The rulebook that governs your pole, in writing and dated.

Cooperative poles

Yes, under Code 56-466.1, strengthened for cooperatives effective 2024-07-01

Municipal poles

Unclear, flagged as an open question

Rate standard

State just and reasonable cost standard set by the SCC, not the FCC formula

Where a dispute goes

Virginia State Corporation Commission, not the FCC. The Commission's rate setting power is gated: subsection H bars it from determining rates or terms and conditions for an existing agreement until that agreement expires or is terminated under its own terms, and the terms of an expired or terminated agreement continue to govern while negotiation or Commission review is pending

Confidence

High confidence on the statute, forum, timelines and non-certification; Provisional on the cooperative mechanism and municipal treatment

AuthoritiesVa. Code 56-466.1Va. Code 56-466.1(B) to (H)

Cooperative poles

Yes, under G.S. 62-350, which names electric membership corporations

Municipal poles

Yes, under G.S. 62-350, which names municipalities directly

Rate standard

State just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard set by the NCUC case by case, with no codified formula

Where a dispute goes

North Carolina Utilities Commission, which holds exclusive jurisdiction after a 90 day negotiation window

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, cooperative and municipal coverage, forum and the core timelines; Good confidence on the 2015 amendment history; Indicative only on the FCC formula used as a benchmark in practice

AuthoritiesN.C. G.S. 62-350

Cooperative poles

Yes, under Utilities Code Chapter 253, effective 2021-09-01, but with no state agency enforcement

Municipal poles

Yes. Utilities Code 54.204(b) bars a municipality or municipally owned utility from discriminating for or against a certificated telecommunications provider on attachment rates or terms, and 54.204(c) bars it from charging any entity, whatever services that entity provides, more than the fee permitted under FCC rules adopted under 47 U.S.C. 224(e), and requires a single uniform rate to unaffiliated entities. Chapter 253 itself does not reach municipal poles. Local Government Code 284.201 remains a separate small cell network node access rule

Rate standard

For cooperative poles, a state just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory five factor standard with cost based nonrecurring charges, no FCC formula and no cap. For municipal poles, a statutory ceiling set by Utilities Code 54.204(c) at the fee permitted under FCC rules adopted under 47 U.S.C. 224(e), with the contract setting the actual rate below it. Investor owned poles are federal

Where a dispute goes

Texas district court for cooperative disputes, not the PUC, after a 90 day negotiation and a mediation. For municipal poles the Public Utility Commission has enforcement jurisdiction under Utilities Code 54.204(d), and a violation is also enforceable as breach of contract in district court where the agreement carries a compliance with laws clause. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, cooperative coverage, the rate standard, cost causation, forum and timelines, and on the municipal regime at Utilities Code 54.204(b), (c) and (d) and the Supreme Court of Texas holding that applies it; Provisional only on how the commission and the district courts will apply the municipal ceiling on remand

AuthoritiesTex. Util. Code ch. 253Tex. Util. Code 253.0004(a)Tex. Util. Code 54.204Tex. Local Gov't Code 284.201Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC v. City of San Antonio, No. 24-0794 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026)

Cooperative poles

Yes, for electric membership corporations under O.C.G.A. 46-3-200.4, effective 2021-01-01

Municipal poles

No rate regime, and the reason is constitutional rather than a gap the legislature left. Ga. Const. art. III, sec. VI, para. V(d) bars the General Assembly from regulating or fixing the charges of a county or municipally owned utility, and O.C.G.A. 46-3-15 names that paragraph in terms. A silence the next legislature could fill; a constitutional bar it could not. Municipal electric systems are not wholly outside the Commission, though. O.C.G.A. 46-3-12 subjects them to its authority in the same manner as electric light and power companies, with rates, charges and service rules filed with the Commission and subject to O.C.G.A. 46-3-11, but expressly not fixed by it. Whether that filing and nondiscrimination duty reaches an attacher, as distinct from an electric customer, is unlitigated and is recorded here as open

Rate standard

The Georgia PSC sets the rate for electric membership corporations under a just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and commercially reasonable standard, on a published schedule

Where a dispute goes

Georgia Public Service Commission for electric membership corporations, with expedited adjudication. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC

Confidence

High confidence on the statute, PSC jurisdiction, the rate setting mechanism, the EMC only scope, the constitutional municipal bar and the O.C.G.A. 46-3-12 filing duty; Provisional on the published rate figures and on non-certification; open and untested on whether the 46-3-12 filing duty and the 46-3-11 nondiscrimination duty reach an attacher, and O.C.G.A. 46-3-11 has not itself been read

AuthoritiesO.C.G.A. 46-3-200.4O.C.G.A. 46-3-12O.C.G.A. 46-3-15Ga. Const. art. III, sec. VI, para. V(d)233 Ga. 759, 213 S.E.2d 596 (1975)Ga. PSC Docket 43453

Cooperative poles

Conditionally. Fla. Stat. 364.391 places a cooperative's poles under PSC jurisdiction when it provides broadband or accepts broadband funding. A cooperative that does neither stays unregulated

Municipal poles

No. Municipalities are excluded from public utility status and sit outside Section 224

Rate standard

The Florida PSC applies the FCC decisions and orders unless a party proves an alternative cost based rate that is just and reasonable

Where a dispute goes

Florida Public Service Commission, not the FCC, because Florida is certified

Confidence

High confidence on the pole attachment statute, PSC jurisdiction, the apply the FCC rules standard and conditional cooperative coverage; Good confidence on the certification itself; Provisional on the municipal gap

AuthoritiesFla. Stat. 366.04(8)Fla. Stat. 364.391FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Yes, under the Broadband Accessibility Act, S.C. Code 58-9-3030, with PSC jurisdiction carried in by 33-49-150. Read the operative duty rather than the definitions: every duty in 58-9-3030 runs to an electric cooperative as defined at 58-9-3010(10), and the broader electric provider term at 58-9-3010(11), which sweeps in investor owned utilities and the state owned Public Service Authority, is never used in the access duty at all

Municipal poles

No for city electric systems, which sit outside both the statute and Section 224. The state owned Public Service Authority is a different case and not a second No. S.C. Code 58-31-230(F) puts a conditional parity duty on it: the duty switches on only if the Authority first determines, in its sole discretion, to provide access to some communications service provider, access remains subject to the Authority's own terms and conditions, denial is preserved for insufficient capacity, safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering principles, and leasing of excess fiber capacity is carved out entirely. There is no rate standard, no just and reasonable requirement, no formula and no timeline in it

Rate standard

State just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard with no codified formula and no cap. S.C. Code 58-9-3030 sets a standard and nothing more, and its only federal cross reference is procedural, adopting the make ready timelines at 47 C.F.R. 1.1411 as that rule stood on 2020-09-15

Where a dispute goes

South Carolina Public Service Commission for cooperatives, with an interim rate in 30 days and a final rate in 180 days, retroactive to the written request. For the state owned Public Service Authority the forum is the Administrative Law Court, which S.C. Code 58-31-230(G) gives authority and jurisdiction to enforce compliance with that section, not the Commission and not a court of general jurisdiction. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification by statutory self-disclaimer, cooperative coverage, the PSC forum with its 30 and 180 day clocks and retroactivity, the Administrative Law Court forum for the Public Service Authority, the conditional character of the 58-31-230(F) parity duty, and the absence of any rate formula in 58-9-3030; Provisional on the general municipal conclusion, which rests on the absence of a covering statute plus the Section 224 municipal exemption rather than on a statute reaching city systems

AuthoritiesS.C. Code 58-9-3030S.C. Code 58-9-3010(10)S.C. Code 58-9-3010(11)S.C. Code 33-49-150S.C. Code 58-31-230(F)S.C. Code 58-31-230(G)S.C. Code 58-31-230(H)(2)47 C.F.R. 1.1411

Cooperative poles

Narrow parity only, under Ala. Code 37-16-4(c), and only where the provider offers its own broadband. TVA distributor cooperatives are excluded

Municipal poles

The same narrow parity duty reaches non-TVA municipal providers that offer broadband. Otherwise contract and ordinance only

Rate standard

Parity only. The owner must apply the same rate methodology and access terms it uses for its own broadband. No formula and no cap

Where a dispute goes

No state agency forum for cooperative or municipal poles, so court and contract. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, the parity statute and its TVA distributor exclusion, and the no state forum finding; Provisional on the investor owned exclusion scope and the private enforcement path

AuthoritiesAla. Code 37-16-4(c)Ala. Code 37-16-3

Cooperative poles

Yes, and on the same footing as investor owned utilities, because KRS 279.210(1) makes cooperatives full PSC jurisdictional utilities. Five TVA supplied cooperatives sit outside PSC practice

Municipal poles

No. Cities are excluded from utility status by KRS 278.010(3), and municipal poles sit outside Section 224

Rate standard

A Kentucky formula, not the FCC formula. The methodology is Administrative Case No. 251, which expressly refused the FCC method

Where a dispute goes

Kentucky Public Service Commission for every jurisdictional owner, cooperative and investor owned alike, not the FCC, because Kentucky is certified

Confidence

High confidence on certification, the regulation and every state timeline, cooperative coverage, the municipal exclusion and the 1982 methodology; Good confidence on the TVA exclusion mechanism; Provisional on the municipal conclusion and the open TVA jurisdiction question

Authorities807 KAR 5:015KRS 279.210(1)KRS 278.010(3)Ky. PSC Admin. Case No. 251

Cooperative poles

No, and regulated by nobody. Exempt from Section 224 as cooperatively organized, and exempt from the PSC by RSMo 394.160

Municipal poles

Yes, and this is the only class Missouri regulates, under RSMo 67.5104, effective 2014-08-28, subject to four carve-outs

Rate standard

Municipal rates are capped at the FCC cable formula, with a Missouri only override where Article X of the state constitution requires it. Cooperative poles carry no standard at all

Where a dispute goes

Any Missouri court of competent jurisdiction for municipal disputes, expedited by statute. Not the PSC, which RSMo 67.5104.5 strips of jurisdiction

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, the statutory strip of PSC jurisdiction, the cooperative exemption, the municipal statute and all four carve-outs, the rate ceiling and the court forum; Good confidence on the BEAD condition

AuthoritiesRSMo 67.5104RSMo 67.5104.5RSMo 394.160

Cooperative poles

Conditionally, and the condition is a member vote. Cooperatives are public utilities by default under K.S.A. 66-104(a) and become exempt only by a deregulation election under K.S.A. 66-104d

Municipal poles

No. K.S.A. 66-104(b) and (c) place municipal utilities outside the act, and they sit outside Section 224

Rate standard

No Kansas rate methodology exists for pole attachments. A cooperative that has not deregulated is held only to the general standard that a charge not be unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory

Where a dispute goes

Kansas Corporation Commission for a cooperative that has not deregulated, by formal complaint open to any person. District court otherwise. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, the cooperative default jurisdiction and the exemption mechanism, the municipal exclusions and the complaint grounds; Provisional on the negative findings proved by absence. The Commission route is High confidence as text and untested as applied

AuthoritiesK.S.A. 66-104(a)K.S.A. 66-104dK.A.R. 82-1-220(a)

Cooperative poles

Conditionally, and the condition is a fact about the cooperative. The rate and access duties in C.R.S. 40-15-604(2) reach only an electric utility that has a broadband affiliate

Municipal poles

Yes, and from a different title. C.R.S. 38-5.5-108 caps municipal and local government pole charges in a right of way at the federal formula and bans in kind payment outright

Rate standard

No Colorado formula. A cooperative with a broadband affiliate owes just and reasonable fees apportioned by usable space. A municipality in a right of way is capped at the federal number

Where a dispute goes

Any Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. Part 6 names no agency and does not mention the PUC. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification proved two independent ways, the Part 6 duty structure and its broadband affiliate condition, the court only forum, and the municipal ceiling and in kind ban; Good confidence on utility counts; Provisional on the exemption mechanics

AuthoritiesC.R.S. 40-15-604C.R.S. 40-15-604(8)(b)C.R.S. 38-5.5-108

Cooperative poles

Yes, fully, and the Revised Statutes read the other way. La. R.S. 45:1163 appears to let a cooperative exempt itself, but Cajun Electric Power Cooperative v. LPSC (La. 1989) held the constitutional grant plenary and that statute unconstitutional insofar as it permits the exemption. La. R.S. 12:430.1 separately binds cooperatives to the Commission's pole order by name

