DOCSLIB.ORG

FCC-15-25A1.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FCC-15-25A1.Pdf Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-25 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) City of Wilson, North Carolina ) WC Docket No. 14-115 Petition for Preemption of North Carolina General ) Statute Sections 160A-340 et seq. ) ) The Electric Power Board of ) WC Docket No. 14-116 Chattanooga, Tennessee ) Petition for Preemption of a Portion of Tennessee ) Code Annotated Section 7-52-601 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 26, 2015 Released: March 12, 2015 By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing separate statements; Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 B. Background.................................................................................................................................... 17 1. The Commission’s Mandate Under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act ................. 18 2. The EPB Petition and Territorial Restriction in Section 601 .................................................. 22 3. The Wilson Petition and H.B.129 ........................................................................................... 33 II. PREEMPTION OF PROHIBITIONS ON MUNICIPAL PROVISION OF BROADBAND WILL LIKELY LEAD TO INCREASED OVERALL BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND PROMOTE OVERALL BROADBAND COMPETITION IN TENNESSEE AND NORTH CAROLINA, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 706 ........................... 42 A. EPB and Wilson Provide Service Because Pre-Existing Service Did Not Meet Community Needs ......................................................................................................................... 43 B. The Private Sector in Wilson and Chattanooga Improved Services and Reduced Rates or Halted Rate Increases in Response to Municipal Entry................................................................. 49 C. Objections Raised in the Record Fail to Support a Different Outcome......................................... 56 1. So-Called “Level Playing Field” and “Crowding Out” Arguments Do Not Justify Denying the Petitions .............................................................................................................. 57 2. Claims That There Is a High Rate of Municipal Broadband Failure Are Misplaced.............. 61 3. Other Objections...................................................................................................................... 71 III. THE TENNESSEE AND NORTH CAROLINA STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE BARRIERS TO BROADBAND INVESTMENT AND COMPETITION FOR EPB AND WILSON .............................................................................................................................................. 75 A. The Tennessee Statutory Provision, Section 7-52-601 .................................................................. 77 1. The Territorial Restriction in Section 601 is a Barrier to Broadband Investment and Competition............................................................................................................................. 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-25 2. EPB Would Deploy Additional Facilities and Expand Competitive Entry Absent the Territorial Restriction in Section 601...................................................................................... 80 B. North Carolina Statutory Provisions.............................................................................................. 81 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 81 a. Measures to Raise Economic Costs .................................................................................. 82 b. “Level Playing Field” Obligations.................................................................................... 85 c. Measures to Impose Delay................................................................................................ 88 2. The North Carolina General Statute, H.B. 129, is a Barrier to Broadband Investment and Competition ...................................................................................................................... 93 a. Measures to Raise Economic Costs .................................................................................. 96 b. “Level Playing Field” Obligations.................................................................................. 108 c. Measures to Impose Delay.............................................................................................. 114 3. Wilson Would Deploy Additional Facilities and Expand Competitive Entry Absent H.B.129 ................................................................................................................................. 120 4. Statutory Provisions That Do Not Constitute Barriers .......................................................... 123 IV. COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO PREEMPT THESE LAWS ....................................................... 130 A. The Mandate of Section 706........................................................................................................ 131 B. General Authority to Preempt under Section 706........................................................................ 140 C. Authority to Preempt Certain State Regulations of Community Broadband Providers............... 146 D. Counterarguments........................................................................................................................ 151 1. Arguments Based on the Act................................................................................................. 151 2. Gregory v. Ashcroft ............................................................................................................... 154 3. Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League .................................................................................... 159 4. The 10th Amendment............................................................................................................. 167 E. Application to Tennessee’s Section 601...................................................................................... 168 F. Application to North Carolina’s H.B. 129 ................................................................................... 170 1. “Level Playing Field” Obligations ........................................................................................ 173 2. Measures to Raise Economic Costs....................................................................................... 175 3. Measures to Impose Delay .................................................................................................... 179 4. Not Preempted....................................................................................................................... 182 V. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 183 ATTACHMENT A: EPB / TENNESSEE MAP ATTACHMENT B: WILSON / NORTH CAROLINA MAP ATTACHMENT C: TENNESSEE LAW SUBJECT TO PETITION ATTACHMENT D: NORTH CAROLINA LAW SUBJECT TO PETITION I. INTRODUCTION A. Executive Summary 1. In this proceeding, we grant the petition of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee (EPB), and grant to the extent described herein and otherwise deny the petition of the City of Wilson, North Carolina (Wilson),1 and preempt certain challenged provisions of Tennessee and North Carolina law restricting municipal provision of broadband service pursuant to section 706 of the 1 Petition of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Removal of Barriers to Broadband Investment and Competition, WC Docket No. 14-116 (filed July 24, 2014) (EPB Petition); Petition of the City of Wilson, North Carolina, Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Removal of Barriers to Broadband Investment and Competition, WC Docket No. 14-115 (filed July 24, 2014) (Wilson Petition). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-25 Telecommunications Act of 19962 because we find that they are barriers to broadband infrastructure investment and thwart competition. 2. Americans recognize the critical importance of high quality broadband internet access as necessary infrastructure in today’s world.3 As we recently found in our 2015 Broadband Progress Report: Today, Americans turn to broadband Internet access service for every facet of daily life, from finding a job to finding a doctor, from connecting with family to making new friends, from becoming educated to being entertained. The availability of sufficient broadband capability can erase the distance to high-quality health care and education, bring the world into homes and schools, drive American economic growth, and improve the nation’s global competitiveness. New technologies and services such as real-time distance learning, telemedicine, and higher quality video services are being offered in the market today and are pushing demand for higher broadband speeds.4 3. The private sector has invested billions of dollars upgrading their broadband networks throughout the United States, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Matter of ) ) City of Wilson, North Carolina ) ) Petition for Preemption of ) North Carolina General Statutes ) § 160A-340 Et Seq
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 ____________________________________ ) ) In the Matter of ) ) City of Wilson, North Carolina ) ) Petition for Preemption of ) North Carolina General Statutes ) § 160A-340 et seq. ) WC Docket No. 14-115 ) The Electric Power Board of ) Chattanooga, Tennessee ) ) Petition for Preemption of a Portion of ) Section 7-52-601 of the Tennessee Code ) Annotated ) WC Docket No. 14-116 ) ____________________________________ ) COMMENTS OF THE FIBER TO THE HOME COUNCIL AMERICAS IN SUPPORT OF ELECTRIC POWER BOARD AND CITY OF WILSON PETITIONS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 706 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, SEEKING PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS RESTRICTING THE DEPLOYMENT OF CERTAIN BROADBAND NETWORKS Heather Burnett Gold President Fiber to the Home Council Americas 6841 Elm Street #843 McLean, VA 22101 Telephone: (202) 365-5530 August 29, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................1 I. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES HAVE AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY WHERE PRIVATE PROVIDERS HAVE NOT DEPLOYED ADEQUATE ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY IN A REASONABLE AND TIMELY FASHION ............................................................................................................3 II. STATE LAWS AND RULES THAT BAR DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY BY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES IN AREAS WHERE PRIVATE PROVIDERS HAVE NOT DEPLOYED ADEQUATE ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY IN A REASONABLE AND
    [Show full text]
  • The Philadelphia Story Learning from a Municipal Wireless Pioneer
    The Philadelphia Story Learning from a Municipal Wireless Pioneer Joshua Breitbart, Author Naveen Lakshmipathy, Appendices Sascha D. Meinrath, Editor NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION 1 The Philadelphia Story Learning from a Municipal Wireless Pioneer Joshua Breitbart, Author Naveen Lakshmipathy, Appendices Sascha D. Meinrath, Editor Washington, DC Contents Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................3 Keys To Successful Municipal Wireless Network Deployment......................................................................4 Welcome To Philadelphia ............................................................................................................................................7 About This Report ..........................................................................................................................................................8 Philadelphia A Case Study..........................................................................................................9 Pilot Project.......................................................................................................................................................................9 The Executive Committee .........................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Benefits of Broadband Competition in Terms of Service and Opportunities for Low-Income Communities
    DRAFT Benefits of Broadband Competition in Terms of Service and Opportunities for Low-Income Communities Prepared for the City of Madison, Wisconsin Benefits of Broadband Competition | DRAFT | March 2018 March 2018 Contents 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 2 Research Overview on Competition and Digital Equity .......................................................... 3 3 Two Case Studies on the Effects of Competition .................................................................... 6 3.1 The Google Fiber Case ...................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Arrival of Google Fiber in Kansas City ....................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Comcast and Time Warner Cable Announce Free Speed Increases ......................... 6 3.1.3 AT&T Announces Upgrades and Cites Push for “Competition” ............................... 7 3.1.4 Incumbents May Have Boosted Speeds as Early as 2012 ......................................... 7 3.2 The Urbana/Champaign Case ........................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 The UC2B Network .................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Incumbent Response Began When UC2B Starts Connecting Homes ....................... 8 3.2.3 AT&T and Comcast Stopped Raising Prices and Comcast Boosted Speeds .............
