Many local governments impeding broadband service improvements

Last year alone, tens of millions of dollars that telecommunications companies wanted to invest in Washington went to other states.

That’s because many cities and public utility districts charge prohibitive fees or impose unrealistic permitting requirements for carriers to attach equipment to their light and power poles. They claim they must do so to maintain local control and cover costs incurred from these attachments. Both claims are demonstrably false.

There’s nothing reasonable about treating carriers looking to hang a small cell on an existing utility pole as if they’re trying to locate a major cellular tower. Small cells are panels or canisters only a couple of feet in area, and are hung high on poles where they’re hard to notice without specifically looking for them.

But the benefits they provide are very easy to notice. They make existing networks work faster and more reliably, and they’re crucial for the future deployment of fifth-generation (5G) services.

When carriers must spend many months and thousands of dollars for permits for each of these cells, they look elsewhere for more supportive investment environments. That’s what’s happening today: dollars that could have been invested in Washington instead are going to Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and other states with more supportive policies.

Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler recognizes the problem. “If siting a small cell takes as long and costs as much as siting a cell tower, few communities will ever have the benefits of 5G.”

Fortunately, proposed legislation (SB 5711) would put an end to this bureaucratic overkill. It would cover small cell location under cities’ right of way agreements, which control installation of other private company equipment in public rights of way. They maintain local control, provide opportunities for public input, and can include special provisions to preserve views and protect historic or theme districts.

The bill also fixes another major problem: public utility districts arbitrarily charging exorbitant attachment fees unrelated to their actual costs. Avista, a private utility whose fees are set per a cost-based formula established by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), charges $11.38 annually for a pole attachment. Benton PUD, whose costs are about the same, charges more than twice that amount, over $23.

Such fees pose a major barrier to the increased bandwidth needed as Washington consumers turn to smartphones, tablets, laptops and other devices in record numbers. The legislation creates regulatory parity by covering PUDs under the same cost-based formula established by the WUTC for private utilities.

No one argues that local government financial and permitting hurdles will bring telecom investment in Washington to a complete halt. But more money and time spent in Seattle and other large markets means it takes longer to enhance services in smaller cities and rural areas.

Rural areas face another challenge. The state’s universal service fund, established in 2013 to support rural telecom services, will sunset in 2020. To help rural communities keep up in today’s technologically driven economy, the legislation eliminates this expiration date, ensuring that funds are available for rural telecom deployment in the years ahead.

Washington prides itself on being a technology and innovation leader. To remain one, we must continue to have the latest broadband services available to our state’s employers, universities, health care providers, local governments, and consumers.

Washington’s telecommunications companies stand ready to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to make those services available. If local governments continue erecting barriers, those investments — and the opportunities they bring — will continue to go elsewhere.

This story was originally published March 27, 2017 at 1:47 PM with the headline "Many local governments impeding broadband service improvements."