Municipal poles

No, and Louisiana inverts the usual pattern. Municipal and parish systems are the unregulated class, outside the Commission by the state constitution and outside Section 224. Roughly twenty one systems, contract and ordinance only

Rate standard

Not established. Louisiana is certified, so the FCC cable and telecom formulas do not govern a Louisiana pole and must not be used to benchmark one. The operative Commission general order in Docket R-26968 could not be obtained, so no Louisiana rate methodology, ceiling or state clock is established here

Where a dispute goes

Louisiana Public Service Commission for every private owner including cooperatives, never the FCC, because Louisiana is certified. Municipal and parish poles go to district court on the contract

Confidence

High confidence on certification, cooperative regulation and the constitutional holding behind it, the municipal exclusion and the La. R.S. 12:430.1 duties; Good confidence on the 1978 certification date and the utility counts; the rate methodology, any rate ceiling and every state timeline are not established, because the operative Commission general order could not be retrieved and is not published

AuthoritiesLa. R.S. 12:430.1La. R.S. 45:1163La. R.S. 45:121Cajun Electric Power Coop. v. LPSC, 544 So. 2d 362 (La. 1989)FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Access yes, rate no. Miss. Code Ann. 77-5-235(4) gives an attacher a real state law right of access to electric power association poles, and denial is permitted only for insufficient capacity or safety and reliability and only where the attacher will not resolve the issue. The rate is set by the association's own board and is not regulated

Municipal poles

No. Roughly twenty five municipal systems sit outside Section 224, outside the Electric Power Associations Act and outside Commission rate jurisdiction. Contract and ordinance only, with no Mississippi rate ceiling of any kind

Rate standard

No Mississippi rate standard exists for any owner class. Investor owned poles run on the FCC formulas. Association rates are board set with no formula, no ceiling and no reasonableness standard, disciplined only by an affiliate fee parity rule where the association has a broadband affiliate

Where a dispute goes

The FCC for investor owned electric and telephone poles, because Mississippi has not certified and its Commission has issued no attachment rule. For association poles the forum is not established: the statute preserves prior Commission jurisdiction only if any existed, and none has been demonstrated

Confidence

High confidence on non certification proved two independent ways, the whole of the attachment section including the access duty and the savings clause, the width of the Commission carve outs, the affiliate parity rule, the municipal exclusions, and the total absence of any Commission attachment rule proved by reading the rules; Good confidence on the federal entity footprint; Provisional on the statutory character of the Commission and on the distinction of the leading case from the attachment question

AuthoritiesMiss. Code Ann. 77-5-235Miss. Code Ann. 77-3-5Miss. Code Ann. 77-17-5Miss. Code Ann. 77-5-259FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

No. Cooperatives are excluded from public utility status by 220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(3) and sit outside Section 224, so no Commission rate or access duty reaches a cooperative pole. Contract, and a circuit court

Municipal poles

No. Municipal systems are excluded from Illinois Commerce Commission jurisdiction by 220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(1) and sit outside Section 224. Whether any Illinois rate ceiling or access duty reaches them was not established in this pass

Rate standard

A presumptive Illinois formula at 83 Ill. Adm. Code 315.20, which is presumptive rather than a ceiling and reaches cable television attachers only. No Illinois rate standard of any kind applies to a telecommunications attacher, to a cooperative pole or to a municipal pole

Where a dispute goes

It splits by attacher and by owner. The Illinois Commerce Commission for a cable television attacher on a Commission jurisdictional pole. The FCC for a telecommunications attacher on an investor owned electric pole, because the state certification does not reach telecommunications attachments to electric utility poles. No commission at all for a cooperative or municipal pole

Confidence

High confidence on certification and on the limit of that certification, on the cooperative and municipal exclusions, on the Part 315 cable formula and on the finding that Illinois has no wireline make ready timeline of any kind; Provisional on the municipal negatives proved by absence and on the practical forum characterisation. No Illinois limitation period or filing deadline was sourced and none is stated here

Authorities220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(1)220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(3)220 ILCS 5/7-10283 Ill. Adm. Code 315.2047 U.S.C. 224FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 19-640

Cooperative poles

Yes. IC 8-1-2-5.5 names cooperative pole owners, and Kankakee Valley holds that Commission jurisdiction over a pole dispute survives a cooperative's withdrawal election under IC 8-1-13-18.5

Municipal poles

Yes. IC 8-1-2-5 reaches every municipality and IC 8-1-2-5.5(e)(3) names a municipality providing electric service as a pole owner. Municipal poles sit outside Section 224

Rate standard

Two regimes. Investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles run on the FCC formulas, and IC 8-1-2-5(b) adds only a bare reasonableness standard with no formula, no ceiling and no presumption. For a cooperative or municipal pole with a cable operator attacher, IC 8-1-2-5.5(i) sets a safe harbour that is a ceiling and a presumption rather than a mandatory rate

Where a dispute goes

The FCC for investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for cooperative and municipal poles, with judicial review under IC 8-1-3

Confidence

High confidence on non certification, on both state regimes, on every forum, and on the findings that Indiana sets no attacher limitation period, no Commission decision clock and no make ready timeline of general application; Provisional on carrying the Kankakee Valley reasoning across to the municipal withdrawal statutes and on utility counts. No Indiana deadline or timeline is stated here

AuthoritiesIC 8-1-2-5IC 8-1-2-5.5IC 8-1-13-18.5IC 8-1-347 U.S.C. 224FCC DA 22-630Kankakee Valley Rural Electric Membership Corporation v. United Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc., No. 93A02-0505-EX-463 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2006)

Cooperative poles

No. The Ohio regime reaches only an electric light company that is a public utility, and ORC 4905.02(A) excludes a member owned not for profit utility, so cooperative poles sit outside both the state rule and Section 224. Contract only, and the exclusion is unconfirmed by case law or commission practice

Municipal poles

No. ORC 4905.02(A)(3) excludes a utility owned or operated by a municipal corporation, and municipal poles sit outside Section 224. Contract and ordinance only

Rate standard

The FCC cable formula, applied by the Commission through a filed tariff under OAC 4901:1-3-04(D)(2) with the federal presumptions and a mandatory deduction of excess accumulated deferred income tax. The filed rate figures themselves are not established well enough to publish

Where a dispute goes

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, by complaint under ORC 4905.26 or ORC 4927.21, because Ohio is certified. For a cooperative or municipal pole, no commission and no FCC

Confidence

High confidence on certification proved two independent ways, on the tariff and formula mechanism, on the Commission complaint forum, and on the cooperative and municipal exclusions as statutory and regulatory text; Provisional on the filed rate figures, which are deliberately not published, and on system counts. The exclusions are unconfirmed by case law or commission practice, and no Ohio limitation period was found

AuthoritiesORC 4905.71ORC 4905.02(A)ORC 4905.26OAC 4901:1-3-04OAC 4901:1-3-0547 U.S.C. 224(c)(2)47 CFR 1.1406FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Distribution cooperatives are subject to New Mexico Public Regulation Commission jurisdiction, written into the Public Utility Act by name with no opt out. Generation and transmission cooperatives are carved out

Municipal poles

Municipal systems are not Commission rate regulated and sit outside Section 224. Contract only

Rate standard

There is no New Mexico pole attachment rate standard of any kind: no formula, no ceiling, no presumptive rate, no filed tariff duty and no adoption of the FCC formula by reference. A distribution cooperative is held only to the general standard that a charge not be unfair, unreasonable, unjust or inadequate

Where a dispute goes

The FCC for investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles. The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission for a distribution cooperative, by complaint under NMSA 1978, Section 62-10-1, and the Commission may proceed only where it finds probable cause. District court on the contract for a generation and transmission cooperative and for a municipal or H class county system. Tribal jurisdiction is unresolved

Confidence

High confidence on non certification proved by reading the list in full, on cooperative jurisdiction as statutory text, on the municipal position and on the total absence of any state rate standard; Provisional on how that jurisdiction would apply to a pole attachment, which no located New Mexico statute, rule or order has yet done in either direction. No New Mexico limitation period, make ready timeline or decision clock exists and none is stated here

AuthoritiesNMSA 1978, Section 62-3-3(D)NMSA 1978, Section 62-6-4(A)NMSA 1978, Section 62-10-11.2.2.9 NMAC47 U.S.C. 224(c)47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579

Cooperative poles

Cooperative poles sit outside state utility regulation and outside Section 224. Where the cooperative sells broadband, Tenn. Code Ann. 65-25-134 adds a nondiscriminatory access duty, a self imputation rule and a chancery court remedy. A cooperative distributing Tennessee Valley Authority power charges a TVA approved fully allocated cost rate under its wholesale power contract, which is not a rate cap and does not displace the agreement

Municipal poles

Municipal systems are excluded from public utility status and sit outside Section 224, and City of Memphis v. Gilliland held that Section 224(f)(1) is not mandatory on a municipal system. The chapter 52 parity, imputation and remedy provisions run to a franchisee under chapter 59 rather than to attachers generally, and that reading is less firmly established than the rest of this row

Rate standard

For a municipal or cooperative local power company distributing Tennessee Valley Authority power, the TVA fully allocated cost formula, being space allocation times net cost of a bare pole times carrying cost. Investor owned poles run on the FCC cable and telecom formulas

Where a dispute goes

The FCC under Subpart J for investor owned poles. Chancery court in the two statutory cases. Otherwise contract only, in a Tennessee court, with no agency, no commission and no FCC

Confidence

High confidence on non certification, on the cooperative position and the TVA rate mechanism, and on the forum conclusions that rest on Tenn. Code Ann. 65-25-134(h) and on the absence of any Tennessee pole attachment rule; Provisional on the municipal row, including the chapter 52 provisions. Tennessee has no state make ready timeline, no self help right and no application processing deadline, no limitation period was researched, and no Tennessee deadline is stated here

AuthoritiesTenn. Code Ann. 65-4-101(6)(A)Tenn. Code Ann. 65-25-134Tenn. Code Ann. 7-52-60916 U.S.C. 831i47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)TVA, Determination on Regulation of Pole Attachments (February 2016)City of Memphis v. Tandy J. Gilliland Family LLC, No. W2014-02472-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2015)FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Yes, as owners, and this inverts the usual pattern. Cooperatives are electric companies under Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 1-101(i)(1) and therefore public service companies whose retail rates the Public Service Commission sets. Maryland has no pole attachment rule, so that jurisdiction has never been pointed at a pole attachment charge

Municipal poles

Yes, as owners, on the same footing as cooperatives. The Commission decides municipal electric base rate cases to final order. The same caveat applies: Maryland has no pole attachment rule

Rate standard

No Maryland rate standard exists for a pole attachment. On investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles the FCC cable and telecommunications formulas apply as ceilings, because Maryland has not certified. On cooperative and municipal poles the attachment agreement governs. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 4-201 ties the just and reasonable duty to regulated services and no Maryland order applies it to an attachment

Where a dispute goes

Splits in two, and completely. Investor owned electric and Verizon Maryland go to the FCC. Cooperative and municipal poles go to the Maryland Public Service Commission by written complaint under Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 3-102(a)(1), which any person may file but which requires naming a violated provision rather than calling a charge unreasonable, and which is untested on attachments. Maryland sets no make ready, survey, transfer, red tag or cost causation timeline of any kind

Confidence

High confidence on non certification proved three ways, on the Public Utilities Article definitions and on sections 2-113, 3-102, 4-201, 4-202 and 7-502, on the Commission rate case dockets for both cooperatives and municipals, on Order No. 91601 and the 2016 Staff report read in full, and on the COMAR chapter indexes; Provisional on the BEAD figures, the utility counts, the federal entity negative and the appellate negatives. Whether a pole attachment charge falls inside the Commission's jurisdiction at all is the central Maryland open question, and no Maryland rate figure is stated here

AuthoritiesMd. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 1-101Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 2-113Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 3-102Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 4-201Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 4-202Md. Code Ann., Pub. Util. 7-502COMAR 20.07.01.04Maryland PSC Order No. 91601, Administrative Docket PC 38FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579

Cooperative poles

Yes, on identical terms to investor owned poles. ORS 757.276 reaches consumer-owned utilities and ORS 757.270(2) defines that term to include an electric cooperative organized under ORS chapter 62. There is no opt out and no broadband affiliate condition

