STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re: Implementation of Section 224 of the Act, WC Docket No. 07-245, A National Broadband 
Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51
Re: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment:  Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of 
Broadband Deployment by Improving the Policies Regarding Public Rights of Way and 
Wireless Facilities Siting, WC Docket No. 11- 59
While not the most exciting of issues, the Commission’s pole attachment rules are 
nonetheless critical to our nation’s broadband deployment effort.  I, therefore, commend the 
Chairman for re-opening the pole attachment debate last spring and following through with some 
concrete decisions.
Our action today will help promote continued broadband deployment throughout our 
country.1 Our guidance regarding so-called “make ready work” will provide more certainty, help 
streamline the process and ultimately speed new entrants’ efforts to deploy broadband.  Also, the 
Commission’s use of its authority under Section 224 of the Act to adopt a new 
telecommunications pole rental rate formula - generally lowering the attachment rate to the 
current “cable rate” - will more effectively encourage competition in broadband deployment.  
In concept, I would have liked to have seen a similar move to parity in regard to pole 
attachment rental rates for ILECS.  But I understand that not all of the ILECS may be similarly 
situated vis-à-vis their competitors, because the ILECs are also pole owners and may enjoy 
certain benefits due to their joint use agreements with the utilities.  On the other hand, this order 
still does provide some relief to ILECs and their customers, where appropriate.  Pursuant to our 
action today, the ILECs will now have an opportunity to file complaints with the FCC and argue 
why the rates, terms or conditions in their agreements with the utilities are not just and 
reasonable, as allowed by Section 224.         
Regarding a related matter before us today, I hope the Notice of Inquiry on public rights 
of way solicits useful information that can assist the FCC’s continued efforts to encourage 
broadband deployment.  I caution, however, that the FCC should be mindful of its limitations and 
only use this information in areas where it has jurisdiction.  
In sum, I commend all of the staff who worked so diligently on all of these infrastructure 
issues and look forward to working with my colleagues as we learn from the various stakeholders 
who file in response to the notice. 
  
1  The nationwide effect of this order is limited. For example, the Commission can only exert jurisdiction 
over pole attachment issues in areas where these access issues are not regulated by a state.  See 47 U.S.C. § 
224(c).  Also, pole attachment arrangements that involve cooperatives are not under our jurisdiction.  See
47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1).  Nevertheless, each incremental move will make a difference in America’s broadband 
deployment numbers.