II. Parties' Positions and FAR Resolution
SBC filed this request for dispute resolution pursuant to D.98-10-058 (Right of Way Order), which established an expedited dispute resolution procedure for disputes involving "initial access to utility rights of way and support structures." The Arbitrator resolved the parties' three disputes as follows, and as more fully discussed in the attached FAR, which we incorporate into this decision by reference.
A. Whether to Include Costs of GSF in Pole
and Conduit Rates
The first dispute concerned which overhead costs SureWest could include in its pole and conduit rates. SureWest proposed to include "General Support Facility" (GSF) costs in its rates, resulting in higher rates for SBC. SureWest claimed that if its rates did not include these costs, it would be under-compensated for use of its poles and conduits. According to SBC, SureWest's witnesses conceded that many of the GSF costs SureWest proposed be included in rates were not related to SureWest's pole and conduit operations.
The Arbitrator agreed with SBC, and adopted the FCC methodology for setting pole rates. Under that methodology, the utility may only include costs from certain, specifically identified accounts under Part 322 in calculating pole and conduit rates.3 Using the FCC methodology and a joint exhibit the parties prepared agreeing on what the rate should be if the Arbitrator adopted that method, the Arbitrator set the conduit rate at $0.95 per inner duct foot per year, and the pole rate at $6.79 per pole per year.
B. Percentage of Pole Allocated to Each Attacher,
and Number of Attachers
The second dispute related to how to allocate pole costs to each attacher. This issue had two subparts: first, what percentage of total pole costs each attacher should bear; and second, how many attachers one should presume for purpose of calculating pole rates.
The Arbitrator found that state case law and statutes did not provide clear guidance on the issue, and therefore adopted a percentage based on the FCC's methodology. The Arbitrator found that SBC should bear 14.2% of the costs of each pole based on this methodology. The Arbitrator found that the parties agreed-upon figure of 2.7 attachers (not counting SBC) should be augmented by one attacher (to 3.7) on the SureWest poles SBC occupies. SBC should pay for each pole it leases based on the assumption that 3.7 parties share the costs of each such pole.
C. Interoffice Facility
The third issue related to whether SBC's CLEC, doing business in SureWest's territory, should be allowed to use an interoffice fiber optic facility that the SBC ILEC installed between SBC's Fair Oaks and Rocklin central offices. SureWest claimed it would be anticompetitive to allow SBC's CLEC to use the facility, while SBC claimed it would be inefficient to require SBC to construct a duplicate facility. The Arbitrator ruled that SBC's CLEC should be allowed to use the existing facility.
2 Part 32 appears at 47 C.F.R. § 32.1 et seq., and prescribes a uniform system of accounts for telecommunications companies. 3 The accounts are Account 2411 ("Poles") for pole rates and Account 2441 ("Conduit Systems") for conduit rates. 47 C.F.R. §§ 32.2411, 32.2441.