Municipal poles

Yes, under the same section and on the same terms. ORS 757.270(2) names a people's utility district organized under ORS chapter 261 and a municipal utility organized under ORS chapter 225, so Oregon reaches municipal poles on the same footing as investor owned poles

Rate standard

A distinct Oregon formula rather than either FCC formula. OAR 860-028-0110(2) sets the rental rate per foot as pole cost times carrying charge divided by usable space, and the rate per pole as the rate per foot times the licensee's authorized attachment space. ORS 757.282(1) bounds a just and reasonable rate between an incremental cost floor and a fully allocated cost ceiling. ORS 757.285 presumes a negotiated agreement just, fair and reasonable unless the Commission finds it both adverse to the public interest and non compliant, a conjunctive test that is the main brake on a complaint

Where a dispute goes

The Oregon Public Utility Commission for every non federal owner class, with no split, under ORS 757.279 and OAR chapter 860 division 28. Before a complaint may be filed, one party must request negotiations in writing and ninety calendar days must pass from the other party's receipt of that request. Where an order applies to a consumer-owned utility, ORS 757.279(2) requires the order to allocate the cost of the hearing among the parties, so the cooperative and municipal remedy is real but not free. The Bonneville Power Administration sits outside both the federal and the Oregon regime

Confidence

High confidence on certification, on all ten sections of ORS 757.270 to 757.290 read section by section, on ORS 759.650, and on OAR 860-028-0000, 0020, 0070, 0100, 0110, 0115 and 0195 read in full; Provisional on BEAD, the utility counts, the federal entity, the Commission docket negatives and the champerty and engineering flags. Every administrative rule text was read from a mirror at a June 2025 register stamp, and a September 2024 stamp for OAR 860-028-0110, because the Oregon Secretary of State rules database returns an empty body to an unauthenticated fetch. No Oregon attacher limitation period was located and none is stated here

AuthoritiesORS 757.270ORS 757.272ORS 757.273ORS 757.276ORS 757.279ORS 757.282ORS 757.285ORS 757.287ORS 759.650OAR 860-028-0020OAR 860-028-0070OAR 860-028-0100OAR 860-028-0110OAR 860-028-0195FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Yes, by express statutory words, and this is the headline Arkansas finding. Ark. Code Ann. 23-4-1001(2)(A) writes an electric cooperative into the definition of public utility for the pole attachment subchapter, so cooperative poles sit inside the same rules, the same formula and the same forum as investor owned poles. It is unconditional: no broadband trigger, no BEAD trigger and no per cooperative intake fact

Municipal poles

No, excluded by name. Ark. Code Ann. 23-4-1001(2)(B) provides that public utility does not mean a municipal electric utility, and municipal poles sit outside 47 U.S.C. 224 as well, because that section excludes a person owned by any State. Contract and ordinance only. Ark. Code Ann. 14-54-701(a)(3) permits but does not require a municipality to allow attachments

Rate standard

A distinct Arkansas formula, neither FCC formula, applied as a ceiling on a default only. Under Appendix A to the Commission's Pole Attachment Rules the maximum per pole rate is the space factor times the net cost of a bare pole times the carrying charge rate, and the space factor allocates occupied space plus two thirds of unusable space divided by the number of attachers including the owner. The return element of the carrying charge rate is fixed at 8.00 percent by rule rather than tracking the owner's authorized return. Every presumption is rebuttable by the attaching entity, and the number of attachers is the largest recurring lever. PAR 1.05 preserves any lawful negotiated rate, which is the main brake

Where a dispute goes

The Arkansas Public Service Commission for investor owned electric, investor owned telephone and electric cooperative poles alike, not the FCC, after a mandatory good faith informal resolution attempt that carries no fixed day count. Each party must supply publicly available data within thirty days of the other's request. Municipal poles go to court or to the city's own process, and federal owners have no forum at all. The Commission's own 180 day resolution clock, extendable to 360 days for good cause, is a decision deadline and is not an attacher filing deadline

Confidence

High confidence on certification, on Ark. Code Ann. 23-4-1001 to 23-4-1004 read directly, and on the entire Pole Attachment Rules including Appendix A read in full; Good confidence on the Commission's own electric utilities page; Provisional on Ark. Code Ann. 23-4-1005 and 23-4-1006, on the constitutional and case law legs of the municipal exclusion check, on the BEAD figures, on the utility counts and on the whole federal entity analysis. No Arkansas attacher limitation period exists anywhere and none is stated here

AuthoritiesArk. Code Ann. 23-4-1001Ark. Code Ann. 23-4-1002Ark. Code Ann. 23-4-1003Ark. Code Ann. 23-4-1004Ark. Code Ann. 14-54-701126.03.17 Ark. Code R. 00147 CFR 1.1405(f)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579

Cooperative poles

No, but not unqualified, and the qualifications matter more than the exemption. Minn. Stat. 216B.02, subdivision 4 excludes a cooperative electric association organized under chapter 308A, and 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) independently excludes a cooperatively organized owner, so a cooperative pole is contract only. But Minn. Stat. 216B.026 lets a cooperative elect full rate regulation by member ballot and at least one has, so election status is a fact to confirm for each cooperative and never to assume. Minn. Stat. 216B.17, subdivision 6a separately makes cooperatives public utilities for that section with respect to service standards and practices only, which has never been tested against pole attachment terms

Municipal poles

No, and the asymmetry against cooperatives is decisive. Minn. Stat. 216B.02, subdivision 4 excludes a municipality and 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) excludes a person owned by a State. Minn. Stat. 216B.025 lets a municipality elect regulation only under Minn. Stat. 216B.10 and 216B.11, which are accounting and depreciation, so a Minnesota municipal electric utility has no route to Commission rate regulation at all

Rate standard

None for a wireline attachment on any owner class. On investor owned electric and telephone poles the FCC formulas apply by default as a ceiling, because Minnesota has not certified. On cooperative and municipal poles the attachment agreement governs, with no formula, no ceiling and no tariff. Minnesota has a pole attachment statute and still has no pole attachment regime: Minn. Stat. 238.37 to 238.42 fixes no rate, names no agency and creates no remedy, and mandates only four contract terms. A narrow statutory rate cap does exist for small wireless facilities on a structure owned by a local government unit in the public right of way, but it is removed entirely where a municipal electric utility owns, operates, maintains or serves the structure, and it gives a wireline attacher nothing

Where a dispute goes

Splits three ways, and there is no Minnesota forum for a pole dispute at all. Investor owned electric and telephone poles go to the FCC under 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J, and the federal make ready and cost causation decisions govern of their own force because Minnesota has not certified. Cooperative and municipal poles go to Minnesota district court on the contract, with the franchise or ordinance alongside for a municipal. The Western Area Power Administration is transmission only in Minnesota and sits outside 47 U.S.C. 224. Standing before the Public Utilities Commission under Minn. Stat. 216B.17, subdivision 1 does not reach a single commercial attacher. Minnesota sets no wireline make ready clock, no transfer clock, no self help right and no attacher limitation period

Confidence

High confidence on non certification proved two independent ways, on Minn. Stat. 238.37 to 238.42 read section by section, on Minn. Stat. 216B.02, 216B.025, 216B.026 and 216B.17 read in full, on Minn. Stat. 237.162 and 237.163 read in full, and on Minn. Stat. 308A.201 read in full; Provisional on every BEAD figure, the utility class counts, the federal entity analysis, the Commission docket and rulemaking negatives, the appellate negatives and the legislative negatives. Whether a cooperative's pole attachment terms are a service standard or practice within Minn. Stat. 216B.17, subdivision 6a is the highest value Minnesota open question and is not offered here as a remedy. No Minnesota rate figure is stated here

AuthoritiesMinn. Stat. 216B.02Minn. Stat. 216B.025Minn. Stat. 216B.026Minn. Stat. 216B.17Minn. Stat. 237.162Minn. Stat. 237.163Minn. Stat. 238.37Minn. Stat. 238.38Minn. Stat. 238.40Minn. Stat. 238.41Minn. Stat. 238.42Minn. Stat. 308A.20147 U.S.C. 224FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579

Cooperative poles

Outside Commission rate regulation and inside a real state statute, and getting that backwards is the Michigan error. Every Michigan based distribution cooperative is member regulated under the Electric Cooperative Member-Regulation Act, MCL 460.31 to 460.39, so no cooperative is under Public Service Commission rate regulation. MCL 460.38a, added by 2020 PA 61, then imposes a nondiscriminatory access duty on member regulated cooperatives for video, broadband, wireless and telecommunications providers, incorporates the federal make ready process by reference, requires make ready charges to be based on actual costs not recovered through the annual recurring rate with detailed documentation, and carries the federal cost causation rule with a Michigan carve out where the cooperative needs the modification for electric service including smart grid. MCL 460.38b gives a rebuttable presumption that a rate is just and reasonable where it does not exceed the federal cable formula rate. A cooperative attacher still on a pre 2020-03-10 agreement that has never been amended, renewed or replaced has no damages remedy under that section, which is the first Michigan intake question

Municipal poles

No, and municipal poles are the largest unregulated class in the state. Roughly forty municipal electric systems are outside the Public Service Commission, outside 47 U.S.C. 224 by the State exclusion in 224(a)(1), and outside MCL 460.6g by both of its operative definitions at once, because 460.6g(1)(a) excludes a municipality from attaching party and 460.6g(1)(d) confines utility to a public utility subject to the regulation and control of the commission. MCL 460.38a reaches only member regulated cooperatives. Contract and ordinance only, with no rate ceiling from any source. The only instrument that reaches a Michigan municipal pole is the BEAD condition, so whether the owner took a BEAD subgrant is the highest value intake question on a municipal pole

Rate standard

No Michigan rate formula exists for any owner class, and three different non formulas apply. On investor owned electric and telephone poles MCL 460.6g(2) supplies a bare just and reasonable standard applied to a filed tariff, with no formula, no ceiling, no space allocation and no cross reference to any FCC formula anywhere in the section, which has never been amended since 1981. On member regulated cooperative poles MCL 460.38b(5) gives a rebuttable presumption keyed to the federal cable formula rate, a presumption rather than a ceiling, so a rate above it is not unlawful but gets no presumption. On municipal poles there is no standard. No current Michigan tariffed per pole rate was established and none is stated here. Michigan has no state make ready, survey, self help or transfer clock of its own for any owner class; on cooperative poles the federal clocks apply because MCL 460.38a(2) and (5) incorporate them by reference, and on investor owned poles there is no clock at all

Where a dispute goes

Splits three ways, and the investor owned limb carries a trap no other certified state on file produces. Investor owned poles go to the Michigan Public Service Commission under MCL 460.6g, but only if the attacher is not itself a Commission regulated utility that owns poles: in GTE North v Indiana Michigan Power, Case No. U-10374 (1994), and McLeodUSA v Detroit Edison, Case No. U-14038 (2004), the Commission held that such an attacher is a utility, cannot be an attaching party, and that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over its complaint, adding that the complainant may be in a position to pursue a remedy under federal law. Whether a federal forum exists for that class is unresolved and FCC DA 26-579 now asks the general form of the question. A cable operator, a pure broadband provider holding no Michigan telecommunications licence, or any attacher that owns no poles is not caught. Member regulated cooperative poles go to circuit court in Marquette County, Ingham County or the county of the cooperative's headquarters under MCL 460.38b(2), where the complainant carries only a prima facie burden and any refund is capped at two years of the differential under MCL 460.38b(6)(e), a recovery cap and not a limitation period. Municipal poles have no forum but the contract. No attacher limitation period was located for any Michigan owner class and none is stated here. There is no federal pole owner in Michigan

Confidence

High confidence on MCL 460.6g, 460.38a and 460.38b read in full, on the Case No. U-14038 order read in full from the Commission's own server, and on the U-10374 holding as recited at length in that order; Good confidence on the Michigan Administrative Code procedural rules read on a professional reproduction; Provisional on the certification listing in DA 22-630 and on DA 26-579, on every BEAD figure and date, on the utility class counts, on the federal entity negative, on MCL 460.36(2) and 460.39(1), on each cooperative's member regulation status and on the whole engineering practice act line; Indicative only on the reported 90 day permit direction in Case No. U-13767, which was not retrieved and is not stated here. The only rate figure in the record is a 2004 party allegation the Commission never adopted and it is not published

AuthoritiesMCL 460.6gMCL 460.31MCL 460.36MCL 460.38aMCL 460.38bMCL 460.39MCL 462.2647 U.S.C. 224FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579MPSC Case No. U-10374MPSC Case No. U-14038

