Carriers Seek Limits on Local Government Role in U.S. Broadband Efforts

The national plan should empower local governments and promote deployment “on a community-by-community basis,” NATOA, the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities and United States Conference of Mayors said in joint comments. They submitted a plan to enhance middle- and second-mile anchor institution networks, a proposal requested by the FCC broadband team in a recent ex parte meeting. The FCC should direct state governments not to limit local authority, and the national plan should highlight successful broadband policies by state and local governments, the groups said. “Local governments are in the best position to address the urgent middle-mile and second-mile needs in communities across the United States,” they said. “And we often can provide Last Mile services.”

Qwest said the FCC shouldn’t support public ownership and operation of networks. The carrier backs public-private partnerships, however, it said. “Government has a poor track record as a broadband service provider. Too often, it has underestimated costs and overestimated demand. Taxpayers have then been left with the burden of bailing out failed government broadband networks.”

Blooston Rural Carriers said the government shouldn’t compete with efforts by carriers to offer service. “Governments can play an important role in making broadband deployment possible by providing access to tower sites and acting as an anchor customer for governmental operations such as public safety, public works and infrastructure maintenance, giving commercial carriers the opportunities they need to provide sustainable broadband,” the group said. “However, governmental participation in broadband solutions should not rise to the level of independent market competition, creating an unjustifiable risk to taxpayer dollars and amounting to unfair competition to the Commission’s spectrum auction winners.”

The Fiber-to-the-Home Council backed municipal networks, saying more than 600 public power systems provide broadband, serving more than three percent of FTTH subscribers in the U.S. “To date, despite some systems having operational difficulties and facing financial constraints, not a single municipal FTTH system has failed,” it said. Penetration rates for the municipal systems “are far above industry norms, exceeding 50 [percent].” Public systems complement private sector deployments, the Council said. “They enter when there is a larger community benefit that the private sector believes it cannot capture.”

Tropos Networks highlighted the important role played by municipal wireless broadband networks. “The Commission’s broadband policies should encourage community leaders, particularly coalitions of cities and counties to develop and build broadband networks that make sense for their communities, including public-private partnerships and systems wholly owned by municipalities,” Tropos said.

Tropos compared the development of public broadband networks to public power. “A century ago, when inexpensive electricity was available to only a small fraction of the U.S. population, incumbent suppliers of electricity sought to prevent the public sector from offering electricity for many of the same reasons incumbent broadband providers now argue against community broadband deployment and services,” the company said. “Just as municipal electric systems proved critical to making access to electric service universal in the 20th Century, municipal networks can be part of the solution in making broadband access universal in the 21st Century.”

The American Public Power Association agreed local governments have a role to play in broadband buildout, citing the 3,000 U.S. cities with municipal power systems. The FCC can help by removing “barriers to entry” to providing broadband services, the association said. “We also believe that any benefits that the federal government offers to stimulate broadband deployment, adoption, and use should be made available to both the public and private sectors on a non-discriminatory basis.”

The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association focused specifically on the need for more data on broadband service in tribal areas. “NTCA is encouraged by the Commission’s acknowledgment of the need for data on this issue,” the group said. “Using reliable data is key to understanding the challenges that broadband service providers and tribal communities face as they develop a plan to deploy and adopt new technologies.” The need for more broadband is clear, the group said: “Broadband access is essential to bringing quality, 21st Century education, telemedicine, public safety, and economic growth in these communities.”

Meanwhile, wireless carrier NTCH urged the FCC to allocate spectrum licenses in smaller geographic areas, instead of regional licenses too big for small carriers to pursue. “The Commission continues to permit the hoarding of spectrum by large carriers,” NTCH said. “The Commission has repeatedly made the mistake of auctioning off spectrum in huge swathes such as [regional licenses] that cover vast areas of the United States. These areas have proven to be too vast for any one carrier to build out on a timely basis.” Even big companies have limits on their capital expense budgets, so the most remote areas are the last to see any build out, NTCH contended. It suggested using Basic Trading Areas or Cellular Market Areas: “By licensing on a smaller scale, urban-centered basis, greater diversity of licenseeship and more competition in the marketplace would be possible. Each of these smaller, local licensee entities will have strong incentives to build out their local facilities because that is all they have and all they are concerned about.”

NTCH also seeks broadband roaming mandates like those in place for voice. “Without the incentive to enter into fair roaming agreements, the majors now routinely impose such stringent roaming conditions on independent carriers that roaming becomes practically, if not legally, infeasible,” NTCH said. “If the Commission continues to delay action on broadband roaming, it will effectively keep independent broadband providers from being able to provide service.”

The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association said a streamlined process for siting cell towers and other facilities would help promote broadband deployment. “Rather than having to identify which federal agency has authority over a particular property -- Bureau of Land Management, Department of Transportation, General Services Administration, etc. -- broadband providers would enjoy ‘one stop shopping’ for government-owned broadband assets,” the association said. A uniform process with standardized lease forms and milestones also would help, the group said.

NATOA and the other groups warned the FCC not to infringe on local governments’ authority over rights-of-way. “Rights-of-way are limited real estate assets which … must be managed for their highest and best use,” they said. “Otherwise, they will be mis-used, mis-allocated, and the society will be poorer for mishandling.” The government groups said there’s no tie between broadband deployment and right-of-way fees, and local governments have no incentive to keep providers out. “Communities which take the most active role in charging fees and managing the rights-of-way have the most competition.”