Page images
PDF
EPUB

owned utilities. With respect to local publicly owned power systems, the city council or the public utility board of the city has a decision to make, balancing local public interests in determining the price to charge for the use of these poles by CATV, or whether to allow them to use city-owned facilities at all. They are surely going to be responsive to local public opinion, both with respect to electric rates and rates for these poles.

One city may decide that this is a good source of tax revenue-it is a tax in a sense. Another may think that, no, it is in the public interest these charges be kept low and we encourage wide utilization of CATV. That is a grassroots' decision that should be left with the grassroots.

Different views of cities in the same State, different views in different States, may be held. This is not a matter on which rules should be constructed by Congress or a Federal agency to make all cities, all States conform to.

As to the formula of maximum-minimum charges set up in the bill, again I say that this flies right in the face of the principle of local determination of rates for electricity established by the Federal Power Act. This must include local determination of rates for ancillary use of these same electric facilities.

This is one matter that ought to stay with the people at home, where it is now. The CATV companies do have an opportunity for consideration, they have an agency to go to, a forum to go to with respect to publicly owned power, in the same way that users of electricity do. Their views are bound to be heard and be made known sooner or later, in either the city council or local utility board. That is the major difference we can see between investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities, in this CATV problem.

As to the cooperatives, the same is true. They speak for the owners of the property, the rural farmers. I think REA has rather encouraged these co-ops to use CATV. There is no adversary position here; it is just a question of who shall have the difficult job of determining what constitutes a fair arrangement-a local government of the Federal Government.

Senator SCHMITT. Thank you.

Any further thoughts, Mr. Athanas?

Mr. ATHANAS. If I may, I would like our general counsel to speak. Senator SCHMITT. Surely.

Mr. BROWN. Senator, we have provided you at the beginning of Mr. Athanas' testimony some proposed amendments to the pole section of the bill. Some are merely procedural, but I would like to call your attention to three that I think are rather critical on a substantative basis. The first is that the present bill doesn't say when the FCC has to take jurisdiction. If we look at the past, the States have been very reluctant to take jurisdiction. I think but seven States have taken jurisdiction over lo these many years and I believe only two have ever tried to exercise or do something with their jurisdiction in terms of rate hearings or rulemaking proceedings.

So we have suggested that there be a trigger put into the bill because this is a pressing problem for the industry, that within 6 months after the enactment of the bill, the FCC take jurisdiction in those Statesor in those areas where States have not yet acted.

Senator SCHMITT. Would you argue with 2 years?

Mr. BROWN. Yes; I would because the FCC will just wait around for 2 years.

Senator SCHMITT. But some States would not find it possible to act in 6 months.

Mr. BROWN. If the States were to act, then the FCC would relinquish their jurisdiction; that is the tenor of our amendment. In other words, a State would never be precluded from acting. If they want to do it 4 years from now, that is one, then it would move on to the States and the FCC would not have to regulate in that particular area.

Mr. ELY. Might I interrupt?

Senator SCHMITT. Surely, go ahead.

Mr. ELY. I am puzzled by some of the testimony here today, Senator Schmitt. If only six or seven or eight States have been sufficiently impressed with the magnitude of this problem to legislate on it, why should it be brought to Congress if it is not a matter of greater local concern than that?

Senator SCHMITT. That is a good suggestion. Can you make your other two points quickly because in about 7 minutes, I have to leave? Mr. BROWN. It is a national pressing policy to the cable industry who have to use the monopoly-owned set of poles nationwide, and we cannot bargain for our rates; they are dictated to use, so it is a national problem.

The other two points were that we believe that all the utilities should give access to the CATV companies, access to the poles, not only should the rates be regulated, but access should not be denied.

There are many parts of the United States that do not receive cable television services and, in fact, television services because you cannot get on the poles. And the FCC has taken care of that problem with respect to the Bell companies, but they have not with respect to the independent telephone companies, and with respect to the electric utility companies.

So we would like a section of the bill to provide mandatory access at whatever the reasonable rate is.

And the third suggestion we have for the bill is that there should be some review process provided. After all, this is Federal legislation, and if there is a State determination and it is adverse to either one of the parties, where do they go?

I believe it should be to the Federal courts, to the U.S. court of appeals for the district. But as it stands now, there is no review process. We are going to have a patchwork of different kinds of determinations all over the country with no review process built into it.

Thank you.

Senator SCHMITT. Thank you.

And thank you, gentlemen. Your testimony has been most helpful, combined with the testimony yesterday, I think we are reaching a point that we can put together a bill, if a bill is required, that will serve the public interest. I certainly hope so and that will be my aim as we mark up this particular piece of legislation.

We will be submitting questions to you for further comment, and appreciate your answers in as prompt a way as possible, particularly the question about a summary of State activities, that would be very helpful.