Cooperative poles

No. An Idaho electric cooperative is not a corporation under Idaho Code 61-104, which excludes a mutual nonprofit or cooperative electrical corporation by name, so it is not an electrical corporation under 61-119, not a public utility under 61-129, and not inside the pole attachment statute at Idaho Code 61-538, which is anchored on public utility at every operative clause. It is also outside 47 U.S.C. 224 by the cooperative exclusion in 224(a)(1). So an Idaho cooperative pole has no rate regulator at any level of government, no state remedy, no federal remedy and no rate ceiling from any source. There is no election mechanism into or out of Commission regulation. Whether cooperative poles were inside the repealed 1982 version of 61-538 and lost that coverage on 2025-07-01 is the highest value open question in the record and is not offered here as a finding either way

Municipal poles

No, and more cleanly than the cooperatives. Municipal corporations are excluded by name in the first clause of Idaho Code 61-104, so a municipal electric system is not inside Idaho Code 61-538, and it is outside 47 U.S.C. 224 by the exclusion for a person owned by any State. Municipal electric systems do operate in Idaho; how many is not established to publication standard in the record and no count is stated here. Idaho Code 50-325(2) lets a consumer of a municipal electric system ask the district court whether the municipality's charges for electric service are fair, just and reasonable, but an attacher renting pole space is not a consumer of electric service and no authority extending that route to an attachment charge was found. Contract and ordinance only. The BEAD condition reaches an Idaho cooperative or municipal pole only through the state subgrant agreement and only where the subgrantee itself owns poles

Rate standard

A statutory floor and ceiling with no formula inside it, adjudicated case by case on complaint, and only on investor owned electric and telephone poles. Idaho Code 61-538(3), rebuilt by House Bill 180 of 2025 effective 2025-07-01, assures the utility recovery of not less than all the additional costs of providing and maintaining pole attachments and not more than the associated capital cost and operating expenses attributable to the portion of the pole used, including a share of the required support and clearance space. That last phrase is the highest value rate finding: the Idaho ceiling expressly includes support and clearance space that the FCC cable formula excludes, so an Idaho rate benchmarked against the FCC cable formula will read high without being unlawful. No Idaho rate formula has ever been adopted, the new rule chapter IDAPA 31.27.01 contains no rate provision, and no published Idaho rate figure was verified, so none is stated here. The rule chapter, effective 2026-07-01, sets Idaho's own state permitting and make ready clocks. They can run slower than the federal tiers, there is no deemed grant and no self help, and because Idaho is certified the federal timelines do not govern an Idaho pole of their own force

Where a dispute goes

It depends on whether an agreement already exists, and only investor owned electric and telephone poles have a regulator at all. For a dispute under an EXISTING attachment agreement, including a billing, rate, overcharge or audit dispute, the forum is a court on the contract and NOT the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, for any attacher class and whatever the conduct date. IPUC Final Order No. 36917 in Case AVU-E-25-11, served 2026-01-27 and read in full at source, holds that the Commission lacks jurisdiction under both the former and the amended version of Idaho Code 61-538, that the statute does not permit the Commission to review, interpret or enforce existing contracts where a meeting of the minds has occurred, and that such matters generally fall within the jurisdiction of the courts; reconsideration was denied by Order No. 36979 on 2026-03-23. Whether the FCC hears an Idaho existing agreement dispute instead is not established and is being litigated in FCC EB Docket 26-236. The Commission is the forum only for an impasse on rates, terms or conditions in forming a NEW agreement, because Idaho Code 61-538(3) is dispute triggered and there is no filed rate or tariff, so the practical first move is a documented impasse. Inside that route the attacher class matters: before 2025-07-01 it reached only a cable television company, judged by the nature of the entity and not the billing classification of its attachments, and from 2025-07-01 it reaches a provider of telecommunications service, broadband or cable services. On such a filing the Commission must decide within thirty days, extendable to about 272 days in total under IDAPA 31.01.01.151, which is a Commission clock and not an attacher deadline. A partnership, corporation or other entity must be represented by a licensed attorney in a formal complaint under IDAPA 31.01.01.043.02, with no dollar threshold exception. The Commission may not adjudicate federal pole attachment claims or impose penalties for alleged violations of federal law, and 61-538(5) authorises rules on permitting timing only, so federal rate formulas and penalties cannot be imported through the Commission. Idaho Code 61-514 reaches only joint use between public utilities and supplies no route for a billing dispute or an alleged breach. For cooperative and municipal poles there is no forum but the contract. No attacher limitation period or filing deadline was located anywhere in Idaho law and none is stated here. The Bonneville Power Administration is the federal presence and is transmission, not distribution, with no pole attachment rate regime

Confidence

High confidence on certification from DA 22-630 and DA 26-579 read in full, on Idaho Code 61-538, 61-104, 61-119, 61-129 and 61-334 read in full, on IDAPA 31.27.01 read in full and on IDAPA 31.01.01 Rules 43, 151 and 152 read in full, and on the existence, numbers and dates of the two Commission orders in Case AVU-E-25-11 read from the Commission's own case index; High confidence also, as of the re-derivation of 2026-10-01, on the holding of Final Order No. 36917, which was read in full at source that day, superseding the earlier Good confidence grading that rested on the parties' own descriptions in the FCC docket; Order No. 36979 denying reconsideration has still not been read and nothing here rests on its reasoning. Whether the FCC hears an Idaho existing agreement dispute is open and ungraded. Provisional on the certification filing history, the case law on cooperative exclusion, the utility class counts, which is why no count is published, the BEAD figures, the federal entity analysis and the whole champerty and engineering flag lines; Indicative only on the inference that Idaho is one of the eighteen pre 1996 certifiers counted in DA 26-579

AuthoritiesIdaho Code 61-104Idaho Code 61-119Idaho Code 61-129Idaho Code 61-334Idaho Code 61-514Idaho Code 61-538Idaho Code 50-325IDAPA 31.01.01.043IDAPA 31.01.01.151IDAPA 31.01.01.152IDAPA 31.27.0147 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1405(f)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579IPUC Case AVU-E-25-11IPUC Final Order No. 36917IPUC Order No. 36979FCC EB Docket 26-236

Cooperative poles

Yes as to the regulator and no as to any rule, and both halves must be said. Arizona electric cooperatives are public service corporations under Ariz. Const. art. 15, sec. 2, which reaches all corporations other than municipal furnishing electricity, and the Arizona Supreme Court so held in Trico Electric Cooperative v. Corporation Commission, 86 Ariz. 27 (1959). Cooperative poles are excluded from 47 U.S.C. 224 by the cooperative exclusion in 224(a)(1), so the FCC has no jurisdiction over them, and the Corporation Commission, which has general jurisdiction, has adopted no pole attachment rule, prescribed no rate methodology and set no process. The one statute touching a cooperative pole rate is A.R.S. 10-2085(J), effective 2021-02-05, a parity rule requiring that a cooperative's pole attachment agreement with its broadband affiliate specifically require the fees charged to an unaffiliated video service or telecommunications provider to equal the fees charged to the affiliate where both are jointly attached to the same pole. It fixes no rate, names no agency and does nothing unless all three of its conditions hold

Municipal poles

No, and the exclusion is constitutional rather than statutory. Ariz. Const. art. 15, sec. 2 covers all corporations other than municipal, and 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) and (a)(3) exclude a person owned by a State or its political subdivisions, so a city electric utility is outside both. Salt River Project, an agricultural improvement district and political subdivision under A.R.S. 48-2302 serving roughly 1.18 million customers, is outside both on the same two grounds and is the largest unregulated pole owner in the index to date. Roughly seventeen Title 48 electrical and irrigation districts are a distinct third class, kept separate from public power entities by A.R.S. 30-801(2)(b)(ii). Contract and local ordinance only, with contract remedies in superior court

Rate standard

None from Arizona for any owner class, and the negative was measured rather than inferred: the complete official text of Arizona Administrative Code Title 14, Chapter 2, all twenty six articles, contains the words pole, joint use and make ready zero times. On investor owned electric and telephone poles the federal FCC formulas apply by default because Arizona has not certified, and FCC 25-38, FCC 23-109 and FCC 26-6 govern of their own force. On cooperative poles the attachment agreement governs, with the Commission's constitutional ratemaking authority available on its face but never applied to a pole attachment charge, and the A.R.S. 10-2085(J) parity requirement where a broadband affiliate is jointly attached. On municipal, Salt River Project, district, tribal and federal poles there is no standard. Arizona sets no make ready or self help timeline at any level for any owner

Where a dispute goes

Two tracks that must not be merged. Investor owned poles go to the FCC under 47 U.S.C. 224 and 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J, and Arizona investor owned pole disputes have historically been filed there. Cooperative poles and any other public service corporation go to the Arizona Corporation Commission under A.R.S. 40-246 and 40-248, a forum that exists and has never been used for this subject, and two documentary gates decide the case before the merits. A.R.S. 40-246(A) bars the Commission from entertaining a complaint as to the reasonableness of any rates or charges unless it is signed by a mayor, a majority of a city or town legislative body, or not less than twenty five consumers or purchasers, so a lone attacher pleading unreasonableness is not heard, while the same grievance pleaded as a violation of law or of a Commission order or rule carries no signature requirement. A.R.S. 40-248(B) requires a complaint concerning an excessive or discriminatory charge to be filed within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, with reparation carrying interest at the legal rate from the date of collection. That the two sections reach a pole attachment charge is an inference from the statutory words and not a holding. Municipal, Salt River Project, district, tribal and federal poles have no administrative forum

Confidence

High confidence on non certification from DA 22-630 and DA 26-579 read in full, on Ariz. Const. art. 15, secs. 2 and 3, A.R.S. 48-2302, A.R.S. 40-246 and 40-248, A.R.S. 10-2085(J) and 10-2057(A)(17) read directly, on the Trico holding read in full, and on the measured absence of any pole attachment rule in A.A.C. Title 14, Chapter 2; Provisional on the current Commission cooperative docket practice, on art. 13, sec. 7 and A.R.S. 30-801, on the district count and Salt River Project figures, and on the FCC complaint captions against Arizona Public Service. Whether A.R.S. 40-246 and 40-248 apply to a pole attachment charge is recorded as an open question. No Arizona rate figure exists and none is stated here

AuthoritiesAriz. Const. art. 15, sec. 2Ariz. Const. art. 15, sec. 3Ariz. Const. art. 13, sec. 7A.R.S. 10-2057A.R.S. 10-2085A.R.S. 30-801A.R.S. 40-246A.R.S. 40-248A.R.S. 48-2302A.A.C. Title 14, Chapter 247 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1406FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579Trico Electric Cooperative v. Corporation Commission, 86 Ariz. 27 (1959)

Cooperative poles

By statute and outside the Commission. RCW 23.86.400(2) requires all rates, terms and conditions demanded or received by an electric service cooperative for attachments to its poles to be just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and sufficient, with attachment space rental rates uniform for the same class of service, and RCW 24.06.600(2) says the same for a mutual corporation. Subsection (3) of each expressly denies the Utilities and Transportation Commission any jurisdiction. There is no formula, no timeline, no complaint procedure and no agency, so the remedy is a superior court civil action. A cooperative that took a BEAD award as a subgrantee and owns poles is, on the face of Section 13.D.1.e of the November 2025 BEAD General Terms and Conditions, required to comply with FCC pole attachment rules across its footprint, and that text carries no carve out for poles already regulated under state law; the instrument that binds the owner is the Washington State Broadband Office subgrantee agreement, which has not been read

Municipal poles

By statute, unequally, and outside the Commission. A public utility district is subject to a mandatory two part rate formula under RCW 54.04.045, amended in 2008, while a city under RCW 35.21.455 and a code city under RCW 35A.21.125 carry only the bare just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and sufficient standard with uniform rates, unchanged since 1996. All three expressly deny the Commission jurisdiction, so disputes go to superior court, a route verified by Public Utility District No. 2 of Pacific County v. Comcast of Washington IV, No. 70625-0-I (2014), where the Court of Appeals held that the RCW 54.04.045(3) formula is construed without deference to the district. Treating the three statutes as one regime is the most expensive available error in this state