    [Show full text]
  • Institute for Local Self-Reliance
    Fact Checking the New Taxpayers Protection Alliance Report, GON With the Wind ​ By Christopher Mitchell, Katie Kienbaum, Jess Del Fiacco, Ry Marcattilio-McCracken Institute for Local Self-Reliance In time, we may offer a more substantial reaction on our Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies page, ​ ​ which already addresses many of the claims repeated in this report. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance is offering this quick, critical reaction within hours of first seeing the Taxpayers Protection Alliance report in order to give the facts a chance — this is a biased attack against municipal networks and the ​ ​ competition they can provide in a market that desperately needs it. Learn More: ILSR.org MuniNetworks.org Get in Touch: @MuniNetworks @CommunityNets [email protected] The Taxpayers Protection Alliance has returned with another puzzling attempt to discredit municipal broadband networks: They have published a report, GON With the Wind, that mostly ​ ​ affirms that the community networks it picked to study are successful. TPA’s report offers 30 short case studies and there is no explanation of how TPA chose this odd subset of municipal networks. Yet they allege a failure of the network or failure to pay debt in only 9 of its examples. One of the claims of failure, North Carolina’s Wilson, relies solely on a false claim that was quietly retracted years ago by Christopher Yoo at the University of Pennsylvania, who admitted he did not understand the revenue bonds he was criticizing. To be clear, TPA chose 30 municipal networks to make its argument and can only accurately claim 8 out of 30 networks as failures.
    [Show full text]
  • How Broadband Populists Are Pushing for Government-Run Internet One Step at a Time
    How Broadband Populists Are Pushing for Government-Run Internet One Step at a Time BY ROBERT D. ATKINSON AND DOUG BRAKE | JANUARY 2017 To most observers of U.S. broadband policy, it would seem that the Heated debates about discrete issues such regular and increasingly heated debates in this area are about an evolving as net neutrality, set of discrete issues: net neutrality, broadband privacy, set-top box broadband privacy, competition, usage-based pricing, mergers, municipal broadband, and set-top box international rankings, and so on. As each issue emerges, the factions take competition are their positions—companies fighting for their firms’ advantage, “public subcomponents of a interest” groups working for more regulation, free market advocates broader strategic debate about what working for less, and some moderate academics and think tanks taking kind of broadband more nuanced and varied positions. But at a higher level, these debates are system America about more than the specific issue at hand; they are subcomponents of a should have. broader debate about the kind of broadband system America should have. One side wants to keep on the path that has brought America to where it is today: a lightly regulated industry made up of competing private companies. Another side, made up of most public interest groups and many liberal academics, rejects this, advocating instead for a heavily regulated, utility-like industry at minimum and ideally a government- owned system made up largely of municipally owned networks. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) firmly believes the former model—lightly regulated competition—is the superior one.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Broadband in Concord: an In-Depth Analysis
    BHI Policy Study March 2 0 0 4 Municipal Broadband in Concord: An In-Depth Analysis David G. Tuerck, PhD John Barrett, MSc Beacon Hill Institute The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston focuses on federal, state and local economic policies as they affect citizens and businesses. The institute conducts research and educational programs to provide timely, concise and readable analyses that help voters, policymakers and opinion leaders under- stand today’s leading public policy issues. ©March 2004 by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University ISBN 1-886320-21-7 The Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research Suffolk University 8 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-8750 Fax: 617-720-4272 [email protected] http://www.beaconhill.org $15.00 Table of Contents Executive Summary.....................................................................................4 I. Introduction..............................................................................................8 II. Cautionary Tales....................................................................................12 Tacoma Public Utilities Click! Network ............................................................... 12 Ashland, Oregon ...................................................................................................... 13 Lebanon, Ohio .......................................................................................................... 15 Braintree, Massachusetts .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fiber Trends: What 2021 Promises for the Broadband Industry