Thank you, gentlemen.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

ww

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS

EDWARD F. SPEAR,

Vice President, Delmarva Power & Light Co.,
Wilmington, Del.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., June 16, 1977.

DEAR ED: Thank you for your letter concerning legislative proposals to regulate CATV pole attachments.

Since this legislation is presently pending before a Committee in the House of Representatives, I would not have an opportunity to consider it until it is forwarded to the Senate. If that occurs, I will certainly weigh your recommendations and comments in determining how to vote. In the meantime, however, I am forwarding a copy of your letter to the Subcommittee on Communications so that its members will be aware of your views and those of Delmarva Power and Light.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr.

DELMARVA POWER,

Wilmington, Del., June 10, 1977.

Hon. WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr.,

U.S. Senator, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ROTH: There is currently a draft bill in the House Subcommittee on Communications relating to proposed legislation on the federal regulation of CATV pole attachments.

Delmarva Power & Light Company is very concerned about this proposed legislation in that it is attempting to regulate the segment of our business which currently is being handled on an equitable and business-like basis. We presently have pole attachment agreements with privately-owned CATV companies in several areas in our service territory. These agreements for attachments to our poles were negotiated between the CATV companies and ourselves. The parties to these agreements were satisfied as to the justice and fairness of such an agreement.

These matters are currently being effectively handled by private business and we cannot see any merit, or any public interest being served, by introducing government bureaucratic regulatory processes into this matter.

Delmarva Power is a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a nationwide organization of investor-owned electric utility companies. Through our EEI association, we have received the attached correspondence which currently delineates the proposed draft bill and the concern which we and our industry have on this proposal.

We would appreciate your support in defeating this unnecessary legislation, since the benefits of such legislation would only accrue to the owners of the CATV company and certainly are not in the public interest.

Sincerely,

To Chief Executive, Member Company.
Subject: CATV proposed legislation.

ED. SPEAR.

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE,
New York, N.Y., April 19, 1977.

Enclosed for your information are: (1) a copy of a letter to Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Communications, from Paul Rodgers, General Counsel of NARUC, and Robert Schmidt, representing the National Cable Television Association; (2) a copy of proposed legislation to regulate CATV pole attachments; and (3) the Institute's comments on the proposed legislation.

(209).

We anticipate that a bill will be introduced by Congressman Van Deerlin to regulate CATV attachments. If a hearing is scheduled, we except to testify in opposition to any proposal that would place such attachments under federal regulation.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN,

W. DONHAM CRAWFORD, President.

MARCH 7, 1977.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At your urging the National Cable Television Association and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners have sought an agreement on legislation for the regulation of cable television pole attachments.

We are pleased to report to you that our discussions have been highly productive and that during the month of February, both NCTA and NARUC have formally approved the attached draft of a bill to regulate pole attachments. From the cable television perspective it provides a forum at either the federal or state level to adjudicate the reasonableness of pole attachment rates and practices. Of importance to NARUC, the proposed legislation permits state regulation of the subject matter without resort to, or review by, the FCC. In order to assure some degree of national uniformity in this regulation, the legislation provides a statutory standard for determining the appropriate allocation of costs to pole attachments. In our considered opinion, the legislation is fair and will promote the public interest. We, therefore, request that it be introduced and favorably considered by the House Subcommittee on Communications at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

REGULATION OF POLE ATTACHMENTS

ROBERT L. SCHMIDT.

SECTION 1. Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"REGULATION OF POLE ATTACHMENTS

"SEC. 224. (a) As used in this section:

"(1) The term 'utility' means any person who provides telephone service or electric energy to the public and who owns or controls poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way used, in whole or in part, for wire communication. Such term does not include any person owned by the Federal Government.

"(2) The term 'Federal Government' means the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.

"(3) The term 'pole attachment' means any attachment for wire communication on a pole, duct, conduit, or other right-of-way owned or controlled by a utility.

"(b) The Commission shall regulate the rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments in any case where the same are not regulated by any State authority. A just and reasonable rate, whether prescribed by the Commission or State Authority, shall assure the utility the recovery of not less than the additional costs of providing pole attachments nor more than the actual capital and operating expenses of the utility attributable to that portion of the pole, duct or conduit used by the pole attachment. Such portion shall be the percentage of the total usable space on a pole (i.e., the space above the minimum grade level that can be used for the attachment of wires and cables), or the total capacity of duct or conduit, that is occupied by the pole attachment."

Dr. KAREN POSSNER,

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE,
New York, N.Y., April 14, 1977.

Subcommittee on Communications, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DR. POSSNER: Chairman Van Deerlin's letter of March 10 requested comments from the electric utility industry on proposed legislation (Draft Bill) con

« PreviousContinue »