the parties in order to assist them in negotiating a just and reasonable pole attachment rate and calculating any refund that may be due.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T North Carolina and d/b/a AT&T South Carolina v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Order on Reconsideration and Review - Proceeding # 20-293, Bureau ID No. EB-20-MD-004 (2022)
In a pole attachment rate dispute between an incumbent LEC and an electric utility, the Commission denied the utility’s petition for reconsideration of an Enforcement Bureau order that granted the complaint in part. The Commission also denied the incumbent LEC’s application for review of the same Enforcement Bureau order.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida v. Florida Power & Light Company
Order on Review - Proceeding # 20-214, Bureau ID No. EB-20-MD-002 (2022)
The Commission denied an Application for Review filed by an incumbent LEC challenging an Enforcement Bureau order dismissing with prejudice one of the incumbent LEC’s claims in a pole attachment complaint.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida v. Florida Power and Light Company
Order on Review - Proceeding # 19-187, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-006 (2022)
The Commission granted in part and denied in part an incumbent LEC’s Application for Review seeking review of three Enforcement Bureau orders. The orders concerned the reasonableness of the pole attachment rate that the incumbent LEC paid to an electric utility under the parties’ joint use agreement.
Verizon Maryland LLC v. The Potomac Edison Company
Order on Reconsideration - Proceeding # 19-355, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-009 (2022)
In a rate dispute between an incumbent LEC and an electric utility, the Commission dismissed in part the incumbent LEC’s Petition for Reconsideration on procedural grounds and, as an independent and alternative basis, denied it on the merits. The Commission further granted in part the incumbent LEC’s request for clarification. Finally, the Commission granted in part a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the electric utility.
Verizon Maryland LLC v. The Potomac Edison Company
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-355, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-009 (2020)
The Commission granted in part an incumbent LEC’s complaint against an electric utility alleging that the pole attachment rates the incumbent LEC pays the utility under the parties’ joint use agreement are unjust and unreasonable. The Commission also prescribed the maximum pole attachment rate the utility may charge the incumbent LEC based on the relevant pole attachment rate formula.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 20-276, Bureau ID No. EB-20-MD-003 (EB 2021)
The Enforcement Bureau granted in part a complaint filed by an incumbent LEC against an electric utility, alleging that the rates the incumbent LEC pays for the use of the utility’s poles are unjust and unreasonable. The Bureau also resolved several issues disputed by the parties in order to assist them in negotiating a just and reasonable pole attachment rate and calculating the refund owed to the incumbent LEC under the relevant pole attachment rate formula.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T North Carolina and d/b/a AT&T South Carolina v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 20-293, Bureau ID No. EB-20-MD-004 (EB 2021)
The Enforcement Bureau granted in part a complaint filed by an incumbent LEC against an electric utility, alleging that the rates the incumbent LEC pays for the use of the utility’s poles are unjust and unreasonable. The Bureau also resolved several issues disputed by the parties in order to assist them in negotiating a just and reasonable pole attachment rate and calculating the refund owed to the incumbent LEC under the relevant pole attachment rate formula.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida v. Florida Power & Light Company
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 20-214, Bureau ID No. EB-20-MD-002 (EB 2021)
The Enforcement Bureau dismissed with prejudice an incumbent LEC’s challenge to a payment default clause in a joint use agreement (JUA) with an electric utility. The Bureau further denied in part the incumbent LEC’s challenge to an abandonment clause in the JUA but concluded that the utility’s practices with respect to the clause were unjust and unreasonable.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida v. Florida Power & Light Company
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-187, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-006 (EB 2021)
The Enforcement Bureau dismissed without prejudice the remainder of a complaint filed by an incumbent LEC against an electric utility, to the extent that the complaint sought a remedy for the period after December 31, 2018.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida v. Florida Power & Light Company
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-187, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-006 (EB 2021)
The Enforcement Bureau issued an order resolving the parties’ disputes as to the proper calculation of a reduced pole attachment rate under the parties’ joint use agreement and found that the incumbent LEC was entitled to a refund of any overpayments for the period July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018.
Verizon Maryland LLC v. The Potomac Edison Company
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-355, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-009 (2020)
The Commission granted in part an incumbent LEC’s complaint against an electric utility alleging that the pole attachment rates the incumbent LEC pays the utility under the parties’ joint use agreement are unjust and unreasonable.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida v. Florida Power & Light Company
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-187, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-006 (EB 2020)
The Enforcement Bureau granted in part an amended complaint filed by an incumbent LEC against an electric utility, alleging that the rate the incumbent LEC pays to attach its facilities to the utility’s poles is excessive.
MAW Communications, Inc. v. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-29, Bureau ID No. EB-19-MD-001 (EB 2019)
The Enforcement Bureau found that an electric utility violated section 224(f) of the Act and section 1.1403(a) of the Commission’s rules by denying access to its poles and refusing to process a telecommunications and broadband internet access service provider’s pole attachment applications for reasons other than insufficient capacity, safety, reliability, or generally applicable engineering standards.
Statutory and Rule Provisions
- 47 U.S.C. § 224 - the Commission has authority to ensure the justness and reasonableness of rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments
- 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(4) - common carriers have a duty to afford competing carriers access to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way on terms consistent with section 224 of the Act
- 47 CFR §§ 1.720-1.740 - formal complaint rules
- 47 CFR §§ 1.1401-1.1415 - pole attachment complaint rules