Opinion ID: 610796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of Rates

Text: 35 Finally, TU argues that the Commission erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary proceeding to determine a just and reasonable rate where both coaxial and fiber optic cables are attached to a pole. Under the Commission's pole attachment rate regulations, TU had the burden of responding to TCI's complaint with evidence to justify the higher rates. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1407(a). However, the Commission explained, TU offered nothing:[302 U.S.App.D.C. 246] The utility offers no cost justification for the disputed surcharge, nor does [TU] suggest that it incurs any additional costs in preparing or maintaining its poles as a result of TCI's installation of fiber optic cables or TCI's data transmission activities. [TU] does not even dispute TCI's statement that the physical attachment of fiber to the poles is identical to that of coaxial cable. 36 On the basis of that nonshowing, the Commission was not obligated to conduct additional proceedings. As the Commission noted subsequently, [t]his is not to say that a utility could never adjust upward a regulated pole attachment rate when cables are piggy-backed.... [I]f the utility could make a showing of increased costs that cause the regulated rate to fall outside the bounds of the statutory formula, they could seek relief at the Commission. However, without any contrary evidence, the Commission was left with its undisputed assumption that the over-lashing of a fiber optic cable onto the aerial support strand along side the coaxial cable still requires only a single attachment to the pole with no additional guying or anchoring, and therefore the rate should remain the same irrespective of the presence of the additional wire. FCC Brief at 25. 7