San Jose mayor says he’s quitting FCC broadband committee because Big Telecom is running it

Last year, the FCC, under Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai, launched an advisory committee on high-speed internet access, saying it planned to bring broadband to more people. But according to San Jose’s mayor, who quit the committee in protest today, the telecommunications industry has taken hold of the initiative, advancing its own interests at the expense of consumers.

Calls the committee “a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry”

“It has become abundantly clear that despite the good intentions of several participants, the industry-heavy makeup of BDAC [Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee] will simply relegate the body to being a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said in his announcement, which was reported on earlier today by Axios.

The broadband committee, meant to be a partnership between a group of stakeholders, has been criticized before for an apparent bias toward the telecom industry. In August, the Center for Public Integrity explained how local governments believed they were being played, as the FCC reportedly stacked more than three out of four positions on the panel with business-friendly interests.

Liccardo says in his letter that he hoped the committee could develop “balanced, common-sense recommendations,” but that he’s since become disillusioned. At a recent meeting, he said, a working group with no municipal representatives considered a plan to eliminate municipal control of broadband infrastructure. The goal, he now believes, is to give the industry “publicly-funded infrastructure at taxpayer-subsidized rates.”

“As a result, I am compelled to submit my resignation to the FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory Board, effective immediately,” he writes.

shiftyasiankid on January 25th, 2018 at 23:19 UTC »

The Ars Technica article is more detailed.

The code recommends five possible deployment strategies for rural areas where private ISPs won't deploy broadband without government assistance. The code lists the strategies in order of preference, and the 'networks owned and operated by cities and towns' strategy is listed last among the five.

The first option is for cities and towns to help private ISPs with their deployments and is described as follows:

Private-led Investment with Public Assistance. In which a privately-owned entity constructs, maintains, and operates the Broadband network and the municipality assists by facilitating permitting, granting, and customer sign-ups and ensures that the Broadband service is not discriminatory in its service standards or areas served.

Next are "public-private partnerships" in which a rural municipality "provides all or some of the necessary capital funds to construct the network, and one selected service provider is granted an exclusive franchise agreement for a finite period of time sufficient for the Broadband provider to recover its capital investment."

After the exclusivity period, the network would shift to an open-access model that allows other ISPs to lease network access and resell Internet service to customers. The private ISP would maintain responsibility for system maintenance and operations.

Third among the five options is a community-owned open-access network that leases access to one or more private providers.

Fourth is "public-led contracting," in which "the community serves as the lead entity and Broadband provider by constructing, financing, and owning the network infrastructure with a private sector partner providing crucial network operations or other duties specifically negotiated."

The fifth and last option is a network fully funded and operated by the municipality. The city or town "designs, builds, operates, and manages a community-wide ISP, and the Rural municipality is responsible for all aspects of the network, including customer support and installations."

Cities and towns that want to pursue the fourth or fifth option would be required to pass several tests first. Before beginning to plan or deploy a municipal broadband network, cities or towns would have to "solicit and accept proposals to deploy a Broadband network from private Communications Providers."

The municipality would also have to perform an evaluation to determine three things: "That the benefits associated with purchasing or constructing the facilities outweigh the costs; that the project is both feasible and sustainable; and that the purchase and construction of the facilities is in the interest of the general public."

"If, and only if, the Rural municipality receives no reasonable and credible proposal from a private Communications Provider to build a Broadband network and otherwise determines that none of the first three options in Article 12(b) are viable and if, and only if, the Rural municipality makes a positive determination of costs, feasibility, sustainability, and that the action is in the interest of the general public may the Rural municipality invest in a Fully Public Funded and Operated Network and/or engage in Public-Led Contracting," the model state code says.

Maybe I'm not fully understanding this, but it sounds to me like the FCC is saying to rural communities that want internet access, you have to ask the permission of the telecom companies that refuse to serve you if you can build your own network. And then if they say its okay, you have to let them use it. We won't pay for it, but if you do, you have to let us leech off of it. I understand this hasn't been enacted yet. How in the world is allowing telecom corporations to bully cities and towns okay?!

trezor2 on January 25th, 2018 at 20:02 UTC »

So the FCC was formed to regulate the Telecom industry, because it was an industry in need of regulation, because if it were to be left on its own, it would not operate for the public good.

And now the FCC is run by the telecom industry.

And nobody bats an eye? Really?

TehSoupNazi on January 25th, 2018 at 18:20 UTC »

Hopefully bringing this to light will aid any investigations into FCC corruption regarding the Title II repeal.