CTIA Sees Problems in BDAC State Model Code

constructive framework and building block for state efforts to promote broadband deployment, building on the momentum already achieved over the past few years in more than a dozen states,” CTIA said. It said BDAC went wrong narrowing the definition of utility poles to exclude all poles not used to support electric or communications lines. “The State Model Code contains other provisions that ensure that such poles can safely hold such facilities,” CTIA said. “As the size of wireless facilities continues to shrink, the State Model Code misses a critical opportunity here: the State Model Code should have defined ‘utility pole’ to promote -- not hinder -- broadband service.” The panel also is wrong in calling for “a new manager with extensive regulatory, enforcement, and dispute resolution powers,” the association said: “Creating a new layer of regulatory bureaucracy does not align with the BDAC’s charter to recommend ways to lower regulatory barriers.” Universal service provisions “impermissibly seek to assess contributions on broadband services and improperly discriminate among different types of providers,” CTIA said. The code correctly declines to place franchising requirements on carriers and instead “properly makes election of a state-wide franchise an option at the discretion of the communications provider,” CTIA said. Because the statewide franchising provisions “were substantially re-drafted at the eleventh hour, a number of important questions remain unanswered,” the group said. The FCC didn't comment.