In an Op Ed for Brookings, former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and New Street Research Policy Advisor Blair Levin discuss potential solutions to the lead-sheathed cable issue. One of their key conclusions has the federal government paying for remediation of dangerous sites, rather than punishing industry for decisions made several generations ago, when the dangers of lead were not well understood.
The experts touch on WSJ articles that warned that telecom cables from the 1880s to the 1960s that were sheathed in lead could be an environmental and health hazard. Federal agencies and the industry are now in a fact-finding mode to determine the location of the cables and whether they’re a hazard, Inside Towers reported.
A recent court filing by AT&T estimated that about 10 percent of its two million miles of copper wires are sheathed in lead, according to Wheeler and Levin. The telecom said about two-thirds of its lead-covered cables are “either buried or in conduit” followed by aerial cable, and a “very small portion” running underwater, Inside Towers noted. “Analysts estimate that about 25 percent of those 200,000 miles of cable are aerial, 63 percent are buried in conduit, seven percent buried directly without the protection of conduit, and the remaining five percent is underwater,” according to the writers.
The writers believe ultimately, the federal government will need to resolve this complex scientific and legal issue, including prioritizing any necessary remediation, and ensuring that it is paid for. They suggest that the EPA, OSHA and the FCC work together to map where the cables are, how they’re “deployed and then prioritize the types of installations for remediation, if necessary.”
“Differing interpretations of science and facts typically lead to years of litigation. Environmental litigation similarly can result in years of courtroom activity.” Wheeler and Levin also say the “chain of ownership” of the cables is “long and confusing,” because the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984 “began a reshuffling of who owns what, the assignment of potential liability in those circumstances also opens the door to litigation.”
As the mapping and prioritization is developed, there must be a remediation plan, say the authors. They cite three sources: shareholders, ratepayers and taxpayers. Forcing shareholders to pay will be time-consuming and has limited potential for success, believe Wheeler and Levin.
Assessing ratepayers is problematic when the administration is on a campaign to reduce user fees, they note. Given the current context of budget debates, the idea of taxpayers also paying is also unlikely, “but seems the most likely path to at least accelerate the remediation [in] those locations where the lead presents a clear immediate or near-term danger,” they write.
Wheeler and Levin say there are funds for environmental remediation in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 that could be tapped for the highest priority projects. There are also at least 12 states that likely have more than enough money to connect unserved and underserved locations with broadband. With waivers from NTIA, they could use the excess funds to pay for remediation, suggest the experts. “There may be some overlap between the unserved and underserved locations and areas with lead where the broadband funding could efficiently serve both purposes,” they write.
They also point to the FCC’s Rip & Replace program as precedent for federal funding to replace telecom equipment that in retrospect created unacceptable risks. “While that program has been underfunded, it provides a model for addressing common practices that in the fullness of time created risks that America broadly wants to be eliminated,” say Wheeler and Levin.
By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief
Reader Interactions