Clyburn Slams FCC 'Hall Pass' to Industry on Broadband Infrastructure

Broadband providers will be “getting a hall pass” to avoid municipal regulation under Chairman Ajit Pai’s plans for broadband infrastructure, Clyburn said. The FCC is to vote at its Thursday meeting on proposed rulemakings to ease local restrictions related to wireline and wireless infrastructure (see 1704170034 and 1704170033). “The FCC is allowing businesses to externalize costs and internalize benefits,” Clyburn said.

What looks like “removing barriers” to industry may be “handcuffing” to local governments seeking to address community needs, said Mayor Pro Tem Bob Fifer of Arvada, Colorado, on a later panel. “They’re not barriers. I think we just need to be thoughtful in our deployment and be balanced.” Cities can be quick in responding to industry applications, “but in return, we expect [industry] to work with us on our needs.”

Overregulation impedes broadband and government “should get as much out of the way as possible,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said in a later keynote with Mayor John Giles of Mesa, Arizona. Some regulation is necessary, but local governments should work with industry to decide the right amount, said Giles. On a recent small-cells wireless siting bill in Arizona, local governments negotiated with industry and ended up with a “very fair bill” that became law earlier this month (see 1704030011), he said.

Clyburn opposed a “punitive cap​” on Lifeline recipients that she said the majority at the commission is seeking. “Punishing an efficient FCC subsidy program to me is unthinkable, should be undesirable and will have the greatest negative impact on bringing connectivity to those in our communities who need it the most.” Clyburn agreed USF programs should be on a budget, but Lifeline is efficient and “means-tested,” she said. She said a means test also should apply to other USF programs to control for rural but high-income areas like Aspen. Clyburn said policymakers’ obligation to rural households mustn't exceed the obligation to low-income ones.

Pai created uncertainty with plans to roll back the agency’s process​ for designating Lifeline broadband providers, Clyburn said. Pai said the rules -- challenged by NARUC -- usurped state authority and the chairman asked a court to remand them (see 1703310033). “By effectively closing the pipeline on Lifeline broadband provider designations … it means that providers who have already invested millions of dollars into the program and were just beginning to provide services to consumers are now faced with a very terrible choice,” said Clyburn. “Should they fire their staffs? Or should they go through what will be a very cumbersome legacy process for providing service?”

Clyburn said she fears low-income households won't benefit from zero rating and sponsored data plans because Pai dropped FCC investigations of such carrier plans (see 1702030070). She said carriers may prevent low-income households from using the free sponsored plans: “There seems to be a special carve-out when it comes to low-income individuals.” If providers are willing to provide sponsored data for free, “why would we ask anybody to pay [for] or be denied this privilege?”

Communities wanting better broadband shouldn’t wait for Washington to help, said Conexon partner Jonathan Chambers, ex-FCC chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, on another panel. “Be independent,” he advised. Broadband shouldn't be a political issue, but the reality is that big-business money drives political decision-making in Congress and at the state legislatures, he said: “To the extent that you can do this without involving any politician anywhere, you’re better off.”

President Donald Trump is “firmly committed” to spending $1 trillion on infrastructure, but what gets funded is “fluid” and “undefined,” Biggs said. Trump “is looking for homeruns,” he said. “Broadband may be one of those.”