Rate standard

Three answers by owner class. On investor owned electric and telephone poles the maximum rate is the WAC 480-54-060(2) formula, space factor times net cost of a bare pole times carrying charge rate, with the space factor being occupied space divided by total usable space and the rule presuming a 37.5 foot pole, 13.5 feet of usable space, 24 feet of unusable space and one foot of occupied space, bounded by the statutory band in RCW 80.54.040, with a separate duct and conduit formula in subsection (3). It is a ceiling, and under WAC 480-54-030(2) a party advocating a rate that varies from the rules bears the burden of proving it fair, just, reasonable and sufficient. On a public utility district pole the rate is mandatory under RCW 54.04.045(3), one half of each of two components, with an election under subsection (4) to compute the first by the FCC cable formula as it stood on 2008-06-12. On city, code city, cooperative and mutual poles there is only the reasonableness and uniformity standard, plus the RCW 80.54.070 duty on every utility, regulated or not, to levy uniform attachment rates within its service area. Washington sets its own make ready periods on investor owned poles under WAC 480-54-030. Those are not the federal tiers and must not be merged with them

Where a dispute goes

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission by formal complaint under WAC 480-54-070, but only for investor owned electric and telephone poles, because RCW 80.54.010(3) excludes cooperatives, federal owners and every government owned utility from the defined term utility. The complaint must plead good faith executive level negotiations including the exchange of the information needed to calculate the rate under WAC 480-54-060, so the demand for the owner's rate inputs is a filing prerequisite. A challenge to an executed agreement on the good faith negotiation limb must be brought within six months from the agreement execution date under WAC 480-54-070(4)(a), which runs from execution and not from an invoice, and is the only attacher facing filing deadline located in the Washington regime. The Commission enters an initial order within six months and a final order within 360 days, and the owner bears the burden of proving its rates fair, just, reasonable and sufficient. Every other non federal owner class goes to superior court under the express jurisdictional bar in each of its own statutes; no limitation period for that route is stated because none was sourced. PoleProof may not appear for a client at the Commission, because WAC 480-07-345(1) limits representatives to a Washington bar member, an out of state bar member in good standing, an officer or employee of the party with the presiding officer's permission, or a Rule 9 legal intern. The Bonneville Power Administration sits outside both 47 U.S.C. 224 and chapter 80.54 RCW. Whether a city, county, port district or public utility district attaching for its own broadband is a licensee on an investor owned pole is unresolved, and it is live because Washington BEAD awardees include public utility districts and tribes

Confidence

High confidence on certification, on chapter 80.54 RCW and chapter 480-54 WAC read in full, on RCW 54.04.045, 35.21.455, 35A.21.125, 23.86.400 and 24.06.600 read in full, on WAC 480-07-345, on the Pacific County slip opinion read in full, and on the Section 13.D.1.e text; Good confidence on the BEAD envelope, because the Commerce figures are Good confidence and the General Terms and Conditions were read from a mirrored copy after the NTIA hosted file returned an empty body twice; Provisional on the application of DA 26-579 to Washington's partial coverage, on the reading that WAC 480-54-010(3) reaches no owner outside RCW 80.54.010(3), on the identification of the federal and tribal owners, and on the champerty limb, whose primary case text could not be retrieved. The date Washington filed its certification, the limitation period for the superior court route, and whether any attacher has ever run WAC 480-54-070 are open and nothing is stated on them here

AuthoritiesRCW 80.54.010RCW 80.54.020RCW 80.54.040RCW 80.54.070RCW 54.04.045RCW 35.21.455RCW 35A.21.125RCW 23.86.400RCW 24.06.600RCW 80.04.220RCW 80.04.230RCW 1.16.080WAC 480-54-020WAC 480-54-030WAC 480-54-050WAC 480-54-060WAC 480-54-070WAC 480-07-34547 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1405(f)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579Public Utility District No. 2 of Pacific County v. Comcast of Washington IV, No. 70625-0-IBEAD General Terms and Conditions, November 18, 2025, Section 13.D.1.e

Cooperative poles

No, and the exemption is written in the broadest terms on file. N.Y. Rural Electric Cooperative Law 67 makes cooperatives exempt in all respects from the jurisdiction and control of the Public Service Commission and not subject to the provisions of the public service law, which reaches PSL 119-a by its own terms, with no pole limb, no safety limb and no opt in; the annual report it requires confers nothing on an attacher. A cooperative pole is also outside 47 U.S.C. 224 by the cooperative exclusion in 224(a)(1). So a New York cooperative pole has no state forum, no federal forum and no rate ceiling except the attachment agreement and, where the owner takes a BEAD subgrant, the Section 13.D.1.e condition, which would bring the FCC rate formulas, the federal make ready timelines, one touch make ready and self help across that owner's footprint through a ConnectALL subgrantee agreement that has not been read. No constitutional commission overrides the exemption and no appellate decision construing it was located. The remedy is a contract action in court, under the six year limitation in CPLR 213(2)

Municipal poles

Not established, and it must not be answered either way. PSL 119-a says utility poles, never defines utility and has no owner class language. PSL 5(1)(b) reaches the persons or corporations operating an electric plant, the definitions of corporation and person in PSL 2(3) and 2(4) do not name a municipality, and where the legislature meant to exclude municipally owned utilities it said so, in PSL 2(14). Asked in Case 22-M-0101 to clarify tariff filing by municipal owned electric companies, the Commission called the request out of scope and declined to address it. Long Island Power Authority poles are a separate open question: the Commission refused to let PSEG Long Island, appearing for the Authority, ban pole top attachments outright, and whether that was an exercise of jurisdiction over an owner it does not rate regulate is unresolved. Read the attachment agreement and treat state coverage as open. No federally owned distribution pole owner was identified, and the New York Power Authority is a state authority, not a federal one

Rate standard

On investor owned electric and telephone poles, a Commission methodology inside a statutory band. PSL 119-a(1) bounds the rate between the additional cost of the attachment and the operating expenses and return on capital attributed to the portion of the pole used, which for cable television and broadband internet attachments is the share of usable space occupied. Inside that band the Commission applies the FCC cable formula through a fixed space factor set in Case 95-C-0341, Opinion No. 97-10, a 1997 order that the 2004 Pole Order misdates as 1977, and wireless attachments follow the wireline rate under Case 16-M-0330. The 2024 Order in Case 22-M-0101 left rates out of scope, and no New York per attachment rate figure was researched or is stated here. Unit costs are not negotiable, a make ready estimate binds for a period the Policy Statement fixes and owners may change make ready charges only at the interval and on the notice it fixes, a make ready invoice must show the date, description and location of the work, the unit or labor cost, itemized materials and any miscellaneous charges, the utility must prove any billed amount is owed, and overlashing may not be charged rent. PSL 119-a(3) bars charging any attacher for a replacement made to accommodate a request unless capacity, clearance or loading is insufficient, and PSL 119-a(2) bars charging a new attacher the entire cost of a replacement or compliance upgrade it did not solely necessitate. New York sets its own application review, survey, estimate and make ready clocks, and they are not the federal tiers and must not be merged with them. Self help is prohibited outright, though an attacher may hire an owner approved contractor when the owner misses the survey deadline, and one touch make ready covers only simple make ready in the communications space and yields to a collective bargaining agreement. Cooperative poles are contract only, and the municipal standard is not established

Where a dispute goes

The New York Public Service Commission, for investor owned electric and telephone poles, open to pole owners and attachers alike; New York is certified, so the FCC takes no New York complaint. The parties must first complete a company to company review, and the 2024 Order in Case 22-M-0101 removed the former Ombudsman step, effective 2024-07-22. The Commission then runs a defined complaint procedure, with its own periods for service, answer, reply and decision. During a cost dispute the work continues if the attacher pays a fixed share of the disputed invoice under protest, a 2004 Policy Statement rule that the 2024 Order does not repeat. No limitation period or filing deadline for a complaint exists anywhere in the regime, and the six year periods in CPLR 213 are court limitations, not a Commission deadline. Cooperative poles have only a contract action in court, and whether municipal and Long Island Power Authority poles reach the Commission is not established. New York names broadband internet in its rate rule and excludes no attacher class, so a broadband only provider or a public body building broadband is inside the regime on an investor owned pole. FCC DA 26-579 asks whether pre 1996 certifications cover telecommunications attachments; New York's statute has never named telecommunications service, and the date New York certified was not established

Confidence

High confidence on certification from DA 22-630 and DA 26-579, on PSL 119-a in its current and 2014 forms, PSL 2, PSL 5 and Rural Electric Cooperative Law 67, and on the 2004 Policy Statement and the 2024 Order in Case 22-M-0101, all read in full, including every state clock, the invoice content rule, the pay half rule and the self help prohibition, and on CPLR 213; Good confidence on the 1997 rate opinion and the wireless orders, which are taken from the 2024 Order's description, on the BEAD condition, which this run did not open, and on the party statement that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over cooperatives; Provisional on the absence of a constitutional commission and of appellate authority on Rural Electric Cooperative Law 67; Indicative only on New York's exposure to the pre 1996 certification question, whose filing date was not established, and on the absence of a federal pole owner. Municipal and Long Island Power Authority coverage is open and nothing is stated on it here. No New York rate figure was researched and none is stated here

AuthoritiesN.Y. Public Service Law 119-aN.Y. Public Service Law 2N.Y. Public Service Law 5N.Y. Rural Electric Cooperative Law 67N.Y. CPLR 213L.2021, ch.723L.2022, ch.68NYPSC Case 03-M-0432NYPSC Case 22-M-0101NYPSC Case 95-C-0341, Opinion No. 97-10NYPSC Case 16-M-033047 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1405(a)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579NTIA BEAD General Terms and Conditions Section 13.D.1.e

Cooperative poles

Outside the rate rule and inside the make ready statute, and the two must not be merged. 150 C.S.R. 38 section 2.2 copies the federal exclusion and writes any person that is cooperatively organized out of the defined term utility, and section 4.3 makes that a pleading requirement, so there is no state rate remedy on a cooperative pole, which is also outside 47 U.S.C. 224 by 224(a)(1). W. Va. Code 31G-4-1(8) defines pole owner as any person, corporation or entity owning a pole, with no exclusion, and 31G-4-4(a) gives the Public Service Commission jurisdiction over that article, so on the face of the text a cooperative pole is inside it for make ready, relocation, transfer and removal disputes, in the communications space only under 31G-4-3; no order or decision applying it to a cooperative was located. The state's only electric cooperative, Harrison Rural Electrification Association, is inside general Commission jurisdiction under W. Va. Code 24-2-1(a) and outside the pole rule, the reverse of the usual pattern, because the rule imported the federal exclusion. A BEAD subgrant is the only route to a rate ceiling on that pole, through a state subgrantee agreement that has not been read

Municipal poles

The same split, with an extra limit. Municipal systems are outside the rate rule because 150 C.S.R. 38 section 2.2 excludes any person owned by the State and section 2.8 defines State to include any political subdivision, and they are inside W. Va. Code 31G-4 on the face of 31G-4-1(8). W. Va. Code 24-2-1(g) removes Commission jurisdiction over the rates, fees and charges of municipal power systems and limits the rest to what is granted specifically in the code. On the text 31G-4-4(a) is such a specific grant and is not a rate setting power, but no Commission order or court has tested that reading. So a municipal pole has a state forum for a make ready, transfer or removal dispute and no state rate remedy, and the contract governs the rent. The two municipal electric systems are New Martinsville and Philippi. No federally owned pole owning distribution utility, no tribally owned utility and no state owned power authority was located in West Virginia

Rate standard

The federal formulas, adopted by reference, as a ceiling on investor owned electric and local exchange carrier poles. W. Va. Code 31G-4-4(b) directs the Commission to adopt 47 U.S.C. 224 and 47 CFR 1.1401 to 1.1415 and any subsequent modifications or additions, and 150 C.S.R. 38 section 1.6 makes a federal amendment effective in West Virginia sixty days after its federal effective date unless the Commission orders otherwise; General Order No. 261.2 used that clause to adopt the federal rule entitling an attacher to the owner's most recent cyclical pole inspection report for the poles in its application. Section 5.2 excludes non recurring reimbursements from cable operators and telecommunications carriers from the accounts that build the rate, so a make ready charge already reimbursed cannot also sit in the rental base. Section 5.4 still names Formulas A to D with a pre 2011 date reference, and whether the current federal telecommunications rate has replaced them is unresolved; Attachments A to D were not read, so no formula is quoted and no West Virginia rate figure is stated here. In Case No. 24-0703-T-E-CTV-GI the Commission held that a new attacher cannot be charged the entire cost of a replacement, that a replacement is not necessitated solely by the new request where the pole is already on the owner's replacement schedule or is unlikely to stay safe and serviceable through the next inspection cycle, that poles needing replacement for age, deterioration, safety violations or accident are replaced at the owner's cost, and that owners may not demand an up front contribution in aid of construction as cost sharing. Section 10.4.4 bars charging a new attacher to cure violations others caused, estimates and invoices must document the basis of every charge, section 10 copies the federal 2018 timeline with order size thresholds measured against the owner's West Virginia poles, and self help covers surveys and make ready but not pole replacements. Cooperative and municipal poles have no rate standard but the contract

