1 / 21

FCC Notice of Inquiry: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment

FCC Notice of Inquiry: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment. Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding PROW and Wireless Facilities Siting. FCC Notice of Inquiry: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment. Adopted/Released: April 7, 2011

roland
Download Presentation

FCC Notice of Inquiry: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FCC Notice of Inquiry:Acceleration of Broadband Deployment Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding PROW and Wireless Facilities Siting

  2. FCC Notice of Inquiry:Acceleration of Broadband Deployment • Adopted/Released: April 7, 2011 • Published/Federal Register: May 17, 2011 • Initial Comments Due: July 18, 2011 • Reply Comments Due: August 30, 2011 • Copy Available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-51A1.doc

  3. What is a Notice of Inquiry (NOI)? • A notice issued by the Federal Communications Commission to ask the public for information on, or to generate ideas about, a topic. • Often a precursor to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

  4. Goals of the NOI • Improving government policies for access to rights of way and wireless facilities siting • Remove barriers to infrastructure investment • Reduce costs and time required for broadband investment • Specifically states that the FCC “seek(s) to work with stakeholders including state and local governments…”

  5. How do local regulations concerning PROW affect broadband deployment? • The perception is that municipalities and local regulations are barriers to entry. • See, e.g.,: • The National Broadband Plan @ p. 109: “…the rates, terms, and conditions for access to rights of way significantly impact broadband deployment…” • NARUC, Promoting Broadband Access Through Public Rights of Way and Public Lands, 2002, @ p. i: “…the rights-of-way practices of certain governmental entities have emerged as a barrier to the deployment of advanced telecommunications and broadband networks…”

  6. How do local regulations concerning PROW affect broadband deployment? • FCC, Declaratory Ruling Concerning Timely Siting Review (“the Shot Clock Ruling”), 11/2009, @ p.1: “In many cases, delays in the zoning process have hindered the deployment of new wireless infrastructure.” • FCC, NOI: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment, 4/2011, Statement of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, @ p. 21: “This Initiative is one of the Commission’s top priorities: an agency-wide effort to speed the build-out of wired and wireless broadband by removing obstacles to deployment, particularly obstacles created by unneeded or inefficient regulation.” (emphasis added)

  7. Issues to be Discussed • Timeliness and Ease of Permitting Process • Reasonableness of Charges • Extent to Which Ordinances Have Been Updated to Reflect Current Technologies or Innovative Deployment Practices

  8. Issues to be Discussed • Consistent or Discriminatory/Differential Treatment • Presence or Absence of Uniformity Among Jurisdictions • Other ROW Concerns, including “Third Tier” Regulations Not Directly Related to ROW Use or Facility Siting

  9. Timeliness & Ease of Permitting Process • Has the Shot Clock Ruling been effective in reducing delays in local zoning processes? • Are ROW permit application processes sufficiently clear? How could it be streamlined? What are reasonable timeframes? • Provide specific, disaggregated data about experiences, situations.

  10. Reasonableness of Charges • Are ROW charges reasonable? Can all interested stakeholders agree on what is reasonable? • Provide specific data on current permitting charges, including application, administrative and processing fees. • Are fees published in advance or negotiated individually? • In what circumstances are charges most likely to be unreasonable?

  11. Pricing: Qualitative Information • How are prices set? • (To localities) What policy goals are furthered by ROW practices and charges? • (To providers) How do ROW issues influence deployment decisions? • (To providers) In areas where processes are standardized, how has this affected deployment? What are the benefits?

  12. Extent to Which Ordinances Are Updated to Reflect Current Technology • Are state and local regulations updated to reflect current developments in technology? • Do any locales allow all proposed DAS antennas within a particular network to be combined in a single application? • How do jurisdictions treat use of existing infrastructure (i.e.: pole attachments vs. collocation on wireless towers)?

  13. Consistent or Discriminatory/Differential Treatment • How do ordinances address differences in ROW users and wireless facilities siting applicants? • Are different practices and/or charges reasonable? • What method should be used to determine whether a practice or charge is unreasonable or discriminatory?

  14. Presence or Absence of Uniformity Among Jurisdictions • Does inconsistent treatment of providers among jurisdictions make deployment of broadband more difficult or time consuming? • Does the need to file multiple applications cause problems for infrastructure providers?

  15. Possible FCC Actions • Voluntary Programs or Educational Activities: • Educational Efforts and Voluntary Activities • Best/Worst Practices • Increased Uniformity (through Development of Model Processes or Practices) • Competition and Awards • Commission Sponsored Mediation • Improved Facilities Deployment Practices (through Promotion of Innovative Practices) • Recommendations to Congress/the Administration

  16. Possible FCC Actions • Rulemaking and Adjudication • Adopt Policy Guidelines • Adopt Rules • Adjudication • Scope of Policy Guidelines or Rules? • Safe Harbors/Triggers • Billing Practices • Interpretations of Sections 253 & 332

  17. Legal Authority • Does the FCC have the authority to engage in all of the proposed actions? • NOI states a belief that the FCC does have such authority but seeks comment on those views. • National organizations (such as NLC, NACO, NATOA, USCM, APWA) will file comments addressing the scope of the FCC’s authority.

  18. Call to Action • What’s at stake? • Control of the PROW • Revenue • Budgets (additional staffing to meet FCC imposed timelines and to defend legal actions) • Economic development (if non-broadband applications go to the back of the line) • Zoning control • Rental income from cell tower leases

  19. Call to Action • Industry will make their voice heard. • Every bad example will be cited. • Cities need to do the same. • Remember the perception?? Tell the success stories. • Be specific – name providers by name. • Tell the FCC about your community. If you have competition, let them know. • How do you encourage broadband deployment?

  20. Filing Comments • Electronically: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ • Paper by Mail: (1 original & 4 copies) Marlene Dortch Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 • NLC Comments Template/Instructions: http://www.nlc.org/influence-federal-policy/advocacy/regulatory-advocacy/regulations---communications--technology

  21. QUESTIONS? Beccy Yocham Deputy City Attorney City of Lenexa, Kansas 12350 W. 87th Street Parkway Lenexa, KS 66215 913.477.7628 byocham@ci.lenexa.ks.us

More Related