Are Double Poles a Thing?

[walkitout]

I don't think they are officially a Thing yet. But I'm wondering if they are about to become one. Ars covered a recent agreement with Verizon to catch up on some back log of maintenance that included double poles. Specifically, where the power company had put in a new pole, Verizon was _supposed_ to move its equipment from the old pole to the new one, but they often did not do so in a timely fashion. That's in Pennsylvania. But I've seen double poles around my town (I'm planning on taking pictures from here on out until I lose interest or quit being able to spot them) and am wondering if double poles are a Thing.

I've really only found coverage of this as a problem in three states: Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York. I am _sure_ this is a problem elsewhere, but without local governments taking action and local journalists covering that action, it's pretty invisible to me. I've roughly organized by state, and when I noticed I was reaching back to 2014 for coverage, I stopped. So far, this is all searching on "double poles". I'm going to try ghost poles and some other searches on telecom deferred maintenance next.

Here are double poles appearing on a laundry list of issues in Lowell, MA:

http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_31009802/lowell-council-eyes-payment-lieu-taxes-from-lgh

"Requested that Verizon, National Grid, and Comcast representatives meet with the council to discuss double poles, hanging wires, and the all around appearance of their equipment in Lowell." (Payment in lieu of taxes is a much bigger deal -- that's when a community notices that someone not subject to taxes like a hospital or school would otherwise be a huge chunk of tax income and leans on the corporate entity to pay up.)

In Haverhill (also in Massachusetts):

http://www.eagletribune.com/councilors-ready-to-crack-down-on-double-utility-poles/article_3fa98f78-bec5-5d27-abed-4959361be0c3.html

This article includes the following:

"A municipal modernization bill signed last month by Gov. Charlie Baker had an order in it related to double poles, said Councilor Michael McGonagle. That order required utility companies to submit inventories of these poles to the state. LePage said the Legislature has sent sections of the bill to a study committee to get more facts before it is enacted."

I'm no fan of Republicans. But I have to say, I don't mind Charlie Baker one tiny little bit. In fact, I'm sort of glad he won. This isn't the only reason I feel that way, either.

Lots of detail in this Milford, MA article (includes discussion of the issue in Framingham and Natick as well):

http://www.milforddailynews.com/article/20151128/NEWS/151126314

New England, and especially Massachusetts, lets towns do a bunch under the "home rule" rubric. A little of this could go a long way, and the fact Baker is already pushing for an inventory is an indication that there is already a desire to tackle this at a higher level than the town.

I sort of assumed the pole owner would be aware of everything on its pole. Apparently not. (And I don't mean yard sale signs and lost pet announcements, either.)

"Companies sometimes spend time searching for the owner of equipment that was installed on a pole without the pole owners being notified. These unlicensed attachments can delay the transfer process, he said."

"Companies in Massachusetts “are also working to verify the accuracy of the database information for each town,” Bonomo said. “This process already has helped identify more than 23,000 unlicensed attachments – including 15,000 unlicensed municipal attachments.”"

So apparently the towns themselves are responsible for some of the problem.

I think this Greenburgh is located in New York state.

http://www.theexaminernews.com/greenburgh-considering-utility-pole-replacement-law/

Wallkill also in NY state:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1950752-double-poles-a-serious-hazard-in-wallkill/

This article goes into some detail about the safety implications, and the power outages that can occur because telecoms refuse to move their plant to the new poles that are installed by energy providers.

Local coverage from Pennsylvania, including a new term: ghost poles. I've been searching on "double poles" in quotes. But I'll try this other phrase next.

http://www.pahomepage.com/news/i-team-ghost-poles-and-what-to-do-with-them/658846523

I'm now searching on "pole owner". Turns out telecoms might have a hidden agenda for dragging their feet on maintenance. It might slow down the deployment of competing services.

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/incompas-says-fcc-should-adopt-one-touch-make-ready-as-part-pole-attachment-rule-revamp

More about one touch make ready -- another example of the desire to regulate this at other-than-the-local level.

http://www.lightreading.com/services/broadband-services/broadband-has-a-problem-on-the-pole/d/d-id/730465

Broadband providers who want to attach to existing poles are being pressured to bring the poles _other_ attachments up to current standard.

https://www.law360.com/articles/910181/telcos-urge-fcc-to-address-pole-owners-buildout-barriers

Hey, there is a comment period happening!

https://www.law360.com/articles/918693/a-look-at-fcc-broadband-deployment-proposal

Rule making is progressing.