Where a dispute goes

The Public Service Commission of West Virginia, and going to the FCC is the most common error, because West Virginia is certified and the FCC dismisses under 47 CFR 1.1405(a). Rate, term, condition and access complaints under 150 C.S.R. 38 sections 4 to 6 are open only to cable operators, telecommunications carriers, local exchange carriers, utilities and their associations, so a broadband only provider or a governmental attacher has no state or federal rate remedy, while make ready disputes under W. Va. Code 31G-4 are open to any attacher and the section 16 transfer and removal complaint to any attaching entity, governmental entities included. A utility must supply its rate cost data within thirty days of a request under section 4.6, and a complaint may not be dismissed where it failed to. The hard deadline is on transfer and removal invoices: the attacher must ask for a meeting within ten days of receipt and may file no later than forty days from the date the owner sent the invoice, not from receipt, under section 16.6.1, and a petition to stay a transfer notice is due within forty days of service. No rate complaint deadline was located; section 6.1.3 ties refunds to an unnamed statute of limitations, and W. Va. Code 55-2-6 is only a candidate. The Commission must act within 180 days of a formal complaint absent good cause and never later than 360 days, a clock on the Commission and not on the attacher. General Order No. 261.2 adds a Rapid Response Team for non binding mediation of disputes that delay broadband deployment. Under 150 C.S.R. 1 section 4.1.4 a corporation may file its own complaint through its chairman, chief executive officer or general manager, later filings need an attorney, and a retained professional who is not an attorney may not file pleadings. DA 26-579 names West Virginia as a state that adopted the federal regime; whether it also filed a pre 1996 certification was not established

Confidence

High confidence on certification from DA 22-630 and DA 26-579, on W. Va. Code 31G-4-1 to 31G-4-4, 24-2-1 and 55-2-6, on 150 C.S.R. 38 sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 16 and 150 C.S.R. 1 section 4, and on General Order No. 261.2 and the Commission order of 2025-10-15, all read in full; Good confidence on the Commission order of 2025-08-26, taken from its quotation in the later order and a Commission press release; Provisional on the reach of W. Va. Code 31G-4 to cooperative and municipal poles and its fit with 24-2-1(g), on the absence of a constitutional commission, appellate authority or federal pole owner, on the cooperative's tariff status, on the BEAD condition as relied on here, and on the inference that West Virginia has no pre 1996 certification; Indicative only on the cooperative and municipal system counts and names. Attachments A to D and sections 14 and 15 were not retrieved, so the current rate formula, the overlashing and abandoned facility rules, the refund limitation period and any amendment of the rule since 2023-01-13 are open. No West Virginia rate figure was verified and none is stated here

AuthoritiesW. Va. Code 31G-4-1W. Va. Code 31G-4-2W. Va. Code 31G-4-3W. Va. Code 31G-4-4W. Va. Code 24-2-1W. Va. Code 55-2-6150 C.S.R. 38150 C.S.R. 1 section 447 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1405(a)47 CFR 1.1411(c)(4)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579WV PSC General Order No. 261.2WV PSC Case No. 24-0703-T-E-CTV-GINTIA BEAD General Terms and Conditions Section 13.D.1.e

Cooperative poles

No. Cooperative poles sit outside every Pennsylvania regime on two independent statutory routes: 15 Pa.C.S. 7334 exempts electric cooperative corporations except as to certified territory, and 52 Pa. Code 77.2(a) and 77.3(a) carry the federal exclusions forward. There is no state rate remedy and no state make ready remedy on a cooperative pole.

Municipal poles

No. The thirty five borough electric systems are excluded from 52 Pa. Code Chapter 77, because 77.2(a) and 77.3(a) exclude any person expressly exempted by 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) and 47 CFR 1.1402(a), and 1.1402(a) excludes any person owned by any State.

Rate standard

The FCC cable and telecommunications rate formulas, adopted wholesale by 52 Pa. Code 77.4(a) to the full extent provided for in 47 U.S.C. 224 and Part 1 Subpart J, with the Public Utility Code just and reasonable standard at 66 Pa.C.S. 1301(a) running alongside it. Since 2026-01-08 the presumptive maximum rate of 47 CFR 1.1406 is evidence of unreasonableness rather than a presumption: FirstEnergy holds the Commission has no statutory authority to enact a presumptive maximum, so under 66 Pa.C.S. 332(a) the challenger bears the burden of showing an existing rate is unjust.

Where a dispute goes

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, not the FCC, by formal complaint under 52 Pa. Code 77.5 using the mediation and adjudicative procedures of 52 Pa. Code Chapters 1, 3 and 5. Pennsylvania procedure governs and the federal rules control only where it is silent, and a corporate complainant must be represented.

Confidence

High confidence on certification, the rate adoption and the 2026 holding that limits it, the cooperative exclusion and the municipal exclusion; Provisional on the procedural detail of the complaint forum

Authorities52 Pa. Code 77.152 Pa. Code 77.4(a)52 Pa. Code 77.515 Pa.C.S. 733466 Pa.C.S. 1301(a)47 CFR 1.1402(a)47 CFR 1.1406DA 20-302DA 22-630FirstEnergy Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Nos. 42 and 43 MAP 2024 (Pa. 2026)

Cooperative poles

No. A rural electric cooperative is exempt in all respects from the jurisdiction and control of the Montana Public Service Commission under MCA 35-18-104, and is outside 47 U.S.C. 224 as well, so the rate on a cooperative pole is whatever the attachment contract says.

Municipal poles

No. A municipality regulates, establishes and changes its own utility rates under MCA 69-7-101, and Montana has enacted no pole attachment regime that could reach a municipal pole.

Rate standard

The FCC cable formula under 47 U.S.C. 224(d) and the telecommunications formula under 224(e), as implemented in 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J, applying directly and with no state overlay because Montana has not certified.

Where a dispute goes

The Federal Communications Commission, by pole attachment complaint under 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J. There is no Montana Public Service Commission pole attachment forum.

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, the federal forum, the cooperative exemption and the municipal exclusion

Authorities47 U.S.C. 224(d)47 U.S.C. 224(e)47 CFR 1.1401 to 1.1415MCA 35-18-104MCA 69-7-101DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Conditional, and the two questions come apart. A cooperative furnishing to its members only is excluded from the defined term public utility at Wis. Stat. 196.01(5)(b)1, so the Commission has no general rate jurisdiction over it. The Wisconsin pole duty does not run to public utilities as owners, it runs to a person who owns transmission equipment and property, so a cooperative can owe the duty while sitting outside the rate jurisdiction.

Municipal poles

Yes. A town, village or city that owns or operates an electric plant is a public utility by the express words of Wis. Stat. 196.01(5)(a), so a municipal electric utility is fully Commission jurisdictional and separately owes the pole duty.

Rate standard

A state reasonableness standard under Wis. Stat. 196.04(1)(b)1, with the FCC cable and telecommunications formulas applying of their own force because Wisconsin has filed no certification.

Where a dispute goes

The FCC under 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J, and concurrently the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin under Wis. Stat. 196.04(2), which lets any public utility, video service provider, telecommunications provider or other interested person apply to the commission where there is a failure to agree on the use of transmission equipment and property or on the compensation for it.

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, the municipal duty, the cooperative treatment and the concurrent forum

AuthoritiesWis. Stat. 196.01(5)(a)Wis. Stat. 196.01(5)(b)1Wis. Stat. 196.04(1)(b)1Wis. Stat. 196.04(2)47 U.S.C. 224(d)FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Conditional, and it runs the other way from most states. Kauai Island Utility Cooperative is a public utility under HRS 269-1, whose exclusion list carries no cooperative limb, and the Commission regulates its rates, so the cooperative exemption that takes coop poles outside the state regime elsewhere does not hold here. That inclusion is defeasible: HRS 269-31(b) lets the Commission waive or exempt an electric cooperative from any requirement of the chapter or any rule, and HAR 6-80 Subchapter 7 is a rule. Whether any such waiver has been granted was not established.

Municipal poles

Not applicable. Hawaii has no municipal electric utility, no county owned electric utility and no public power district, and is the only state with none.

Rate standard

The FCC cable and telecommunications formulas at 47 CFR 1.1406 apply unqualified because Hawaii filed no certification. HAR 6-80-76 adds a mandatory state apportionment of unusable space at two thirds of the cost of providing it, allocated equally among all attaching entities, but it reaches an attachment by a telecommunications carrier only: HRS 269-1 excludes cable service from telecommunications service, so the state rule does not reach a cable operator. It is an apportionment method and not a rate, a ceiling or a figure, and Hawaii has adopted no rate figure.

Where a dispute goes

The FCC under Part 1 Subpart J on a Section 224 pole, because Hawaii filed no certification. An access complaint is nevertheless exposed to dismissal under 47 CFR 1.1405(a) on proof that the State regulates access matters, and HAR 6-80 Subchapter 7 with HRS 269-34(4) is the ground on which that would be argued. On a Kauai Island Utility Cooperative pole there is no federal forum at all, because 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) excludes a cooperatively organized owner: the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission is the only forum, by sworn complaint under HRS 269-7(c) or informal complaint under HAR 16-601-66.

Confidence

High confidence on non-certification, on the statutory position that Kauai Island Utility Cooperative is a public utility, and on the absence of municipal utilities; Good confidence on Commission practice toward that cooperative and on the municipal finding's source; Provisional on which forum ultimately hears an access complaint and on whether any HRS 269-31(b) waiver has been granted

AuthoritiesHRS 269-1HRS 269-7(c)HRS 269-31(b)HRS 269-34(4)HAR 6-80-76HAR 16-601-6647 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)47 CFR 1.140547 CFR 1.1406FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Yes. The FIBRE Act at 17 O.S. 158.66 sets a maximum pole attachment rate for electric cooperative poles and an enforcement route for it

Municipal poles

No. Municipal and public trust poles sit outside the state regime and are governed by the attachment contract

Rate standard

No single standard. Investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles fall to the federal formulas because Oklahoma has not certified. Cooperative poles carry a statutory maximum rate under the FIBRE Act

Where a dispute goes

Two forums, split by owner class. An attacher on an investor owned electric or incumbent telephone pole files at the FCC under 47 CFR 1.1405. A cooperative dispute goes to the Oklahoma district court, which 17 O.S. 158.66(H) vests with authority to enforce the section, and not to the Corporation Commission

Confidence

High confidence on non certification proved two ways, on the FIBRE Act read in both its codified and enrolled texts, on the district court forum and on the governing Oklahoma statutes; Provisional on the owner map, the utility counts and the BEAD figures

Authorities17 O.S. 158.6617 O.S. 158.66(H)17 O.S. 15147 CFR 1.1405FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Not applicable. No electric cooperative owns distribution poles in the District

Municipal poles

No. District owned streetlight poles and federal poles sit outside Section 224 and outside the Commission's pole attachment rules

Rate standard

State reasonableness standard. The Commission must ensure that pole attachment rates, terms and conditions are just and reasonable under its own rules, rather than applying an FCC formula

Where a dispute goes

Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, by Application under 15 DCMR 1601 where the parties cannot agree on the use of a utility's facilities or the compensation for it, or by Complaint under 15 DCMR 1603

Confidence

High confidence on certification proved two ways, on all seven sections of 15 DCMR chapter 16 and on the governing sections of the D.C. Official Code, every one read in full; Provisional on the owner map, the counts and the BEAD figures. No decided Commission pole attachment case was reached, so none is relied on

Authorities15 DCMR 1600.215 DCMR 1601 and 1603D.C. Official Code 34-1102D.C. Official Code 34-1253.03FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Yes, including a cooperative that has voted itself out of rate regulation. AS 42.05.321(b) applies the joint use duty to all utilities whether or not exempt, and the joint use rules key to the statutory definition of public utility rather than to whether the owner is regulated