    INDUSTRY ANALYSIS Fiber Trends: What 2021 Promises For the Broadband Industry The 2021 broadband plans of incumbent telcos, independents, cable operators and electric co-ops will have a ripple effect on consumers and businesses. By Sean Buckley / Broadband Communities s the new year begins, BROADBAND the next decade if the telecom companies COMMUNITIES is asking industry successfully execute on their plans,” said Acolleagues what will drive the broadband Jonathan Chaplin, equity analyst for New industry in 2021. If anything is clear about the Street Research, in a research note. “This would past year, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted take FTTH availability from 25 percent to that broadband has gone from being a luxury to a 35 percent of households – we assume growth necessity for remote learning and remote work. in occupied households of about 1 percent.” Key to that is a fiber-based symmetrical Render predicts that the potential number of connection. Whether service is from homes that could be passed by FTTH will be an incumbent telco, a cable company, a even larger when taking into account that a host municipality or an electric cooperative, fiber has of emerging players are building out service to a ripple effect: It gives consumers higher speeds more homes. “There are more than 1,000 other and can serve as an economic development tool providers in the United States alone – some to attract and retain businesses. small, some medium, some large – that add RVA LLC noted that as of 2020, more than up to more than 10 million,” Render said. 54 million U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Broadband: Challenges and Perspectives
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 59 Issue 1 Article 4 12-2006 Municipal Broadband: Challenges and Perspectives Craig Dingwall Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Dingwall, Craig (2006) "Municipal Broadband: Challenges and Perspectives," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 59 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol59/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Municipal Broadband: Challenges and Perspectives Craig Dingwall* I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................ 68 II. BROADBAND DEMAND ............................................................. 69 III. POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL BROADBAND ............. 76 IV. SPEED, FEATURE, AND PRICE CONSIDERATIONS ....................... 77 V. MUNICIPAL BROADBAND STATUS ............................................. 81 A. MunicipalBroadband Deployment ..................................... 81 B. State and FederalLegislation ................................................. 85 C. Nixon v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law and Economics of Municipal Broadband
    The Law and Economics of Municipal Broadband T. Randolph Beard, PhD* George S. Ford, PhD† Lawrence J. Spiwak, Esq.‡ Michael Stern, PhD¨ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................... 9 III. THE ECONOMICS OF THE BROADBAND BONUS ...................................... 14 A. The Externality Issue .................................................................... 15 B. Competition is Not the Solution to Externalities .......................... 16 C. Economic Development and Municipal Broadband .................... 17 D. Economic Migration Versus Growth ............................................ 18 IV. MUNICIPAL BROADBAND, COMPETITION, AND WELFARE ..................... 19 A. The Equilibrium Number of Firms ............................................... 22 B. Welfare and the Number of Competitors ...................................... 27 C. Adding Competitors to a Market Already in Equilibrium ............ 29 D. The Value of the First Firm .......................................................... 32 E. Externalities and the Equilibrium Number of Competitors .......... 32 V. SUBSIDIES, PREDATION, AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT ............................ 34 A. Municipal Broadband and the Number of Firms ......................... 35 * Senior Fellow, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies; Professor of Economics, Auburn University. † Chief Economist,
    [Show full text]
  • Rationalizing the Municipal Broadband Debate
