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 will 5G require? Can we “densification” 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 to replace existing attacher’s duty 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
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
190872933.docx