Municipal poles

Yes, on the same override. A municipal utility sets its own retail rates by council vote and is still bound on poles

Rate standard

Mandatory state formula. The Commission requires compensation built from the additional costs of the modifications the joint use requires plus an occupied space share of net pole investment, with prescribed space presumptions and a capped return component for an owner not subject to economic regulation

Where a dispute goes

Regulatory Commission of Alaska, for every non federal owner class, by complaint under 3 AAC 52.930

Confidence

High confidence on certification, on the whole of 3 AAC 52.900 to 52.940 and on the governing Alaska statutes, all read in full; Provisional on the Commission docket findings, the utility landscape and the BEAD figures. The constitutional limb was not run

Authorities3 AAC 52.9103 AAC 52.9203 AAC 52.930AS 42.05.321(b)AS 42.05.711(h)FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Not applicable. No electric cooperative owns distribution poles in Connecticut

Municipal poles

No. Municipal electric poles fall outside the public service company definition and are governed by the attachment contract

Rate standard

Not established. Connecticut regulates the electric distribution companies and the incumbent telephone company as public service companies, but no state pole attachment rate methodology could be established at the top confidence tier, so none is published here

Where a dispute goes

Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, by written petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-20(b) where no other specific remedy is provided, or by intervening in the pole owner's rate case. A formal complaint proceeding is established practice

Confidence

High confidence on certification, on the public service company definition, on the whole of Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-20 and on the governing PURA decision, all read by the run; Good confidence on the text of the pole sharing statute; Provisional on the rate methodology, the tariffs, the owner map and the BEAD figures, which is why no rate figure is published

AuthoritiesConn. Gen. Stat. 16-1(a)(3)Conn. Gen. Stat. 16-20(b)PURA Docket No. 19-01-52FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

No. Delaware cooperatives are exempted from Commission jurisdiction under 26 Del. C. 202(g), so a cooperative pole is governed by the attachment contract

Municipal poles

No. Municipal electric poles sit outside Commission jurisdiction under 26 Del. C. 202(a) and are governed by the attachment contract

Rate standard

State formula setting a ceiling. The Commission's pole attachment rules set a maximum just and reasonable rate that assures the host utility recovery of its costs, with a presumptive bare pole deduction, rather than adopting the FCC formula by reference

Where a dispute goes

Delaware Public Service Commission. Where the parties cannot agree, either may petition the Commission to resolve the dispute over the rates, terms or conditions of an attachment under 26 DE Admin. Code 1004 section 8.1

Confidence

High confidence on certification, on all ten sections of 26 DE Admin. Code 1004 read in full twice, and on 26 Del. C. 201 and 202 read in full; Provisional on the owner map, the counts, the Delaware case law and the BEAD figures

Authorities26 DE Admin. Code 100426 DE Admin. Code 1004 section 8.126 Del. C. 201(a)26 Del. C. 202(a)26 Del. C. 202(g)FCC DA 22-630

Cooperative poles

Yes on safety and attachment procedure, no on rates. Iowa Code 476.1A(1)(b) keeps electric cooperatives inside the Iowa Utilities Commission's safety standards and engineering standards jurisdiction notwithstanding their exemption from the rest of the chapter, and the state pole attachment rule at 199 IAC 25.4(2) is keyed to that safety jurisdiction rather than to rate regulated status, so a cooperative pole is inside the state rule. Iowa asserts no pole attachment rate jurisdiction over any owner, and 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) puts a cooperative outside the federal definition of utility, so no rate ceiling and no rate forum reaches a cooperative pole from any source

Municipal poles

Same answer as cooperatives, on a differently worded statute. Iowa Code 476.1B(1)(b) keeps municipally owned utilities inside the commission's safety standards jurisdiction, and 199 IAC 25.4(2) reaches them because it is keyed to safety jurisdiction. No Iowa rate jurisdiction applies, and 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) puts a State owned pole outside the federal definition of utility. Note the drafting difference, which is not cosmetic: 476.1A(1)(b) reads safety standards and engineering standards while 476.1B(1)(b) reads safety standards alone; whether a municipal utility is therefore outside the engineering standards limb is an open question that does not change the pole attachment answer. Iowa Code 8C.7, titled Utility poles, is not a pole attachment provision for a wireline builder and must not be cited as one: its defined terms confine it to wireless equipment and to zoning authorities, and they expressly exclude the utilities commission and municipally owned utilities

Rate standard

There is no Iowa rate standard of any kind for a pole attachment. No formula, no ceiling, no presumptive rate, no tariff requirement, no reasonableness standard and no filing requirement appears anywhere in 199 IAC Chapter 25, reported as a full read of all six rules rather than as a search, and the adopting agency said in its own Adopted and Filed statement that the amendments made no reference to rates, terms, or conditions in a pole attachment agreement. On an investor owned electric or telephone pole the federal cable and telecom formulas under 47 U.S.C. 224 and 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J therefore apply unqualified, because Iowa never certified. On a cooperative or municipal pole the rate is whatever the agreement says, and no Iowa source supplies a rate remedy. Iowa also has no make ready clock, no survey, application or estimate clock, and no self help

Where a dispute goes

The forum depends on the subject rather than on the owner. Rate and access disputes on an investor owned pole go to the FCC, because Iowa never certified and the rebuttable presumption at 47 CFR 1.1405(b) that the state is not regulating is undisturbed; on a cooperative or municipal pole there is no rate forum at all. Safety, violation, correction and access procedure disputes go to the Iowa Utilities Commission on any Iowa pole, under 199 IAC 25.4(2)(g) and the complaint procedures in 199 Chapter 6, and the commission can levy civil penalties under Iowa Code 476.51 against any owner class including cooperatives and municipals. Good faith negotiation is mandatory first under 199 IAC 25.4(2)(f), and Iowa Code 476.3(1) then requires a written complaint to be forwarded to the utility, which must satisfy or answer it before any formal proceeding. No limitation period for a pole attachment or overcharge complaint appears in 199 IAC Chapter 25 or Iowa Code 476.3, and the federal period was not established in this record, so no deadline figure is given here. One trap: the state rule's access duty at 199 IAC 25.4(2)(c)(1) is expressly derivative, applying only to the extent required by federal or state law, and the rulemaking record states the qualifier was added so the rule would create no obligation not already found in Iowa law. A broadband only builder, a city or county building broadband and a tribal attacher are all pole occupants entitled to the procedure, to a detailed written explanation of any denial and to a commission complaint, and none of them gains a right of access on a cooperative or municipal pole. Say both halves or say neither

Confidence

High confidence on non certification, on the subject matter split, on the scope chain that puts every cooperative and municipal pole inside the state safety and procedure rule, on the complete absence of any Iowa rate standard, on the forum and the mandatory pre filing step, on the civil penalty reach, on the derivative access duty and on the inclusive but non substantive definition of pole occupant. Provisional on every owner count, on the identification of individual pole owning carriers, on the federal entity and tribal findings and on every BEAD figure. The federal limitation period was not established in this record, the constitutional limb of the exemption check is recorded as NOT RUN, and the reading of Iowa Code 476.1A subsection 3 is the record's own construction confirmed by no authority and may not drive a client facing finding

Authorities47 U.S.C. 224(c)47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)47 CFR 1.1405(b)FCC DA 22-630199 IAC Chapter 25199 IAC 25.1(3)199 IAC 25.4(2)(a)199 IAC 25.4(2)(c)(1)199 IAC 25.4(2)(f)199 IAC 25.4(2)(g)ARC 1259CIowa Code 476.1A(1)(b)Iowa Code 476.1B(1)(b)Iowa Code 476.3Iowa Code 476.51Iowa Code 8C.2Iowa Code 8C.7

Cooperative poles

Yes. Cooperatives are public utilities subject to the whole of Title 35-A under 35-A M.R.S. 3709, notwithstanding any public or private and special law to the contrary, so a Maine cooperative is a joint use entity under 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 1(N) and a pole owner under 1(V). There is no cooperative exemption, and 35-A M.R.S. 711(6) separately reaches any joint use entity not otherwise under Commission jurisdiction, for pole matters only

Municipal poles

Yes. Corporation includes municipal and quasi-municipal corporations under 35-A M.R.S. 102(3), which read with 102(11), 102(13) and 102(20-B) makes a municipal or consumer owned electric utility a public utility, therefore a joint use entity under 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 1(N) and a pole owner under 1(V). No municipal exclusion appears anywhere in the rule, and 35-A M.R.S. 711(6) catches anything the definitions miss. One qualification is reported and not established: a discretionary exemption available on request to the smallest consumer owned utilities under 35-A M.R.S. 3504(1). Its scope, and whether any Maine utility holds one, are not established

Rate standard

The FCC Cable Rate formula, adopted into state rule as a rebuttable presumption rather than a ceiling or a mandate. Under 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 4 the Commission will employ the Cable Rate formula on a presumed average joint use pole with a space factor of 7.4 per cent per foot of usable space occupied, and the average pole and the one foot presumed pole top occupancy are both rebuttable. The formula is incorporated by dynamic reference, so an amendment to the federal formula changes the Maine rate with no Maine rulemaking. Section 10 preserves freedom of contract but provides that the Commission will apply the Chapter's provisions in any dispute over rates, terms or conditions, so a negotiated rate above the Cable Rate is not a waiver of the formula in the forum. No per pole rate figure is established for any Maine pole owner, and whether any Maine pole owner files a pole attachment tariff or rate schedule is not established

Where a dispute goes

Maine Public Utilities Commission, not the FCC. Disputes over joint use poles are adjudicated through the Expedited Complaint Resolution Process, known as the Rapid Response Process, under 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 9 and Attachment A, filed by email to the Commission's rapid response address with a copy to the responding party. A final written decision issues within seven business days of filing and remains in effect pending appeal unless stayed; a party has five business days after the decision to appeal to the full Commission or request a stay. Two pre filing steps are mandatory: an informal attempt to settle the alleged overcharge or billing error with the utility under 35-A M.R.S. 1308, and a telephone notice to the other party's filed contact that the complainant intends to file the next business day. On recovery, the Commission may not order a rebate for a billing error or excessive charge that antedates the order by more than six years, so the window runs backward from the order and not from the filing; no limitation period for bringing a complaint is established either way. Separately, 65-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 3 requires a prospective attaching entity not already attached in Maine to hold a Pole Attachment License from the Commission before attaching to any joint use pole

Confidence

High confidence on certification, on the statutory and definitional chain that places cooperative, municipal and consumer owned poles inside the regime, on the rate presumption and the section 10 dispute override, on the Rapid Response forum with its seven business day decision and five business day appeal, on the mandatory pre filing steps, on the six year recovery cap running backward from the order, and on the Pole Attachment License requirement. Good confidence only for the Commission's own web page statement that Chapter 880 is presumptive and not prescriptive. Provisional, delegated and not re read by the run, on the owner map and every utility count, every rate figure, the reported absence of any filed pole attachment tariff, whether any limitation period exists for filing a complaint, the 35-A M.R.S. 3504(1) small utility exemption and whether any utility holds one, the Dickinson equal protection history behind the cooperative answer, the federal and tribal pole analysis, and every BEAD figure. Chapter 880 sections 5, 7 and 11 were read by nobody on the run, and section 11 is a waiver provision that could qualify any presumption recorded here

AuthoritiesFCC Public Notice DA 22-630, WC Docket No. 10-101FCC Public Notice DA 26-579, WC Docket Nos. 17-84 and 10-10135-A M.R.S. 102(3), (11), (13) and (20-B)35-A M.R.S. 711(4)35-A M.R.S. 711(6)35-A M.R.S. 130835-A M.R.S. 3504(1)35-A M.R.S. 370965-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 1(N) and 1(V)65-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 365-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 465-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 965-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 1065-407 C.M.R. ch. 880 Attachment A

Cooperative poles

No electric distribution cooperative was identified in Massachusetts, so the question has no subject matter in this state. If one existed it would be covered: the definition of Utility in M.G.L. c. 166, section 25A is keyed to ownership or control of poles rather than to corporate form, and it carries no exemption or exception clause of any kind

