Time Past Due to Appoint Promised Advisory Committee, Local Governments Say

This IAC would provide the agency with local government input, the groups said. Instead, the FCC appears to be leaning too heavily on advice from its Technical Advisory Committee, “a committee with no local government participants -- and required local governments to spend scarce resources to respond to open-ended NOI questions that contemplate Commission regulation,” the filing said. The FCC has even indicated it could act on TAC recommendations “independent of this proceeding,” the filing said (http://xrl.us/bk2nep): “This would be a serious mistake, with serious adverse consequences for broadband deployment and adoption, public safety, and the economy.” TAC Chairman Tom Wheeler couldn’t be reached for comment by our deadline.

"Local governments have for years felt like dictates come from the FCC without any real ... understanding on how these impacts really work when you get into local community,” said Ken Fellman, a Denver attorney and former mayor of Arvada, Colo. “Local governments are government entities too. ... The FCC should be looking at us just not as another interested party before the FCC.” The National Broadband Plan called for a special committee of local government officials to examine rights of way issues, but that recommendation has never been acted on, he said.

The FCC created the IAC but has yet to appoint anyone to serve on the committee, said Fellman, who was a member of the predecessor local government advisory committee for six years. The previous group served as a “great educational mechanism” for getting “outside the Beltway” perspective, but ended under former Chairman Michael Powell, he said. Nominations are due this month. But Fellman noted that the committee’s two-year charter expires at the end of this year. “By the time they get around to making appointments, the two-year charter is going to be almost over."

"I think it is unfortunate that the FCC is acting as if local governments are the enemy in the effort to get broadband deployed rather than potential allies,” said Public Knowledge Legal Director Harold Feld. “Bluntly, the current FCC seems more interested in scoring political points for being ‘pro-industry’ and ‘deregulatory’ than in trying to come up with real solutions that engage local governments. IAC should be providing the FCC with valuable expertise and creating a forum where industry and local government can formulate ways to work together.” It’s easy to portray local governments as the heavy when broadband build out is delayed, Feld said. “But state and local government routinely handle problems of implementation, deployment, information collection, and consumer protection that are critical to successful deployment of new services,” he said. “If the FCC tried to handle all the issues delegated to the local level, it would be quickly overwhelmed. Does the FCC really want to address every single interconnection complaint and tower citing issue?"

Free State Foundation President Randolph May said he’s no fan of “the proliferation of advisory committees in light of the fact that it is so easy for any entity or group of entities to make their views known to the commission.” May defended Genachowski. “While the views of the state and local government officials certainly ought to be heard, ... I would cut Chairman Genachowski some slack in terms of how many advisory committees he convenes, how frequently they meet, and what subjects they consider."

"The chairman has been pretty consistent in getting stakeholders together to help the agency make big decisions, so I assume he was going to bring in the IAC at some point,” said MF Global analyst Paul Gallant.

An FCC official noted that the agency has a process in place for appointing an IAC and extended the nomination deadline for members of the group until July 27 to allow additional applications.

The record shows that local practices have not deterred broadband build out, the groups said. “At a time when the economic recovery is lagging in significant part because State and local governments are ‘bleeding jobs,’ it is critical that the federal government not directly or indirectly force State and local governments to divert resources to comply with a new regulatory regime -- one that could cost billions of dollars to implement,” the filing said. “If the Commission genuinely has not pre-judged these issues, it should have little trouble concluding that its time and resources are better spent elsewhere.” Many local governments find that despite their best efforts, they are unable to get carriers to build networks in their communities, the groups said: “Local governments are therefore puzzled that instead of addressing the real forces deterring broadband deployment and adoption in America’s communities, the Commission has launched yet another proceeding -- and one of startling scope -- to examine local government property management."

The groups said the FCC’s concern that local governments are using control of their rights of way to deter building out is misplaced: “Local governments compete vigorously with one another to attract and encourage deployment of advanced and reliable utilities that will in turn attract and support new industrial, commercial, and residential development. This is a strong incentive not to overprice right-of-way access.”