On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:39:41AM -0500, Michael Trew wrote:
In a letter summarizing the November 19 meeting, Charter referenced pole attachment disputes in Kentucky, Hawaii, California, and South Carolina but mentioned only one pole owner by name. Charter cited Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, a local power company in Kentucky, as an example of a pole owner that was being uncooperative."
I'm of two minds on this issue, and I wonder if someone can explain if
there is a basis for Charter's claims in common law.
Some things are meant to be shared: your car is entitled to just as
much space in the lane as mine. I pay a road tax with every gallon of
gas that I buy, as you do, and in theory our shared payments are used
to keep the roads in good repair, with motorists who drive farther
paying more for fuel and therefore contributing more in taxes toward
road wear and tear.
In like manner, rights of way and access to them are assigned to
private companies in order to achieve public benefits: it's difficult
to imagine a telephone pole without any electric wires at the top, and
those poles use rights-of-way next to public streets because they
prevent children from being electrocuted.
But, every profit-making enterprise is always trying to increase its
profits, an so it goes in this case. Charter's claims amount to a
demand that their stockholders enjoy the investments that phone and
electric company shareholders made in poles, siting, construction,
maintenane, local license fees, accident repairs, and all the other
expenses that go with having infrastructure in the first place.
Charter doesn't want to contribute to those costs, even though the
body politic had to forego the taxes or other income that could have
been collected when they were erected so many years ago. I think that
it's time for the taxpayers to get their share.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)