States Seek Broadband Money, Want More Say on BDAC; O'Rielly Said to Visit During NARUC

States are searching for broadband funding, the NARUC meeting heard. While state commissions can advise state legislatures on broadband, they lack authority over high-speed internet service and aging state USFs cover only basic voice, state commissioners said. The Telecom Committee voted Tuesday for a resolution seeking greater federal USF high-cost fund support (see 1707050045). The proposed USF resolution supports recent calls in Congress for the FCC to address insufficient funding for rural broadband, with 57 senators and 102 House members seeking changes (see 1704110052).

The committee-approved USF resolution urges the FCC “to evaluate means of providing, and then ultimately providing, sufficient USF support to enable the availability and affordability of voice and broadband services in rural America,” said final proposed language distributed at Tuesday’s meeting. The resolution asks the FCC to fund its broadband support mechanisms, said sponsor and South Dakota Commissioner Chris Nelson: “We as NARUC want you to finish the job that you’ve started.”

“We need money” to spur rural broadband deployment, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission member David Danner said Monday. The money could come from customers, pole attachment fees or state general funds, he said. Rather than identify funding, the state legislature keeps calling for maps and broadband offices, he said. It’s “the same movie. ... We don’t need to map anymore. We don’t need to create broadband offices."

Rural broadband deployment is a “money issue,” not a mapping or broadband office problem, agreed Colorado Public Utilities Commissioner Wendy Moser. Good broadband maps exist for Colorado communities, but infrastructure buildout will remain challenging without more funding, she said. The $9.4 million​ transferred last month to Colorado’s rural broadband fund from its high-cost voice fund (see 1706070037) isn’t enough, Moser said. Some voice providers refuse to give up support, she said. A state law requires transferring money from the high-cost voice fund, which distributes $34 million yearly, to broadband in areas with competitive voice service, and voice providers have sued, she said.

Utah’s USF for basic voice indirectly supports broadband because it’s funding transition of copper to fiber networks, Public Service Commissioner David Clark said. The Utah PSC aims to finalize rules by Jan. 1 to shift state USF assessment to connections-based contribution from an intrastate revenue-based mechanism that all other states have, Clark said. Changes would widen the contribution base by assessing VoIP lines, he said.

Policymakers shouldn't have​ to choose between voice and broadband services, Nebraska PSC Commissioner Crystal Rhoades said from the audience. “This argument about separation of voice and broadband incenses me” because for about 20 years “nobody has been putting anything anywhere that isn’t capable of delivering high-speed broadband,” Rhoades said. “We have to make it super confusing because the regulatory structure is confusing, not because the network is confusing.”

BDAC Concerns

Tuesday, the NARUC Telecom Committee voted for a resolution seeking more state and local representation on the BDAC (see 1707050045). The proposed resolution would ask for more state and local members, and urge the FCC to work with states on broadband deployment issues through the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications. Monday, energy industry officials asked to be more involved in BDAC small-cells deployment talks. Local officials also have complained (see 1706010054).

The committee-approved resolution calls for a level of state-and-local membership on BDAC and its working groups “that equitably balances with representation by [broadband] industry representatives,” said final proposed language. The BDAC mission tracks the Section 706 Conference, a body that’s not been well used, said sponsor and New York Public Service Commissioner Gregg Sayre. If the FCC wishes to pass the conference’s mandate to BDAC, the new body needs more state representation, he said.

NARUC’s lone representative on the committee, Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable Commissioner Karen Charles Peterson, abstained from Tuesday's vote and earlier said the body is making progress. “You have a bunch of folks from industry and a handful of folks from the government side, and we are listening to each other,” she told us Monday. The BDAC seeks to move quickly, the state commissioner said on a panel. “Chairman Pai would like to see something on the books sooner rather than later.” The BDAC is developing “draft model codes,” she said. There’s “talk” that pre-emption “may be an option” in “certain territories within a community,” for example in rural parts, she said.

It's “a committee dominated by telecoms,” Edison Electric Institute outside counsel Russell Frisby said on another panel: States and utilities “don’t have anywhere near an equal share on very important issues” that are “out of the FCC’s wheelhouse.” National Electrical Safety Code Chairman Nelson Bingel urged national cooperation between telecom and energy industries to set standards for attaching small cells to poles.

Local governments are “very concerned” industry wants the FCC to pre-empt state and local authority to regulate the right of way (ROW) and pole attachments, said Best Best’s Gail Karish, a telecom attorney for local governments in California. But California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Picker doubted the FCC can pre-empt state commissions’ jurisdiction on poles. Because electric companies own most poles, state commissions have authority under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and North American Electric Reliability Corp. “to maintain the reliability and the safety of the poles,” as well as “very strong police powers at the state level” to protect the public and infrastructure, Picker said. “Neither of those can be pre-empted by the FCC through an administrative proceeding.”

Cities are wrestling with the “where, when and how” of small cells, San Diego Deputy Chief Operating Officer David Graham said. Higher backhaul requirements of 5G mean that roads and other city infrastructure besides poles may be disrupted by deployment, he added. Pole attachment rates vary widely among cities, Graham said, citing a tension between wanting revenue for the city and attracting “ubiquitous 5G.”

Many states passed or proposed small-cells legislation this year, perhaps due to “many communities not being ready to address this issue,” said David Young, fiber network and ROW manager for Lincoln, Nebraska. Communities should streamline the permitting process and establish standard agreements and pole designs to ease deployment, he said: They could ask for fiber and power to smart city devices on the poles in return.

NARUC Notebook

Congress should resolve the net neutrality debate, an NCTA official and telecom researchers agreed on a Tuesday panel. Legislation would stop the “ping-ponging” that occurs every time the FCC gets a new chair from a different party, NCTA Vice President-External Affairs Rick Cimerman said. Brookings Institution Fellow Nicol Turner-Lee said, “Congress has to come in and break the chokehold.” The 7 million comments show that Americans see this as a broad, societal issue rising beyond the FCC to the level of Congress, she said.

The FCC isn’t prepared to deal with an issue like net neutrality because its institutional model is weak, Public Utility Research Center Director Mark Jamison said. The independent agency may have become too political to work effectively, he added. Legislation may not come soon in the current political climate, said Christopher Yoo, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition. The right standard to apply is what’s good for consumers, he said. Some present net neutrality as a fight between Netflix and ISPs, but Netflix is big enough to take care of itself, he said.