    I/:A JUNLOLAWADPLC FO IFRAIO*H *OIT MICHAEL J. SANTORELLI Rationalizing the Municipal Broadband Debate Abstract: If one were to believe some of the hyperbole surrounding the many discussions on universal broadband access, one would be dismayed by how far the United States seems to have fallen behind its international counterparts in the race to build out networks. Indeed, by some accounts, the United States is on the brink of economic ruin if it continues without a coherent strategy to rectify the situation. Under these circumstances what is the United States to do? Local municipalities have sought to fill this apparent broadband void by building networks to compete, in some form or another, with incumbent broadband providers in order to speed network build-out and drive down prices. Contrary to this belief, many feel that the broadband market is healthy and robust. These competing perceptions constitute the crux of the current municipal broadband debate. This article seeks to clarify the debate by offering a valuable framework within which future disputes and misunderstandings might be avoided or current ones resolved. In order to accomplish this, the article will show that the market is in fact healthy and competition is robust. The article will then examine a number of municipal entrance strategies and derive from each a number of observations on what has and has not been successful to date. This article will conclude by enumerating a set of guiding principles for use by policymakers and regulators at all levels of government to consider before deciding whether it is prudent for a municipality to enter the broadband market.
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Broadband: Demystifying Wireless and Fiber-Optic Options
    POLICY BRIEF Revised - March 2008 Municipal Broadband: Demystifying Wireless and Fiber-Optic Options CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL [email protected] Executive Summary The United States, creator of the Internet, increasingly lags in access to it. In the absence of a national broad- Introduction band strategy, many communities have invested in broadband infrastructure, especially wireless broad- Minnesota’s capital city, St. Paul, recently considered band, to offer broadband choices to their residents. building a wireless network in order to quickly offer all 285,000 residents an affordable broadband connection. Newspaper headlines trumpeting the death of municipal With the Republican National Convention date approach- wireless networks ignore the increasing investments by ing in 2008, the City Council created a Broadband Advi- cities in Wi-Fi systems. At the same time, the wireless sory Committee and pressed it to move quickly. focus by others diverts resources and action away from building the necessary long term foundation for high The committee refused to act hastily and studied several speed information: fiber optic networks. broadband options for the city. Over the course of the next year, the committee decided a wireless network DSL and cable networks cannot offer the speeds re- would not serve St. Paul’s long-term interests and called quired by a city wishing to compete in the digital for a fiber optic network, built in phases, that could have economy. Business, government, and citizens all need wireless as an add-on. affordable and fast access to information networks. Today’s decisions will lay the foundation of telecom- The same week the St. Paul City Council accepted the munications infrastructure for decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Blair Levin and Denise Linn a Guide for Community Leaders Seeking
    THE NEXT GENERATION NETWORK CONNECTIVITY HANDBOOK A Guide for Community Leaders Seeking Affordable, Abundant Bandwidth Vol 2.0 December 2016 Blair Levin and Denise Linn Gig.U: The Next Generation Network Innovation Project Published by the Benton Foundation 2 Dedication This Handbook is dedicated to the hundreds of city and university officials, particularly participants in Gig.U, who over the last five years, as we explored many routes, helped guide us to significant course corrections and created the map for community-led broadband. It is also dedicated to the thousands of citizens who attended scores of meetings with us on community-led broadband, in cities large and small, in every part of the country, and who provided many insights we incorporated into our work and into this Handbook. Many of their words were wise, but none were wiser than those offered by a student at an event at the University of Maine, who, after noting all the specific reasons he was excited about having access to abundant bandwidth then said, “But what is most exciting is what we don’t yet know.” It is further dedicated to the memory of Charles Benton, a wonderful friend and coach to the Gig.U project, and many others seeking to improve the capacity of communications networks to serve all. His energy and excitement about discovering ‘what we don’t yet know’ served, and will continue to serve, as the most important type of fuel for the work of bringing affordable, abundant bandwidth to our communities. 3 Contents About this Handbook 5 What are the Funding Issues
    [Show full text]