BDAC Votes for Model Codes Amid Process Questions

BDAC voted to approve the model municipal code as a final working product subject to tweaks in a later reconciliation process that will harmonize reports. Nobody voted nay on the 30-member BDAC. The committee approved the state code with seven members opposed and one abstaining. The codes, like other working group products, would still need another vote before it’s final, BDAC Chair Elizabeth Bowles said. BDAC will have a call next week of working group chairs and vice chairs to discuss the reconciliation process, Bowles said.

Between votes on municipal and state codes, members raised many questions about how many more changes could happen during the proposed reconciliation process, with some saying many issues hadn’t been resolved. Bowles, president of wireless ISP Aristotle, said reconciliation will address direct conflicts among reports, but won’t be an opportunity to relitigate issues already debated by the committee. As more voiced concerns about the allowable extent of changes and others questioning if “reconciliation” is a good word to use, Bowles said “reconciliation can be whatever we want it to be.” The eventual state code vote was on a motion was “to vote out the model state code subject to the comments made at this meeting, and that will be submitted in the next two days, to resolve during harmonization with the other recommendations of the BDAC.”

The municipal code working group reached unanimous agreement on the draft code despite recent local official resignations (see 1804040044 and 1801250049), said Dimitroff. He praised the group finding balance on many issues including undergrounding, abandonment and decorative poles. Georgia Municipal Association Executive Director Larry Hanson praised the chair’s drive toward agreement.

Outgoing Commissioner Mignon Clyburn urged a “consensus-based, fact-driven approach” to infrastructure issues. “While there are only three local government representatives on BDAC, I hope that that does not mean that their views, in a proportional manner, are not considered,” Clyburn said in opening remarks. BDAC should also consider views of those unable to participate, she said. She urged the body to revise model codes to achieve accord, because “a consensus-based approach ensures that these model codes are sustainable, that they advance the public interest and they facilitate innovation and investment.”

Bowles agreed "consensus is the solution,” saying members put in many hours to achieve that goal. BDAC members “certainly don’t agree on everything,” but perceptions that they're not all people of “good will” are incorrect, said Uniti Fiber General Counsel Kelly McGriff, chair of the state model code working group.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai applauded BDAC members’ labors: “Your work matters because broadband matters. I understand that the work has been very nitty gritty and sometimes difficult, but nonetheless I hope you know that the overall mission has been the highest one that we could possibly have asked of you.”

“We are way over time,” Bowles noted at 3:20 p.m. with the group still debating the state model code, originally scheduled to wrap before lunch.

State Code

Local officials resisted siting and other recommendations in the state code. BDAC’s newest member David Young -- a local official from Lincoln, Nebraska, who represents the National League of Cities (see 1804090013) -- challenged the code’s statement it would retain local control because he said it strips local powers. He and other local officials questioned capping rates already stated to be cost-based and sought exceptions to proposed shot clocks and restrictions using third-party consultants.

BDAC members debated state code definitions of terms including “authority” and “utility pole.” Wireless representatives raised concerns the pole definition leaves out light poles. "If this code does not address our ability to attach to street lights, it really serves no purpose from a mobile service provider's perspective, because that is the core of what we are deploying,” said Sprint Vice President-Government Affairs Charles McKee.

Participants gave pros and cons of municipally owned networks for reaching rural areas, with some saying they should be encouraged and others saying they should be a last resort that could potentially stymie private investment. Bowles said a muni broadband ban in her state of Arkansas is holding back deployment. AT&T Assistant Vice President-External Affairs Chris Nurse supported state bans because he said muni broadband is unfair competition to companies.

Rates and Fees

The Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees could wrap work in about 60 days, estimated Chair Andy Huckaba, a local government official from Lenexa, Kansas. “This isn’t about winners and losers,” Huckaba said as he presented the group’s early work. “This is about really solving a much bigger challenging problem.” The group has agreement that one-time application and permit fees should be cost-based, though there’s not consensus on monthly or annual fees for using poles, he said.

More time, data and money may be needed to correlate pole attachment costs with broadband deployment, said members, responding to the ad-hoc group’s survey of rates and fees. University of Pennsylvania Professor Christopher Yoo, who put together the report, noted wide-ranging figures and limitations of using largely unverified data voluntarily submitted by BDAC members. Bowles urged more members to submit data and said correlating the costs with actual deployment would be “an exercise that would be extremely useful to undertake.”

Such work would require “a grant and time,” responded Yoo. The professor would need to hire a full-time graduate student and the work could take months, he said. The Wireless Infrastructure Association may be able to contribute money for such work, offered President Jonathan Adelstein.

Make Ready

The overall body agreed to a make-ready proposal by the competitive access group on reviewing requests to become an approved contractor to do make-ready work on poles. It was an addendum to the group’s previously adopted report (see 1801230043). Seven members dissented or abstained.

Under the proposed process, a contractor would provide documents showing qualifications, experience and safety record to the pole owner, which would notify existing attachers within 14 days of the request. The owner and existing pole riders could object within 30 days. If objection, the contractor could respond and host a “settlement conference” to resolve concerns. If that doesn’t resolve concerns, the dispute could be appealed to the FCC.

Pole-owning electric utilities want no part in judging communications industry disputes, said Allen Bell, a Georgia Power manager. “All we want to do is keep the lights on.”

The goal is to make the process “as painless as possible” for utilities, replied John Burchett, Google Fiber head-public policy. Attachers use many of the same contractors, so objections should be “extremely rare,” said Comcast Vice President-Regulatory Policy David Don. Electric utilities have a part to play because they will benefit when better broadband strengthens their communities’ economies, said WIA's Adelstein.