20250917Comment_1.pdf

Outlook
Fwd: Pole Attachment Rulemaking - Fatbeam Response (Final)
From Kate Haas <[e-mail]>
Date Wed 9/17/2025 2:52 PM
To secretary <[e-mail]>
CAUTION: This email oriainated outside the State of Idaho network. Verifv links and
attachments BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender.
Contact your agency service desk with any concerns.
Please see below for comments from Danny Pate, COO for Fatbeam LLC on the pole attachment
rulemaking. Let me know if there is anything else you need for submission.
Thanks very much!
Kate
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Danny Pate <danny_pateCc�fatbeam.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:27 AM
Subject: Pole Attachment Rulemaking - Fatbeam Response (Final)
To: Kate Haas <[e-mail]>, John Foster <[e-mail]>
Cc: Paul Merritt <paul.merrittPfatbeam.com>
Kate and John—per the latest draft review, Fatbeam takes the following position as you represent us and we
appreciate the help in evaluating the details!
1. The revisions are slightly improved yet still fall short of the expectations. Under the chart categorizing
Regular, Mid and Large orders,the best scenario covers 74 days for 0-300 poles. We, along with other
broadband providers, cannot effectively manage our business under this timeframe. The Mid and Large
durations are dramatically worse in relation to duration to respond.
2. Fatbeam's requested cap is a max of 60 days to get make ready estimates. To achieve this,we are open to
moving the 14 days on the backend to cover more time needed for Make-Ready requirements.
3. Proposed Rule .004(b) allows a pole owner to deny an attacher for"the attaching entity's uncured
violations of the applicable pole attachment agreement or these rules; or(iv) failure to meet standardized
credit requirements demonstrating the financial health of an attaching entity."

An "uncured violation" is overly broad language and is ripe for abuse. When you contract with an owner,there is a
process for curing violations.The language does not account for such a process and may conflict with contracts. As
a result, it gives the pole owner sole discretion to use this as a "get out of jail free" card whenever they want. It
should be removed or modified to reflect contract terms and cure periods.
4. Proposed Rule .005 allows pole owners to extend the time period for make-ready work for "good and
sufficient cause." It then includes "permitting delays" and "pole owner capacity to process requests to
attach" as part of the definition of"good and sufficient cause." While in the context of the rule,these
exemptions should apply only to make-ready timelines AFTER a permit is obtained, both exemptions defeat
the entire purpose of the rule.They are giant loopholes-exceptions that swallow the rule.
5. We currently work with many other power companies across the State of Idaho and the west coast who
provide quicker and consistent turnaround times for the same categories in the proposal. For example:
a. 8 poles submitted to Avista this year was turned around and fully permitted in 3 weeks....not 3
months—this is the norm, not an exception.
b. 405 poles submitted to Avista this year was turned around in 87 days total
C. As an average outside of Idaho Power, all pole submissions have been returned to Fatbeam with a 42
day average in 2025.
6. It needs to be clearly stated that "attachers" need quicker approvals to determine if they are going to
accept the aerial costs and make ready or revert to an underground solution. Our business success is based
on timely market entry and ability to serve customers quickly and not be delayed 6-18 months as the past
has shown in the south Idaho area.
7. Fatbeam has invested $30M into the Boise/Meridian area this year and have the same capital available
for further expansion but if we can't get favorable rules to build and be competitive on a timely basis,we
will be forced to look at other cities or states where utility processing is more closely tied to National
averages and our needs.
a. When providers are forced to go underground, it drives a 30%increase in cost+/......this means
that for every 10K homes we build underground could have equated to 14,400 homes built to
provide gigabit speeds to all constituents closing the digital divide even quicker.
Kate Haas
Kestrel West
202.256.2613
kate@ kestrelwest.co m