BDAC Members Say Regardless of What Happens Next, Committee a Success

The group has had a rocky road. In January, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo resigned from the BDAC, slamming the group for not doing enough to address concerns of local governments (see 1801250049). Liccardo didn’t comment now. The National Conference of State Legislatures raised concerns this week about the model code for states now before BDAC. And many state and local representatives say too few of their ilk are on the full committee.

“One of the key strengths to the BDAC is the number of subject-matter experts coming together to address a common problem -- how to remove barriers to broadband deployment so that every American has access,” said Chair Elizabeth Bowles. “The composition of the BDAC and its working groups has allowed for a full and open discussion of complicated, thorny issues, and having the voices of multiple stakeholders provides an over-arching perspective that could not be gained any other way. No single voice dominates the BDAC, and this has allowed stakeholders with disparate interests to find common ground.”

The discussion is critical for rural America, falling behind metropolitan parts of the U.S. and other countries, Bowles told us. “I hope that the work product coming out of the BDAC will provide best practices, new concepts, and maybe even a road map for streamlining broadband deployment in a way that balances the needs of providers, residents and the communities.”

“BDAC has examined a lot of major issues facing the deployment of broadband networks and so far we’ve made enormous progress that is informing the FCC in its effort to help the country prepare for 5G,” said Jonathan Adelstein, Wireless Infrastructure Association president. The streamlining federal siting working group he chairs “got unanimous support for a specific, comprehensive plan that includes recommendations to streamline and harmonize the processes across multiple federal agencies,” Adelstein said. “Our work, and that of all the working groups, is getting heard not only at the FCC, but in Congress and the White House as they, too, focus on expanding the deployment of broadband infrastructure.”

Recommendations' Targets

While it's an FCC advisory group, many working group recommendations “are aimed at a non-FCC audience,” said member Brent Skorup of the Mercatus Center. “While the competitive access working group mostly has recommendations for the FCC, the federal siting working group mostly has recommendations for federal agencies, [GAO] and the White House. State and municipality model code working groups have state legislatures and cities in mind,” he said. “I don't think anyone anticipates an agency or legislature will adopt BDAC recommendations completely but most on the BDAC would certainly like the intended audience to receive, evaluate, and use, when appropriate, the approved recommendations.”

Hopefully, the suggestions “will send a signal to leaders at federal agencies, state legislatures and municipalities that broadband deployment is an important economic and social issue that should receive higher priority from public officials,” Skorup said. “My next hope is that the recommendations will save the FCC, federal agencies, legislatures and municipalities tremendous time and effort so they don't have to reinvent the wheel as these broadband deployment issues increasingly arise around the country.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures raised concerns about the model code for states before BDAC. NCSL, in a letter to Pai, said its concerns are over the lack of state and local representation on BDAC (see 1801250049). “NCSL agrees that removing regulatory barriers will enhance the development and deployment of advanced telecommunications services,” NCSL said in docket 17-83. “However, the membership of the BDAC, and therefore the recommendations and discussion drafts currently under consideration, do not reflect balanced viewpoints between industry and state and local interests. Serving as an advisory body to the FCC, the BDAC’s recommendations hold influence over FCC efforts to identify and remove regulatory barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment and therefore the BDAC membership should reflect those significantly impacted by the recommendations.”

NCSL called on Pai to add more state legislators to BDAC. The FCC didn't comment.

BDAC Taken Seriously

FCC officials starting with Pai have made clear the agency will take the group’s recommendations seriously, said BDAC member Robert DeBroux of TDS Telecom, chair of the removing state and local regulatory barriers working group. “There’s so many things the FCC can potentially do with this report,” he said. “I don’t know that there’s a clear, ‘Well, once we get that, then we’re going to do X, Y and Z.’” DeBroux said his group made mostly “high-level” recommendations: “There needs to be more collaboration between providers and local officials.” The group urged more FCC guidance on fees for reviews, he said. Problems are occurring because providers, especially with the advent of 5G, want to move fast and states and localities are struggling to keep up, he said. “We’ve got to get a grasp of what is the reality out there that exists in terms of providers looking at ways to put out more broadband.”

BDAC has been “substantial and thorough,” said member Carlos Gutierrez from LGBT Tech. “I was surprised at the depth and extent of the work done. I would love to see the FCC take the recommendations submitted by the various groups and really consider and implement as many of the suggestions as possible knowing the resulting reports have been the work of debate, opposing viewpoints and ultimately compromise.”

Member Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law & Economics, said the FCC will have to do work on most of the recommendations. BDAC is a volunteer, part-time committee, put together for a relatively short period and without a budget, he said. “It is impossible for such an entity to really do the legwork that should be required to rigorously determine the efficacy and desirability of significant regulation,” Manne said. “I don’t doubt that the FCC will duly consider its recommendations, but the BDAC should be seen more as the initiation of the process than the end.” Developing models in a short period of time is a tall order, he said. “The process has and will continue to identify important areas of dispute or uncertainty, identify the general contours of such codes, and, to be sure, start the process of developing them.”

BDAC’s model city code shines some light on a process that in the past often got little scrutiny, said Richard Bennett, network architect and member of the city working group. “It’s working because it has already made some politicians uncomfortable,” he said. Bennett also said the code is unlikely to be adopted as proposed anywhere because each city is different. “The model has been extracted from a number of actual codes, so it's at least realistic,” he said. “The model code will make it easy to compare the performance of comparable cities that depart from the model in different ways, a boon to policy researchers.”

BDAC is a success, said Doug Brake, member of the state code working group. “If we want a robust 5G deployment anytime soon, we are going to require a new model for accessing poles and rights of way,” he said. “The old franchising or macro siting models aren’t going to cut it for wide-scale, multi-provider deployment. The BDAC has identified real tools to move forward.” It has been most useful in “exposing and clarifying disagreements,” said Brake, director-telecom policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “The one-touch discussions … have felt like mediated dispute resolutions,” he said. “Getting something close to consensus on contested issues is a big step forward.”