Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.F.4. National Broadband Plans/Right-of-Way User Fees S'.F. LI. City of Shako pee MEMORANDUM COA'srNT ; ,. ,. > ... . , .,~,. i '1: '. :' TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Kris Wilson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: National Broadband Plan/Right-of-Way User Fees DATE: February 26, 2010 Introduction Several organizations to which the City belongs, including the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NA TOA), are urging member cities to write to their Congressional delegation and the Vice President, in regards to a pending issue before the FCC that would establish federal standards and restrictions on local right of way ordinances, permits and fees. This is being considered in connection with a National Broadband Plan. The Telecommunications Commission discussed the issue at their February 24 meeting and voted to recommend to the Council that the City send a letter, based off of a sample provided by NATOA. The text of the letter is attached. Relationship to Vision This item relates to Goal E: Financially Strong. Requested Action If the Council concurs, it is asked to offer a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign and send the attached letter on behalf of the City. [Local Government Seal Letterhead] [Letter to Rep/Sen] [Date] Re: FCC Action Threatens Local Budgets And Offers No Guarantee of Consumer Benefit in Return Dear [Rep/Senator Name]: As you know, the Federal Communications Commission will be submitting the National Broadband Plan ("NBP") on March 17,2010. Recently, we've become aware that some communications companies are urging the FCC, as part of the NBP or in parallel proceedings, to adopt a federal standard for compensation for use of public property, and a federal standard for permitting pursuant to Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Instead of allowing localities to collect a fair market rent based on a percentage of gross revenues, the FCC is being urged to declare fees for use of municipal and state property unlawful unless they are related to costs. The effect would be to render unlawful fees established by state statute, established by negotiation, or established using methods commonly used in private markets, thus immediately eliminating hundreds of millions, if not billions, from state and local budgets, while burdening states and localities with the cost of complying with a new federal program. We write to ask for your leadership in communicating to the Federal Communications Commission that the NBP must not be used as a vehicle to take revenue from local government budgets, especially when there is no reason to expect that this action will result in additional broadband deployment, or benefit consumers in any way. States and localities play an important role in ensuring that high-speed broadband is available to police and firefighters for public safety purposes, and is also available to the most vulnerable sectors of the community through libraries and community centers. The likely effect of the action the Commission is being urged to take will reduce funding available for these services, negatively impacting public safety and resulting in a reduction in broadband availability, Like other local government leaders, we appreciate the invaluable role that broadband can play in enhancing educational opportunities, promoting business and community economic development, improving health care delivery, assisting in achieving energy efficiency goals, and generally contributing to improving the quality of community life. However, when Congress adopted Section 253 in 1996, it made it very clear that the FCC was not to set the rents that could be charged for use of public property, nor was it to supplant traditional state and local police powers by setting up national permitting standards. That wise choice has been honored by Democratic and Republican administrations and should not be changed now. Sincerely, LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEAL LETTERHEAD Vice President Joe Biden The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20501 Re: FCC Action Threatens Local Budgets And Offers No Guarantee of Consumer Benefit in Return Dear Mr. Vice President: We write to ask your leadership in communicating to the Federal Communications Commission that it should not be taking actions now that endanger local government budgets. The FCC is being asked by some companies to establish federal standards that limit compensation for use of any public property by communications companies, and to invalidate any fee - even fees based on state statute, negotiation or the fair market value of the property - inconsistent with the new standard. The immediate effect of any such action (which is being considered as part ofthe National Broadband Plan and in a parallel proceeding involving Level 3) could force many local governments to make additional cuts in budgets that have already been slashed, resulting in further employee layoffs. Like other local government leaders, I appreciate the invaluable role that broadband can play in enhancing educational opportunities, promoting business and community economic development, improving health care delivery, assisting in achieving energy efficiency goals, and generally contributing to improving the quality of community life. We understand that some at the FCC believe that by reducing costs, companies will be encouraged to deploy more broadband, but in fact, there is no guarantee that subsidizing providers will result in any significant benefits to subscribers, especially because the FCC is not proposing to tie the subsidies to any public obligations (indeed the cutbacks would undoubtedly reduce funds available that local governments currently use to provide broadband services to schools, to libraries and to other institutions). Any action that would limit local authority to manage local rights-of-way and/or negatively impact local budgets must be avoided in these tough economic times. Sincerely, [Signature]