Verizon Asks FCC to Treat Municipalities Like Utilities, But Doesn't Want to Act Like A Utility Itself.

In this Ex Parte filing with the FCC, Verizon claims that municipalities that own poles are similar to utilities when it comes to small cell deployment. Verizon claims that municipal poles in the right of way "are held for public purposes, such as public safety and the provision of public services." Because municipal poles are used for public purposes and because Verizon wants the FCC to consider Verizon's for profit wireless services as a public service, therefore municipalities should not have the right to regulate placement on their poles or collect fees for access to those poles. The glaring issue with this argument is that utilities in most cases don't have the discretion of deciding where to provide service or to avoid unprofitable areas. Verizon can and does decide where it is most profitable to provide service and as a result ignores areas where it is not profitable. Verizon's purpose isn't for public good- it is for their shareholder's own good. I am not saying that there isn't any public benefit by better wireless service. But requiring municipalities to foot the bill for small cell deployment while Verizon generates 40%+ EBITDA margins is preposterous unless Verizon is truly providing a universal service that benefits the public equally (or some might say utility-like).

Verizon suggests that without FCC action, that they will be unable to deploy small cells and therefore 5G will languish and the US will "fall behind" the rest of the world in 5G. In this claim, Verizon ignores the fact that there are millions of other structures upon which they can mount their equipment in the US, including buildings, billboards, towers, investor owned utility (IOUs) poles, and other CLEC/ILEC owned poles etc. This is especially true in urban areas where to date, over 90% of small cell deployment has occurred. Unfortunately, IOUs, CLECs, and ILECs don't make it easy for carriers to expand their services on their poles. It's easier and cheaper to lobby aggressively at the state and FCC level to force municipalities than to work with the IOUs, CLECs, and ILECs who have actual utility poles to allow small cell deployment. And if Verizon is already spending tens of millions of dollars annually on lobbying, they might as well try to force low fees on municipalities at the same time.

To further complicate this issue, in many cases, Verizon (and other carriers) aren’t actually installing equipment on municipal owned poles, they are instead proposing new poles in the ROW. They do this because it is cheaper and easier to erect a new pole than do a structural analysis on an existing pole and modify it to add their equipment.  If Verizon wants municipalities to be treated like a utility pole owner, then they themselves should have to actually attach to existing utility poles instead of building new unsightly single use poles because it is cheaper and easier.

Verizon and other companies seeking access to poles for small cells should also be forced to provide equal and fair access to their own poles which doesn't always happen. See this complaint from Charter about Verizon blocking access to its poles. (This complaint was later suspended by Charter after discussions with Verizon proved more fruitful.)