conduit, and other communications support structures looks like in ten years? If one wireless carrier, CLEC, or BIAS provider attaches equipment like that pictured in Appendix D, or as described in the Comments and schematic drawings submitted in R.17-03-009, does that effectively preclude a second wireless carrier, CLEC, or BIAS provider from installing similar equipment? Can this be remedied? Are shared facilities or multi-carrier antenna a possible solution? What level of “densification” will 5G require? Can we estimate the number of additional small cells that will be required? Will that densification occur largely in urban centers, or will 5G be deployed in equal measure in rural areas? What is the most likely timeline for the full deployment of this technology? Will 5G attachments primarily rely on utility support structures, light poles, or other structures? Please describe what you believe to be the most likely development of this “ecosystem.” How have other states and countries handled a shortage of pole or conduit capacity? Best practices? How do the legal and regulatory systems for pole attachments differ in such other states and countries, i.e., what practices elsewhere are relevant to pole attachments in this country? What is the impact of current undergrounding programs on the availability of above ground vertical structures on which to site small cell antennas? What is the impact of a first-come, first-serve system, where the last attacher to an overloaded pole is required to erect a new pole? Does the last attacher’s duty to replace existing poles with stronger and/or larger poles to support additional telecommunications attachments pose a barrier to entry? Are there ways to more equitably apportion those costs? Whether existing urban streetscapes can accommodate more pole attachments, the replacement of existing poles with larger poles, and possibly more poles. Conduit What conduit issues should the Commission consider in Phase II of this proceeding? In responding to this inquiry, parties are invited to address all of the pole concerns described herein that find an analogy in underground duct and
Comcast Phone of California, LLC (U#5698) Frontier California Inc. (U#1002) Cox California Telecom, LLC (U#5684) Marg Tobias Charter Fiberlink CA-CCO, LLC (U#6878) & Time Warner Cable Information Services (U#6874) , , Southern California Joint Pole Committee (SCJPC) Northern California Joint Pole Authority (NCJPA)
For each of the databases or data platforms in DRs 4 and 5: please identify and describe the software used by such database or data platform; please identify all data fields used in such database related to conduit, including but not limited to all data fields (if any) related to conduit ownership, co-owners, facilities attached, and total conduit capacity to the extent you know, please identify the category and rough count of employees, agents, contractors, other persons (or classes of persons) and entities that have access to each such database or data platform. Do such employees agents, contractors, other persons (or classes of persons) and entities access the database or data platform over a web portal? please state whether and the extent to which such database utilizes a geographic information system (GIS) to identify locations (longitude and latitude) of conduit; please state how often and under what conditions such databases are updated; and please identify the persons (or entities) that collect and input the data into such database, and describe the process; and for each such database, please provide sample data for at least three different segments of conduit with different configuration and/or occupancy. Do you maintain data on conduit with no facilities in it? If so, what data fields are associated with such tracking? Is any of the conduit you own or operate, or in which your facilities are attached, equipped (to your knowledge) with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags? Are there fields associated with such RFID tags in the databases identified above? Please identify such fields.
Preliminary Schedule for the Investigation Proceeding Preliminary Schedule for the Rulemaking Proceeding Event Date (Measured from the Issuance Date of this OII)1 Event Date (Measured from the Issuance Date of this OIR)1 Phase I Combined Opening Comments and Prehearing Conference Statements on issues set forth below, filed and served 40 Days Combined Opening Comments and Prehearing Conference Statements Filed and Served in Phase I 60 Days Phase I Reply Comments Filed and Served 55 Days Reply Comments Filed and Served in Phase I 75 Days Phase I Prehearing Conference (PHC) To Be Determined Prehearing Conference (PHC) in Phase I To Be Determined Phase I Additional Workshops, Additional Written Comments, Briefs, Etc. To Be Determined Workshops, Additional Written Comments, Briefs, Etc. To Be Determined Phase I Hearings, If Warranted To Be Determined Hearings, If Warranted To Be Determined Phase I Projected Submission Date (if applicable) To Be Determined Phase I Projected Submission Date (if applicable) To Be Determined Phase II Preliminary Scoping Memo, and Related Proceedings To Be Determined Phase II Preliminary Scoping Memo, and Related Proceedings To Be Determined