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
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
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
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…”
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 rightsof-way practices of certain governmental entities have
emerged as a barrier to the deployment of advanced
telecommunications and broadband networks…”
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)
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
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
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.
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?
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?
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)?
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?
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?
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
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
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.
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
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?
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/regulatoryadvocacy/regulations---communications--technology
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