Municipal poles

Yes. M.G.L. c. 166, section 25A names a municipal lighting plant in the definition of Utility itself, and 220 CMR 45.02 carries the identical definition, so municipal lighting plants sit inside the rate, terms and conditions regime with no exemption statute to weigh against. One narrow carve out: the wireless access paragraph of section 25A ends by providing that the paragraph shall not apply to municipal lighting plants, so a municipal lighting plant owes no statutory nondiscriminatory access duty to a wireless provider while remaining fully inside the rate regime. A rate complaint against a municipal lighting plant was adjudicated at the Department of Telecommunications and Cable in D.T.C. 14-2, with a Phase I Order issued 2014-09-03 and later designated final; what that order held is not established in this record

Rate standard

State just and reasonable standard set by statute, not the FCC formula. M.G.L. c. 166, section 25A sets a band rather than a formula: not less than the additional costs of making provision for attachments, and not more than the proportional capital and operating expenses of the utility attributable to the portion of the pole, duct or conduit occupied by the attachment, that portion computed as the percentage of total usable space the attachment occupies. The operative method is a case law formula known as the Massachusetts Formula, from Greater Media, A-R Cable Services and Cablevision of Boston; it is codified in neither the statute nor 220 CMR 45.00, the Departments have twice declined to codify it, and in 2021 they expressly declined to adopt the FCC rate formula in order to preserve state autonomy. The band is not keyed to 47 CFR, so an amendment to the federal formula does not move the Massachusetts number. The content of the formula itself was not read in this record and is not established

Where a dispute goes

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and Department of Telecommunications and Cable, never the FCC. 220 CMR 45.02 defines Department as the DPU and/or the DTC, and which agency adjudicates is decided case by case by the primary purpose of the attachment under a Memorandum of Agreement between the two, so the complaint is filed concurrently with both. A complaint may be brought by a licensee or a utility, and must recite, with dates, the steps taken to reach agreement before filing or state why none were taken. Neither M.G.L. c. 166, section 25A nor any of the eleven sections of 220 CMR 45.00 contains a limitation period or filing deadline for a complainant; the one hard clock, 180 days under 220 CMR 45.08, is a decision deadline running against the Department and is not an attacher's filing deadline. The remedy under 220 CMR 45.07 is prospective: prescribe a just and reasonable rate, terminate the unjust one, substitute the reasonable one into the attachment agreement, or order such relief as the Department finds appropriate. It carries no express refund power, and whether historic overcharges are recoverable in Massachusetts is not established. Because Massachusetts is certified, the FCC's pole attachment rules do not govern a Massachusetts pole, and the rule in force contains no make ready timeline at all; the only access clock is 220 CMR 45.03(2), under which a utility that has not granted access within 45 days of a written request must confirm the denial in writing, with reasons, by the 45th day. The whole of 220 CMR 45.00 is proposed to be replaced in D.P.U. 26-10 / D.T.C. 26-1, opened 2026-03-06, and none of that proposal is in force

Confidence

High confidence on certification and the absence of FCC jurisdiction, on the statutory definition of Utility including municipal lighting plants and the absence of any owner class exemption, on the statutory rate band, on the forum and the concurrent filing practice, on the absence of any limitation period, on the 180 day agency decision deadline, on the absence of any make ready timeline in the rule in force, and on the prospective remedy in 220 CMR 45.07. Good confidence on whether the Massachusetts Formula functions as a ceiling, a presumption or a mandatory rate, which rests on the agencies' own characterisations rather than on a rate order read this run. Provisional on the content of the Massachusetts Formula, none of the three underlying orders having been retrieved, on the D.T.C. 14-2 Phase I Order's holding that the formula applies to a municipal lighting plant, on the absence of any electric cooperative in Massachusetts, on pole owner identities and every pole count, on all BEAD figures, and on the joint ownership billing practice. Indicative only on federal installation pole ownership and on the absence of a tribally owned pole owner, each a not found rather than an established absence

Authorities47 U.S.C. 224(c)47 CFR 1.1405FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579M.G.L. c. 166, section 25A220 CMR 45.00220 CMR 45.02220 CMR 45.03(2)220 CMR 45.04(2)(f)220 CMR 45.07220 CMR 45.08Greater Media, Inc. v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., D.P.U. 91-218 (1992)Cablevision of Boston Co. et al. v. Boston Edison Co., D.P.U./D.T.E. 97-82 (1998)A-R Cable Services, Inc. et al. v. Massachusetts Electric Co., D.T.E. 98-52 (1998)D.P.U. 19-76-A / D.T.C. 19-4-AD.T.C. 14-2D.P.U. 26-10 / D.T.C. 26-1

Cooperative poles

Not regulated by the state, because Nebraska has no pole attachment rate regime at all. The Public Service Commission's jurisdiction is a closed statutory list of eleven subjects under Neb. Rev. Stat. 75-109.01 that includes neither retail electric service nor pole attachments, and Neb. Rev. Stat. 75-109 confers nothing of its own. Cooperative poles are also outside 47 U.S.C. 224, which excludes any person who is cooperatively organized, so the attachment is governed by the agreement alone. Nebraska's one statutory pole attachment rate provision is keyed by Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-1222 to a governmental entity, which on the face of the text does not reach a cooperative organized as a private nonprofit membership corporation; no Nebraska authority has decided that point.

Municipal poles

Not regulated by the state. The Commission has no retail electric jurisdiction, and its constitutional grant under Neb. Const. art. IV, sec. 20, though plenary and self executing, reaches common carriers only; public power districts are not common carriers. Public power district, rural public power district and municipal electric utility poles are also outside 47 U.S.C. 224, because 224(a)(1) excludes a person owned by any State and 224(a)(3) defines State to include any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality. Rates are fixed by the pole owner's own board under Neb. Rev. Stat. 70-655.

Rate standard

No FCC formula, no state formula, no filed tariff regime and no commission on any Nebraska electric pole. The operative standard is Neb. Rev. Stat. 70-655(1), which requires a district's own board to fix charges for facilities it supplies that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-1244(2) keys a pole attachment rate to that section and names the public power supplier's own board as the rate setter, adding the adjective cost-based for small wireless collocation only. There is no Nebraska statute on wireline pole attachments at all, and no statewide rate figure or methodology is established. On investor owned telephone poles, which are the only 47 U.S.C. 224 poles in the state, the FCC's cable and telecommunications formulas at 47 CFR 1.1406 apply with no state overlay because Nebraska has not certified.

Where a dispute goes

No administrative forum exists for any electric pole, by either route: Nebraska has not certified, and the FCC's own authority does not reach a pole owner that is a political subdivision or cooperatively organized. The remedy is judicial, against the owner's own rate decision, on the Neb. Rev. Stat. 70-655 standard and in contract, in the Nebraska district court and on appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reviews public power rate decisions against that standard. No limitation period, filing deadline or notice period for such a dispute is established, and none is recorded here. No state make ready or self help timeline exists. On an investor owned telephone pole the forum is the FCC under 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J, with the federal make ready timelines, one touch make ready, self help and the 47 CFR 1.1407 refund power available in full; that is the only administrative remedy in the state.

Confidence

High confidence on non certification, on the absence of any Nebraska pole attachment rate regime, on the Commission's closed eleven subject jurisdiction, on the constitutional limit to common carriers and the 1999 Nebraska Supreme Court holding, on Neb. Rev. Stat. 70-655(1) and 86-1244(2) as the rate standard, on the confinement of 86-1244 to small wireless facilities, and on the BEAD pole condition having no Nebraska target. Good confidence on Consumers P. P. Dist. v. Twin Valleys and on the two public power rate holdings annotated to 70-655, none of whose opinions were retrieved. Provisional on the owner map and every utility count, on the one published municipal tariff and the owner published attachment manuals, and on the whole of the champerty and unauthorized practice flag. Indicative only on the absence of any Nebraska certification bill or docket, which is a search result and not a reading, on the federal entity regime, and on the tribal utility class, recorded as not present in reliance on nothing.

Authorities47 U.S.C. 224(c)FCC Public Notice DA 22-63047 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)47 U.S.C. 224(a)(3)Neb. Const. art. IV, sec. 20Neb. Rev. Stat. 75-109Neb. Rev. Stat. 75-109.01Neb. Rev. Stat. 70-655(1)Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-1222Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-1244(2)Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 256 Neb. 479, 590 N.W.2d 840 (1999)47 CFR 1.140647 CFR Part 1 Subpart J47 CFR 1.1407

Cooperative poles

No. Nevada declares a cooperative serving its own members only to be a public utility, but NRS 704.675 subjects it to the Commission only for the purposes of a closed list of provisions, which is the certificate of public convenience and necessity machinery plus the renewable portfolio standard, and expressly not to any other jurisdiction. No rate provision is in that list and NRS 704.250, the Commission's pole standards power, is not in it either. Cooperatives are also excluded from the federal regime by 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1), so attachment terms are a matter of contract. A cooperative serving the public as well as its members would fall under full chapter 704 jurisdiction under NRS 704.673, but which side of that line each Nevada cooperative sits on has never been adjudicated in Nevada. A Nevada certificate of public convenience and necessity proves nothing either way, because the certificate section is one of the provisions that binds a members only cooperative.

Municipal poles

No. Nevada has no pole attachment regime, and the Commission's only pole power, NRS 704.250, is a safety standards grant that says nothing about third party access, rates or attachments. Municipal electric utilities and power districts are also outside the federal regime under 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) and (a)(3) as political subdivisions, so a municipal or district pole is a contract pole. As a matter of Commission practice and the agency's own published position these owners are not rate regulated; as a matter of statutory text the question is not cleanly resolved, because none of the subsections of NRS 704.021 excludes a political subdivision furnishing electricity at retail, NRS 704.020(2)(a) is broad, the one express carve out at NRS 704.340 is about certificates, and a Nevada Supreme Court decision holds that a power district is not a municipality for that section. That tension is recorded as an open question and it does not change the pole attachment answer, because the Commission has no pole attachment jurisdiction over any owner.

Rate standard

There is no Nevada rate standard. Nevada has no pole attachment statute, regulation, filed tariff or presumptive rate, so for a pole owner that is a Section 224 utility the FCC cable and telecommunications formulas at 47 U.S.C. 224(d) and (e) apply unqualified. The FCC has applied that formula to a Nevada carrier in a decided case and held that on a jointly owned pole a joint owner may collect only its ownership percentage of the computed maximum and may not add a further fee said to be collected on the other owner's behalf. The dollar maxima set in that decision are carrier specific, computed on that carrier's own cost data decades ago, and are not a Nevada rate, a benchmark or a current ceiling for anyone. For cooperative, municipal, district, federal and tribal poles there is no rate standard at all and the rate is whatever the attachment agreement provides.

Where a dispute goes

The FCC, for pole owners that are Section 224 utilities, under 47 U.S.C. 224(b) and the pole attachment complaint rules at 47 CFR 1.1401 to 1.1418, and the FCC has adjudicated a Nevada pole attachment complaint on the merits. For every other Nevada pole there is no administrative forum of any kind, state or federal, and the remedy is the attachment agreement in a court of general jurisdiction. Non certification is only the first half of the test: it means nothing displaces the FCC, but the FCC still reaches only an owner that is a Section 224 utility, which excludes cooperative, municipal, district and federally owned poles. No Nevada limitation period, filing deadline or notice period for a pole attachment dispute is established, and no federal period may be presented as a Nevada one.

Confidence

High confidence on non certification, on the closed jurisdictional list in NRS 704.675 and the safety only character of NRS 704.250, on the federal formulas and the FCC forum following from non certification, and on the joint ownership proration rule from the FCC's Nevada decision. Provisional on the pole owner inventory and on which entities sit in each class, on the finding that no Nevada pole attachment instrument exists anywhere in the statutes or the administrative code, on the municipal and power district treatment including NRS 704.340 and the 1960 decision, and on attacher eligibility. No Nevada deadline, limitation period or rate figure is established at any tier.

Authorities47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)47 U.S.C. 224(a)(3)47 U.S.C. 224(b)47 U.S.C. 224(c)47 U.S.C. 224(d) and (e)47 CFR 1.1401 to 1.1418FCC Public Notice DA 22-630, WC Docket No. 10-101, released 2022-06-13Nevada State Cable Television Association v. Nevada Bell, File No. PA 96-001, DA 02-1930 (2002), affirming DA 98-1175, 13 FCC Rcd 16774 (CSB 1998)NRS 704.020NRS 704.021NRS 704.250NRS 704.340NRS 704.673NRS 704.675White Pine Power District No. 9 v. Public Service Commission, 76 Nev. 497, 358 P.2d 118 (1960)