20020920ICTA's Second Response.pdf

-.:;J.j9Q
ICTA ::-r VC'
'j....
. l-
::-,...,;~'
!U=D
IDAHO CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOClAllON
iun2 SET 24 Afj 8: 28
ID!\ Ii G i;.. i
UTILITiES Cor'lrHSSiOH
September 20 , 2002
CIYf!~d;)..tJ
Weldon Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities commission
472 W, Washington St
Boise 10, 83702
Subject:PUG Staff Pole Attachment Proposal
Dear Weldon:
This letter is in response to your letter of S~ptember 6, 2002 outlining
Staff's modified proposal for establishing :acable TV ,Role attachment formula.
The ICTA appreciates Staff's attempno~p~opose sor'nethingStaff believes to be a
reasonable compromise position. "However ' Staff'modified proposal is
unacceptable to the ICTA.
Under your modified proposal Idaho Power s cable pole attachment rates
would increase from $4.00 per pole per year, to $7.12 per pole: a 78% increase.
For comparison purposes, in 2001 Idaho Power proposed a general rate
increase of 45.6% for its electric customers. This request resulted
unprecedented customer complaints and contentious commission hearings.
Now , cable TV companies face an even more startling proposed rate increase for
a very significant operating cost component.
The effort being brought by Idaho Power (which Staff apparently supports)
to significantly increase cable s pole attachment fees happens to coincide with a
multi-year construction effort by cable systems to rebuild and upgrade cable
plant. This upgrade has, so far, cost ICTA member companies well over 100
million dollars. Cable TV rates are under pressure to recover this investment
and a pole attachment rate increase of this magnitude would have an adverse
impact on that recovery.
The legislature and other state agencies ha"e est~bli~h~d aggressive
pollcies to promote th~ ~eployment of brbadband,facHitre:~asfc;1JJrito~n.ir91 ldah6
as possible. Staff's proposal, however well intentioned , would pLitthe breakson
that broadband investment. With pole attachment rates almost doubling, cable
POBox 1145, Boise, Idaho 83701-1145 [phone] Fax [phone]
companies cannot continue to push plant capacity upgrades further down the
miles of poles where customer counts become fewer and fewer. Staff's proposal
that a portion of the electrical clearance space on a utility pole should
assigned to cable TV companies causes this 78% attachment rate increase.1 As
you and I both know, rate increases of much lesser amounts (like 45.6%) are
generally referred to as "rate shock" and cause significant business upheaval.
That is our point -- to emphasize how such a proposal would cause a significant
financial burden to cable TV companies.
Your letter also requested an indication of how the case can move
forward. We would request an opportunity for briefing and argument , but do not
feel a need for an evidentiary hearing. Assuming the parties are able to reach a
stipulation or factu~! issues it appears to me that the only real issue needing
Commission attention is whether any of the 40 inches of space needed for
electrical clearance should be assigned to the cable attachment. Our position is
that only 12 inches of that space is proper for assignment to cable TV, with the
remainder assigned to the electric utility. 2 This issue can be briefed and argued.
As for hearing dates, I am unavailable for hearing on the dates shown on
the attachment.
Thank you for your consideration of the above matters.
Sincerely,
'l?~ l,J~
Ronald L. Williams
1 CableONE in its comments discuss the logical flaws and inconsistencies in assigning electric
safety space to the cable companies.2 This is how the FCC has chose to assign such space, as well as virtually every other state
exercising statutory authority over cable pole attachments.