FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee meeting transcript – 25 April 2018 --------- Federal Communications Commission Live Captioning PLEASE STAND BY PLEASE STAND BY PLEASE STAND BY PLEASE STAND BY >> IF WE COULD GET STARTED. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE FIFTH MEETING OF THE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI. >> THANK YOU TO THE CHAIRWOMAN OF OUR AUGUSTA COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR COMING. GREAT TO SEE SOME FAMILIAR FACES AROUND THE WORLD. I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT ON YOUR PLATE TODAY AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY A FEW WORDS TO RECOGNIZE ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS OVER THE LAST YEAR AND CHANGE. WHEN YOU FORM AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PEOPLE GET TOGETHER IN THIS ROOM, #ISSUES, I ISSUE REPORTS OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. TOO OFTEN I THINK PEOPLE FAIL TO APPRECIATE A LOT OF HARD WORK AND PERSEVERANCE GOES INTO THAT WORK PRODUCT. THAT PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO THE BDAC AND THE LEVEL OF DEDICATION MEMBERS HAVE SHOWN, AND THAT WORKING GROUPS HAVE SHOWN, IS TRULY EXTRAORDINARY. I TOLD YOU THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE MAKEWORK, AND YOU KNOW THAT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. THIS MORNING, I WANTED TO THANK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, MY OFFICE, AND THE COMMISSION, THE 100 OR SO IT OF HIS CONTRIBUTED TO THE BDAC. -- WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE BDAC. YOU HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE HELPING THE FCC TAKE ACTION, TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS FOR DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL AMERICANS. YOU ARE DOING THIS AS VOLUNTEERS. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE FCC IS NOT FLUSH WITH CASH AND SHOWERING OF ANYA -- SHOWERING IT UPON YOU. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE TRULY A PUBLIC SERVICE. YOU ARE DOING THINGS THAT ARE BENEFITING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AT LARGE. TO EXPLAIN WHY, I WILL NOT POINT TO A PIECE OF PAPER SO MUCH AS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT STORIES. A FEW WEEKS AGO, I WAS IN SCOTTSVILLE, KENTUCKY, A TOWN OF 4000 PEOPLE, RELATIVELY LOWER INCOME. THERE ARE ABOUT 3000 STUDENTS IN THE COUNTY AND NOT A SINGLE PEDIATRICIAN. FOR MANY YEARS, STUDENTS WHO GOT SICK IN SCHOOL HAD NO GOOD OPTIONS AND NEITHER DID THE TEACHERS OR THEIR PARENTS. THAT CHANGED LAST YEAR THANKS TO A HIGH-SPEED CONNECTION TO THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ACROSS THE BORDER IN TENNESSEE. STUDENTS SEE A TOP-NOTCH TENNESSEE -- PHYSICIAN AS THEY WALKED DOWN TO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE. AS YOU LOOK INTO THE FACES OF THE ADMINISTRATORS, YOU SEE THE POWER OF BROADBAND. TELEMEDICINE COULD BE A GAME CHANGER FOR THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS. A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I WAS IN PUERTO RICO, IN A RELATIVELY RURAL PART OF THE ISLAND. I STOOD IN THE MOCK AND DEBRIS, SEEING POWER POLES THAT WERE SNAPPED LIKE TO FIX. I SAW CREWS WORKING DILIGENTLY TO PUT THAT BACK IN THE MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN AND TO CONNECT PUERTO RICANS ONCE AGAIN TO THE REST OF CIVILIZATION. THEY CAN TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT THAT COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK IS. BROADBAND MATTERS TO THEM AS WELL. A FEW YEARS AGO I WAS IN DILLARD, NEBRASKA, WHERE I MET CHAD AND COURTNEY. THEY FOUNDED A NUMBER, AND DEER HUNTERS WERE DROPPING CARCASSES ON THEIR DOOR TO HAVE THEM PROCESS THEM. THEY HAD THE PRESENCE OF MIND TO CREATE A WEBSITE AT THE TIME. THIS WAS IN 1995. FAST FORWARD 20 YEARS, NOW THE EXPORT THEIR MEET TO ALL 50 STATES -- MEAT AND ALL 50 STATES. THEY ARE ABLE TO DO THIS BECAUSE OF BROADBAND AND THEY ARE ATTRACTING PEOPLE AND CREATING JOBS, THANKS TO BROADBAND. WHETHER IT IS SCOTTSVILLE OR PUERTO RICO OR DILLER, BROADBAND MATTERS. THERE ARE PLACES WHO ARE NOT AS FORTUNATE. THEY REALLY NEED YOUR HELP. THEY ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE. YOUR WORK IS SO CRITICAL BECAUSE IT IS HELPING TO CHANGE THAT. YOU ARE IDENTIFYING THE REGULATORY BARRIERS STANDING IN THE WAY. YOU ARE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS IN SETTING THE STAGE FOR US TO TAKE MEANINGFUL ACTION TO BRING PEOPLE ONTO THE GRID, TAKE HUMAN CAPITAL OFF THE SHELF AND PUT IT INTO PRACTICE. TO MAKE PEOPLE PARTICIPANTS RATHER THAN SPECTATORS OF THE DIGITAL ECONOMY. THE WORK HAS BEEN VERY NITTY-GRITTY AND SOMETIMES DIFFICULT, BUT I HOPE YOU KNOW THE OVERALL MISSION HAS BEEN HIGHEST WE POSSIBLY COULD HAVE ASKED. I WANT TO CLOSE BY SAYING YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUS. YOUR LABOR HAS BEEN VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR THE AMAZING JOB YOU HAVE DONE. SOME MAY TAKE ADVANCED -- TAKE FOR GRANTED YOUR SERVICE GRATIS, BUT I WILL NOT. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A BIG FAN IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOU PUTTING UP WITH ME BLATHERING ON. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRODUCTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE] >> NEXT ON THE AGENDA WAS CHAIRMAN CLYBURN -- COMMISSIONER CLYBURN. SHE HAS NOT MADE IT DOWN YET. I WILL MOVE ON TO INTRODUCE OUR NEWEST MEMBER, DAVID YOUNG. DAVID -- THANK YOU. YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL LINCOLN CITIES, IS THAT YOUR TITLE? >> OH, NO. I AM HONORED BY THAT BUT I AM NOT THE PRESIDENT. I AM ACTUALLY FROM LINCOLN, NEBRASKA. >> FANTASTIC. I AM SO SORRY. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING MESSED UP MY SCRIPT. I WAS NOT READING IT, I WAS LOOKING AT YOU. THE COMMISSIONER HAS ARRIVED SO I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE FCC COMMISSIONER CLYBURN. >> THERE IS NO CONFUSION. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME DOWN. AS FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS AS WELL AS WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, BDAC, YOU HAVE BEEN HARD AT WORK OVER THE LAST YEAR. YOU HAVE FINALIZED REPORTS FROM THE STREAMLINING FEDERAL SIDING, AND REMOVING STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY BARRIERS, AND YOU ARE NEARLY FINISHED REVIEWING ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPETITIVE ACCESS TO BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKING GROUP. I THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN. YOU ACCOMPLISHED A GREAT DEAL. YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED. I DO NOT THINK IT WILL SURPRISE ANYONE FOR ME, BECAUSE I SAY TO MYSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THERE IS MUCH MORE WORK WE HAVE LEFT TO DO. STILL ON YOUR PLATE IS THE FINALIZATION OF THE MODEL CODES FOR STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES, WHICH RAISES SOME CONTENTIOUS ISSUES. IT IS, I BELIEVE, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND THIS WILL NOT SURPRISE ANYONE AT THIS TABLE THAT I WILL SAY THIS, IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BUILD CONSENSUS, TO WORK TOGETHER, TO TAKE ALL VIEWS INTO ACCOUNT AS YOU CAREFULLY COMPLETE THE CODES. THIS CRITICAL TASK WILL REQUIRE YOU TO DRAW ON THE COLLECTIVE EXPERTISE OF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU IN THIS ROOM, AS WELL AS THE THOUGHT LEADERSHIP AND PUBLISHED REPORT OF THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE ON THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BACK IN JANUARY, I EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT BDAC'S MAKEUP, MOST NOTABLY ITS LACK OF BALANCE AS WELL AS MY DISAPPOINTMENT THAT LOCALITIES HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY ADDRESSED. BUT NOW, YOU ARE ENTERING INTO A CRITICAL STAGE OF YOUR WORK ON THOSE MODEL CODES, AND I URGE YOU TO COMMIT TO A CONSENSUS-BASED, FACT DRIVEN APPROACH. YOU ARE EXPERTS. YOU ARE PROMINENT. WE ARE WELL AWARE OF HOW OFTEN COMPETING INTERESTS MUST BE WEIGHED WHEN IT COMES TO SERVING THE PUBLIC. IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT AS BDAC RECOMMENDS THOSE MODEL CODES TO THE COMMISSION, THAT THE VIEWS OF HIS MANY STAKEHOLDERS AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES, ALL OF THEM ARE INCORPORATED JUST AS THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ARE. WELL THERE ARE ONLY THREE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES ON BDAC, I HOPE THAT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEIR VIEWS IN A PROPORTIONAL MANNER ARE NOT CONSIDERED, BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS YOU CAST YOUR VOTE ON THESE MODEL CODES, AND MAKE ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS. A CONSENSUS-BASED APPROACH ENSURES THAT THESE MODEL CODES ARE SUSTAINABLE, THAT THEY ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THEY FACILITATE INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT, BECAUSE I KNOW THE GOAL FOR ALL OF US IS TO BRING ABOUT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GROWTH TO COMMUNITIES ALL ACROSS THIS NATION. BDAC'S SUCCESS OR FAILURE, DARE I SAY OUR SUCCESS OR FAILURE, IS IN YOUR HANDS. IT ALL HANGS ON THIS COMMITTEE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT AS A RESULT -- THAT ARE THE RESULT OF A BALANCED APPROACH THAT CAREFULLY WEIGHS THE VIEWS, EXPERIENCE, AND OPINION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS. I AM SERIOUS ABOUT HOW SIGNIFICANT WHAT YOU WILL PRODUCE, WHAT IT MEANS FOR THIS NATION AND FOR OUR FUTURE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ONCE AGAIN ALLOWING ME TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS INCREDIBLE COMMITMENT, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR JOBS SERIOUSLY, AND KNOW HOW MUCH WE ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO GUIDE US AS WE IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, ADDRESS THE NEEDS AND THE POTENTIAL OF THIS GREAT NATION. THANK YOU. ALL OF YOU, I THANK YOU. HAVE A PRODUCTIVE MEETING. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER. I WANT TO TAKE A BRIEF MOMENT AND SAY THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR REMARKS AND COMPLETELY AGREE THAT CONSENSUS IS THE SOLUTION. I AM VERY PROUD WITH THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THE MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE PUT IN, THE HOURS OF TIME THEY HAVE SPENT TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. I AM CONFIDENT THAT WILL CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. THAT IS WHAT WE ALL WOULD LIKE, A HELPFUL, USEFUL, AND PRODUCTIVE OUTCOME OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT WILL HELP THIS COUNTRY MOVE FORWARD TO GET BROADBAND TO THOSE WHO DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> FOR ALL OF YOU, GOD SPEED. I WILL BE NEARBY. DO NOT TREAT ME AS A STRANGER. I KNOW HOW D.C. CAN GET. IF YOU ACT LIKE YOU DO NOT KNOW ME ONCE YOU LEAVE, I WILL EMBARRASS YOU IN PUBLIC. THANK YOU. >> SINCE I WAS DISTRACTED EARLIER WHEN I INTRODUCED DAVID, I WILL DO IT THE RIGHT TIME JUST THE RIGHT WAY. OUR NEWEST MEMBER DAVID YOUNG. I BELIEVE YOU WERE FEATURED -- THE CITY WAS FEATURED AS UP-AND-COMING MUNICIPALITY. HE IS HERE REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES FOR THE BDAC. WE HAVE A VERY FULL AGENDA. WE ARE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES BEHIND, BUT I THINK WE CAN CATCH UP. WE WILL START WITH A REPORT FROM COMPETITIVE ACTION -- ACCESS TO BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP. >> SIMON COULD NOT JOIN US TODAY, BUT SENDS HIS REGARDS. I AM HAPPY TO FILL IN. WE HAVE AN ADDENDUM TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR LAST MEETING. IF YOU RECALL, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT CONTRACTOR LISTS AND THERE WAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE CATCHERS TO HAVE -- ATTACHERS TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF OBJECTION. IT DAWNED ON US THAT WE NEEDED TO PROVIDE SOME TIMELINES FOR THAT OBJECTION AND APPEALS PROCESS, SO THAT IS WHAT THIS ADDENDUM IS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAKE RIGHT. IT IS BEFORE ANY WORK COMMENCES. THE ISSUE, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP A CONTRACT LIST. AS WE DISCUSSED LAST MEETING, THIS IS NOT DONE AS OFTEN AS FOLKS WOULD LIKE. THE OTHER ISSUE, MORE PERTINENT, IS THAT THERE IS NO PROCESS TO ADDRESS OBJECTIONS TO CONTRACTORS ADDED TO THE LIST AND TO REMOVE CONTRACTORS FROM THE LIST. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO ALLOW CONTRACTORS TO INITIATE THEIR ADDITION TO THE LIST OF APPROVED CONTRACTORS, AND WE CREATE TIMELINES FOR APPROVAL AND REMOVAL. THIS WAS APPROVED BY OUR WORKING GROUP. AS I SAID, THE INITIAL THING IS ALLOWING CONTRACTORS TO APPROACH A POLL LOAN OR ABOUT USING A COMMUNICATION SPACE -- PAUL OWNER -- POLE OWNER ABOUT USING A COMMUNICATION SPACE. ONCE THEY RECEIVE THAT, THEY HAVE 14 DAYS TO NOTIFY EXISTING AND PENDING ATTACHERS OF THEIR INTENTION TO ADD A CONTACTOR TO THE LIST. -- CONTRACTOR TO THE LIST. THERE ARE 30 DAYS TO OBJECT TO A CONTRACTOR, AND THEY MUST SERVE -- IF THEY OBJECT, THEY MUST SERVE THE NEW CONTRACTOR IN WRITING AND IDENTIFY SAFETY, RELIABILITY, OR QUALIFICATION ISSUES. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION WITHIN 30 DAYS, THE CONTRACTOR IS DEEMED APPROVED AND ADDED TO THE LIST. IF THERE IS AN OBJECTION, THE ATTACHER HAS 14 DAYS TO RESPOND TO THE OBJECTION, AND THEN WE OUTLINED STEPS ON WHAT TO DO IF THE OBJECTION REMAINS. THEY CAN INITIATE A SETTLEMENT, AND FORMER DUTCH INFORMAL -- INFORMAL CALL. IF THE REJECTION -- OBJECTION IS NOT RESOLVED, THEY CAN GO TO THE FCC AND FINALLY AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION. ONCE CONTRACTORS ARE ON THE LIST, OUR NEXT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ABOUT HOW TO REMOVE A CONTRACTOR FROM THE LIST. CONTRACTORS MAY BE REMOVED FOR CAUSE AND POLE OWNERS AND ATTACHERS CAN MOVE FOR THAT REMOVAL. DOCUMENTED SAFETY VIOLATIONS. THE POLE OWNER MUST PROVIDE NOTICE IN WRITING AND COPIES TO EXISTING CONTRACTORS OF ITS INTENT TO REMOVE A CONTRACTOR. FROM THEN, THE CONTRACTOR HAS 14 DAYS TO RESPOND IN WRITING TO THE CAUSE FOR REMOVAL. THE OBJECTING PARTY HAS 14 DAYS TO REVIEW THAT RESPONSE AND PROVIDE A FINAL CONCLUSION. AND THEN, IF THE CONTRACTOR IS REMOVED THEY MUST SEND NOTICE TO ALL THE ATTACHERS. IF THE CONTRACTOR STILL WANTS TO APPEAL THE OBJECTION, IF THE REMOVING PARTY STILL WISHES TO REMOVE THE OBJECTOR -- OR THE CONTRACTOR, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS GETTING ADDED, THERE IS AN APPEAL PROCESS IF YOU ARE BEING REMOVED AND ULTIMATELY TO THE FCC. THAT IS THE JUST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS -- GIST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY COMMENTS TO THIS ADDITION? YES, SIR. >> I WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE THE BOAT ON -- VOTE ON THIS. YOU WILL NOT FIND IT NEWS TO ANYBODY IN THE COMMITTEE OR ANYONE INVOLVED, THAT THE ELECTRIC WHOLE OWNERS ARE NOT THAT EXCITED ABOUT THE NEW ROLE WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THIS PROCESS. WE DO NOT LIKE THE ORIGINAL ROLE WE WERE GIVEN IN THIS PROCESS OF KEEPING A LIST OF CONTRACTORS. NOW, WE ARE THE JUDGE, JURY, ARBITRATOR, AND EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT COMMUNICATION COMPANIES THAT CANNOT GET ALONG. ALL WE WANT TO DO IS KEEP THE LIGHTS ON. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO TAKE ON. I AM SURE I WOULD HEAR FROM MY PARTNERS AROUND THE COUNTRY, IF I DID NOT MAKE THAT CLEAR. IF I HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE VOTE, IT WOULD HAVE STILL PASSED. I WILL PROBABLY VOTE NO TODAY, THAT THE ELECTRIC INDUSTRY -- BUT THE ELECTRIC INDUSTRY, WE GET IT. WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE ACCESS TO OUR POLES. WE ARE WILLING TO WORK TO GET BROADBAND DEPLOYED. BUT BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THIS INDUSTRY CANNOT GET ALONG, WE THINK IT IS A LITTLE BIT BEYOND OUR SCOPE. >> WHICH YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE SUGGESTION OF WHO? >> I HAVE SUGGESTED, WHETHER IT IS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION GROUP OR WHATEVER. SKIP THE PART ABOUT GOING TO THE POLE OWNER AND GO STRAIGHT TO THE FCC. IT IS A COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING ALONG AND WE HAVE HAD TO COME UP WITH A LIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM. WE ARE BEING DRUGGED INTO IT. -- DRUG INTO IT. >> UNDER CURRENT RULES, THE CO-OPS DO NOT HAVE TO KEEP A LIST OR DO SOME OF THE THINGS THE IRON USE HAVE TO. WE WILL -- THE IOU'S HAVE TO. WE WOULD NOT LIKE TO BE THE ARBITRATOR IN THE ELECTRIC INDUSTRY. >> WE DEFINITELY, AND THE WORKING GROUP, WE HEARD THAT. A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS, ONE, THE UTILITIES THAT IS JUST CURRENTLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION UNDER RULE, WHICH I THINK EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGES NOT MANY OF THEM DO. SECONDLY, TO THE ISSUE OF COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES DISAGREEING, THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE RIGHT UP FRONT BEFORE THERE WAS A BATTLE ABOUT A SPECIFIC DEPLOYMENT. WE TRIED TO DO IT IN A WAY TO ALLOW THE UTILITY COMPANIES TO BE MORE REACTIVE. RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE TO PROACTIVELY CREATE A LIST AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO GO OUT AND FIND OUT WHO IS QUALIFIED. THIS ALLOWS CONTRACTORS IN AN AREA TO GO IN, ASSERT THEIR QUALIFICATIONS, SHOW THEIR BASIC QUALIFICATIONS. UTILITY CAN PUT THEM ON THE LIST , AND IF ANY OF THE OTHER EXISTING ATTACHERS OR PEOPLE IN THE ECOSYSTEM SEE A PROBLEM, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS AS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE FOR THE UTILITIES. THE CHALLENGE WITH SOME OTHER ENTITY DOING IT IS ONE, NO OFFENSE TO OUR FRIENDS AT THE FCC, SENDING SOMETHING TO THE FCC, THAT JUST CREATES A LOT OF TIME AND BUREAUCRACY. IT MAY OR MAY NOT COME BACK IN A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME. IN VARIOUS COMMUNITIES, THERE ARE NOT ALWAYS THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT, TO TAKE THIS ON. WE ARE TRYING TO DO IT UP FRONT, GET THE DISPUTES OUT OF THE WAY, AND THE REALITY IS IN EVERY MARKET THERE WILL BE A FEW CONTRACTORS WHO WILL WANT TO BE ON A SOON AS THIS GOES INTO EFFECT, THEY WOULD TURN AROUND AND APPLY, AND WE ARE HOPING IT CAN BE DONE WITH VERY LITTLE EFFORT ON BEHALF OF THE UTILITIES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BRIAN AND ALAN REALLY QUICKLY. IN THE TOWER CONTEXT, CROWN CASTLE OR AMERICAN TOWER, THE TOWER COMPANY APPROVES THE CONTRACTORS BECAUSE WE ARE CLIMBING THEIR STUFF. MY COMPANY DOES NOT ATTACH TO POLLS. --POLES. I AM CURIOUS HOW YOU SEE THAT AND HOW THAT DOES NOT APPLY EQUALLY TO YOU ALL, BECAUSE MAYBE I AM SEEN THIS DIFFERENTLY. >> A POLEE ATTACHR -- POLE ATT ACHER AGREEMENT, THEY WILL HAVE QUALIFIED WORKERS AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF OUR INVOLVEMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE THING. THE COMMITTEE DID MAKE IT EASY AS POSSIBLEPO, BUT STILL PAINFUL-- EASY AS POSSIBLE, BUT STILL PAINFUL. I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT. IF EVERYONE GETS ALONG, IT IS A GOOD THING, BUT WE ARE DISCUSSING THIS BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE GETS ALONG. >> I WAS HONORED TO BE A ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ROYAL UTILITY SERVICE. WE HAD BOTH ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND TELECOM UTILITIES, THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THOSE INDUSTRIES. WHAT WE OFTEN FOUND IN THE CO-OPS THAT ARE INCREASINGLY GETTING ENGAGED IN THE BROADBAND, ELECTRIC UTILITIES HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND INTEREST IN PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE BROADBAND WILL ALSO INCREASE ELECTRIC USE IN THAT SERVICE AREA. IN THE END, WE CAME DOWN MORE ON THE SIDE OF THE TELECOM IN TERMS OF POLE ATTACHMENT ISSUES. I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA THAT RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS ARE BEING THRUST UPON ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO SOME EXTENT, TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM I WOULD ARGUE IS BROADER AND ULTIMATELY IN THE INTEREST OF UTILITIES, TO RESOLVE IT EARLY AND GET IT RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF EXPEDITING BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT, BECAUSE HERE, OUR MISSION AS A GROUP, AS BDAC IS TO PROMOTE BROADBAND. WE ARE INCLINED TO COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF MAKE READY, AND THIS MOVES IN THAT DIRECTION. THERE IS A BROADER INTEREST OF THE BROADER COMMUNITY, WHICH WILL GO DOWN TO THE BENEFIT OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES. >> I AM NOT TRYING TO STOP BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT. I WILL REMIND YOU, THERE IS A SELF-HELP REMEDY ALREADY IN THE RULES THAT NOBODY WILL USE. HOW IS NOW MAKING US THE PERSON TO MAKE THAT WORK, GOING TO HELP ANYTHING? >> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? YES, SIR. >> NOT JUST THE ELECTRIC UTILITIES THAT OWN POLES, THERE ARE LOTS OF COMPANIES THAT OWN POLES. I AM JUST WONDERING IF THERE IS ANY ESTIMATE AS TO WHAT THE BURDEN OF THIS WOULD BE ON A COMPANY THAT OWNS POLES. WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS, I THOUGHT, WOULD THIS REQUIRE ANOTHER PERSON? I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING MY HANDS AROUND EXACTLY WHAT THIS WOULD ENTAIL. I KNOW THAT WE ARE STRUGGLING TO PUT EVERY DOLLAR WE POSSIBLY CAN INTO THE NETWORK AS OPPOSED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF. I HAVEN'T QUITE YET DECIDED HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE, BUT I AM WONDERING IF ANY THOUGHT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THAT OR ANY QUANTIFICATION AS TO WHAT THIS WOULD DO TO THE OWNERS OF THE POLE, IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY DO TODAY. >> KEEPING THE LIST, IF THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF IT, IT IS ALREADY A RULE. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT. WE WILL CERTAINLY, THAT IS NOT A BIG DEAL. THE FACT THAT THEY MADE A PROACTIVE EFFORT, SO WHAT THE TIME OF APPLICATION THE CONTRACTOR COMES IN AND SAYS, WE WANT TO BE ON THE LIST FOR MOVING OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF. THAT IS GREAT. THAT IS THE TIME TO DO IT. THAT CAN BE WORKED INTO THE PROCESS AND REQUIRE ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL TO MANAGE THAT. THE SCARY PART IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THINGS GO WRONG? HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN -- WE ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AS FAR AS LOUISVILLE. THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING ABOUT THIS FOR TWO YEARS, AND NO ONE HAS DONE IT YET. THAT IS THE PART THAT IS A CONCERN. IF IT IS JUST KEEPING THE LIST, WE WILL KEEP THE LIST. WE WILL MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO HAS APPLIED AND WHO IS WILLING TO DO THE WORK. >> DAVID. >> ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, SUB SUBCOMMITTEE, AD HOC, WE SPENT A LITTLE TIME TALKING ABOUT THE BURDEN. I APPRECIATE ALAN'S REMARKS WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THESE ISSUES FOR THE LAST YEAR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO GET THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE. AS I DESCRIBED IT ON ONE OF OUR CALLS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CORNER CASE ON A CORNER CASE. ISSUE HERE IS JUST IN THE EVENT THAT A PARTICULAR CONTRACTOR FAILS TO MEET THE FIVE-POINT STANDARD WE ARE READY VOTED ON AS A COMMITTEE AT OUR LAST MEETING, COULD SOMEONE WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CONTRACT OR EXPERIENCE SAY, THIS PERSON DID WORK AT THE TOWN OVER AND KNOCKED OVER 10 POLES AND WE DO NOT THINK HE OR SHE IS QUALIFIED. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A RARE INSTANCE WHEN SOMEONE EVEN FILES AN OBJECTION. WHEN YOU FILE YOUR OBJECTION, YOU HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE IT WITH EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE FIVE-PART TEST IS NOT MET. I THINK THAT IS ALREADY THE CORNER CASE, ESPECIALLY AS WE KNOW IN ONE TOUCH MAKE READY, THERE IS A LOT OF SHARING OF CONTRACTORS. AS AN EXISTING ATTACHER, WE USE A LOT OF THE SAME ONES. I CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMEONE I JUST USE LAST WEEK. IT WAS STRAIN ALL CREDULITY IF I DO THAT. BEST IT WOULD STRAIN ALL COULD TRULY -- ALL CREDULITY IF I DO THAT. WHEN THAT EXPERIENCE IS BROUGHT TO LIFE, HOPEFULLY WITH EVIDENCE AND AN EXPLANATION, HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IF IT IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT, YOU THEN HAVE THIS APPEALS PROCESS, WHICH I AGREE IS A LITTLE BIT CUMBERSOME, BUT IT WAS THE BEST WE COULD RESOLVE. I AM NOT LOOKING TO ADD MORE BURDEN TO THE FCC OR ELECTRIC COMPANIES, BUT I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE EXTREMELY RARE. THAT IS THE REASON COMCAST AND I VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROVISION. >> JONATHAN. CHRIS. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTING INTERESTS WORKED VERY HARD TO DEVELOP THIS NEAR CONSENSUS PROPOSAL. I WAS HAPPY TO WORK IT OUT WITH GOOGLE. I THOUGHT IT WAS THE WAY THE BDAC PROCESS SHOULD WORK. ON THE FLOWCHART, THERE IS A CHART ON THE TOP THE TALKED ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BRING THE CONTRACTOR ISSUE FORWARD BEFORE THE PARTICULAR JOB, TO SEPARATE THOSE ISSUES IN TIME SO IF THERE IS AN OBJECTION ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR, IT IS MECHANICALLY NOT POSSIBLE AT THAT POINT THAT THAT IS A FAUX DISPUTE AND YOU ARE TRYING TO HOLD UP THE JOB. YOU ARE BRINGING THAT ISSUE UP MONTHS OR WEEKS BEFORE THE PARTICULAR JOB. THAT WAS A HUGE PROGRESS THAT I THINK THE GROUP WORKED OUT. WE REALIZED THAT IS A WAY TO REDUCE THE CONFLICT AND TO MAKE THE PROCESS WORK BETTER, AND PROBABLY MAKE THE PROCESS LESS FREQUENT. THAT PUT A SMALL INCREMENTAL BURDEN ON THE ELECTRIC COMPANIES, BUT IT HAS TO BE ON SOMEBODY. NOBODY WAS ABLE TO FIND A BETTER PLACE TO PUT IT THAT WAS CONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE, AND GIVEN THE CONSENSUS FROM THE VIRGIN IN -- DIVERGENT INDUSTRIES, IT IS A WORKABLE SOLUTION. THAT IS WHY AT&T VOTED FOR IT. THAT IS WHY WE WOULD RECOMMEND IT TODAY. >> I HAD AN OBSERVATION UNDER THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. THE LAST LINE STATES OF A NEW CONTRACTOR WANTS TO APPEAL, IT SAYS THEY CAN APPEAL IF THEY BELIEVE THEY WERE TREATED ARBITRARILY OR UNFAIRLY. WHEN YOU COME OVER TO NUMBER FIVE, IT TALKS ABOUT WHEN AN APPEAL HAPPENS, THE POLE ON OR HAS 14 DAYS TO MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION TASTE ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. I WOULD SUGGEST UNDER NUMBER SIX THAT IN THAT SECOND SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS THE ATTACHER CAN APPEAL THE DECISION BASED ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, THE COUSIN I BELIEVE IF A POLE HONOR HAS TO USE OBJECTIVE -- BECAUSE I BELIEVE IF A POLE OWNER HAS TO USE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, THE ATTACHER SHOULD HAVE TO USE LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE FOR AN APPEAL. >> SO YOU WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION? >> BASICALLY ADDING THE WORDS ON NUMBER SIX, SECOND LINE, "THE NEW ATTACHER CAN APPEAL BASED ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE." THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE, NOT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DID NOT LIKE THE DECISION. TO BELIEVE IS A LOW STANDARD. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU. I CAN BE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, IS THE OBJECTION OF THE ELECTRIC COMPANY BEING PUT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO HEAR APPEALS WHEN I CONTRACTOR FEELS THEY HAVE BEEN UNFAIRLY REMOVED OR NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST? IS THAT THE PRIMARY? >> THAT IS THE PRIMARY JUDGMENT, BEING THE JUDGE AND JURY BETWEEN THIS DISPUTE. IN AN AREA THAT I WAS -- THAT IS NOT OUR EXPERTISE, I MIGHT ADD. FIBER. >> DAVID. >> IT IS A QUESTION OF THE CONTRACTOR GOING TO THE FCC, THE THOUGHT BEHIND THAT, INSTEAD OF GOING TO DISTRICT COURT. I THINK FOR SMALLER RURAL COMMUNITIES, IT WOULD BE A HIGH BAR FOR THEM TO DEFEND A DECISION AT THE FCC, VERSUS A DECISION AT A DISTRICT COURT LEVEL. THAT IS WHY I AM INTERESTED IN HEARING WHY THE FCC WAS CHOSEN AS THE ARBITER. >> THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS, TO MAKE SURE I AM CLEAR BEFORE I ANSWER, A CONTRACTOR SAYS HE NEEDS THE CRITERIA, GETS PUT ON THE LIST, AND SOMEBODY COMES IN AND SAYS, IT IS NOT TRUE BECAUSE THEY KNOCKED OVER 10 POLES IN THE TOWN OVER, DOES NOT QUALIFY, TAKE THEM OFF. CONTRACTOR APPEALS. UTILITY WOULD HAVE TO SAY YES OR NO, AND IF THEY SAY NO, YOU DO NOT QUALIFY, RIGHT NOW THIS WOULD APPEAL TO THE FCC. DAVID'S QUESTION IS SHOULD THAT APPEAL TO A MAGISTRATE OR DISTRICT JUDGE, LOCAL, RATHER THAN GOING TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL. IS THAT HOW THE STRUCTURE WORKS NOW? >> YOU GET 14 DAYS FOR A RESPONSE FROM THE CONTRACTOR, AND THEN THEY ARE INSTRUCTED TO TRY TO COME TO A RESOLUTION PRIVATELY. THEN THEY WOULD GO TO THE FCC STAFF. THAT IS MODELED OFF OF THE WIRELESS BROADBAND ORDER FROM LAST MONTH. >> CAN I ADDRESS IT? I THINK THESE ARE PROPOSALS FOR THE FCC TO PUT INTO REGS, SO THE FCC WOULD BE THE PEOPLE WITH THE MOST EXPERTISE TO DO THAT, TO ADJUDICATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY HAVE MECHANISMS FOR ADJUDICATION OF A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS. I WOULD SAY, FROM A CORPORATE PERSPECTIVE, ANY TIME YOU GO TO A COURT OF ANY TYPE, YOU ARE TALKING MAYBE A YEAR OR TWO IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE RESOLVED, AND AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF COST, AND THE LEGAL TEAM INVOLVED. AND BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE A FEDERAL FCC THING, A LOCAL, STATE, MUNICIPAL, OR DISTRICT COURT, I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE THE EXPERTISE OR THE JURISDICTION. OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACT AS LAWYERS COULD TELL ME THAT. THAT SEEMS TO BE A MUCH MORE BURDEN SOMETHING FOR ALL THE PARTIES TO FILE A LAWSUIT, IN MY VIEW. >> KELLY. >> JUST ECHO WHAT JOHN JUST SAID, THERE WOULD NOT EXIST A CAUSE OF ACTION TO BRING TO COURT. IF THIS WAS ADOPTED AS A REGULATION BY THE FCC, THERE WOULD BE NO ABILITY TO BRING THAT IN A STATE COURT, OR CERTAINLY NOT A MUNICIPAL COURT. IF THERE WAS A PROVISION HERE THAT YOU TAKE THAT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT, THAT WOULD BE SO CUMBERSOME AND SO EXPENSIVE THAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO GIVE NO RELIEF TO THAT CONTRACTOR ANYWAY, AS OPPOSED TO CONTACTING THE FCC PURSUANT TO THIS REGULATION. I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LOT EASIER WAY TO HANDLE IT. >> YES. >> SO THE REASON -- SPEAKING AS SOMEONE WHO DOES ACADEMIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS WORK AND IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE INDUSTRY -- ONE OF THE REASONS IT APPEALED TO ME BECAUSE IT GAVE ELECTRIC UTILITIES THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH COST. BAD CONTRACTORS, I ASSUME, WILL COST YOU. I ALSO TAKE YOUR OBJECTION SERIOUSLY ABOUT HOW YOU FACTOR INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, AND IT ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP SOME QUESTIONS THAT I HAD NOT THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NICE IF SOMEONE COULD POSSIBLY HANDLE THEM. WHEN UTILITY MAKES A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE SHOULD BE ON THE LIST OR REMOVE THEM FROM THE LIST, A NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR, AND A APPEAL, IS THE UTILITY DIRECTING AS A PARTY OR UTILITY NO LONGER HAS TO APPEAR IN COURT AND FOR THE FCC? THAT HAS A MAJOR IMPACT ON COST FOR UTILITIES POTENTIALLY. SECOND, TO DAVID'S QUESTION, THE FCC PROCEEDING SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BE A COST SAVER AND TIMESAVER AS LONG AS IT WAS A FLEXIBLE TYPE OF PROCEEDING. IS IT THE KIND OF THING WHERE PARTIES NEED TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF THE FCC? CAN IT BE BEFORE PHONE CONFERENCES AND MORE INFORMAL? I DID NOT SEE THAT IN HERE. >> OTHER WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN. I DO NOT THINK THIS RECOMMENDATION CONTEMPLATES PAUL OWNERS PLAYING A JUDGE, -- POLE OWNERS PLAYING A JUDICIAL ROLE. >> WHAT IT BE HELPFUL TO YOU IF WE CLARIFIED THAT THE FCC'S REVIEW WAS A DINNER OVER THE SO YOU COULD STAY OUT OF IT? -- DE NOVO REVIEW, SO YOU COULD STAY OUT OF IT? >> YES. >> I DO NOT KNOW IF I TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THE FCC'S REVIEW WOULD BE DE NOVO. >> SINCE THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FCC AND THEY WILL WRITE THE PIECES, I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN TO MAKE THIS AS INFORMAL AND QUICK AND PAINLESS FOR ALL THE PARTIES AS POSSIBLE. I DO NOT SEE ANY SCENARIO WHERE PEOPLE WILL HAVE SCENARIO WHERE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO, TO D.C. TO HAVE SOME BIG FORMAL BROUHAHA. >> THE MORE INFORMAL IT IS, THE STRONGER THE DETERRENT VALUE IT WILL HAVE. >> DOUG. >> NAVY IN NUMBER SEVEN, -- MAYBE IN NUMBER SEVEN, YOU MAY WANT TO WORDSMITH THAT TO EITHER CHANGE FORMAL TO INFORMAL, OR REFERENCE THAT THE INTENT IS TO HAVE A SIMPLIFIED PROCESS. THAT IS THE SECOND SENTENCE. >> GET RID OF THE WORD "FORMAL." STREAMLINE, OK. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? YES, SORRY. >> AFTER RECENT DISCUSSION, I CAN SEE WHY ALAN WOULD BE HESITANT TO JUMP IN WITH BOTH FEET IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT HE PERCEIVES AS A DOGFIGHT. WE WORK WITH A MULTITUDE OF POLE OWNERS, AND ALTHOUGH WE FOLLOW THE SAME GUIDELINES, EACH ENTITY AND EACH INSPECTOR SEEMS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT, WHICH IS METERED BY THE LOCALITY BECAUSE OF WHERE THE DIFFERENCES OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS. IT THINGS INTUITIVE TO ME, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MAYBE A COUPLE DIFFERENT PLACES WE COULD HAVE TO COORDINATE THIS, IT SEEMS INTUITIVE THAT THE POLE OWNER MIGHT BE THE BEST PLACE TO HAVE THIS TOGETHER. IF I WERE THE POLE OWNER, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE CONTROL OVER WHO IS WORKING ON MY POLES. I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT IS HOW IT IS. I AM TRYING TO SEE FROM THE POLE OWNER'S PERSPECTIVES. I THINK THAT ALL THE BAD PLACES THAT WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS DOGFIGHT, I THINK THE BEST SOLUTION REMAINS WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT, YES. >> IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I'M GOING TO CALL THE DISCUSSION. BRENT, DO YOU WANT TO ASK FOR A VOTE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A VOTE. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS? >> YES. >> CHRISTIAN AND MICHAEL SECOND. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE SO. ANY OPPOSED? TWO. LARRY HANSEN, ALAN BELL, DAVID YOUNG. ANY EXTENSIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >> WE HAVE A LOT TO COVER, AND WE ARE CATCHING UP TO OURSELVES. WE ARE ONLY FIVE MINUTES BEHIND. I WAS DERELICT IN MENTIONED EARLIER THAT BOTH THE STATE MODEL CODE AND MUNICIPAL WORKING CODE HAVE VOTED OUT THE REPORTS, SO WE WILL BE REVIEWING BOTH THOSE REPORTS TODAY. AT THE END OF THIS MEETING, WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE DO TO BRING CONSISTENCY AND WHAT THE FINAL BDAC REPORT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. WE ARE REACHING THE END OF THIS PROCESS, SO IF THERE IS TIME WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT NEXT STEPS. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE AD HOC GROUP ON RATES AND FEES. WHO IS PRESENTING? ANDY. I DID NOT KNOW IF YOU HAD A CO-PRESENTER. >> IN THE GREAT SPIRIT OF COLLABORATIVE WORK THAT WE ARE DOING, I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYBODY ON OUR GROUP TO JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. WE SHOULD HAVE SOME SLIDES. I DO WANT TO INITIALLY MAKE A COMMON THAT IT CAME UP AT DINNER LAST NIGHT, WHENEVER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MONEY, YOU PROBABLY SHOULD NOT USE RED. THAT WILL BE CORRECTED IN OUR NEXT VERSION, THAT WE WILL USE ANOTHER COLOR THAT IS LESS ALARMING TNHAN RED. THAT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, BUT I THINK IT IS KIND OF FUNNY. I WANT TO START BY RECOGNIZING THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE JOINED ME IN THIS JOURNEY OF LOOKING AT RATES AND FEES. THEY ARE LISTED ON THE SECOND SLIDE. MANY OF THEM ARE IN THE ROOM TODAY. WE HAVE HAD, FOR THE MOST PART, WEEKLY CALLS, WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY AND COOPERATIVELY TO REALLY UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON HERE, BUT TO BEGIN TO PUT SOME STRUCTURE AROUND THAT. WHAT YOU SEE TODAY IS A WORK IN PROCESS. I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY ABOUT 80% DONE WITH OUR DOCUMENT. WHICH MEANS WE ARE MARCHING TOWARD THE FINISH LINE, AT LEAST THE FINISH LINE THAT WE DEFINE. I THINK THAT WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT IN THE PROCESS. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. I WANT TO TAKE YOU TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE. I PUT THIS ON BECAUSE WE STARTED THIS WORK, LAYING OUT KIND OF AN OUTLINE. ONE OF THE KEY PIECES OF THIS OUTLINE WAS A SECTION CALLED "WHAT REALLY MATTERS." THE REASON WHY WE GOT INTO WHAT REALLY MATTERS IS BECAUSE OFTEN TIMES, WE START ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING OR WORKING ON SOMETHING, AND IT DOES NOT RAISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT REALLY MATTERS. SO SOMEHOW DEFINING WHAT REALLY MATTERS BECAME VERY IMPORTANT TO US. WE SPENT SOME SIGNIFICANT TIME WORKING ON THE WHAT REALLY MATTERS SECTION. WE START THIS WITH SOMETHING THAT REALLY ECHOES WHAT THE CHAIRMAN SAID IN HIS OPENING REMARKS, THAT OUR PURPOSE -- AND WE ALL COLLECTIVELY SHARE THIS PURPOSE -- IS THAT AFFORDABLE BROADBAND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL CITIZENS, BOTH URBAN AND RURAL ROUTE THE UNITED STATES. THIS THOUGHT PERMEATES ALL OF OUR WORK. THE REASON WHY WE MADE THAT A FOCUS IN THE WORK WE ARE DOING IS BECAUSE WHEN WE BEGIN TO GET OFF TRACK, OR GET OUT OF FOCUS, IF WE COME BACK TO THIS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE ARE REALLY ABOUT, ALL OF A SUDDEN PEOPLE BEGIN TO PLAY BETTER TOGETHER AND BEGIN TO LOOK AT OPTIONS THAT ACCOMPLISH THIS ULTIMATE PURPOSE. I WANT TO TAKE YOU TO THE NEXT SLIDE, A LITTLE HARD TO READ ON THE SLIDE. WE CAME UP WITH SEVEN PRINCIPLES. INITIALLY, TO PROMOTE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT THEY SHOULD MEET THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES. THE REASON WE DID THIS IS BECAUSE WE NEEDED A MEASURING STICK. WE NEEDED A RULER, ALMOST A LITMUS TEST TO HELP GUIDE US AND HELP US UNDERSTAND WHERE THE HOLES WERE, WHERE THE PROBLEMS WERE. THIS IS A LIST OF PRINCIPLES THAT WE COLLECTIVELY AND UNANIMOUSLY IN THE GROUP HAVE ENDORSED. THESE ARE THINGS WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON. AS WE BEGIN TO LOOK AT THESE, WE BEGIN TO RECOGNIZE HOW TRULY IMPORTANT THESE ARE, AS WE BEGIN TO LOOK AT RATES AND FEES, AND ULTIMATELY OUR GOAL OF GETTING BROADBAND TO EVERYBODY. THE FIRST ONE IS FAIR PARTNERSHIPS. EQUITABLE FOR ALL PARTIES TO ENSURE A LASTING RELATIONSHIP. WE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR WORK TOGETHER IN PROMOTING TECHNOLOGY, COMMUNICATIONS, BROADBAND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY REQUIRES A PARTNERSHIP. IT IS A LONG-LASTING PARTNERSHIP. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WINNERS AND LOSERS. THIS IS ABOUT REALLY SOLVING A MUCH BIGGER CHALLENGING PROBLEM FOR OURAND ENABLING PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO BROADBAND, AND ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES AND SERVICES THAT BROADBAND CAN BRING. SO THIS IDEA OF A FAIR PARTNERSHIP, AND AS WE TAKE A LOOK AT OUR DIFFERENT PIECES, DIFFERENT METHODS, WE CAN ASK THAT QUESTION, IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A FAIR PARTNERSHIP? IS IT FAIR FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED? THE SECOND ONE, IS IT FUTURE PROOF? THIS ONE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT. MONICA, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT I SAID SENSITIVITY INSTEAD OF SENSITIVE. I TRIED TO GET THAT CHANGED IN TIME BUT THEY ALREADY ROLLED OFF THE PRINTERS. SENSITIVITY CHANGES TO SENSITIVE , IF YOU WANT TO CROSS YOUR TEES AND OUTDOOR EYES. THE CONCEPT OF FUTURE PROOFING, I THINK, IS A GREAT CONCEPT. WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS SAYING, BUT THIS IS SO HARD TO DO, HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FUTURE IS. THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE CAPABILITIES, POSSIBILITIES ARE MOVING SO FAST THAT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO PREDICT WHAT THE FUTURE IS, YET WE BELIEVE IT IS A PRINCIPLE THAT ALLOWS US TO BE MORE ASPIRATIONAL, LOOK FORWARD. NONDISCRIMINATORY AND THIS PROBABLY GOT THE MOST DISCUSSION IN OUR GROUP. NEUTRAL TREATMENT AND ACCESS OF ALL TECHNOLOGIES AND COMMUNICATION PROVIDERS. THE ABILITY FOR RATES AND FEES AT A PLACE TO BE NONDISCRIMINATORY. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WE HAVE A LOT MORE DEBATE AND DISCUSSION TO HAVE ON THAT PARTICULAR PRINCIPLE AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS PART OF THAT THAT WE REMOVED BECAUSE WE WERE NOT QUITE READY TO FULLY ENDORSE THAT. PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE GREATER COMMUNITY. HOW ARE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BEING USED FOR THE GOOD BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC? JUST KIND OF A KEY PRINCIPLE. SENSE OF URGENCY. WE RECOGNIZE AS A COMMITTEE, AS A BDAC, AS A COUNTRY THAT THIS SENSE OF URGENCY OF GETTING PEOPLE CONNECTED IS CRITICAL. IT IS CRITICAL FOR US AS A COUNTRY FROM A COMPETITIVE STANDPOINT. IT IS CRITICAL OR COMMUNITIES FROM A COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABILITY STANDPOINT. IT IS CRITICAL FOR BUSINESS. THIS SENSE OF URGENCY HAS TO BE BUILT INTO THESE PRINCIPLES. IF WHAT WE ARE DOING FROM A RATES AND FEES STANDPOINT IS NOT SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF A SENSE OF URGENCY, THEN PERHAPS WE NEED TO RELOOK AT WHAT THOSE ARE DOING. THE NEXT IS SIMPLICITY. HOW DO WE MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS OF RATES AND FEES AS SIMPLE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN? I THINK THAT AS WE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT METHODS, WE BEGIN TO SEE THE COMPLEXITY THAT IS BUILT INTO A LOT OF THIS. NO WONDER THERE ARE A LOT OF OPINIONS AND DIFFERENCES AND RANGES ALL OVER THE BOARD, BECAUSE IT IS NOT SIMPLE. THIS IDEA OF SIMPLICITY IS A GREAT LITMUS TEST FOR ANY TYPES OF RATES AND FEES WE GO INTO. THEN LAST WEEK, TRANSPARENCY, OR TRANSPARENT. CLEAR VISIBILITY AND UNDERSTANDING OF ALL RATES. THIS HAS COME OUT AND A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT REPORTS THAT ARE OUT THERE, AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT. IT SHOULD NOT BE A MYSTERY. HOW RATES AND FEES ARE CALCULATED. I DO WANT TO SAY PREDICTABILITY, THE CONCEPT OF PREDICTABILITY WE THINK FALLS UNDER TRANSPARENCY. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT RING -- THING THERE. OK, NEXT. OUR KEY LEARNINGS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH DEFINITIONS OF METHODS, LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE COST, MARKET REVENUE, HYBRIDS, ALL IN RATES. AS A COMMITTEE, WE HAVE TRIED TO DEFINE WHAT THESE LOOK LIKE, WHAT THEY ARE, WHAT THEY MEAN. LOTS OF TERMS ARE THROWN OUT THERE BUT THEN YOU GET FIVE PEOPLE AROUND A TABLE AND YOU HAVE FIVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON WHAT THEY REALLY ARE. PART OF THE HARD WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE WAS JUST TRYING TO DEFINE WHAT THESE THINGS ARE, AND WE DID THAT. SECONDLY, THE EXPLORATION OF PERSPECTIVES. WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AROUND THIS TO SAY, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THE FACTIONS SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR METHOD? WHY DO THEY LIKE IT, WHY DON'T THEY LIKE IT, WHY DO THEY FAVOR IT, WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES? THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE VERY INTERESTING IN THAT PART OF THE REASON WE ARE DOING THAT IS BECAUSE -- IT IS ONE THING TO UNDERSTAND THE PERSPECTIVE OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THIS. IT IS ANOTHER THING TO HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR THE PERSPECTIVE OF OTHER PEOPLE, EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT. SO PART OF THE WORK HERE IS NOT ONLY THE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT APPRECIATION. AS WE GET TO A POINT OF APPRECIATION, EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT, THEN YOU GAIN ROOM FOR WORK TOWARD AN EVEN BETTER SOLUTION. PART OF OUR WORK AND PROCESS HAS BEEN TO DRIVE DOWN THIS ROAD AND OUR DOCUMENT, MASTER DOCUMENT, THAT WE WILL PRODUCE ULTIMATELY AS THOSE PERSPECTIVES LISTED AND DISCUSSED IN DEPTH. WE ARE REALLY BEGINNING TO GRASP AND UNDERSTAND THIS. ALL OF A SUDDEN, OUR LANGUAGE IS BECOMING COMMON, WHICH IS A NICE THING. ULTIMATELY, WE HOPE THIS LEADS TO A BETTER PATH. THEN WE HAD KIND OF AN AH HA AT ONE OF OUR MEETINGS ABOUT SIMPLIFIED CATEGORIZATIONS. THIS WAS A REAL, ALMOST 30,000-FOOT SWIPE AT THIS. NOT BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, I LIKE TO PLAY AT 30,000 FEET. DOUG KNOWS THAT FROM OUR WORK ON THE MUNI CODE. THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. ONE IS THE EVENT OR ONE-TIME FEES. THESE ARE LIKE APPLICATION FEES, PERMIT FEES, ANY FEES THAT ARE ONE-TIME FEES. THE GROUP AS A WHOLE AGREED THAT THESE FEES ARE PROBABLY COST-BASED AND WE DID NOT HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF HESITATION THERE. THEY ARE UNDERSTANDABLE, THEY ARE ABOUT COST RECOVERY, EFFORT AND THESE FEES ARE THINGS THAT WHEN YOU FILE AN APPLICATION OR PERMIT TO DO SOMETHING, AT LEAST THERE SHOULD BE COST RECOVERY IN THAT. RENTAL RATES. THESE ARE REOCCURRING RATES THAT ARE PERTAINING PRIMARILY TO POLE S AND STRUCTURES. THE RENTAL FEE THAT MIGHT BE A MONTHLY OR ANNUAL FEE TO USE THAT POLE OR STRUCTURE, THERE IS NOT AN AGREEMENT ON HOW WE WILL DO THAT. SO THERE IS MORE WORK AROUND THAT. WE MAY NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON ONE PARTICULAR METHOD TO SOLVE THAT. THEN THE ACCESS RATES, THE RIGHT TO BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE RIGHT TO USE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THERE IS COST-SHARING FROM SOME OF OUR MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT WE NOT CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE DOUBLE CHARGING, PRIMARILY BETWEEN RENTAL RATES AND ACCESS RATES. WE KNOW THAT SOMETIMES POLES AND STRUCTURES ARE OWNED BY A MUNICIPALITY AND SOMETIMES POLES AND STRUCTURES ARE OWNED BY UTILITY. YET, THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS THE DOMAIN OF THE MUNICIPALITY. SO WE TO BE CAREFUL THAT THERE IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A DOUBLE CHARGE. WE ARE AWARE OF THAT AND SENSITIVE TO THAT. AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE WILL GO DOWN THAT PATH. A TRUE SIMPLIFICATION MIGHT BE THE CONCEPT OR THOUGHT OF AN ALL-IN, ONE TIME, COVERING EVERYTHING. WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT YET. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY MODELS THAT ARE PERFECT THAT TELLS US HOW TO DO THAT, PLEASE CALL ME. [LAUGHTER] THAT WOULD BE PERFECT TRANSPARENCY, WOULD MEET THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, AND THE POTENTIAL TO BE ALL IN IN ALMOST A TURNKEY SITUATION THAT SAYS THIS IS WHAT IT COSTS TO BE HERE. THAT WOULD BE A NEAT DEAL IF WE COULD GET THERE AND WOULD SIMPLIFY EVERYONE'S LIFE IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY. NOW WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO DATA. WE HAVE ON THE PHONE HOPEFULLY STILL CHRISTOPHER YU, CALLING US FROM HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD. CHRISTOPHER, ARE YOU THERE? >> IM. I HAVE NO IDEA THE QUALITY OF THE CALL. >> WE CAN HEAR YOU. I AM GOING TO INTRODUCE THE BASIS OF THIS, AND THEN I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LEAD US THROUGH IN A FAIRLY DIRECT WAY THE INFORMATION THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE COLLECTED, WHAT YOU ARE SEEING SO FAR. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE YOUR SLIDE THAT HAS THE DATA COLLECTION, SOME BULLET POINTS AROUND THAT, AND THEN I BELIEVE AN 11-PAGE PAPER THAT START WITH SOME BULLET POINTS OF KEY FINDINGS, TALKS ABOUT THE DATA COLLECTION THAT WAS DONE, THE FRAMEWORK AROUND THAT, TALKS ABOUT THE ANALYTICS. THEN IT GETS INTO SOME CHARTS. CHRISTOPHER, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN THIS OVER TO YOU, TO TALK THROUGH SOME OF THESE PIECES, AND THAT PERHAPS WE CAN OPEN THIS UP TO THE GROUP. >> WELL, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE HEARING ME AT ANY POINT, JUST TELL ME, I CAN BACK UP AND START AGAIN. JUST TO EMPHASIZE, I KEEP EMPHASIZING OVER AND OVER, THIS IS ALL DATA SUBMITTED VOLUNTARILY BY BDAC PARTICIPANTS, OTHER PEOPLE THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS, THROUGH A VARIETY OF FORUMS. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE BUT WAS CONSISTED OF [INDISCERNIBLE] HAS THE RIGHTS OF WAY. [INDISCERNIBLE] WE DID NOT RECEIVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DO THAT. WE HAVE ROUGHLY 1200 PIECES OF DATA ON POLE ATTACHMENTS. THERE IS ONE LARGE SUBMISSION THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CLEAN UP TO MAKE SURE IT CONSISTS OF ACTUAL AGREEMENTS, NOT JUST NEGOTIATIONS. WE MAY AUGMENT THAT LATER IT THAT IS HELPFUL TO THE BDAC. IN THE DOCUMENT THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS -- IF YOU COULD ADVANCE TO THE SLIDE. I CANNOT SEE IT BUT I'M ASSUMING IT IS THE RIGHT ONE. AT THE TOP OF THIS CHART, THE ONE THING WE DISCOVERED, WE LOOKED AT WIRED AND WIRELESS RATES SEPARATELY. THERE IS A BIG DISPARITY IN THE NUMBERS BUT A CHUNK OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAD IN COMMITTEE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THAT WIRED AND WIRELESS POLE ATTACHMENTS REPRESENT A CURRENT AMOUNT OF SPACE. WIRED ATTACHMENTS TAKES ABOUT ONE FOOT ON THE POLE. WIRELESS ATTACHMENTS RUN ANYWHERE FROM 60 TO 10 FEET DEPENDING ON THE ATTACHMENT. IN LOOKING AT THESE TWO NUMBERS, I THINK IT IS MORE HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE MEDIAN NUMBER. IT TENDS TO BE INFLUENCED BY OUTLIERS. WE DID RUN THE DATA WITH THE TOP 10% AND BOTTOM 10% OF THE DATA EXCLUDED. IT LEFT US WITH LARGELY THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. I ALWAYS TRY TO PRESENT THE DATA IN THE SIMPLEST WAY. THAT IS HOW WE ARE CHOOSING TO PREVENT -- PRESENT IT HERE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE WIRED AND WIRELESS DATA IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY MEAN, SO THEY HAVE TO BE USED IN SOPHISTICATED WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. THE BIGGEST ONE TO ME, WITH RESPECT TO WIRED AND WIRELESS ATTACHMENTS, SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO REGULATED, UNREGULATED RATES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE WIRED NUMBERS, YOU SEE SOMETHING IN THE 20'S VERSUS $10 FOR THE MEDIAN. A SIMILAR PATTERN IN WIRELESS. UNREGULATED RATES ARE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER. THE VARIANCE IS ALSO HIGHER. WE ALSO GOT SOME MORE DATA ABOUT ACCESS TO RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHAT THOSE RATES TEND TO RUN. MEDIAN IN THE 400 TO $600 RANGE. IN DISCUSSIONS IN COMMITTEE, PEOPLE FOUND THAT HELPFUL. SEVERAL PEOPLE STATED, THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS BEING DRIVEN BY DATA, INSTEAD OF WHAT INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE. IF WE GO WITH POSITIONS, IT WILL BE ALL OVER THE MAP. IF WE FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE AGREEING TO, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THERE WERE TWO OTHER FORMS OF AGREEMENTS OTHER THAN FLAT RENTAL RATES. ONE IS BASED ON REVENUE SHARING, THE OTHER BASED ON STATE LEGISLATION. REVENUE SHARING IS IN THE REPORT, A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM. MOST OF THEM CHARGED 5% OF REVENUE ALTHOUGH SOME CHARGED 3%. SOME OF THEM HAD COME IN ADDITION TO THAT, AN ANNUAL FEE. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU CAN CHOOSE BETWEEN THE RENTAL RATE AND ANNUAL FEE. INSTEAD OF DOING THE REVENUE SHARE, RATHER THAN IN ADDITION TO IT, THAT IS A DIFFERENT NUMBER. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, I RECOMMEND LOOKING INTO THE REPORT. WE LAY OUT THE DATA PRETTY CLEARLY. LASTLY, 13 STATES HAVE PASSED STATUTES THAT MANDATE POLE ATTACHMENTS STATEWIDE. THAT WOULD LIMIT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY [INDISCERNIBLE] >> YOU ARE BREAKING IN AND OUT A LITTLE BIT. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] STATE MY STATUTES BETWEEN 50 AND $250 [INDISCERNIBLE] GIVEN THE QUALITY OF THE SIGNAL, THAT IS ABOUT TO STOP. >> OK. ARE THERE ANY FIRST BLUSH QUESTIONS FROM THE BDAC OF CHRISTOPHER, RECOGNIZING THIS IS PRELIMINARY, OBSERVATION BASED. WE HAVE NOT MADE A LOT OF INTERPRETATIONS YET ABOUT THE DATA AND OUR COMMITTEE NEEDS TO DO THAT. WHAT TYPES OF QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS DO WE HAVE AROUND THE TABLE? >> [INAUDIBLE] THE RANGE WHENEVER YOU SEE A BIG STANDARD DEVIATION, INTERESTING TO SEE THE RANGE. MAYBE THAT IS IN THE OVERALL REPORT. >> WE DO CONSISTENTLY REPORT RANGES IN THE REPORT. I JUST DID NOT PUT IT IN THE SLIDE BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT TO JUNK IT UP. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO PROVIDED DATA IN THIS PROCESS. I'M VERY PROUD OF THIS OUTCOME IN THE SENSE THAT I FEEL IT IS SOMETHING THAT A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY COULD CONTRIBUTE TO. WE CAN FIND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS AND ALSO NOT BE SUBJECT TO FOIA, SO WE WERE IN BUT TO GATHER DATA IN A WAY THAT WE HOPE CAN HELP THE COMMITTEE. THAT IS A ROLE THAT WE WERE HAPPY TO PLAY. >> YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANY FORMAL INTERPRETATIONS YET. DID YOU HAVE ANY ANECDOTAL SENSES ABOUT WHY THERE WAS SUCH A DIFFERENCE IN THESE NUMBERS? >> DEPENDS ON WHAT DIFFERENCE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WIRELESS AND WIRED, WE ARE STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MEDIAN RATE, YOU ASSUME THE WIRELESS ATTACHMENT TAKES MORE ROOM ON THE POLE. WHETHER THAT IS THE AMOUNT WE EXPECT IS NOT CLEAR. IF YOU EMBRACE THAT FOR WIRED AND WIRELESS, YOU CAN ALSO COMPARE REGULATED AND UNREGULATED. AS I EYEBALL THESE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGULATED GIVES YOU SOME INDICATION OF UTILIZATION BECAUSE THAT IS ALL COST-BASED ANYWAY. THAT WOULD PROBABLY PROVIDE SOME TRACTION ON IT. IT IS FAIRLY CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO DIRECT REGULATION AND ARE FREE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT. THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT [INDISCERNIBLE] ONE OF THE THINGS THE BDAC WILL HAVE TO DO. IN THE TABBED, THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FCC REGULATION AND STATE REGULATION, WHICH IS INTERESTING. WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND SOME TIME LOOKING AT THAT MAKING SURE WE UNDERSTAND IT. I AM A LITTLE CAUTIOUS ABOUT ALL THE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE, BECAUSE IT IS A LUMINARY. AT THIS POINT, MY DUTY TO BE AN HONEST BROKER OF THE DATA. IN MANY WAYS, THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS, SOME OF THE FINER POINTS WILL HAPPEN IN THE DATA ANALYSIS BUT SOME OF IT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND BDAC ITSELF. >> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE. I CAN SEE THERE HAS BEEN AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WORK DONE. THE ONE QUESTION I HAD -- MAYBE CHRISTOPHER CAN ANSWER THIS -- DID YOU GET ANY SENSE OF IT THERE WAS A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE COST BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS? THAT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING DISTINCTION IN THE DATA. I'M NOT SURE FROM YOUR SAMPLE IF YOU HAD ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT AT ALL. >> WELL, THE HARD PART IS, WE HAVE DATA REPORTED BY CONTRACTING ENTITIES. THE PROBLEM IS SEVERALFOLD. SOMETIMES IT IS AN AGREEMENT -- SAY IT IS AN IOU AND THE TELEPHONE PROVIDER. WE ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHY OF THAT RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE IOU'S SERVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS AND WILL AMALGAMATE SOME OF THOSE. SECOND, IN SOME OF THE SMALLER CITIES, WE CAN MAKE SOME ESTIMATE OF IT. IT REQUIRES GETTING CENSUS DATA AND DOING A FAIR AMOUNT OF SIDE WORK BEYOND RUNNING THE NUMBERS. WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR ENERGY TO DO THAT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, WITHIN EACH INDIVIDUAL CITY THERE ARE GENERALLY URBAN AND RURAL AREAS BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES. SO WE MAY HAVE A GENERAL SENSE OF A CITY THAT, ON BALANCE, TENDS TO BE WHEN MAYOR OR THE OTHER TO EXTRACT THE DATA. IT WOULD REQUIRE COLLECTING DATA FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, PRIMARILY THE U.S. CENSUS, AND PUTTING IT TOGETHER WITH THIS. THAT IS FAIRLY LABOR-INTENSIVE. SECOND, BECAUSE EACH MUNICIPALITY WILL MIX BOTH, IT WILL BE A LITTLE HARD. THE BEST WE CAN DO IS GIVE SOME ASSESSMENT BASED ON CITY SIZE. WE COULD ALSO PUT IT AGAINST THE AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY. NOW WHEN WE START TO DO ANALYSES LIKE THAT, THAT IS CONSIDERED PRETTY SERIOUS WORK. AT THIS POINT, IT WAS NOT OUR PLAN TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, UNLESS THIS WAS SOMETHING PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, AND IF WE FIND THE RESOURCES TO SUPPORT NETWORK. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU COLLECTED IT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. I REALIZE GETTING TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL WOULD BE QUITE THE EFFORT BUT I WANTED TO GET YOUR SENSE OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT. THANK YOU. >> THIS IS DAVID. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE FOR ALL THE HARD WORK. COUPLE QUESTIONS. HOW ARE YOU DEALING WITH CONSIDERING THE FULL ACCURACY OF THE DATA YOU ARE RECEIVING? WE WENT THROUGH AND SUPPLIED SOME DATA FOR THIS ANALYSIS, TOOK A LOT OF EFFORT FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. THE DATA SETS ARE NOT EXACTLY IN THE FORM FOR THIS PARTICULAR ANALYSIS THAT YOU ARE UNDERTAKING. HOW ARE YOU CONFIRMING THAT OTHER COMPANIES, ALL DATA SOURCES ARE ACCURATE? WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEAN, MEDIAN ON THE WIRED TO WIRELESS PULL ATTACHMENTS, THERE IS A HUGE STANDARD DEVIATION. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT OUTLIERS, HOW YOU LOOK AT THE DATA, WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A REASON FOR THOSE, SHOULD THEY BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST GOING FORWARD? >> WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE LOST CHRISTOPHER. I WILL DO MY BEST, DON, TO ANSWER THAT. WE ARE AWARE OF SOME OUTLIERS. CHRISTOPHER HAS DONE SOME WORK. HE AND HIS TEAM HAVE DONE SOME WORK TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE OUTLIERS BECAUSE THEY REALLY WERE SKEWING THE DATA. HOWEVER, I THINK THERE IS PROBABLY MORE WORK TO BE DONE THERE. YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE ACCURACY, COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES, IS A REAL PROBLEM AND CHALLENGE HERE. WE HAVE HAD SOME NICE PLAY ON THIS RECENT SET OF DATA IN THE LAST 24 HOURS BETWEEN OUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WITH CABLE, WIRELESS, AND SO FORTH GOING BACK AND FORTH, ASKING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ULTIMATELY WILL LEAD TO AUTHENTICATING THIS, I THINK. CHRISTOPHER I DON'T THINK WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT ANSWER THAN THAT BUT HE MAY HAVE MORE DETAIL . >> TO THE POINT ON THE OUTLIERS, WE ASKED CHRISTOPHER TO ELIMINATE THE TOP AND BOTTOM 10%, SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. WHILE NOT IN THE REPORT, HE SAID STATISTICALLY DID NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME. >> SOME OF THE OUTLIERS WERE PRETTY OUT THERE. INTERESTING THAT IT DID NOT ADJUST THE DATA THAT MUCH. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL DATA SET. ONE OF THE THINGS CHRISTOPHER ASKED FOR IS MORE DATA. I DON'T KNOW THE BEST WAY TO GET THE DATA TO HIM BUT THE MORE DATA HE HAS THE MORE INFORMATIVE THIS WILL BE. IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELP ALL TO HEAR FROM MUNICIPALITIES OF VARIOUS SIZES. THEY HAVE SOME CO-OPS IN HERE BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARE REPRESENTED, HOW MANY REGULATORY REGULATED ENERGY COMPANIES ARE HERE BUT THE SAMPLE SIZES ARE RELATIVELY SMALL. I PUT OUT A COUPLE OF ASKS THROUGH MY NETWORK AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALL DO THE SAME TO SEE IF WE CAN GET MORE DATA TO CHRISTOPHER. THE MORE DATA WE HAVE THE BETTER THE INFORMATION WILL BE. >> I AM BACK ON THE CALL, SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> I WAS CALLING FOR PEOPLE TO GET YOU MORE DATA. >> WE WELCOME THAT. I DID HEAR DAVID'S FULL QUESTION AND HE BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT. SOME PEOPLE SUBMITTED AN ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AND THAT IS OBVIOUSLY LABOR INTENSIVE, BUT WE REVIEWED THE ENTIRETY OF THE AGREEMENT AND HAVE SOME CONFIDENCE ABOUT THE TERMS. ALTHOUGH OFTEN THEY USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT VARIES. FOR THE DATA IS SUBMITTED IN SPREADSHEET FORM, NOT VERIFIED. WE ARE TAKING THE WORD OF THE SUBMITTERS, AND THAT IS THE LIMITATION OF THE DATA. >> ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS -- CHRISTOPHER, YOU MAY SPEAK TO THIS -- BUT YOU PULLED SOME DATA OUT. ULTIMATELY, OVER 1500 DATA POINTS, SUBMISSIONS. SOME OF THOSE YOU TOOK OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE MORE CONCEPTUAL, NOT ACTUAL, AGREE TO RATES. WHAT WE ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON ARE THOSE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND WORKING ON NOW, NOT SOMEBODY'S IDEA OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE. >> CORRECT. YOU HAVE SEEN OUTLIERS. MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE AND THEN GO BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL DATA SOURCES [INDISCERNIBLE] DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED A GREAT DEAL. SOMETIMES THE BIGGEST NUMBERS REPRESENT MULTIPLE POLE ATTACHMENTS. IN ONE DATA SOURCE, [INDISCERNIBLE] WE FOUND THAT WAS THE CURRENT NUMBER UNDER NEGOTIATION BUT NOT THE FINAL AGREEMENT. BECAUSE FROM THAT DATA SOURCE WE COULD NOT RESOLVE ENTIRELY WHICH ONES WERE AGREED IN WHICH WERE IN NEGOTIATIONS [INDISCERNIBLE] WE ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THAT BUT WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO VERIFY -- WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT, UNLESS WE HAVE THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT, WE COULD NOT VERIFY, AND WOULD NOT IN TURN VERIFY THE AGREEMENT. WE JUST TOOK PEOPLE'S WORD AT IT. >> I REALLY APPLAUD THIS WORK, COMBINING OUT THE COST AND MAKING IT MORE UNDERSTANDABLE ALL OF US IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS WHEN YOU GET TO MORE OF THE DATA ANALYTICS, HOW DOES REGULATED VERSUS UNREGULATED AND A TOTAL PRICE OF THE ATTACHMENT AFFECT BROADBAND AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY? IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN LOWER PRICES AND MORE BROADBAND AVAILABILITY OR NOT? >> WE CANNOT FIND THAT OUT. WITHOUT SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE SERVICE AREA IS-- WE WOULD HAVE TO CORRELATE THAT AGAINST A CONDUCTIVITY DATABASE. PROBABLY DATA COLLECTED HAS TO BE AT A SMALLER LEVEL OF AGGREGATION OR EQUAL. WE HAVE TO MATCH THAT UP. WITHOUT THAT, WE CANNOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT. >> IT HAS COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES -- KELLY RAISED IT, A SIMILAR POINT BY DAVID. I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE WILL NEED TO DO, AND MATCH IT UP WITH BROADBAND PENETRATION TO THE EXTENT WE CAN SEE WHERE THERE ARE REGULATED RATES, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PULL DATA AND DETERMINE THE PENETRATION OF THOSE AREAS AND DRAW SOME KIND OF CORRELATION. I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO CHRISTOPHER HOW MUCH WORK THAT IS BUT I THINK THAT IS AN EXERCISE THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO UNDERTAKE. >> THAT WOULD BE A GRANT IN TIME. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] >> IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO GET A GRADUATE STUDENT WITH YOU WORKING FULL-TIME FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT, TO BE ABLE TO CODE IT, AND THEN ANALYZE THE SERVICE AREAS, WHAT YOU CAN DEFINE IN A DIFFERENT WAYS FROM EACH OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND THEN MATCH THAT WITH THIS LEVEL DATA, CENSUS LEVEL BLOCK DATA, WHICH IS WHAT THE NCI A COLLECTED. THAT DATA IS STALE, HAS NOT BEEN COLLECTED SINCE 2014. THERE IS A MISMATCH IN THERE. I UNDERSTAND THE FCC WILL BE DOING SOMETHING NEW BUT THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED THAT DAY TO GET. IT WOULD BE A MAJOR UNDERTAKING THAT WOULD TAKE I WOULD SAY MONTHS. >> I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE THAT YOU CANNOT JUST DO A CURRENT -- DIRECT CORRELATION BECAUSE THAT WOULD ASSUME STETTINIUS OUTCOME-- INSTANTANEOUS OUTCOME. IF YOU PROVED A RATE ON MONDAY, WHETHER IT IS A MILL DOLLARS OR A PENNY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FACTOR IN THAT LAG. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ISSUE TO DETERMINE HOW BIG THAT LAG FACTOR IS. YOU'RE SETTING WOULD HAVE TO BE LONGER THAN THE LAG. >> AND WE KNOW THAT THE DEMAND SIDE FACTOR DEMAND -- MA TTERS AS WELL. DIGITAL LITERACY WILL ALSO AFFECT ULTIMATE ADOPTION RATES. THE REASON I WOULD LIKE TO SEE NTI DATA -- NTIA DATA, IT IS A COVERAGE. MOST OF THE DATA IS ABOUT SUBSCRIBERS. YOU CAN FIND SUPPLY AND DEMAND-SIDE OBSTACLES. >> I AGREE WITH YOU, CHRIS. ALSO PART OF THE ANALYSIS, SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE COME IN SOME OF OUR MASTER POLE ATTACHMENT AGREEMENTS, WE ARE SUBJECT TO AGREEMENTS. WE ARE COMFORTABLE PROVIDING 22,000 NODES, HAPPY TO SLICE THAT DATA IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS, BY STATE, MTA, BTA, AND RUN GRANULARITY, BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS STRESSED AND VERIFY, THEN VERIFY THESE WE CANNOT VIOLATE THOSE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS. MY ASSUMPTION IS CROWN HAS THE SAME ISSUE, MAJOR CARRIERS THAT HAVE 50,000 TO 80,000 NODES. IF WE COULD GET ALL OF THAT DATA IN SUMMARY TABLE FORMAT AND LOOK AT IT BY STATE, BY REGION, BY MTA, BTA, YOU WILL BEGIN TO GET CORRELATED DATA. THAT STANDARD DEVIATION WILL SHRINK FAST IF YOUR SAMPLE SIZE GOES FROM 600 ATTACHMENTS -- TALKING ABOUT THE WIRELESS SIDE -- TO A SAMPLE OF 90 OR 100,000 ATTACHMENTS, EVEN IF SUMMARY TABLE DATA, WE WILL REALLY NIFTY ISSUE IN THE BUD ABOUT THE STANDARD DEVIATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN POLE ATTACHMENT RATES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN CALIFORNIA VERSUS TEXAS VERSUS ILLINOIS VERSUS FLORIDA VERSUS NEW YORK. SOME OF THAT DATA WILL NOT SURPRISE US. ATTACHMENT RATES WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE IN THE CORE URBAN CB D'S. YOU CAN SEE IF YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE SOME INFERENCES THERE. WE ARE HAPPY TO OFFER UP OUR 22,000 NODES IN A SUMMARY TABLE WHERE WE DO NOT VIOLATE NDA'S. IF THAT WORKS FOR YOU, WE ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY A SUMMARY TABLE, THIS IS INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS, NOT AGGREGATED NUMBERS, CORRECT? >> THE WAY THIS WORKS, SOME OF OUR AGREEMENTS WERE NOT JUST ACCESSING ONE POLE, WE ARE ACCESSING MULTIPLE POLES. IN SOME INSTANCES, DEALING WITH A SINGLE JURISDICTION, WE COULD BE ACCESSING ONE POLE. IF WE ARE DEALING WITH A PRIVATE LANDLORD, WE COULD BE DEALING WITH ONE POLE. WE CAN GIVE YOU THAT DATA. WE HAVE ALL OF THAT IN A DATABASE. WE CAN TELL YOU THE STATE, MTA, BTA. THE KEY IS SUMMARIZING THIS AND PUTTING IT INTO CATEGORIES WHERE YOU CAN BEGIN TO MAKE SOME CORRELATED INFERENCES OR SOME ASSUMPTIONS AROUND WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH POLE ATTACHMENT FEES. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR CROWN BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THEY PROBABLY HAVE THAT DATA. WHEN WE SAY SUMMARY TABLE, I'M TALKING ABOUT ONE COLUMN IS EVERY STATE, AND THAT THE TOP CATEGORIES WOULD BE PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC LANDLORD, THE CURRENT RATE HER POLE, TOPLINE INFORMATION SUMMARIZED BY STATE SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE 20,000 POLE ATTACHMENT AGREEMENTS, AND YOU HAVE GRANULAR DATA. I CANNOT HAND YOU THE EXACT POLE ATTACHMENT AGREEMENTS. MOST OF US CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE MOST OF THEM HAVE A NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT IN THEM. WE CAN SON SOMETHING OVER TO YOU AND YOU CAN LOOK AT IT TO SEE IF IT MAKES SENSE, WE CAN PLAY WITH THE FORMAT. IF IT WORKS, OTHERS IN THE ROOM CAN FOLLOW SUIT AND WE CAN PULL THE SAMPLE SET FROM 600 LOCATIONS UP TO 80,000 LOCATIONS . THEN I THINK YOUR WORK IS GOING TO BE MORE SURGICAL PERHAPS. >> THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. I HAVE BEEN BEGGING FOR DATA FOR WEEKS. THE FACT THAT IT MAY COME WITH MORE MULTIPLE POLES IS A PROBLEM. SOME PEOPLE DID SUBMIT STATE-LEVEL AGGREGATED DATA. I CANNOT COMBINE A STATE LEVEL AGGREGATE WITH INDIVIDUAL LEVEL DATA. IT IS TRYING TO COMBINE APPLES AND ORANGES, JUST DOES NOT WORK. WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IS DATA AT THE CURRENT AGREEMENT LEVEL, AND TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE, IF THAT IS THE BEST YOU HAVE, WE WILL TAKE IT. BUT WE HAVE BROKEN IT UP INTO FIVE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, MUSICALITY, PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY, CO-OP, IOU, OR PUBLIC COMPANY. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THE ONE THING THAT WOULD MAKE THIS EASIER FOR US IS THE CITY IN WHICH IT IS OPERATED IN, IF IT IS LISTED. RIGHT NOW IT'S AN EXERCISE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE ALL OF THE THESE THINGS ARE. IF I HAVE A LARGE IOU AND NETWORK PROVIDER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY. [INDISCERNIBLE] YOU CANNOT TELL BY LOOKING AT THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WHO IT IS. THAT KIND OF INFORMATION WOULD BE HELPFUL IF IT COULD BE COMBINED INTO THE DATA. THE BIG CAUTION HERE IS THAT I FIND THAT WHENEVER I DO EXERCISES LIKE THIS, JUST LIKE IT IS EASIER TO SPEND OTHERS PEOPLE'S MONEY, IT IS EASIER TO SPEND OTHER PEOPLE'S TIME. I SAY THIS SORT OFFLIP BUT IT IS NOT. [INDISCERNIBLE] DOING THIS INSTEAD OF A PRODUCT THAT HE INTENDED TO BE WORKING ON. AT SOME POINT, WE NEED MORE RESOURCE IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE KIND OF ANALYSIS, THE KIND OF BREAK US THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR. >> ONE OF THE STANDARDS THE FCC HAS OFTEN USED HIS MTA AND BTA. WE CAN SLICE THE DATA THAT WAY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. IF YOU HAVE THE MTA AND BTA, YOU CAN CORRELATE TO INCOMES, YOU CAN BE MORE SURGICAL. WHETHER OR NOT IS IMPACTFUL OR NOT FROM A TOTAL DELIVERY BANDWIDTH ISSUE. >> [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU HAVE 10 AGREEMENTS OR ONE AGREEMENT, HE NEEDS THE END TO FIGURE OUT THE AVERAGES. >> I SUGGEST THAT, MARK, YOU GIVE THAT TO CHRISTOPHER AND SEE IF THE DATA IS IN A WAY THAT HE CAN USE IT. THAT WOULD MAYBE BE A MODEL THAT WE COULD FOLLOW. CHRISTOPHER, YOU COULD GIVE MARK HOW YOU WANT TO SEE THE DATA AND SEE IF IT CAN MATCH UP. OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED MORE DATA. >> NOW THAT YOU'RE INTO THIS A FEW MONTHS AND ARE GETTING A SENSE OF THE DATA THAT IS OUT THERE, HAVE YOU DISCUSSED DEVELOPING A TEMPLATE, RATHER THAN GETTING THE RAW AGREEMENT, WHICH SEEMS TO BE BURDENSOME FLIPPING THROUGH PAGE BY PAGE, ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE TRUST FACTOR ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF IT. HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT DEVELOPING A TEMPLATE THAT YOU MAY SEND BACK TO MEMBERS OF THE BDAC, MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO COULD DO SOME OF THAT LEGWORK ON OUR END AND GET IT INTO SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE STANDARDIZED FORM? >> I WOULD LOVE TO IMMEDIATELY SAY YES. IN TALKING TO THE FCC STAFF, IF WE START REQUESTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN SPECIFIC FORMATS, WE POTENTIALLY RUN AFOUL OF THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS BUT I'VE BEEN TOLD TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS. >> WHY DON'T WE TAKE THAT BACK AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD MAKE EVERYONE'S LIFE EASIER, AS IN IT WOULD BE THE WHOLE MISSION OF THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT, TO MAKE EVERYONE'S LIFE EASIER. MAYBE WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY -- YOU WOULD THINK, RIGHT? UNLESS THERE ARE MORE COMMENTS, -- >> THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ASK ANDY ABOUT OR CHRISTOPHER, IT MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO TOUCH ON THE PRIVACY THAT YOU PUT IN PLACE. WHEN WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS, THAT WAS THE MAIN THING. WE HAVE NDA'S WITH THESE PEOPLE. WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HIT THOSE BRIEFLY. >> CHRISTOPHER HAS BEEN VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT THAT WITH HIS WORK. VERY QUICKLY -- I KNOW WE HAVE A BREAK THAT IS LEANING ON US. COMPLETING THE METHOD ANALYSIS, IDENTIFYING AND ANALYZING NEW METHODS. IF YOU HAVE NEW METHODS WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US. FINE-TUNING THE DATA, UNDERSTANDING THE DATA. THAT MAY HAVE MORE LINKS TO ADHERE, BUT WE UNDERSTAND REST OF HER AND HIS RESOURCES ARE LIMITED, SO WE HAVE TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT OR FIND MONEY FOR THEM TO DO MORE. DEVELOP GUIDANCE FROM THE BDAC, ESTABLISH A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO EXCEL RIGHT BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT. OUR TIMING, OUR REPORT ULTIMATELY IS PROBABLY AT THE 80% RANGE. THAT MAY BE MORE AFTER OUR DISCUSSION ON DATA TODAY. I'M GUESSING 60 DAYS OR SO, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WRAP THIS UP. THAT IS THE PATH THAT WE ARE ON. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S INDULGENCE IN THIS. THIS IS HARD WORK. ALL THE WORK WE ARE DOING HERE IS HARD, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT WORK AND BEGINS TO SHINE SOME LIGHT ON THINGS AND CREATES SOME COMMON LANGUAGE AND UNDERSTANDING. I THINK WE WILL GET THE JOB DONE. >> GREAT. >> ONE QUICK THING. WE HAVE A FOUNDATION THAT SUPPORTS EDUCATION. IF WE COULD SUPPORT A GRADUATE STUDENT OF CHRISTOPHER'S, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO KICK IN A LITTLE BIT. IF OTHERS HAVE GRANT FUNDING, AND IS ALLOWED UNDER RULES, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT TO GET A BIG IN ACCENT DATA ALONG THE LINES THAT MARK IS DISCUSSING. >> THANK YOU. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE WILL LOOK INTO THAT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. HONESTLY, IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO PUT TOGETHER THE MONEY NEEDED TO GET A GRANT TO SUPPORT A GRADUATE STUDENT TO DO THIS WORK, PROBABLY THIS WILL BE KEY TO A LOT OF WHAT HAPPENS IN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS ASKING, I THINK WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO HELPING UNDERSTAND AND FRAME AS OUR RECOMMENDATION GO OUT NATIONALLY. I THINK EVERYONE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR THIS DATA. I HAVE HAD PEOPLE ASK ME ABOUT IT WHO ARE NOT EVEN ON THE BDAC. THE MORE ROBUST AND CAN BE THE BETTER OFF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE. >> I DON'T NEED TO HOLD US UP FROM OUR BREAK, MADAM CHAIR, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU REGARDING THIS REPORT. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE ON THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK AND THE TIME YOU HAVE PUT IN ON THIS ISSUE. MY QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE, STILL ASKING FOR DATA. THE MODEL CODE'S ARE MOVING ALONG. HOW ARE WE LOOKING AT RECONCILING WHAT IS COMING OUT OF THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE WITH WHAT THE VARIOUS WORKING GROUPS ARE PRODUCING, HOW ARE WE GOING TO USE IT ALTOGETHER? >> THAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION LATER TODAY. I WILL GIVE YOU THE HIGH LEVEL OF WHAT I'M THINKING. ALL OF THESE WORKING GROUPS HAVE GONE AWAY, HAVE DONE SUBSTANTIAL WORK OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. WHAT HAS COME OUT OF THEM IS THE COMPLETE A RECOMMENDATION OF THOSE COMMITTEES. AS FAR AS THE BDAC AS A WHOLE IS CONCERNED, WE DON'T HAVE OUR COMPLETED REPORT BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL WORKING GROUP REPORTS HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HARMONIZE WITH ONE ANOTHER. SO THE REPORT THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY, THE REPORT THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BDAC, WE NEED TO HARMONIZE THOSE AND HOPEFULLY COME WITH A DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE THE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BDAC. SPEAKING PERSONALLY, I DO NOT WANT THE BDAC TO MAKE INCONSISTENT RECOMMENDATIONS, I DON'T WANT US TO BE INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT. THE POINT OF HAVING THESE VOICES HERE IS SO EVERYONE CAN WEIGH IN ON ALL PARTS GOING ON. THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO ENTER A PROCESS LATER. THE DISCUSSION AT THE END OF THE DAY IS TO DISCUSS WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE AND HOW WE AS A COMMITTEE GO FORWARD. FROM MY SEAT, I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL A BREAK, UNLESS THERE IS ANYTHING ANYONE WANTS TO SAY. WE ARE RUNNING ABOUT 15 MINUTES TIME SCHEDULE BUT WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A 10-MINUTE RATE. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CUSHION AT THE END. PLEASE TRY TO COME BACK IN 10 MINUTES. >> IF EVERYONE COULD PLEASE TAKE THEIR SEATS. DAVID DON. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A MODEL STATE CODE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUP ON MODEL STATE CODES. THE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE KELLY WILL MAKING THE PRIMARY PRESENTATION BUT HE WILL ALSO HAVE SOME OF HIS COMMITTEE MEMBERS JOIN HIM. KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE WHO WILL BE CO-PRESENTING WITH YOU? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN. SO WE ARE TODAY GOING TO PRESENT OUR DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR ABOUT A YEAR. WE HAVE OVER WE HAVE OVER 20 PEOPLE ON OUR WORKING GROUP, AND I HAD LUNCH WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND THE FIRST THING HE SAID WAS I APOLOGIZE FOR APPOINTING YOU TO THE COMMITTEE. I SAID DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT AT ALL. WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF FUN. IT HAS BEEN A TON OF WORK. I HAD MY WORRIES AT SOME POINT DURING THE PROCESS WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE THE CONSENSUS -- THE CONSENSUS THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED. THE CONSENSUS NOT BEING UNANIMOUS, BUT DEFINITELY I -- A MAJORITY OF OUR MEMBERS. EVERYONE HAS BEEN VERY THOUGHTFUL. WE HAVE A GREAT -- JUST LIKE IN THIS COMMITTEE, WE HAVE A TERRIFIC SENSE OF COMITY, AND BEING ABLE TO DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO OUR DELIBERATIONS. IN DECEMBER, I BELIEVE, JOHN, WE CAME UP WITH A COMMITTEE, A TYPE OF SUBCOMMITTEE MADE UP OF A SMALLER GROUP, THAT ACTUALLY CAME TO WASHINGTON, AND THANKS TO BRIAN AND PAUL, THEY PROVIDED US A CONFERENCE ROOM. WE MET ALL DAY. I BELIEVE ON DECEMBER 7 -- TWO, KIND OF, HASH OUT ISSUES THAT REMAINED. THERE WERE ABOUT 12 OF US THAT WE ELECTED. JOHN MORRIS AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE. JOHN HAS DONE AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF WORK. JOHN LIVES IN LONDON AND FLIES HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS. LEST ANYONE THINK WE ARE NOT TAKING IT SERIOUSLY OR PUTTING IN THE TIME, LIKE I KNOW EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE HAS DONE, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE HAS COME UP WITH WHAT I THINK IS A VERY GOOD PRODUCT, AND I HAVE ASKED SOME OF OUR MEMBERS WHO HAVE PLAYED AN OUTSIZED ROLE, AND TO ALSO BRING A TERRIFIC AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE TO THE SPACE TO PRESENT A PORTION OF THIS DOCUMENT, AND THEY HAVE GRACIOUSLY AGREED. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THOSE FOLKS. SO, JOHN MORRIS WILL PRESENT ARTICLES THREE AND FOUR. ARTICLE THREE BEING NETWORK SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REGISTER, AND ARTICLE FOUR BEING RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO EXISTING NETWORK SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE. JOHN SERVES AS THE CHAIRMAN OF WHAT WE HAVE CALLED OUR RECONCILIATIONS COMMITTEE. HE HAS DEVOTED A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO THE CODE AS YOU SEE IT IN ITS PRESENT FORM. HE IS A COFOUNDER OF GEEKS WITHOUT FRONTIERS, AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT SEEKS TO LEVERAGE THE SKILLS OF LEADERS IN TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOP SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS IN UNDERDEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE WORLD. JOHN WILL CALL IN FOR A MEETING, AND HE IS LITERALLY IN MOROCCO, OR SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE AFRICAN SUBCONTINENT, MEANING WITH TRIBAL ELDERS OR OTHER LEADERS TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY TO VILLAGERS IN CERTAIN PLACES. HE DOES A TERRIFIC AMOUNT OF GOOD. HE IS A LAWYER BY TRAINING WITH THE BACKGROUND OF BANKING. ALAN BELL, A MEMBER OF OUR COMMITTEE, WILL PRESENT ARTICLE FIVE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO POLES IN THE COMMUNICATION SPACE. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RELATIONSHIP OF GEORGIA POWER WITH THE GEORGIA DOT, AND HE PROVIDES INPUT TO POLICY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH UTILITY RELOCATION. HE SERVES ON THE GEORGIA A11 BOARD AND WORKS ON CHANGES IN LAW. HE HAS BEEN A TERRIFIC VOICE ON OUR COMMITTEE AS WE HAVE HASHED THROUGH ALL OF OUR POLE ATTACHMENT ISSUES -- IDEAS WHERE JUST LIKE TODAY, "HOLD ON, GUYS, LET'S TALK THROUGH THAT," AND THAT HAS BEEN A GREAT SERVICE. ANGIE DICKINSON WILL PRESENT ARTICLE SIX OF OUR WORK ITEM ON SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR RAILROAD CROSSINGS, AND STATE BROADBAND 13, INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGER ARTICLE. SHE IS THE LEADER OF BROADBAND STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN WISCONSIN. SHE HOLDS AN MBA FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, A PUBLIC POLICY FELLOW, AND SHE HAS DEVOTED HER LIFE TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND IN RURAL COMMUNITIES IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN. KELLEY CO., OUR VICE CHAIRMAN WILL PRESENT ARTICLE 7, NEW AND MODIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE BROADBAND READY, AND ARTICLE EIGHT, BUILDINGS AND NETWORK ACCESS POINTS TO BE BROADBAND READY. SHE IS THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF UTAH'S FIRST BROADBAND PLAN, AND PRIOR TO BE APPOINTED DIRECTOR, SHE SERVED AS MUCH IN -- AS BUDGET OFFICER FOR A PROGRAM FOCUSED ON MAPPING ALL PRIVATELY HELD AND THE STRUCTURE IN UTAH AND DEVELOPED A PUBLIC\/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO INCREASE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT. TOM SLOAN WILL PRESENT ARTICLES 10, 11, 12. 10, STATE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, RURAL BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT 11, ASSISTANCE FUND, AND RURAL 12, MUNICIPAL-OWNED BROADBAND NETWORKS. TOM IS A KANSAS STATE LEGISLATOR OR AND HAS BEEN SINCE THE 1990'S. IN THE 1980'S HE WORKED IN THE KANSAS STATE SENATE AS A CHIEF OF STAFF. HE HAS A BA FROM SYRACUSE, HIS PHD FROM UNC CHAPEL HILL. HE HAS A PASSION FOR RURAL BROADBAND APPOINTED AND HAS BEEN AN AMAZING ADVOCATE FOR THOSE, TO BRING THOSE ISSUES TO THE FOREFRONT EVERY TIME WE ARE IN A MEETING OR HAVE A CALL. HE IS A WONDERFUL VOICE TO HAVE ON OUR COMMITTEE. OUR COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF TERRIFIC PEOPLE, A BROAD SWATH OF PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY, AND THESE FOLKS THAT WILL BE PRESENTING TODAY ARE -- HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK IN THESE AREAS, AND THEY BRING THEIR EXPERTISE TO WHAT WE HAVE TWO PRESENT TODAY. THE THING YOU WILL SEE IN OUR PRESENTATION ARE SOME PICTURES THAT WE HAVE PUT IN. THE CHAIRMAN SPECIFICALLY, AND COMMISSIONER CARR RECENTLY HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE INTERNET NOT BEING SOMETHING THAT JUST FLOATS IN THE AIR, MAGICALLY APPEARS ON YOUR PHONE OR IPAD WHEN YOU ARE DOWNLOADING A MOVIE SO YOU CAN WATCH IT SO YOU CAN FLY HERE, OR WHATEVER, BUT IT IS A SERIES OF FIBER CABLES, CONDUITS TRENCHES, POINTS OF PRESENCE, NETWORK OPERATION CENTERS, AND IT IS INSTALLED BY PEOPLE IN VERY DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. THE EQUIPMENT USED CAN CRUSH HUMAN BEINGS. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO WORK. I HAVE GOOD FRIENDS THAT WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. I HAVE A GOOD FRIEND THAT WAS HIT BY A CAR DRIVEN BY AGAR WHO WAS TEXTING, -- BY A GUY WHO WAS TEXTING AND NICK -- LITERALLY KNOCKED HIS BOOTS OFF. IT IS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO WORK, AND THE PEOPLE THAT DO THAT WORK, THEY ARE A DIFFERENT BREED. WE WILL HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THEM TODAY IN SOME OF THE PICTURES YOU SEE. THAT IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES, TO FEATURE THESE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE HEAT, THE COLD, THE RAIN, THE SNOW WITH THESE CARS STREAMING BY AT THE TOP OF MACRO TOWERS. THEY LEAVE THEIR FAMILIES AFTER TORNADOES AND HURRICANES TO GET OUT THERE TO BUILD A NETWORK. THEY ARE OUT THERE DAY AND NIGHT TO REESTABLISH CONNECTIVITY SO FIRST RESPONDERS CAN GET OUT THERE, AND I FEEL THEY ARE FIRST RESPONDERS IN A CERTAIN SENSE. SO, THE FINAL POINT I WANTED TO MAKE AS WE BEGIN, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT -- I HAVE SEEN IT IN SOME OF THE TELECOM PRESS, PEOPLE THAT OBSERVE OUR WORK HERE, THEY DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE ALL PEOPLE OF GOODWILL. THAT WE WERE ALL APPOINTED TO THIS COMMITTEE. WE DID NOT CHOOSE THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE DID NOT CHOOSE THE MAKEUP OF OUR WORKING GROUPS, BUT NONE OF US ARE GETTING PAID -- I THOUGHT LAST NIGHT ABOUT ALL THE MAN HOURS, OF ALL THE VERY SMART PEOPLE, ALL THE MONEY IT HAS TAKEN TO FLY PEOPLE HERE FOR THESE MEETINGS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO, NOT HERE BUT ON THE PHONE, THAT IS A LOT OF CAPITAL -- HUMAN CAPITAL AND MONETARY CAPITAL. IT IS BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYONE IN THE ROOM CARES ABOUT THESE ISSUES, THE PEOPLE IT AFFECTS. I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO START, TO POINT OUT TO ANYBODY THAT MIGHT BE OBSERVING OUR WORK THAT EVERYONE HERE, WHATEVER THEIR POSITION IS, WE CERTAINLY DON'T AGREE ON EVERYTHING. MY VICE CHAIRMAN AND I DON'T AGREE ON A LOT OF STUFF, BUT WE ARE ALL PEOPLE OF GOODWILL AND WE WANT TO SEE BROADBAND BARRIERS REDUCED OR REMOVED SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE ALL OF THE HORROR STORIES THAT WE HEAR ABOUT EITHER KIDS DOING THEIR HOMEWORK IN MCDONALD'S, OR PROPERTY VALUES BEING AFFECTED ON ONE PART OF TOWN THAT HAS NO CONDUCTIVITY VERSUS OTHERS, THAT ALL OF THOSE ARE DONE AWAY, AND THESE ARE ALL GREAT IDEAS. EVERYTHING I HAVE HEARD, VOTED ON, CONSIDERED TODAY AND THE OTHER TIMES, THIS IS ALL COME UP WITH MY PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOTHING BUT GOOD WILL IN THE HEARTS AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK EVERYONE HAS DONE HERE. DAVID, I WELCOME YOU. I'M SO GLAD YOU'RE HERE. IT HAS TAKEN A WHILE, BUT I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE AND WE WILL WORK FORWARD FROM THAT. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL COMMENCE. LET US COMMENTS. SO, LET'S SEE. THIS FIRST PICTURE IS SOME GUYS WORKING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE HOSTED COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY IN NEW ORLEANS ON A HOT, HUMID DAY, AND WE WERE ABLE TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH HIM, SHOWING HIM HOW WE INSTALL SMALL-CELL UTILITIES. WE ARE INSTALLING THOSE IN NEW ORLEANS RIGHT NOW. THAT WAS A GOOD DAY. SO, THE -- LET ME GET BACK TO THIS, GUYS. THE STRUCTURE, AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE -- IS WHEN WE FIRST BEGAN OUR DELIBERATIONS WE, KIND OF, NOTICED ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ENDED UP BEING AROUND THESE THREE AREAS, STATEWIDE FRANCHISE, STANDARDIZATION, AND RURAL THE PLANET. SO, WE WANTED -- DEPLOYMENT. SO, WE WANT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO, KIND OF, BRING ALL THOSE ISSUES TOGETHER AND PUT THOSE INTO ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT. WE BROKE UP INTO THREE SUBCOMMITTEES, AND MARTY CHAIRS OUR RURAL DEPLOYMENT COMMITTEE. HEATHER GOLD CHAIRS ARE STANDARDIZATION COMMITTEE AND OUR STATEWIDE FRANCHISE COMMITTEE IS CHAIRED BY -- HELP ME OUT. DRAWING A BLANK. ALAN. ALAN BELL. YOU ARE IN THE CORNER OF MY EYE. THAT IS HOW WE BROKE OUT AND ORGANIZED OUR COMMITTEE. OUR GOALS OF THE STATE MODEL CODE THAT WE DECIDED EARLY ON WERE TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO IDENTIFY AND REDUCE REGULATORY BARRIERS, MAKING SUGGESTIONS TO DEFINE THE ROLE OF STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES, STATE BROADBAND COUNCIL AND IMPLEMENT, WHICH IS WHY IT HAS BEEN VERY IMPORTANT WE HAVE HAD KELLY COLE AND ANGIE DICKINSON, PROMOTING -- ENCOURAGING BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT TO ALL AMERICANS. AFTER SOME INITIAL DISCUSSIONS, WE WERE ABLE TO COME TO A FEW REALIZATIONS. NUMBER ONE, THAT OF THOSE -- THAT THE GROUP FINDS THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DIVIDE AND DISPARITY AMONG AMERICANS. I AM SURE IN YOUR WORK YOU HAVE SEEN IT. I HAVE SEEN IT IN MY WORK. ON A ROUTINE BASIS I GO AND MEET WITH CITY COUNCILS, MAYORS, CITY ATTORNEYS, AND ONE THING -- THERE IS ONE THING WE SEEM TO SEE IN LOTS OF PLACES, BE IT A LARGE CITY IN THE MIDWEST, OR A SMALLER CITY IN THE SOUTH, OR A CITY OUT IN TEXAS OR IN THE WEST FURTHER OUT, THERE IS A GREAT DIVIDE AMONG PEOPLE AND DISPARITY AMONG PEOPLE WITH CONDUCTIVITY. -- CONNECTIVITY. IT IS A FACT THAT IN A LOT OF CITIES TODAY, IN THE AREAS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE LESS MEANS THERE IS LESS CONNECTIVITY, AND IN AREAS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE LOTS OF MONEY OR MORE MEANS, THERE IS GREATER CONNECTIVITY. NOT TO SAY THAT IS INSTITUTIONAL BY ANY MEANS, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY THE WAY THE FACTS SEEM TO BEAR OUT. THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AND WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO ADDRESS AS WE IDENTIFY AND COME UP WITH WAYS TO REMOVE BARRIERS. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE THAT CHILDREN HAVE TO DO THE HOMEWORK IN A PLACE THAT IS NOT THEIR HOME BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONDUCTIVITY. WHERE SCHOOLS HANDOUT LAPTOP COMPUTERS AND THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO USE THEM AT THEIR HOME BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T HAVE CONNECTIVITY. SOME CHILDREN GET SO OTHERS DO NOT. THAT IS THAT THERE IS A -- WE SEE IT AND WANT TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO CONDUCTIVITY. I TOLD YOU THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE ABOUT TAKING MY FAMILY OUT WEST AND STARTING IN NEVADA, TALKING TO A YOUNG WAITRESS AT A RESTAURANT. I SAW THE HIGH SCHOOL. IN HIGH SCHOOL. I SAID I DON'T HAVE ANY BARS ON MY PHONE. I SAID WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONNECTION. I SAID DO YOU HAVE A CELL PHONE? HAVE YOU EVER WORKED ON A LAPTOP? NOT HERE. THAT IS A SERIOUS CONCERN AT THE UNITED STATES. TELL THE STORIES. HE IS ALL OVER THE WORLD. HE SAID THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOME PLACES WE GO AND VISIT IN AFRICA. WE HEAR THESE STORIES THESE ARE THE THINGS WE WANT TO TRY TO ADDRESS WITH SOME OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. LET ME GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATE MODEL CODE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IS A CHALLENGE INVOLVING CONTACTING ISSUES, INCLUDING INCREASING THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PROVIDERS, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT. INFORMATION IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE WORK YOU ARE DOING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AS YOU ARE MAKING THE PRESENTATION, PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THIS, TEXTING ME, SAYING THIS IS AMAZING INFORMATION, SO THAT IS IMPORTANT. IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DEPLOYMENT PROCESS, DEPLOYING BROADBAND READY STRATEGIES. KELLY WILL TALK TO US ABOUT THAT, ADDRESSING THE SEVERITY OF THE GROWING CRISIS IN RURAL COMMUNITY. TOM HAS A HEART FOR THAT. HE HAS WORKED IN THE KANSAS STATE LEGISLATURE ON THAT ISSUE AND HE WILL BRING THOSE ISSUES TO YOU AS WE TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH, AND PROVIDING OVERSIGHT VIA A STATE APPOINTED MANAGER. IMPORTANTLY, AND I HAVE TALKED TO ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES, BUT HE BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT AS WE GET TO THE END OF THE WORK, THE CODE IS MODULAR. STATES CAN ADOPT PART OR ALL OF THE CODE ACCORDING TO THEIR EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE OR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. WE TALK ABOUT RECONCILIATION, WE THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH THAT. OUR MEMBERS OF OUR COMMITTEE WANT TO BE PART OF THAT. ONE OF THE REASONS WE MADE A MODULAR -- WE MADE THE CODE MODULAR IS WE UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS FOR ONE STATE ARE NOT THE NEEDS ANOTHER STATE HAS. THE POLITICAL CLIMATE OF ONE STATE IS NOT THE SAME AS ANOTHER STATE. WE ARE -- WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE ADOPTED AND OBLIGATED AS A MODEL -- PROMULGATED AS A MODEL CODE TO LOOK AT, LEGISLATORS. MODEL PEOPLE IN THAT STATE, INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, LOBBYISTS OF ANY STRIPE, WE WANT TO PROVIDE THIS LIBRARY-TYPE DOCUMENT THEY CAN LOOK AT AND SAY ARTICLE FOUR, THERE IS NO WAY WE WILL GET ANY TRACTION FOR THE IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. GREAT. THE OTHER MODULES OF THE DOCUMENT WILL OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT IN LARGE PART, SO THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO. AND NOW I WILL SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES OF THE BORING RIG. THAT IS THE CHAIRMAN IN A SWAMP IN LOUISIANA. I AM CALLING IT A SWAMP. I WAS CALLING IT A BY YOU, BUT AS WE WERE MEETING TO REPAIRED, JOHN FROM ENGLAND SAID WHAT IS A BY YOU? THESE ARE SOME OF OUR GUYS DEPLOYING ON A BREAK -- RIG THERE. SO, ARTICLE ONE, SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE. CONFIRMS THE IMPORTANCE OF BROADBAND AS A KEY AND VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE -- WE HAD A BIG CONVERSATION OVER THIS, THAT MUST BE A VERITABLE -- AVAILABLE, AFFORDABLE, FUNDAMENTAL TO LOCAL BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL EDUCATION, ECONOMIC, HEALTH, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES, AND TO THE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS. THE WAY WE HAVE BROKEN OUT OUR CODE IS WE HAVE 13 ARTICLES. WE ASKED OUR MEMBERS TO VOTE ON EACH ARTICLE. SO, HERE ARE THE -- THIS IS THE VOTE RESULT FOR ARTICLE ONE. WE HAD 21 MEMBERS VOTING, 18 CONCURRING, TWO CONCURRING WITH COMMENTS, ONE CENT, NO ABSTENTIONS FOR A TOTAL OF 21 VOTES. >> KELLY, UNLESS I AM MISTAKEN, I THINK ARTICLE ONE WAS APPROVED OUT OF BDAC PREVIOUSLY, SO IT NEEDS TO BE REAPPROVED, IS THAT CORRECT? KELLEY: YES, MA'AM. IT IS CAN -- CONTINGENT ON HOW THE COMMITTEE TAKES IT UP AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WILL ADDRESS THAT. >> IT IS IN THE FOOTNOTE. >> GOT YOU. >> HERE ARE SOME GUYS DOING AN INSTALL OF DARK FIBER IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN NEW ORLEANS. THAT IS COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY THERE IN NEW ORLEANS. ARTICLE TWO IS THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT. IT IS THE ENGINE ROOM OF THE CODE. IT CONTAINS THE MUCH SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT. DEBATED DEFINITIONS OF THE CENTRAL CONCEPTS REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF BROADBAND, THE TREATMENT OF PRIVATE AND PART -- PUBLIC ASSETS. I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO A FEW. AFTER MUCH DEBATE, THE COMMITTEE PUT FORTH THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS, FOR AUTHORITY, THAT WOULD MEAN STATE, COUNTY, DISTRICT, LOCAL AUTHORITY, OR OTHER SUBDIVISION THEREOF AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE LAW TO MAKE LEGISLATIVE, QUASIJUDICIAL, OR MINISTRY TO JUDICIAL THAT WILL NOT INCLUDE STATE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER AN AUTHORITY. BROADBAND MEANS ANY HIGH SPEED TELECOMMUNICATIONS ABILITY THAT ADAM AND HIM SHOULD MEET THE DEFINITION OF CAPABILITY AS DETERMINED BY THE FCC FROM TIME TO TIME EXCEPT IN UNSERVED OR RURAL AREAS WHERE, AT MINIMUM, IT SHALL MEET THE HIGHEST SPEED DEFINITION OF \u2018ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY' AS DETERMINED BY THE FCC FROM TIME TO TIME, REGARDLESS OF TECHNOLOGY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO THERE IS, PLACE A DEFINITE -- WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS COME UP WITH A DEFINITION THAT STRETCHES TO COVER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT WE WANT TO -- WE RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THAT MIGHT MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN A RURAL SETTING AS OPPOSED TO AN URBAN SETTING THAT HAS A LOT OF SERVICE AND COVERAGE. TOM WILL ADDRESS THAT MORE, BUT WE HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE ON OUR COMMITTEE THAT WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT -- WE DID NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT OR A WAY OF CUTTING OFF, PROVIDING ANYTHING TO RURAL. WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY. WE STARTED THE DEFINITIONS. IF WE CAN MAKE IT AS EXPENSIVE AS POSSIBLE, WE WANTED TO DO THAT. >> JUST FOR READABILITY, I THINK YOU ARE APPLYING TWO NUMBERS -- ONE FOR INVENTIVE ABILITY AND ONE FOR HIGH-SPEED KID WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS YOU WERE THINKING THAT MATT -- THAT MEANT? >> 25.3. >> FOR BOTH OF THESE? YOU HAVE A MINIMUM OF DEFINITION OF ADVANCED TELECOM CAPABILITY TO DETERMINE FROM TIME TO TIME, EXCEPT IN UNSERVED AREAS, WHERE AT MINIMUM, IT SHALL MEET THE HIGH SPEED DEFINITION. >> IT IMPLIES A COMPOSITE. IN NONRURAL AREAS IT WOULD INCLUDE ANYTHING DEFINED BY THE FCC TO INCLUDE ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE MOBILE, WITH ITS OWN DEFINITION, AND BROADBAND WITH ITS OWN DEFINITION, WHICH WOULD BE 25.3. I THINK MOBILE IS 5.3, SOON TO MOVE TO 10.1. IN RURAL AREAS, IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 25.3. SO, THAT IS A BROAD DISTRACTION -- DISTINCTION THAT IS COMING ACROSS IN THIS DEFINITION. >> LET ME TAKE A STAB AT CLARIFYING. UNDER THE FCC DEFINITION THERE IS ONE DEFINITION FOR FIXED SERVICES AND A DIFFERENT DEFINITION FOR MOBILE SERVICES. UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ADVANCED TELECOM INDICATIONS CAPABILITY, THE DEFINITION FOR FIXED SERVICES IS 25.3. THE DEFINITION FOR MOBILE SERVICES IS 4.1 OR MOVING TO 10.1. WHAT WE ARE SAYING IN RURAL AREAS A DEFINITION IS 25.3, REGARDLESS OF IF THE TECHNOLOGY IS FIXED OR MOBILE. >> THANK YOU. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] SO, WE ARE SAYING THAT THE FIRST HALF OF THE DEFINITION IS SAYING THAT IN URBAN AREAS FIXED HAS TO MEAN 25.3. IN RURAL AREAS WE ARE SAYING THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO HIT 25.3, SO, NO MOBILE. WHETHER THIS IMPACTS IS WHERE THE SERVICE IS BEING DEPLOYED IN RURAL AMERICA. IT IS ALSO CRITICAL. IT IS NOT TO FAVOR FIXED. IT HAS TO DO WITH FUNDING STREAMS IN THE CODE. IF YOU CAN HOLD THE THOUGHT UNTIL WE GO THROUGH THE THOUGHT, THIS IS A PROVISION THAT WAS PRETTY STRINGENTLY NEGOTIATED, AND IT ENDED UP HERE. I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DRIVING AT, AND YOU PROBABLY WANT TO HEAR THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION AND MAYBE RE-ASK YOUR QUESTION LATER. >> IF I COULD ADD -- ONE CONCERN WE HAVE WITH US, AND I THINK IT COULD BE ADDRESSED, SOME COULD INTERPRET THIS TO SAY RURAL AMERICA GETS 25.3, AND URBAN AMERICA GET SOMETHING HIGHER. WE REPRESENTING RURAL COMMUNITIES DON'T WANT TO BE AT THE BOTTOM, ABDOMEN HIM, AND IT ALLUDES TO A FORWARD-LOOKING COMMISSION. THERE IS A BOTTOM STANDARD FOR RURAL AMERICA, BUT NONE FOR URBAN. >> WE AGREE WITH THAT. WE WANTED TO SET THAT AS A MINIMUM. >> I UNDERSTAND. IF WE COULD GO QUICKLY TO ONE OTHER CONCERN THAT HITS ON THE AUTHORITY, FIRST, I APPRECIATE BEING ON THE WORKING GROUP, AND ALL THE EFFORTS THAT WERE MADE, KELLY, JOHN, EVERYBODY -- IT WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION. WE HAVE SOME MAJOR, OVERARCHING CONCERNS THAT GETS YOU THESE DEFINITIONS. FIRST ON THE AUTHORITY THAT I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE PUT UP IS GOOD, BUT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT BROAD. I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE THIS BROAD. OUR INTERPRETATION IS THE DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY TO BRING IN EVERYBODY ON A POLE ATTACHMENT APPLICATION. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT IN ANY WAY. WE HAVE SOME THOUGHTS, MINOR TWEAKS WE THINK WOULD BE FROM IMMIGRANTS AND I'M HAPPY TO PUT THEM FORWARD. THE MAIN THING IS TO REMOVE THE "OR SIMILAR ENTITY" IN THE SECOND LINE BECAUSE I THINK THAT ADDS AMBIGUITY AS KIND OF A CATCH-ALL, AND WE WERE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OTHER STATE STATUTES OUT THERE, AND IN THE IOWA STATE STATUTES THEY HAD ADDED ON A QUALIFIER AT THE END, AND WHAT THEY SAID IS "AT THE AUTHORITY OR OTHER ENTITIES THAT DO NOT HAVE ZONING OR PERMITTING JURISDICTIONS." IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THOSE THAT HAVE ZONING OR PERMITTING JURISDICTIONS. >> SO, I THINK -- ARE YOU LOOKING TO EXCLUDE NON-GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES, AND MAYBE GOVERNMENTAL MAY BE A ONE-WORD EDIT THAT WOULD GET YOU THERE. >> YEAH, I WOULD THINK THAT NONGOVERNMENTAL TO NOT HAVE THOSE ZONING AND PERMITTING AUTHORITIES. >> RIGHT. >> SO, YOU ARE NONGOVERNMENTAL, AND YOU WOULD GET AT THE MAJOR CONCERN -- DOES THAT INCLUDE QUARTZ OR NONGOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES, NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. >> I THINK THERE WAS -- THE THOUGHT THERE WAS THERE ARE AUTHORITIES THAT ARE NONGOVERNMENTAL, BUT THEY OWN POLES. AGAIN, THIS IS A MODEL. WE DON'T EXPECT FOR THE FCC TO -- OR THE BDAC TO ADOPT AND RECOMMEND TO THE FCC, FOR THE FCC TO SEND THIS OUT AND SAY THIS IS IT, IT IS NON--CHANGEABLE. THIS IS A MODEL. IT ENCOMPASSES GOOD WORK BY PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL IN THE INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS. YOU TAKE IT AND MAKE IT WORK FOR HOW -- HOW WOULD PREFER YOU IN GEORGIA, MINNESOTA, WHEREVER. >> I AGREE WITH THAT, HOWEVER IT IS GOOD FOR US TO HAVE THINGS AS CLEAN AND NEAT AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS A DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE MENISCAL CODE. I THINK WE WOULD EVEN THINK THE ONE IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE IS BETTER THAN THIS ONE, HOWEVER I THINK THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE, HE WOULD BE THE BEST OUTCOME. >> I THINK WE OUGHT TO DEFINITELY TAKE ALL OF THESE,S, -- COMMENTS, AND I DO NOT KNOW, MET AN CHAIRWOMAN, HOW YOU WANT TO DO THIS RECONCILIATION, BUT THESE ARE ALL THINGS, LIKE WE SAID, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE MUNICIPAL PRODUCT AND THE STATE MODEL PRODUCT, WE OUGHT TO TAKE ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS, AND AS THEY MOVE FORWARD, WHATEVER RECONCILIATION IS, THAT IS THE KIND OF THING WE NEED TO TAKE UP FOR SURE. >> ONE OF A QUICK ISSUE I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON, WHICH CAUSES MEMBERS ARE -- ONE OF THE OTHER DEFINITIONS IS OWNER. OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT BRINGS IN ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY. >> LET ME GO TO THAT. THAT IS THE NEXT DEFINITION. >> PLEASE. >> WHAT WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT A POLE -- SOMEBODY WHO HAS A POLE IS AN AUTHORITY? MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> HALF OF THE COMPANIES HAVE POLES, AND THE OTHER HALF DON'T. I WAS READING THIS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OUR WEEK IN OR ARE WE OUT -- ARE WE IN OR OUT WE ARE-- OR ARE WE OUT? THIS HELPS CLARIFY. I'M NOT SURE I WANT TO BE AN AUTHORITY. >> YET, OF COURSE. >> -- YEAH, OF COURSE. >> CONCEPTUALLY, AT A BIGGER LEVEL LOOK AT HOW IT IS APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE TEXT AND SEE IF THAT IS THE ENTITY WE WANT DOING THE PARTICULAR FUNCTION IN THE LATER PARTS OF THE CODE. ON BROADBAND SPEEDS, BROADBAND IS ONLY USED IN ONE SECTION OF THE ENTIRE CODE. THAT GOES TO A UNIVERSAL SERVICE. THERE WAS AN INTENT WE COULD DISCUSS, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT, I'M NOT PUSHING THAT. AS APPLIED IS WHAT IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT. AUTHORITY IS PRIMARILY RELEVANT TO PROVIDING DATABASE INFORMATION AROUND POLES SHOULD THE GOAL IS TO GET PUBLICLY OWNED -- IT IS A DISCUSSION WE SHOULD HAVE. WHETHER OR NOT CONCEPTION -- WHETHER WE THINK WE SHOULD ESTABLISH DATABASES OF PUBLICLY HELD FACILITIES TO ALLOW PUBLICLY HELD PROVIDERS TO ACCESS THEM IN THE DATABASE. THAT IS WHAT THE INTENT WAS. THE INTENT WAS TO INCLUDE UNION AND CO-OP OWNED, PUBLICLY FUNDED FACILITIES. IF WE DON'T AS A BODY SUPPORT THAT, WE DON'T, BUT I DO NOT THINK LINE BY LINE WE SHOULD DO IT IN THE DEFINITION. >> I THINK THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN. >> WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS DRAFT A DOCUMENT THAT ENCOMPASSES EVERYBODY. I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE IN HERE REPRESENTING THE ORGANIZATIONS, AND YOUR MAIN GOAL MAY BE FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION NOT TO BE COVERED BY THIS. I GET THAT. OUR GOAL IS TO PRESENT SOMETHING OUT TO, LIKE, AGAIN, A LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT COULD LOOK AT THIS AND FIND GOOD IDEAS IN HERE AND ACCEPT WHAT THEY FEEL LIKE COULD GET PAST IN THEIR STATE. >> YOU CAN ADD DEFINITIONS BECAUSE THAT IS THE CORNERSTONE, THE KEYSTONE ON WHICH THE DOCUMENT RELIES. I READ THE DOCUMENT. THE DEFINITIONS MATTER. THE DEFINITIONS HAVE MATERIAL TERMS THAT CARVE PEOPLE OUT, CARVE PEOPLE IN. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU GO TO THE DEFINITION FIRST OR GO TO THE SUBSTANCE. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ESCAPE WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF X. >> I'M HAPPY TO HOLD OFF THE DEBATE UNTIL LATER, BUT I WILL BRING UP IS US AS A BODY, WHATEVER WE AGREED TO HEAR, HAS A LOT OF -- AGREED TO ERE -- HERE, HAS A LOT OF WEIGHT. I WOULD LIKE IT FOR HIM TO BE AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE. I WOULD SAY I HAVE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH ON STATES OUT THERE. ON THIS DRAFT CODE AS DRAFTED, CO-OPS WOULD BE INCLUDED. OF THE 17 STATES I LOOKED AT, WE HAVE BEEN EXEMPTED FROM EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO 16 OF 17. I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONFIRM YET. 14 BY DEFINITION APPLIES TO AUTHORITIES, WHICH WE ARE NOT UNDER, AND ANOTHER, AT LEAST TWO, HAS SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FOR A LITANY OF CARRIERS OR PROVIDERS. I WANTED TO LAY THAT OUT THERE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. >> SURE, AND THE POSITION OF YOUR GROUP OR MEMBERS IS THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS MODEL CODE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. >> THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN -- HAPPEN, BUT YOUR POINT IS VALID. [LAUGHTER] >> ONE HIGH-LEVEL POINT, I -- AS SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE ANY STAKE -- ANY MEMBERS WHO HAVE A STAKE IN THIS, TREATING IT UPFRONT DOES MATTER BECAUSE IF YOU PRESUME STATES WILL ADOPT THIS CODE IN SOME FASHION, THE DEFINITIONS MIGHT BE UNTHINKINGLY IMPORTANT INTO AREAS THEY REWRITE THEMSELVES. IF YOU PUT IT INTO THE DEFINITION RIGHT NOW THAT THE FCC HAS EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY ENDORSED, AND STATES RIGHT THERE OWN DEFINITIONS, THESE DEFINITIONS COULD HAVE MAJOR IMPACTS, SO I WOULD GET THEM RIGHT UP FRONT, EVEN IF IT DOES MEAN WE MISS LUNCH. >> I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT. A VERY GOOD SEGUE INTO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, WHICH IS THAT THE MODEL STATE CODE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE DEFINITIONS FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON. WHEN WE RECONCILE THE THREE WORKING GROUPS -- I SAY "WE." THEY DID. MONDAY RECONCILE THE WORKING GROUPS THEY FOCUSED ON THE DEFINITIONS AND A LOT OF OUR DEBATE -- WHEN THEY RECONCILE THE WORKING GROUPS, THEY FOCUS ON THE DEFINITIONS AND A LOT OF THE DEATH -- DEBATE WAS SET ON DEFINITIONS. I BELIEVE WHAT WE ARE AS THE BODY IS WE HAVE A SET OF DEFINITIONS HERE, A SET OF DEFINITIONS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT IN WHAT WE SAY THOSE THINGS ARE. I'M HEARING, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, KELLY, ENOUGH CONCERN ABOUT THIS THAT I AM NOT SURE WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO CALL THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT TO A VOTE TODAY. THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE A FULL AND FAIR DISCUSSION OF IT. THAT SAID, THERE IS NO WAY WE WE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE REPORT IF WE FOCUS ON EVERY SINGLE DEFINITION AS WE GO THROUGH. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE COMMITTEE LET KELLY'S GROUP GO THROUGH THE REPORT, GET EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE, THEN WE CAN FLOAT TO THE TOP THE HIGH-LEVEL THINGS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF TRYING TO VOTE ON ALL OR ANY OF THIS -- NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE CAN GO INTO THE DISCUSSION NOW IF THIS OPTION THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE TODAY. >> THAT WAS PART OF OUR CONSIDERATION. THERE ARE 60 DEFINITIONS, AND WE TOOK A LONG TIME TO COME UP WITH THE DEFINITIONS YOU SEE IN THE DOCUMENT. THE REASON THESE ARE BEING BROUGHT TO TODAY'S BECAUSE WE KNEW THESE ARE THE ONES PROBABLY YOU WANTED TO FOCUS ON. THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHERS. THERE ARE 68 OF THEM, SO THERE MIGHT BE OTHERS YOU WANT TO LOOK AT, BUT WE WANTED TO BRING THESE TO YOUR ATTENTION SO WE COULD HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, AND I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I DON'T MIND CONTINUING THE WAIT IS WITH PEOPLE ASKING QUESTIONS AS WE ROLL ALONG. I'M JUST SAYING WE KNEW THESE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO BE BROUGHT UP TO YOU GUYS, SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE AT LEAST BRINGING THESE UP. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS, TO ENCOURAGE, OF COURSE, THAT AS YOU HAVE PROBABLY ALREADY, READ THE DOCUMENT EXHAUSTIVELY, IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS REGARDING THE OTHER 64 DEFINITIONS, WE OBVIOUSLY ENCOURAGE THAT. OK. AND NOW WE GO TO THE -- SORRY. I THOUGHT IT WAS UNDER. HERE, WE WILL GO TO COMMUNICATION SERVICE. SO, COMMUNICATION SERVICE MEANS FOR PURPOSES LEADING -- MEANING FOR THIS MODEL CODE ONLY, CABLE SERVICE OR BROADBAND SERVICE LIMITED TO THIS MODEL CODE ONLY, 23.1. CABLE SERVICE AS DEFINED IN 47 U.S.C. 522(6); OR 23.2. BROADBAND SERVICE, AS DEFINED IN THE MODEL CODE ABOVE; OR 23.3. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, AS DEFINED IN 47 U.S.C.153(53); OR 23.4. WIRELESS SERVICE AS DEFINED IN THE MODEL CODE BELOW.23.5. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, THE TERM \u2018COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE' SHALL ALSO INCLUDE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. OWNER MEANS A PERSON OWNING OR OPERATING A UTILITY POLE OR SIMILAR SHOTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN WHICH THE FACILITIES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY WORK MEDICATIONS MAY -- ARE OR MAY BE LOCATED. UTILITY POLE MEANS A STRUCTURE THAT IS DESIGNED AND USED FOR OR USED TO CARRY LINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CABLE TELEVISION, TOOK MEDICATIONS, ELECTRICITY, OR WIRELESS SERVICE OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY A UTILITY. THAT IS DEFINED IN SECTION 224 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, BUT NOT INCLUDING STRUCTURES, LAMPPOSTS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES WHOSE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC LIGHTING. AGAIN, THOSE ARE FIVE OF THE 60 DEFINITIONS. WE WANT TO BRING THOSE TO YOU SPECIFICALLY. THE BALLOTING ON THIS ARTICLE, 12 CONCURRING, SIX CONCURRING WITH COMMENT, THREE DISSENTING, ZERO ABSTENTIONS, WITH A TOTAL OF 21 VOTERS. AND THOSE ARE GUYS INSTALLING A STRAND MOUNT CELL IN THE GARDEN DISTRICT IN NEW ORLEANS. NOW I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO JOHN MORRIS. >> IT GOES TO THE SCOPE OF WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO DEPLOY? >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT UTILITY POLE? >> YES. >> GO AHEAD. >> IT DOES NOT SEEM TO INCLUDE STREETLIGHTS, STREETLIGHTS IN PARTICULAR, AND THOSE ARE OFTEN THE ONLY VERTICAL STRUCTURE IN URBANIZED AREAS. OF COURSE, THERE IS OFTEN LOWER INCOME POPULATIONS IN THOSE URBANIZED AREAS ON THE BID TYPICAL SMALL SELF-APPOINTED. I LOOKED ELSEWHERE THROUGH -- TYPICAL SMALL-CELL DEPLOYMENT. I LOOKED ELSEWHERE. WHY DID YOU EXCLUDE STREETLIGHTS? >> MY GOAL IS TO TRY AND BE AS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE FCC IS DOING ALREADY BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU END UP WITH A -- YOU WILL HAVE A STATE LAW AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE A FEDERAL LAW, AND THE PARTIES REGULATED BY THOSE TWO ENTITIES SHARE INFRASTRUCTURE. WE DO JOINT USE WITH AT&T. WE DO JOINT USE WITH THE CITY OF NEWMAN. WE SHARE THE CONSTRUCTION. -- THE OFFICIAL ACTION. SO -- THE INFRASTRUCTURE. IF THERE DEFINITION OF THE UTILITY POLE IS DIFFERENT THAN MY DEFINITION OF A UTILITY POLE, AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO SAY, WHICH SET OF RULES APPLY -- SO, THAT WAS MY POSITION. I GUESS A GOOD PART OF THE COMMITTEE AGREED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE FCC DEFINITION OF UTILITY POLE IS. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T INSTALL FACILITIES ON STREETLIGHTS, IT JUST MEANS THEY ARE NOT COVERED. >> I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT, BUT OBVIOUSLY IF WE ARE TRYING TO STREAMLINE AND ADVANCE BROADBAND APPOINTMENT TO WHERE IT IS NOT, AND ONLY VERTICAL STRUCTURES AVAILABLE ARE STREETLIGHTS AND SOME OTHER STRUCTURES, WHEN WE CARVE THEM OUT WE ARE MAKING BROADBAND GHETTOS BY EXCLUDING THOSE. THEY ARE VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE. OBVIOUSLY THE WOODEN UTILITY POLE, VERY CALMLY TO PLAY. BROADBAND FIBER -- YOU CANNOT ACHIEVE THE COMMISSION'S GOAL OF BROADBAND, PARTICULARLY IN URBAN AREAS, IF YOU EXCLUDE STREETLIGHTS IN MY VIEW. >> AND IF A STATE WANTS TO ADDRESS THEM, THEY CAN. >> WE ARE ADVISING THEM >> THAT THEY NOT. THAT IS PROBLEMATIC. >> SO, CHRIS, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION, AND YOUR POINT IS VERY VALID. THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT ACTUALLY RAISED THOSE POINTS EXACTLY. I KNOW THAT WE TOOK WHAT ALAN JUST SET INTO CONSIDERATION DEEPLY. WE ALSO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION NOT KNOWING WHAT WILL BE ADDED TO THOSE STREETLIGHTS -- NOT KNOWING THE SIZE, AND NOT KNOWING THE WEIGHT, AND WE TOOK, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SAFETY -- WE TOOK A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES. AS THE BDAC, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES HERE AND NOW BECAUSE AS WE PUT THE CODE OUT THERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES SO THAT LEGISLATORS , MUNICIPALITIES, AND I DON'T REPRESENT A MUNICIPALITY, BUT DO -- WE DO HAVE -- ON THE BDAC, ANDY OAKLEY CAN ADD TO THIS -- AND HE HOPED WE CAN ADD TO THIS PDF TO BE SURE WE'RE PUTTING SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT WILL NOT HARM THEM. >> THAT IS AN ENGINEERING CALCULATION OF THE LOAD-BEARING STRUCTURE. BY CARVING IT OUT, YOU HAVE PREDETERMINED THAT IN 100% OF THE CASES IT WOULD BE WRONG TO DO SO, AND THAT IS VERY HARMFUL TO ADVANCING BROADBAND, PARTICULARLY IN URBAN AREAS, AND IT IS NOT BASED ON ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. IT IS BASED ON A CATEGORICAL ILLUSION -- EXCLUSION. >> ALAN, IF YOU HAVE A STATE RULE THAT ALLOWS THE PLYMOUTH ON LIGHT POLES AND THE FCC HAS NO REGULATION -- THAT ALLOWS DEPLOYMENT ON LIGHT POLES, AND THE FCC HAS A REGULATION, ARE YOU DONE WITH A DOUBLE REGULATION PROBLEM BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SEEM THAT YOU ARE. IT JUST SEEMS TO STATE IS THE ONLY ENTITY -- THE STATE IS THE ONLY DID HE ADDRESSING LIGHT POLES, OR DO I HAVE THAT WRONG? >> THAT WOULD BE THE CONCLUSION PEOPLE WOULD DRAW. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT WRONG. IT IS HOW -- I MEAN, THE FCC HAS BEEN VERY SPECIFIC NOT TO INCLUDE LIGHTING POLES. WE DON'T INCLUDE THE COST OF LIGHTING POLES IN THE CABLE RATES. THAT ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE FCC, AND SO, IF WE DO DEPLOY POLES, AND A LOT OF MINUTES PALETTE IS DUE, WE DO IT UNDER THE CONDITIONS WE CHOOSE TO. WE DON'T WANT, PARTICULARLY IN GEORGIA, AND IN THE CASE OF MOST OF THE OTHER BILLS, THEY ARE COMPLETELY CARVED OUT OF THE LEGISLATION, PERIOD. THAT IS BECAUSE WE STARTED TO TRY TO ADDRESS DEFINITIONS ONE AT A TIME. A COUPLE OF WORDS IN A DEFINITION AND IT BRINGS IN A HOME'S OTHER THING. -- ALL OTHER THING. -- A WHOLE OTHER THING. THE PEOPLE PUSHING THE BILL WOULD JUST AS SOON HAVE US OUT OF THE WAY ANYWAY. THEY PUT A CLAUSE IN THERE AND SAY IT DOES NOT IMPLY -- APPLY TO UTILITIES. >> I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK IT REALLY GOES INTO A HIGHER LEVEL DISCUSSION I THINK WE SHOULD ALL HAVE. THE WORK DONE BY THE STATE GROUP IS FANTASTIC IN A LOT OF WAYS AND GIVES US A LOT OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT -- THE GOALS OF AVAILABLE, 40, AND AMPLE BROADBAND ARE REALLY WHAT THIS -- OF AFFORDABLE AND AMPLE BROADBAND A REALLY WHAT THE GROUP SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT. THE CARVEOUT TO DO NOT INHERENTLY SUPPORT THOSE GOALS. SO, WHETHER WE ARE CARVING OUT PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE, PRIVATE INTEGER SURE, OR INVESTOR-OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE, EVERY TIME YOU HAVE A CARVE OUT YOU ARE AFFECTING OUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE AFFORDABLE AND AMPLE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT. A DOUBLE STANDARD OF REGULATION IS WHAT WE SEE REGULARLY IN COMMUNITIES WHERE HALF OF THE UTILITY POLES MIGHT BE INVESTOR-DON'T. THE OTHER HALF MY PEOPLE PUBLICLY -- INVESTOR-OWNED. THE OTHER HALF MIGHT BE PUBLICLY OWNED. IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A CODE AND HAVING A CONVERSATION, WE SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT CODE THAT TREATS ALL INFRASTRUCTURE OWNERS EQUALLY, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS, TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD WANT TO NOTE THE MUNICIPAL COLD HAS A DEFINITION OF POLE THAT DOES INCLUDE LIGHTING KOHL'S, SO I THINK THAT IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE WE NEED TO HAVE THE POLICY -- LIGHTING POLES. SO I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER AREA WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. >> WHAT I AM SEEING IS THIS IS GOING TO BE PART OF RECONCILIATION. I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS GREAT. WE CAN TALK AT FUTURE MEETINGS AT THE RECONCILIATION LEVEL ABOUT WHERE WE GO, BUT I DO SEE THE NEED ON THE DEFINITIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY NEED TO BE CONFORMED. THEY MAY NOT BE -- THEY MAY NOT NEED TO BE IN SOME CASES, BUT THIS IS RECONCILIATION, I THINK. >> CHARLES, YOU HAD YOURS UP FOR A WHILE. CHARLES: I JUST WANTED TO JUMP IN AND EMPHASIZE HOW CRITICAL THIS ISSUE IS. THIS ISN'T A SMALL THING. WHEN SPRINT BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, IT IS BECAUSE WE WERE FACED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHALLENGE. WE HAVE CUSTOMER DEMAND THAT WE MUST MEET. THAT CUSTOMER DEMAND IS EXPLODING. THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO MEET THAT DEMAND IS BY DEPLOYING A VERY DENSE NETWORK THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO CONSUMERS. IT IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO IT. WE HAVE TO DO THAT. THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM WE FACE IS THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO GET ACCESS. IT WAS TIME-CONSUMING TO GET ACCESS. THE RATES WERE NOT RATIONAL. THAT IS WHAT OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS. WHEN WE LOOK AT AN URBAN AREA, THE PRIMARY VERTICAL STRUCTURE THAT WE ARE USING TODAY ARE STREETLIGHTS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS -- THAT IS THE MOST UBIQUITOUS. WHEN THERE IS UNDER-GROUND IN, THERE IS NO OTHER VERTICAL STRUCTURE AVAILABLE. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT CONSISTENT DEFINITIONS. AS AN ATTORNEY, I AM VERY SENSITIVE AS TO HOW THESE THINGS CAN BE USED, AND IT MAY BE A MATTER OF HOW THINGS ARE LABELED WITHIN THIS CODE, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. AS I READ THROUGH THE CODE, AND I KNOW WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS MORE IN ARTICLE NINE, WHICH IS, KIND OF, THE KEY POINT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THESE TERMS ARE FREQUENTLY USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS OR INDIFFERENT CONTEXTS, AND I'M A LITTLE UNSURE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY IN ARTICLE NINE. WHAT I EMPHASIZE HERE IS IF THIS CODE DOES NOT ADDRESS OUR ABILITY TO ATTACH TO STREETLIGHTS, THEN IT REALLY SERVES NO PURPOSE FROM A MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDER'S PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE CORE OF WHAT WE ARE DEPLOYING. IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT, WE ARE JUST GOING TO EXCLUDED, THEN WE ARE DOING NOTHING TO ADDRESS MOBILE DEPLOYMENT. IF WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT, THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT THAT IS OUR CORE ISSUE. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ADDRESS THAT. AS I SEE THIS, IT SPINS OUT IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. FOR EXAMPLE, AN AUTHORITY POLE IS DEFINED AS A UTILITY POLE OWNED BY AN AUTHORITY. THEN, BY DEFINITION MEANS THE ONLY POLES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE GOING TO BE THOSE TIMES WHEN A CITY OWNS THE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OR THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM, WHICH IS AN INCREDIBLY SMALL SUBSET OF ALL THE POLLS THAT ARE OUT THERE--POLES THAT ARE OUT THERE. I WANTED TO PUT THAT MARKER DOWN. I AM CONCERNED. AGAIN, IF OTHERS, AS THEY GO THROUGH THEIR SECTIONS WANT TO POINT OUT TO ME, NO, NO, YOU ARE MISTAKEN, THIS ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY BROADER BECAUSE -- I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT. MY IMMEDIATE REACTION WAS THIS IS, KIND OF, GUIDING EVERYTHING WE NEED TO DO, SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT DOWN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. KELLY. KELLY: TO EVERY MUCH. GREAT COMMENT. -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT COMMENT. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE GO ON TO ARTICLE THREE, AND I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO JOHN MORRIS. JOHN: THANKS. TO USE ANDY'S PHRASE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FROM 30,000 FEET. GEEKS DOES NOT HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT OTHER THAN AN INTEREST IN CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE. WHEN WE WROTE OUR FIRST LAW ON BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT IN 2016 WE LOOKED AT ABOUT 15 DIFFERENT NATIONAL BLOG -- BROADBAND PLANS AROUND THE WORLD AND SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT IN COMMON WITH NOTING -- NUMBER ONE, BROADBAND WAS LINKED TO LONG-TERM, SUSTAINABLE GDP GROWTH, AND AN IMPORTANT SUBSECTION OF THAT WAS THAT UNSERVED AND UNDERSERVED AREAS WERE CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THAT LONG-TERM PLAN FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, BUT LEAVING ASIDE THINGS LIKE LABOR MOBILITY AND EQUALITY FROM A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POINT OF VIEW, IT ALSO MEANT THE CAPACITY WAS NOT RELEASED INTO THE GDP, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. SO, THOSE ARE POINTS THAT CAME UP WHEN WE LOOKED AT INDIA, AUSTRALIA, INDONESIA, THE 20TH COUNTRIES IN THE ECONOMIC UNION THAT PASSED LAWS TO DEAL WITH THIS. THE SECOND POINT WAS CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IS A VERY DIFFICULT TOPIC, AND WE ARE TOUCHING ON SOME OF THE REASONS IN THE CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING TODAY, BUT ONE OF THE REASONS IT IS SO DIFFICULT IS THERE WERE A LOT OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS AND AN ECONOMIC CHALLENGE BY DEFINITION THERE. A BIT LIKE MOSES TRYING TO PART THE RED SEA, HE NEEDED HELP FROM ABOVE, AND I THINK THE HELP WE NEED FROM ABOVE IS REGULATION. THAT IS A TOUCHY TOPIC GIVEN THE MANDATE OF THE BDAC, WHICH IS TO REDUCE OR RENEW REGULATION TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT TO MY MIND REGULATION IS A BIT LIKE CHOLESTEROL -- THERE IS GOOD CHOLESTEROL, BAD CHOLESTEROL. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GETTING RID OF CHOLESTEROL. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING GOOD CHOLESTEROL AND GETTING RID OF BAD CHOLESTEROL. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MANDATE OF THE BDAC THAT SAYS A GOOD PIECE OF FOCUS REGULATION CANNOT KNOCK INTO SHAPE -- WHETHER IT IS POLL ATTACHMENT, FEES, PUT INTO A PROPER CONTEXT TO ENCOURAGE DEPLOYMENT, THE EXISTING REGULATION OR LACK OF REGULATION. THE FINAL THING IS THAT THE OTHER, KIND OF, GLOBAL CONCLUSION WE CAME AWAY WITH FROM OUR RESEARCH, NOT JUST ON THE 2016 WORK, BUT ON LAST YEAR'S WORK, ON LOOKING AT CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE FROM SATELLITE BROADBAND, WHICH MAINLY FOCUSED ON GOVERNMENTS OVER-TAXING LANDING RIGHTS, AND WHERE GOVERNMENTS REALIZE THAT IF THEY REDUCE THE TAXES THEY GOT A GDP BENEFIT -- IN OTHER WORDS, THEY INVEST IN THEIR FUTURE. THEY WERE SEEKING GREATER, LONG-TERM RETURNS. THINK WE ARE IN THE SAME BOAT HERE. WE ARE LOOKING AT ADDRESSING THE-- AND THE QUESTION IS WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS. I HAPPEN TO FIND A 2016 -- 2014 STUDY DONE BY CONNECT MINNESOTA, WHY BELIEVE DO STUDIES FOR THE FCC. IN THEIR STUDY THEY SHOWED THAT A 1% INCREASE IN ADOPTION -- OBVIOUSLY THERE HAS TO BE BROADBAND THERE FOR IT TO BE ADOPTED -- RESULTED IN AN ESTIMATED $517 MILLION ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. THEY WERE MEASURING THINGS LIKE JOBS, ABOUT CARBON UPSET, ABOUT EDUCATION BENEFITS AND SO ON. THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THAT STUDY. WHY AM I MENTIONING THAT -- IN GOING THROUGH THE CODE, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE GOING TO BE QUESTIONS ABOUT FUNDING, ABOUT REGULATION, AND I AM SURE THAT IS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THIS POINT. COMING TO ARTICLE THREE, NOW, ARTICLE THREE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE SEVEN, WHICH WILL BE SUMMARIZED. THE NETWORK SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE REGISTER DOES THREE THINGS -- IT BRINGS TOGETHER A DIGITAL REGISTER OF DIGITAL ASSETS, AND COMBINED WITH ARTICLE SEVEN IT IS A REGISTER OF SPARE BROADBAND CAPACITY AND CIVIL WORK CREATED TO -- RELATED TO BROADBAND. THAT IS A POWERFUL SET OF ASSETS TO HAVE, AND THIS WOULD BE IN THE HANDS, JUMPING TO ARTICLE 13, OF A STATE MANAGER WHO IS MANDATED TO OVERSEE THESE PROCESSES. NOW, THAT IS POWERFUL INFORMATION FOR AN INVESTOR TO HAVE, FOR A STATE OR AUTHORITY TO HAVE, AND FOR A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO HAVE, AND REALLY, ARTICLE THREE IS ABOUT GETTING A CENTRALIZED, SINGLE POINT OF CONTENT DIGITAL ASSET DATA FOR ASSETS THAT THE MANAGER DEEMS ARE NOT FOLLOWED NATIONAL SECURITY, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, COMMERCIAL SENSITIVITY, AND SO ON. THERE ARE VERY CLEAR EXCLUSIONS. AT ITS BEST, AND I HAVE SEEN IT IN PRACTICE IN EUROPE, WE KNOW COMPANIES ARE NOW WORKING WITH3-D, ABOVE THE GROUND, BELOW THE GROUND IMAGES OF TOTAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSETS. IN THE HANDS OF A PLANNING AUTHORITY, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS GIVES THEM AN ENORMOUS COST-SAVING BENEFIT, AN ENORMOUS ABILITY TO PROJECT THEM IF AT REVENUE STREAMS AND SO ON, AND THE SAME FOR COMMERCIAL COMPANIES. THAT IS, KIND OF, WHERE ARTICLE THREE IS HEADING. THAT TECHNOLOGY IS HERE TODAY, AND I'M SURE SOME OF THE COVER IS AROUND THIS TABLE ARE PROBABLY USING IT. SO, ARTICLE 4 -- I AM SORRY. I AM JUST -- ON ARTICLE THREE. SO, BEFORE GOING ON TO ARTICLE FOUR, WHICH IS A NATURAL PARENT FOR ARTICLE THREE, THE VOTING ON ARTICLE THREE WAS A TOTAL OF 21 VOTERS. WHAT IS THAT, KELLY? KELLY: THAT IS JUST MORE PHOTOS OF THE GARDEN DISTRICT. >> GREAT. ARTICLE FOUR -- SO YOU HAVE YOUR DIGITAL AS IT REGISTER. THIS IS HIGH YOU GET ACCESS TO THE REGISTER, WHO CAN HAVE ACCESS TO IT. IT HAS A SET OF PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE ACCESS INFORMATION TO QUALIFIED PEOPLE. PARTICULARLY NOTE STRONG EXCEPTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, SECURITY, HISTORICAL INSINUATIONS -- SITUATIONS. THERE'S A FAIRLY CONFERENCE OF SET OF STEPS THAT PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE TO GET ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION. ARTICLE FOUR ALSO CONTAINS INFORMATION ABOUT ACCESS TO CERTAIN ASSETS AND THAT IS IN THREE CATEGORIES. WHAT ARTICLE FOUR IS PROPOSING IS IF AN AUTHORITY HAS DOCK FIBER, WHICH IS SERVICING THE 50 YEAR -- SURPLUS TO THE 50 OR NEED, TO MEDICATIONS PROVIDER CAN APPLY TO LEASE THE ASSET. WHETHER IT IS 50 YEARS FROM A 30 YEARS, 60 YEARS IS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS THE PRINCIPLE IS THERE. SECONDLY, A SIMILAR PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO A COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER APPLYING TO GET ACCESS TO AUTHORITIES VERTICAL STRUCTURES IF THEY ARE SURPLUS TO BE REQUIREMENTS. SIMILARLY, ALSO TO NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE IF THEY ARE SURPLUS TO THE AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS. IN SUMMARY, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE THREE AND ARTICLE FOUR ARE DESIGNED TO EXPEDITE ACCESS TO INFORMATION TO SAVE TIME, TO SAVE MONEY, AND TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONS SO AS TO SPEED UP DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND. >> THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE ON THIS. ON ARTICLE FOUR AM A I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THE CURRENT VERSION DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A LOT OF INVESTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN MUNICIPALITIES BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS A LOT OF CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN CITIES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT OCCURRED TODAY THAT THIS WOULD AGGREGATE. YOU'RE SAYING IF SOMEONE IS INVESTED IN SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE OWNED BY A STATE LIKE IN A STADIUM OR CITY PARK, THERE MIGHT BE AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE THAT INVESTMENT IS MADE IN EXTENSIVE CAPITAL MADE BASED ON THE FACT THERE WAS A MARKET ARRANGEMENT AS TO WHAT THE COST WAS OF ACCESS TO JUSTIFY THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS THE ALL OF A SUDDEN COMING ANYONE HAS ACCESS TO IT, EVERYTHING IS DISCLOSED PUBLICLY, EVEN KNOW THERE IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE IN DA'S IN THE CONTRACT THAT DON'T ALLOW FOR DISCLOSURES OF WHAT THOSE DEALS ARE. ALL OF THE SUDDEN OPENING THAT UP CHANGES EVERYTHING ON EXISTING CONTRACTS AND GOING FORWARD, WHO IS GOING TO INVEST IN THESE THINGS? YOU WANT TO PUT A SYSTEM INTO AN EXPENSIVE TYPE OF INVESTMENT IN A STADIUM OR FEDERAL BUILDING -- I'M SORRY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING? YOU MIGHT THINK TWICE IF ANYONE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FOR SMALL CELLS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT OR HOW YOU THOUGHT ABOUT EXISTING CONTRACTS. OR EVEN THE INCENTIVE TO INVEST GOING FORWARD. >> JONATHAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESS GENERALLY? >> YOU HAVE SECTION TWO. ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT ACCESS AND BASICALLY SAYS IT HAS TO OFFER ACCESS, FOR STADIUM, FOR EXAMPLE, OR CITY PARK OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE IN GREAT ACCESS TO ALL REASONABLE REQUESTS. IT TALKS ABOUT COST BASE IN5-2.1. YOU WOULD WANT THE CONTRACT TO DICTATE THE TYPE OF RATE, NOT NECESSARILY HAVE IT BE A COST BASE IN ALL CASE IF YOU WANT TO AND SENT INVESTMENT IN SOME OF THESE DAS SYSTEMS, FOR EXAMPLE. >> IF THE UNDERLYING POINT THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WANTING TO ADD CAPACITY TO THAT SYSTEM WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO? IS THE POINT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE SPARE CAPACITY FOR THEM TO HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE? >> AS THEY WANT TO ADD CAPACITY, THEY COULD DO IT IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM OR THE CONTRACT WOULD CONTEMPLATE HOW THAT WOULD BE DEALT WITH. USUALLY THERE IS A MARKET INCENTIVE TO ADD TO MEET DEMAND. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> THIS IS AN AREA WHERE SEVERAL OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE VERY GOOD. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DATABASE, OF ASSETS THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES TO LOOK AS TO PLAN THEIR SYSTEM IS VERY VALUABLE. I THINK THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE IS BY EXEMPTING OR ALLOWING AN OPT AND ONLY FOR PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE DATABASE IS INCOMPLETE. SIGNIFICANTLY INCOMPLETE. LITTLE MORE BILATERAL APPROACH TO THE DATABASE WOULD BE GOOD SO IT HAS BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK SPECIFICALLY UNDER ARTICLE THREE, PARAGRAPH SEVEN, WHEN PEOPLE REFUSE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT CAN BE ENFORCED IF YOU IN PARAGRAPH THREE SAY THEY CAN OPT OUT. I'M INTERESTED IN THAT JUST AS A DISCUSSION. WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO THAT SAME PHILOSOPHY WHEN YOU GO INTO ARTICLE FOUR WHERE I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT ALL INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AT A COST BASE LEASE RATE, OK, THAT IS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE ONLY SAYING THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS TO BE LEASED AT A COST BASE FOR DARK FIBER OR ATTACHMENT TO POLES. THAT HALF OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS OWNED BY PRIVATE OR PRIVATE ENTITY. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT RECIPROCAL EITHER WAY WE'RE GOING TO APPROACH IT IF WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS IN THE STATEWIDE LEGISLATION. >> YOU ARE SPEAKING MY LANGUAGE. THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. UNFORTUNATELY -- AS IS LOGICALLY THE CASE, THE DIFFERENCE IN INTEREST ON THE WORKING GROUP FAILED TO INCLUDE -- FELT IT WAS TOO ONEROUS. WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS A PRODUCT OF THE COMBINED KNOWLEDGE AND RESISTANCES OF THE WORKING GROUP, SOME OF WHOM HAVE VERY DIFFERENT INTERESTS. WHICH IS A LOGICAL OUTCOME. THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT. I PERSONALLY VOTE WITH YOU, BUT I WAS IN THE MINORITY IN VOTING ON THAT. IT IS A VERY LOGICAL QUESTION. BUT I THINK OF THAT SAME QUESTION WASVOTE ON IN THIS INTEREST -- WAS VOTED ON IN THIS GROUP, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME. >> ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS, THERE IS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THEY CAME UP, LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE -- I TEND TO AGREE WITH BOTH THE BE THE DATABASE IS INCOMPLETE IF YOU DON'T HAVE PRIVATE ASSETS. IT IS ONLY SEMI-USEFUL. I WAS ON JOHN'S MINORITY DURING THIS DISCUSSION. ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THAT WAS THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL A PRIVATE PARTY AND I QUESTION WHETHER THAT IS ACCURATE OR NOT. I WOULD WELCOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ON THAT POINT. MONICA, I THINK YOU HAVE YOURS? >> I HAVE TWO COMMENTS. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THIS HARD WORK. THERE IS A LOT IN HERE I THINK IS REALLY GREAT. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. DAVID, TEAR QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER PRIVATE PARTIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE IN THE DATABASE. I THINK THERE ARE PROPRIETARY INTEREST INVOLVED THAT I THINK WE WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS MARKETABILITY ASPECTS TO BEING IN THE DATABASE. I THINK A PRIVATE PARTY MAY HAVE INCENTIVE TO OPT IN. IT IS NOT THAT THEY WOULD NECESSARILY BE EXCLUDED. AND TO REINFORCE WHAT JONATHAN SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE OWN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT AT A COST BASE. CROWN CASTLE HAS HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR 15 YEARS, WHERE WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED ALL OF THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE, THE TOWERS, AT OUR COST. THEN THERE IS A REVENUE SHARE PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO US REGAINING OR RECOUPING THAT COST. IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, A COST-BASED APPROACH PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE VERY EQUITABLE AT THAT POINT. WE HAVE SEEN THIS IN OTHER STATE STATUTES OR PROPOSED STATUTES, AND WE HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT IT JUST BE A NEGOTIATED RATE. TYPICALLY, THERE IS ALREADY AGREEMENTS WITH CARRIERS AND CUSTOMERS TO GO ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE HAVE THAT RATHER THAN COST BASE. >> YES? >> JUST A FAIRLY NARROW POINT ON SECTION FIVE ON DARK FIBER. WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE AS MUCH DARK FIBER TO BE PUT IN THE GROUND AS POSSIBLE BY MUNICIPALITIES. HAVING SOME TYPE OF NOT JUST COST BASE BUT REASONABLE PROFIT ON THAT TO INCENTIVIZE THEM TO COME IN, WITHIN SOME CONSTRAINTS SO YOU'RE NOT TOTALLY HELD HOSTAGE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION TO GET MORE DARK FIBER IN THE GROUND. AND I THINK MOST OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS LOOKING FOR USE OF IT, WOULD BE HAPPY TO PAY A REASONABLE OVER THE COST BASIS. >> MARK? >> ON SECTION 5.21, I THINK THAT MAY HAVE A STRUCTURAL CHALLENGE ASSOCIATED WITH IT BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU TAKE THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK, WHICH WOULD FALL UNDER THIS, AND YOU LOOK AT THE VERY COMPETITIVE WITH THE NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY, YOU LOOK AT THOSE VERY COMPETITIVE PROCESSES THAT THEY RAN FOR NEUTRAL HOST INFRASTRUCTURE. THE COST ASSOCIATED TO BUILD THAT OUT. IF A CARRIER COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM AND DEPLOY THAT COST-BASED MODEL HERE, THAT WON'T WORK. AND THE REASON IT WON'T WORK IS BECAUSE THERE ARE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN OUR FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, PORT AUTHORITIES DICTATE FOR THEIR BRIDGES AND TUNNELS AND AIRPORTS. I CAN SAY YOU OUR FEES ARE REALLY EXPENSIVE. NO COST-BASED RENT WOULD REASONABLY JUSTIFY WHAT THE VENDOR PUT IN TO PUT IN THE NEUTRAL HOST INFRASTRUCTURE. ON TOP OF THAT, WHAT SOME OF THE CARRIERS ARE ALREADY PAYING TO ACCESS SOME OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS PRETTY EXPENSIVE. I THINK 5.21 IS GOING TO BE HARD. AS IT RELATES TO ACCESSING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN BUILT BY A PRIVATE OR SEMI PRIVATE OWNER OR PUBLIC OWNER WHERE THE NEXT CUSTOMER IN IS TRYING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR COST-BASED RENT. I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE REAL CHALLENGE. >> THANK YOU. >> TWO COMMENTS. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS REGISTRY SORT OF ASSUMES -- I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY -- I AM STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS AND WHO IS IN AND OUT AND WHO IS TO DO WHAT. BUT WHAT I HEAR AROUND THE TABLE IS EVERYONE SHOULD BE IN. EVERYONE WHO HAS COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY SHOULD BE IN AND REGISTERED. GOING THROUGH THE EXERCISE TRY TO COUNT OUR LOCATIONS AS PART OF THE FCC'S PROGRAM, OUR I.T. DEPARTMENT HAS GOTTEN A LOT BIGGER. IT IS THE LARGEST GROWING PART OF OUR COMPANY. WE ARE STILL VERY UNSURE OF EXACTLY WHERE THE STRUCTURES ARE THAT WE SERVE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE. WHEN I LOOK AT THE TIME FRAMES, AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A YEAR. WHEN I LOOK AT THE TIME FRAMES HERE TO PUT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION OUT, DIGITIZED, IN PLACE WHERE POTENTIAL HE IT COULD GET HACKED INTO OR WHATEVER. THESE 3-D MODELS SOUND REALLY COOL. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THAT, I WONDER HOW REALISTIC IT IS AND WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO OUR ABILITY TO DEPLOY IF WE HAVE TO TAKE A LOT OF CAPITAL AND MOVE IT OVER TO CATTLE ON THE -- CATALOGUING THINGS? NUMBER TWO, WHEN I READ THIS IN TOTAL, AND THIS IS PROBABLY WAIT AND OVERREACH, BUT IT ALMOST SEEMS TO BE LIKE A NATIONALIZATION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING GETS OPENED UP AND EVERYTHING GETS PRICED AND AWAY YOU GO. THAT'S IT. I AM INTERESTED IN GOING THROUGH THIS IN MORE DETAIL, BUT THAT IS JUST KIND OF THE IMPRESSION -- I REMEMBER IN THE DAYS WHEN OUR CENTRAL OFFICES WERE OPENED UP AND WE WERE FORCED TO SELL THIS AND THAT. I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT IN CASE I AM REALLY MISS READING THIS. >> ANDY? >> ARTICLE THREE, THE REGISTER. I BELIEVE IN THAT CONCEPT. I THINK IT IS A GOOD CONCEPT. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT DEALS WITH BUDGET ALL THE TIME, I GET WORRIED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN UNFUNDED MANDATE, SPECIALLY WHEN I LOOK AT PERHAPS THE CHALLENGES ON TIME AND EFFORT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE DEADLINES HERE. IT IS JUST SOMETHING I WOULD THROW A FLAG AT THAT LET'S BE SENSITIVE TO THAT FACT. I DON'T THINK THAT IS JUST FOR MUNICIPALITIES. I THINK IT IS ANYBODY, POTENTIALLY, WHO OWNS SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND GETTING THOSE THINGS INTO A DATABASE -- WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THIS COULD SHOW UP AS AN UNFUNDED MANDATE. I WANT TO ALSO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DARK FIBER THING. I AM A BIG PROPONENT OF THE ABILITY TO SHARE DARK FIBER OR TO LEASE IT OR TO POTENTIALLY SELL IT OR SWAP. I THINK IT PROVIDES -- WHEN THERE IS DARK FIBER THAT POTENTIALLY HAS BEEN USED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE OR -- AND THAT PURPOSE IS ESSENTIALLY DONE, THE ABILITY TO LEASE OR TO SWAP OR TWO CELL THAT EXTRA CAPACITY I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT. I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT YOUR DISCUSSION AROUND DARK FIBER INCLUDES THAT LATITUDE. THE OTHER REAL CHALLENGE, I GUESS THAT I HAVE, WITH THESE TWO ARTICLES, THEY DO FEEL RATHER PREEMPTIVE WITH THE MANAGER ASSUMING AN AWFUL LOT OF AUTHORITY OVER THE FINAL DECISIONS IN WHAT IS GOING ON. I WOULD SAY AS A MUNICIPAL GUY, I HAVE SOME PUSHBACK THERE TOCEDE THAT AUTHORITY TO A STATE LEVEL MANAGER FEELS A LITTLE STRONG. SO I WILL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> IT IS 12:20, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO FINISH CODES SO WE'RE GOING TO PUSH WATCH BACK TO 1:00 UNLESS ANYONE HAS A STRENUOUS OBJECTION TO THAT. >> THAT IS ME FINISHED OTHER THAN TO SAY THANK YOU TO KELLY FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE GROUP WHICH HAS BEEN FANTASTIC. >> THERE ARE THE RESULT OF OUR BALLOTING ON ARTICLE FOUR CONCURRING 15 WITH COMMENTS TO THE SCENTING FOUR, NO EXTENSIONS. NOW WE WILL GO TO ARTICLE FIVE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO PULSE IN THE COMMUNICATIONS SPACE. YOU GO AHEAD AND DRIVE. >> IF YOU WANT TO REFER TO ARTICLE NINE AS THE SMALL CELL PORTION, THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE FIBER CHAPTER. THIS IS BASICALLY THEIR ISSUES AND THEIR CONCERNS. OF COURSE, FOR MOST ONE OF THEIR CONCERNS IS ONE TOUCH MAKE READY. THIS DOES HAVE ONE TOUCH MAKEREADY PROVISIONS AND IT. YOU CAN BE AMUSED WITH THE IRONY OF THE FACT I'M PRESENTING THE MAKEREADY SECTION IF YOU WANT. JUST TO CLEAR THAT UP, I AM -- I THINK IF IT IS EVER EXERCISED, WHICH I THINK SAN ANTONIO IS THE ONLY PLACE IT HAPPENS, IT WILL SPEED THE PROCESS UP. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF EVERYBODY MOVED LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. IF ONE TOUCH MAKEREADY IS WHAT IT DOES TO GET YOU FINISHED ON A DEPLOYMENT, THAT IS THE PREFERENCE OF THE POLE OWNERS. THE ONE TOUCH A GREATER PROVISIONS IN HERE ARE IN SYNC WITH WHAT WAS PASSED BY THE INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DISPUTE PROVISION, I BELIEVE. THIS SECTION ALSO ADDRESSED OVERLAPPING. THERE'S NO SENSE IN GOING TO ALL OF THE DISCUSSION ON OVERLASHING. WE WILL JUST SUMMARIZE AND THAT DAVID, DON, AND I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. WE DECIDED WE WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THE FCC RULES. THEY ARE ADDRESSING IT NOW. HOPEFULLY, THEY WILL HAVE THE WISDOM TO PROVIDE A VACATION FOR OVERLASHING. THOSE ARE THE BIGGEST PARTS OF THIS SECTION. AND THERE IS THE VOTE. >> 15 CONCURRING, THREE WITH COMMENTS, THREE DISSENTING. 21 TOTAL VOTERS. >> JUST A QUICK POINT. FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT RELATIONSHIP OVER THIS PAST YEAR. AND THE DISTINCTION IS SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS IT IS JUST ABOUT THE LEVEL OF NOTICE IN THE KIND OF NOTICE REQUIRED FOR OVER LASHING. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE INSTANCES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THERE IS INCONSISTENCIES WITH OTHER BODIES. THIS IS ONE THAT CLEARLY IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME RECONCILIATION WITH THE WORKING GROUP ALREADY PASSED AT THE LAST MEETING. THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES THAT WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO HASH OUT RELATED TO INDEMNIFICATION. THE VOTE WE JUST MADE TODAY ON CONTRACTOR APPROVAL AND REJECTION AND THE WHOLE PROCESS IS NOT IN THIS AT ALL. FOR THE REJECTION PART SO WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT, ASSUME WE DON'T HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON ONE TOUCH MAKEREADY AND WE PROBABLY WANT TO MAKE ONE RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LOOK AT THIS. >> I TEND TO AGREE. >> I AGREE JUST SOME SMALL DETAILS ON SOME OF IT, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION IN HERE. I THINK IT IS BROADER THAN THE INTERNET OCCASION PROVISION OR BROADER THAN WHAT WE VOTED ON IN REJECTING THE IDEA OF DOING CONSEQUENTIAL OR INDIRECT DAMAGES IN THE LAST MEETING. I DON'T KNOW IF NOW IS THE TIME TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. PART OF MAKING EVERYTHING ALIGNED. I DEFINITELY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT AND I BELIEVE OTHERS MIGHT, TOO. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK DAVID IS RIGHT. IT IS FOR -- WE ADDRESSED SOME OF THOSE OR THE STATE MODEL CODE ADDRESSED SOME OF THOSE INCONSISTENCIES, BUT THERE ARE OTHERS THERE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AT THE LAST BDAC BDAC MEETING. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT NOW IF PEOPLE WANT BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD JUST PUT THAT INTO RECONCILIATION. >> I DON'T WANT TO STAND IN BETWEEN LUNCH AND HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT INDEMNIFICATION. >> BUT IT IS SO FUN. >> BRING IN THE ONE TOUCH MAKEREADY TERMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO JUST ERECT TO RECONCILE THAT? CUT TO THE CHASE? I LIKE THE TERMS, BUT SINCE THERE ARE READY APPROVED, WHY NOT JUST GET IT DONE? >> YES, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. >> SO MOVED. >> THE MOTION? >> FOR UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY OR YOU CAN REPEAT IT. >> AT&T MOTION. >> WHO!A! I WAS WATCHING A SPOKESWOMAN FROM APPLE WHO SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE EXPERTS ON PRODUCTIVITY FROM MICROSOFT AND I WENT, WHOA, WHAT JUST HAPPENED? THE MOTION IS THAT THIS GROUP WILL DIRECT RECONCILIATION OF THE ALREADY APPROVED VOTED OUT ITEM FROM COMPETITIVE ACCESS THAT THE MODEL STATE COULD BE RECONCILED WITH THAT. MOTION BY CHRIS AND SECOND BY JOHN. >> IT HAS OREGON TO THE TWO COMMITTEES? >> WELL, THE RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE. >> WOULDN'T IT BE PRUDENT TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE ONE MORE TIME YOU GO IS IT FROM THIS MORNING? >> I DON'T THINK THE MOTION AS WE HAVE TWO ADOPTED, BUT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT AND LOOK AT REWRITING THIS OR THAT SO THEY MATCH UP. I DON'T THINK THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT IT. LOOKS IT IS TO TAKE -- WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED WHAT IS IN THERE. THIS SHOULD BE MADE TO COMPLY WITH THAT. >> OK. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR US TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE LANGUAGE IF WE'RE POOR TO DIRECT THE RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE TO CONFORM THAT LANGUAGE WITH THIS OTHER LANGUAGE. DO WE HAVE THAT? >> IF WE ALREADY AGREE THAT X NUMBER OF DAYS WAS RIGHT AND YOU VOTE X + 5, THE DECISIONS HAS A READY BEEN MADE. JUST MAKE THIS SAY X RATHER THAN OPEN IT BACK UP AND UNDO THE WORK THE BODY HAS A READY DONE. >> I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I WOULD BE CONCERNED THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION IS ADDRESSED IN THE CORRECT WAY. I KNOW WE DISCUSSED IT A NUMBER OF TIMES. >> WE VOTED. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> I TAKE IT AS IT IS ALREADY APPROVED. >> AHEAD TO UNDERMINE -- >> THERE GOES THE COMBINED ALL MOMENT. >> I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE VOTED ON. BUT I DO THINK THIS ONE HAS A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN SOME PLACES AND I DON'T WANT -- MAYBE MY THE BETTER IN FLESHING OUT SOME OF THE STUFF THAN WHAT WE WROTE ON THE COMPETITIVE ACCESS SITE. I WOULD HATE FOR US TO HAVE TOTALLY HAMSTRUNG EVERY DETAIL, BUT I THINK THE BIG PICTURE IN TERMS OF -- I THINK WAS 25 DAYS THAT WE CAME UP WITH AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I AM COMFORTABLE LETTING THE GROUP GO BACK, HAMMER IT OUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE AREN'T CHANGING WHAT WE VOTED ON LAST TIME AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE DETAILED PROPOSAL. >> OPENING UP -- SORRY, WRONG DAVID. >> DAVID YOUNG. >> VERY BRIEFLY IN THE SECTION, SUPPORTING ONE TOUCH MAKEREADY, VERY IMPORTANT TO US, TREATING OF AUTHORITY PULLS DIFFERENT, NOT THE ANSWER TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS IN THIS LEGISLATION. >> MONICA? >> I JUST HAD A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO CLARIFICATION WITH THE TITLE. SO THIS SAYS IT IS FOR ACCESS TO PULLS IN THE COMMUNICATION, SO ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE MEDICATION SPACE ON THE POLE? IS THAT WITH THE TITLE MEANS SO THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THAT PLACE AND ANY FC STANDARDS -- >> I DID NOT DRAFT THIS, I'M JUST PRESENTING IT. I THINK -- ORIGINALLY WAS THE RUN TOUCH MAKEREADY. THIS SECTION IS CLEAR THAT ONE TOUCH MAKEREADY IS ONLY TALKING ABOUT CAN MEDICATION SPACE. >> BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR OFF FIELD, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE WE NEED TO RESOLVE BEFORE WE BRING OTHER QUESTIONS ON. >> IF WE'RE GOING TO RECONCILE THE TWO ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DAYS ARE CONSISTENT -- ARE WE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO I'M CHANGE WHAT WE VOTED ON AND THEN PICK AND CHOOSE FROM THE NEW PROCESS OF THE NEW PROVISIONS, AND THEN MAYBE NOT? THEN I THINK EVERYTHING SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISTURB PICKING AND CHOOSING -- ALL OF THESE WERE HIGHLY NEGOTIATED COST OF IF WE WANT TO NEGOTIATE THEM ALL AGAIN, FINE. AT THE NOTION YOU GOING TO PICK AND SOME COUNTIES LIKE DOES NOT SEEM LIKE THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. >> ANDY? >> MINUS MORE FOR PROCESS QUESTION. I KNOW FROM THE RECONCILIATION WORK THAT IS FORTHCOMING, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF STUFF THAT IS PROBABLY THROWN INTO THAT. IT DOES NOT SEEM PROPER TO ME AND I MIGHT BE WRONG, TO HAVE ACTUALLY VOTE ON WHAT GOES TO RECONCILIATION THIS MEETING AND WHAT DOESN'T. I'M WONDERING IF THAT COULD BE A CALL OF THE CHAIR? >> I AM OK WITH THAT. I WOULD LIKE SOME FEEDBACK FROM THIS BODY WITH RESPECT TO RECONCILIATION BECAUSE TO ECHO A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING AROUND THE TABLE, WE HAD A VERY LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT 25 DAYS. IT WAS AN HOUR, 45 MINUTES OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IS A 45, 15 AND WE ENDED AT -- I REALLY DON'T WANT TO LITIGATE THAT. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THIS COMMITTEE HAS SAID, YES, WE TALKED IT THROUGH 25 DAYS IT IS A NO EVERYBODY GETS TO THROW BACK IN AND REOPEN THE ISSUE. FOR ME, BUT SOME OF IT IS, OH, HERE'S ANOTHER APPROACH TO A CONCEPT, AND THAT IS WHAT I THINK GOES INTO RECONCILIATION AND I DON'T THINK IT IS EITHER COMPETITIVE ACCESS OR THIS ONE, BUT I THINK THAT WAS VOTED ON. THAT IS WHERE YOU START. WE HAVE TO COME TO THIS ARTICLE AND SAY, HOW DO THEY RECONCILE? WHAT ARE THE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE? OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE AT ITS FORTHCOMING ON THE TITLE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IS ALL PART TO ME OF RECONCILIATION. IF YOU ALL ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT CONSTRUCT FOR HOW I AM VIEWING THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS. OK. SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD. I DID NOT MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. DID YOU GET YOUR POINT MADE? OK. BACK TO YOU. >> THE NEXT ARTICLE -- WELL, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDES? THE NEXT IS SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR RAILROAD CROSSINGS. INTO DICKASON WILL DELIVER THAT. ONE THING WE SEE IN RAILROAD, SNAKES LOVE RAILROAD BEDS. THAT IS A RATTLESNAKE RIGHT THERE. THIS IS A WATER MOCCASIN RIGHT THERE. THOSE ARE NICE AND WARM AND A LOT OF TIMES, ESPECIALLY AROUND WATER LIKE THIS. THERE YOU GO, ANGIE. >> ARTICLE SIX WAS CRAFTED TO ADDRESS PROVIDER ISSUES WITH RAILROAD CROSSINGS WHILE ALSO BEEN RESPECTFUL OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. SPECIFICALLY, THIS ARTICLE ESTABLISHES TIMELINES FOR ACCEPTING AND IMPROVING RAILROAD CROSSING PERMIT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A RAILROAD CROSSING APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE, THE RAILROAD MUST NOTIFY THE APPLICANT WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT. AND BEGINNING 35 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE RAILROAD RECEIVES A COMPLETED CROSSING APPLICATION, THE CROSSING FEE, AND CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE, CONSTRUCTION OF THE CROSSING MAY BEGIN UNLESS THERE IS A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT THE CROSSING IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE SAFE OPERATIONS OF THE RAILROAD OR THE CURRENT USE OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. RELATED TO FEES ARTICLE SIX ESTABLISHES A ONE-TIME STANDARD CROSSING FEE OF $500 PER CROSSING. NO CROSSING FEE IS REQUIRED IF THE CROSSING IS LOCATED WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND THE COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER OR NETWORK SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE OWNER AM OF THE PARTIES A PETITION THE STATE BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGER FOR ASSISTANCE, REMEDIATION, ARE -- NOTHING PREVENTS A RAILROAD AND COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER OR NETWORK SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE OWNER FROM CONTINUING UNDER AN EXISTING AGREEMENT OR SOME OTHER WAS NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO A CROSSING OR RESOLUTION OF ANY DISPUTES RELATED TO THE CROSSING. THESE MODEL CODE CONCEPTS RELATED TO RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS AND RAILROAD CROSSING FEE STRUCTURES HELP REMOVE BARRIERS TO BROADBAND EXPANSION WHILE ALSO BEING RESPECTFUL OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IN OUR STATES. >> THANK YOU. >> ANDY? >> OK, SO MUNICIPALITIES, WE OFTEN HAVE INTERACTION, LOTS OF INTERACTION WITH THE RAILROAD, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU RI ONDE HAS QUITE A BIT OF TRAFFIC. THEY ARE DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH. OUR LEVERAGE IS VERY LIGHT IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY TO GET THEM TO DO WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO BECAUSE OF WHERE THEIR AUTHORITY IS PLACED. IN THE HISTORICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT. SO THAT IS JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IN THIS. THERE IS ONE THING I HIGHLIGHTED IN THE DOCUMENT, NOT AS AN OBJECTION, BUT AS AN OBSERVATION. IT WAS UNDER 2.4 STANDARD CROSSING FEE. WHAT THAT SOUNDS LIKE, ANGIE, TO ME, IS IN ALL IN FEE. MY EYES KIND OF PERKED UP AND I GOT EXCITED ABOUT THAT. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW AND IT KNOWLEDGE THAT. THANKS. >> THIS WAS BASED ON MODEL LANGUAGE THAT A PURELY THE RAILROADS AGREED TO IN WISCONSIN? >> MOST OF THE LANGUAGES FROM MY HOME STATE OF MINNESOTA. THE ACTUAL $500 FEE IS FROM MY NEW HOME STATE OF WISCONSIN. >> SO FINGERS CROSSED. >> OK. THANK YOU, ANGIE. IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDES. 17 CONCURRING, NOBODY PROVIDING COMMENTS IN THAT SECTION. 21 TOTAL VOTES. THE NEXT TWO ARTICLES WILL BE PRESENTED BY KELLY COLE. ARTICLE SEVEN AND ARTICLE EIGHT. I WILL BRING THIS TO YOU, KELLY. COOK'S FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK OF ALL OF OUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY THE RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE THAT HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY OVER THE LAST LITTLE BIT. THESE TWO ARTICLES I FEEL ARE NEAR AND DEAR TO ME. I THINK THAT THEY REPRESENT A LOT OF THE MISSION OF THE BDAC AS A WHOLE. IN THE STATE OF UTAH, ESPECIALLY OUR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOES A LOT OF THESE THINGS JUST THROUGH BEST PRACTICES. AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE EFFICACY OF COORDINATING BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS. THE HOPE IS THAT PUTTING THIS LANGUAGE INTO THE MODEL CODE WILL ENCOURAGE OTHER STATES TO LOOK AT HOW TO COORDINATE MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I THINK THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS THE PUBLIC GOOD AND BEING ABLE TO ENCOURAGE DEPLOYMENT THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I THINK THAT THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE MORE EFFICIENCY, CREATE COST SAVINGS FOR ALL OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. AND WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT TRYING TO CONNECT UNSERVED AREAS, COST AND TIMELINES ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. ARTICLE 7, WHICH IS THE NEW AND MODIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE BROADBAND READY. IT BUILDS UPON VARIOUS FORMS OF DIGG ONCE INITIATIVES IN MULTIPLE STATES. WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL STATES, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA AND ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, NEVADA, AND UTAH. THIS ARTICLE IS FOCUSED ON HAVING AUTHORITIES CONTAINED CONDUIT NETWORKS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AS PART OF THEIR INITIAL BUILD, HELPING HIGHWAYS AND STREETS BECOME BROADBAND READY. WE HAVE SEEN IN OUR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INSTALLS CONDUIT, EXTRA CONDUIT IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN OUR STATE AND NEGOTIATES RIGHTS-OF-WAY. AND BEING ABLE TO WHEN YOU'RE CONSTRUCTING ROADS, PUT IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS THE CHEAPEST AND MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THAT AND ENSURING THAT DOES HAPPEN, I THINK, IS CRUCIAL IN MAKING SURE THAT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY ARE CONNECTED WITH BRAWN BAD AND SERVICE -- BROADBAND SERVICE. I THINK THAT LOOKING AT THIS ARTICLE, IT DOES A LOT TO ENSURE THAT PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED OF THESE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO INSTALL SERVICES, MAKING SURE OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT MISSED. AND I THINK RIGHT NOW IT IS SORT OF AN ENTITY BY ENTITY BASIS WHETHER OR NOT THIS COORDINATION IS HAPPENING. LIKE I SAID, I KNOW FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE ON A STATE LEVEL, IT HAS DONE PRETTY WELL. ON THE CITY LEVEL, WE HAVE GOOD EXAMPLES. WE ALSO HAVE MUNICIPALITIES THAT DON'T HAVE A ROBUST SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT I THINK THIS GIVES A GOOD FRAMEWORK. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT IN SPEAKING WITH, ANECDOTALLY, FROM THE PHONE CALLS I GET, I HAVE AN ASKED FOR THIS EXACTLY WHICH BEFORE. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDED UP UNTIL THIS POINT. I APPRECIATE AS BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD. IT MAY BE MODIFIED TO MEET DIFFERENT NEEDS, BUT I THINK HAVING A STARTING PLACE AND HAVING THIS LANGUAGE GOT JUST A LEGISLATURE SO THEY CAN LOOK AT INTEREST WITHIN THEIR STATE, BUT HAVING A VERY SOLID FOUNDATION TO WORK FROM I THINK IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. SO THAT IS KIND OF THE HEART OF THIS DOCUMENT. I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON IT. THAT IS THE GENERAL IDEA OF IT. >>, SIR QUESTIONS TO ARTICLE SEVEN? BOB? >> I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLEAR WHEN I READ THIS AS TO WHO EXACTLY APPLIES TO. ALL OF THESE DEFINITIONS CAN INTERACT AND HAVE NOT QUITE FIGURED IT OUT. FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE DES OUTBUILDING SOMETHING NEW, NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. IS THIS MEANT TO APPLY MAINLY TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES PUTTING IN ROADS AND STUFF LIKE THAT? HOW FAR DOWN AS AGO? >> NETWORK SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION, IT DATES BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY. THAT WOULD NOT BE PRIVATE SECTOR. I DON'T KNOW THEY WOULD BE DISTRACTING A ROAD, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS IN THIS DEFINITION. >> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT I JUST WASN'T CLEAR. >> YOU KIND OF HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DEFINITIONS. >> I TRIED THAT AND I STILL WASN'T CLEAR. >> WITHIN THIS PROVISION, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A STATE OR CITY HAS ALLOWED TRENCHING TO REQUIRE SOME OF YOU LIKE TDS OR SOMETHING FOR THE NEXT PROVIDER SO THEY'RE NOT MULTIPLE TRENCHING THE SAME AREA OR IS THAT NOT -- >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY. MAYBE I WOULD ASK THAT QUESTION. >> IT IS NOT INCLUDED. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE PRIVATE COMPANIES. THERE IS AN OPTION FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES TO JOIN IN THE PROCESS IF THEY WISH TO. IF A PRIVATE COMPANY -- THE POINT IS, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PROMOTING INVESTMENT, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PROVIDING FUTURE APPROVED CONDUIT WERE ROADS DO NOT HAVE TO BE DUG UP TWICE -- NOT JUST ROADS. IT ALLOWS PRIVATE COMPANIES TO SAY, ACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT. NO OBLIGATION ON PRIVATE COMPANIES AND THIS GOES BACK TO DAVID'S POINT. WE WOULD LOVE THERE TO BE PRIVATE COMPANIES. IT IS AN OPTION. THE IDEA IS THE AUTHORITY CAN INVITE PRIVATE COMPANIES TO PARTICIPATE IN SHARING COST WERE INDEED PUT IN THEIR OWN DUCT IF THEY WISH. >> MY QUESTION WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. I KNOW OBVIOUSLY IT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE ENTITIES. WITHIN THE WAY THIS CODE IS STRUCTURED, COULD A STATE, AS PART OF ALLOWING ACCESS INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR MUNICIPALITY CAN MAKE THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO PRIVATE ENTITY AS PART OF THE PERMISSION TO USE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR IS THAT COMPLETELY SILENT ON THAT POINT? >> IT IS SILENT >>. >> OK. >> I'M GOING TO COMMENT QUICKLY. I THINK THE HEART OF THIS IS WHEN YOU'RE USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO BUILD CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS, AT LEAST MY PERSONAL FEELING, FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING IF THERE ARE TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVOLVED, YOU CAN KIND OF REGULATE THAT MORE AND GIVE MORE TERMS. WHENEVER PRIVATE COMPANY COMING IN AND INVESTING A LOT OF DOLLARS, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NEGOTIATION. IT IS SILENT ON THAT BUT I THINK STATES CAN DECIDE INDIVIDUALLY WHAT IS APPROPRIATE. THAT IS MY PERSONAL FEELING ON IT. >> THIS IS JUST A COMMENT MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT THAN ANYTHING. IF STATES ARE CONSTRUCTING INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL FUNDS >> THANK YOU. KELLY? >> IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDES? I THINK WE WERE AT THE BALLOTING SLIDE. 16 CONCURRING THE COMMENTS. 21 TOTAL VOTES. NOW WE WILL GO TO ARTICLE EIGHT, BUILDINGS AND NETWORK ACCESS POINTS TO READ BROADBAND READY. >> THIS IS SORT OF THE NEXT OR LOCALIZED STEPS IN ENSURING COORDINATION, ENSURING THAT BUILDINGS IN PARTICULAR BE BROADBAND READY. I THINK THAT THIS ARTICLE -- IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. ENSURING WHEN THINGS ARE BUILT, THEY ARE BUILT TO STANDARDS THAT WOULD ENSURE THEM ESPECIALLY THAT RESIDENTS ARE ABLE TO GET BROADBAND ACCESS TO THE BUILDING AND NOT JUST TO THE CURB. THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE THAT THESE BUILDINGS BE BROADBAND READY AND PROPOSES THAT NEW AND MODIFIED BUILDINGS BE REQUIRED TO CONTAIN ADEQUATE DUCTING, CONDUIT, AND CONNECTION POINTS TO FACILITATE BROADBAND. AND IT PROMOTES A RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THIRD-PARTY OWN NETWORK ACCESS POINT SO THERE IS CONSUMER CHOICE. I THINK MAKING SURE THAT -- I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALL ASSUME WOULD ALWAYS BE DONE, BUT IT IS NOT ALWAYS DONE. AND PUTTING IT INTO A STATUTE TO ENSURE THAT -- AGAIN, LIKE ARTICLE SEVEN, AS CONSTRUCTION IS HAPPENING, THAT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO INCLUDE THE NETWORK ACCESS TO A CONDUIT INDUCTING. SO MAKING SURE THAT THINGS ARE BEING RETROFITTED LATER, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, I THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO GO ON THIS IN PROVIDING SOME STANDARDS FOR THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS TO ARTICLE EIGHT? ANDY? >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS ACTUALLY IS KIND OF A BIG DEAL FOR CITIES. IT IS A BIG DEAL BECAUSE WE ARE OFTENTIMES FRUSTRATED WHEN ONE PROVIDER HAS A BUILDING LOCKED UP IN A WHEELS CAN GET INTO IT. I HEAR THIS OFTENTIMES WHEN I AM AROUND CIRCLES OF OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO ARE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE AND HEARING THE CRIES OF THE PEOPLE SAYING WE ARE LOCKED INTO THIS AND WE DON'T LIKE IT. WE WANT MORE COMPETITION, BASICALLY. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE. I AM GLAD YOU PUT IT IN THERE. >> MARK? >> APPRECIATING THAT COMMENT THAT WAS JUST MADE AN APPRECIATING THE HARD WORK PUT IN HERE. TWO POINTS. ONE IS WHEN SECTION -- ONE SECTION ALLOWING MEDICATIONS PROVIDERS TO HAVE ACCESS TO SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE TACKLE BACK IN THE LATE 1990'S. ARE THOSE OF US THAT WERE AROUND AND WATCHED I WAS PROSECUTED, WAS A PRETTY CONTENTIOUS FIGHT. I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT VERBIAGE AROUND THIS BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THE WORKING GROUP'S OFTEN THAT A BIT OR ANYTHING WE SERVE UP TO ANY STATE WILL BE MET WITH I THINK PRETTY SIGNIFICANT RESISTANCE FROM THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY. IF THIS IS THE DESK OF ANYONE -- THIS WOULD BE MET WITH SOME PRETTY STIFF RESISTANCE. AS IT WAS MET WITH STIFF RESISTANCE AND 1996 WHEN BUILDING OWNERS WHEN OUT AND FOUGHT FOR THEIR PRIVATE RIGHTS. SECOND POINT, MAYBE SOME SOFTENING A LITTLE BIT AS WELL. PERHAPS ON A BEST EFFORTS BASIS BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET -- IF OUR OBJECTIVE AS A GROUP IS TO SEE THAT WE PUT THIS LEGISLATION OR THE STRAP MODEL CODE IN FRONT OF STATE AND OUR GOAL IS FOR THEM TO ACCEPT IT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GREAT WORK IN HERE, THE LAST THING WE WANT IS THE PRIVATE BUILDING INDUSTRY TO RESIST THESE MODEL CODES AND WE WAKE THEM UP. THAT IS A REAL RISK GIVEN THESE TWO PROVISIONS. AS WE THINK ABOUT THIS AND WE THINK ABOUT THE BURDEN THAT WE ARE PLACING ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT SOME SOFTENING OF THOSE TWO PROVISIONS TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T ACTIVATE A BASE THAT TENDS TO SHOW UP AND HAS A PRETTY BIG VOICE ON THE HILL AND IN THEIR STATES. JUST HAVING SOME EXPERIENCE IN 1996 ON THAT TOPIC. >> THANK YOU, DOUG. >> FOLLOWING UP ON MARK'S POINT, ONE THING I'M NOT CLEAR OF AND I HAVE RATED A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT IF SOMEONE CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION -- IS THIS ARTICLE INTENDED TO APPLY TO BUILDINGS THAT ARE OWNER OCCUPIED OR MULTITENANT IN THE ALTERNATIVE OR BOTH? >> MULTI TENANT FOR SURE. >> >> JUST AMPLIFYING WHAT MARK SAID, THE OWNER-OCCUPIED BUILDINGS, AND THIS COULD GET VERY TRICKY, BUT THAT MEANS YOU ARE DICTATING TO THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING ACCESS WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES, THEORETICALLY COULD BE A HOMEOWNER -- THAT IS NOT THE INTENT, BUT FOR A FACT. WE JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. THE SOFTENING OF THINK WE NEED TO THINK THROUGH WHAT THAT MEANS. ARE WE REALLY TELLING AN ENTERPRISE THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE AVAILABLE ACCESS AT A FAIR PRICE TO EVERYBODY? >> LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING, OR TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU THINK THE SOFTENING SHOULD REMOVE THE OWNER-OCCUPIED BUILDINGS AND LEAVE THE MULTI TENANT'S. I ASKED THAT BECAUSE MY COMPANY DOES WITH CUSTOMERS WHO WANT OUR SERVICES BUT CAN'T GET THEM BECAUSE THE MULTITENANT BUILDING IS LOCKED IN BY PROVIDER WHO HAS CONVINCED THE REAL ESTATE MANAGER THAT THEY CAN'T ALLOW -- WE'VE EVEN HAD SOMEONE SAY, YOU CAN'T COME IN. WE HAVE EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS WITH THESE TWO COMPANIES. IT'S LIKE, YOU CAN DO THAT. THEY THINK THEY CAN. A TO LUCRETIA THE POLITICAL POINT, BUT FROM THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED THIS BECAUSE THAT IS BAD POLICY TO ALLOW MULTITENANT BUILDINGS TO BE LOCKED UP. PERSONALLY, THE CAN OWNER-OCCUPIED BUILDING IS A DIFFERENT DEAL BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT IMPACTING OTHER PEOPLE. YOU'RE JUST IMPACTING YOURSELF. >> I SORT OF SEE THIS AS THERE ARE STANDARDS WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING IN ELECTRIC OR PLUMBING IN A BUILDING. THAT IS HOW I SEE THIS. THERE ARE JUST REGULAR STANDARDS AND BUILDINGS. >> I THINK THAT IS A GOOD PLACE TO GO. IF YOU GO WITH THAT GUYS, AND THAT IS WHERE WE TAKE THESE PROVISIONS, AND WE ARE POINTING STATE OF BEST PRACTICES FOR FUTURE PROOFING BUILDINGS, I THINK THE BUILDING INDUSTRY, ALL OF THEM WILL GET BEHIND US. I THINK IF YOU TELL THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY YOU'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH PRICE AND YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE THEM TO MODERNIZE THEIR BUILDINGS, I THINK THAT WILL BE MET WITH SOME RESISTANCE. >> I DON'T OVERSTEP MY AUTHORITY SAYS CHAIR, BUT I WOULD ASK HELLE, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING SOME WAY WHICH FROM MARK? >> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THE ACCESS POINTS. I RAISE THE FLAG BECAUSE ACCESS POINT IS TYPICALLY TERM FOR WI-FI ROUTERS. ONE IS PRETTY GENERIC. IN INCLUDES LICENSED AND UNLICENSED COMMUNICATION. I DON'T GET THE POINT WHERE IT SAYS IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCESS TO INSIDE WIRING. WAS THAT ACTUALLY DISCUSSED? BY THE ACCESS TO WIRING IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION? THAT WOULD CUT A PROHIBIT -- THAT WOULD KIND OF PROHIBIT AND RAISE SOME CHALLENGES. IF IT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE REASON WHY. IF NOT, MAYBE CAN -- >> I THINK THE POINT BEHIND IT WAS THE AUTHORITY WASN'T TO EXTEND BEYOND THE NETWORK ACCESS POINT TO TRACE INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. THAT WAS THE POINT. IF THAT WERE INCONVENIENT -- >> BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME ACCESS TO SOME WIRES. EVEN IF THERE WERE TRY TO DEPLOY LICENSED OR UNLICENSED. >> CAN YOU MAYBE PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE? >> SURE. IF YOU'RE OPEN TO THAT, I WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT INCLUDES-- THERE'S NO CLEAR TERM FOR THE DAS. THE DEFINITION IS TRYING TO INCLUDE BOTH. >> THANK YOU. >> VERY QUICKLY, I THINK ARTICLE 3.1 IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF TREATING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE THE SAME AND SHOULD BE THE THEME AS WE LOOK AT THE LEGISLATION WHERE IT IS PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY BUILT. I REALLY APPLAUD THIS LANGUAGE. >> I MENTION THIS IN THE LAST MEETING, BUT I WILL SAY IT BRIEFLY AGAIN. KOREA HAD A BETTER MODEL WITH A CERTIFIED BUILDINGS, BUILDING OWNERS WOULD TAKE A CERTIFICATION WHICH WAS TRUSTED AND USE IT AS MARKETING FOR TENANTS. JUST ONE THING ON DOUG'S COMMENT BUT MULTI-OWNER, OWNER OCCUPIED. NOT TO ENDORSE THIS BECAUSE I HAVE SOME CONCERNS, BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE MINIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS YOU ARE COVERING, 25 UNITS OR SOMETHING. FOOD FOR THOUGHT. >> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS ARTICLE. KELLY, ARTICLE NINE? >> SHOULD WE DO IT NOW? >> IT IS FIVE MINUTES UNTIL 1:00. IT IS PRETTY HARD TO GET OUT AND BACK FOR LUNCH QUICKLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU THINK WE CAN CUT LUNCH TO 45 MINUTES OF PEOPLE CAN MAKE IT. >> CAN ASK A QUESTION? >> WE ARE ONE ARTICLE THAT HAS TO DO WITH SIDING AND THE REST OF REPRESENTATION IS RURAL. WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT IF WE COME BACK AND FINISH UP WITH OUR -- WE HAVE THREE FINAL ARTICLES THAT ALL DEAL WITH RURAL ISSUES AND IN SPECIAL RURAL SLIDES AS WELL. MAYBE WE COULD GET THROUGH THE SIDING ARTICLE REAL QUICK AND THEN COME BACK AND FINISH UP WITH RURAL. >> I'M FINE WITH THAT. IS EVERYONE OK WITH TRYING TO CUT LUNCH TO 45 MINUTES TO TRY TO MAKE UP SOME OF THIS TIME? >> IF WE DO GET BACK TO THE DECK, PLEASE. HERE IS OUR BALLOTING FOR ARTICLE EIGHT. THIS IS A GREAT PICTURE. THIS PICTURE IS WHERE WE ARE DEPLOYING STRAIN MOUNTED, SMALL CELL. THE REASON I TOOK THIS PICTURE AND THE REASON I BLEW IT UP LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE THESE HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED UP YET. THESE RESIDENTS OF THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX, THESE ARE PEOPLE SITTING OUTSIDE. I TRIED TO GET A PICTURE. THEY'RE ALL OUTSIDE ON THEIR PHONES. I WENT OVER, CALLED UP TO ONE GOT. I SAID, WHY ARE YOU SITTING OUTSIDE? IT IS HOT. HE SAID, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONNECTION IN OUR HOUSE. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE, NO CONNECTIONS IN THEIR HOUSE. INTERESTING. AND HERE ARE THOSE IN PICTURES FROM DIFFERENT -- ALL RIGHT. ARTICLE NINE IS THE DEPLOYMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK FACILITIES ARTICLE. THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES THE FRAMEWORK FOR SIDING OF COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE. IT MAINTAINS COME UP WITH TAKEN PAINS TO MAINTAIN THE ROLE IN THE SIDING PROCESS BY ENABLING AUTHORITIES TO REQUIRE AN APPLICATION, PERMIT, AND FEES FOR CONSTRUCTION OR CO-LOCATION OF CAN MEDICATIONS KNOWN FACILITIES AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES. IT ALLOWS THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER HEIGHT, PARENTS, AND SET BACK OR FALL ZONES. IT PROVIDES 60 DAYS FOR AN AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DENY A COMPLETE APPLICATION AND A DEEMED GRANTED REMEDY OF NO DETERMINATION IS MADE. APPLICANTS MUST PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE AUTHORITY WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION OR CO-LOCATION PURSUANT TO THE DEEMED APPROVED APPLICATION. IT RECOGNIZES THE UNIQUE NATURE OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. IT APPLIES PROCESSES, TIME FRAMES, AND REMEDIES TO SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES INCLUDING 60 DAYS FOR ACTIONABLE APPLICATION FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES WITH THE DEAN GRANDMA DID REMEDY -- GRANTED REMEDY. IT PERMITS THE AUTHORITY TO DENY PROPOSED CO-LOCATION IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CO-LOCATION MATERIALLY INTERFERES WITH THE SAFE OPERATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT, SITE LINES, OR CLEAR ZONES FOR TRANSPORTATION, PEDESTRIANS, OR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WERE COMPLAINTS TO THE EMERGENCE WITH DISABILITIES ACT WERE SIMILAR FEDERAL OR STATE STANDARDS. OR MATERIALLY FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ANY APPLICABLE STATE AUTHORITY. IT REQUIRES NEW REPLACEMENT OR MODIFIED POLLS AND ALLOWS THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT THE APPLICATION THAT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL CODE PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC SAFETY, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, AND REASONABLE STEALTH REQUIREMENTS. IT ENABLES THE AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE AS AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR THE SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY BE COLLECTED ON AN EXISTING UTILITY POLE OR WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURE IF THE UTILITY POLL OR WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LOCATION PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION. IT ALLOWS APPLICANTS TO FILE A CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION AND RECEIVE A SINGLE PERMIT FOR THE CO-LOCATION OF UP TO 25 SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. THE ARTICLE ADOPTS THE COST-BASED APPROACH TO PERMITTING FEES AT APPLICATION AND OTHER FEES FOR ACTING ON APPLICATIONS AND ISSUING PERMITS BASED ON ACTUAL, DIRECT, AND REASONABLE COSTS TO PROCESS AND REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND MANAGE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY RELATED TO THE INCURRING OF SUCH COSTS. THESE MUST BE REASONABLE, NONDISCRIMINATORY, NEUTRAL, AND PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. IT GRANTS THE LEGISLATURE OR ARTICLE 13 BROADBAND MANAGER OR HIS OR HER -- ADDRESS THE -- THE BROADBAND MANAGER WILL ADDRESS THAT LATER. TO PROMULGATE RULES WITH A COLLECTION OF PERMIT FEES OR APPLICATION FEES, FEES FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES CAN FE ES FOR AUTHORITY POLLS. IT PERMITS RATES OR FEES THAT MAY RESULT IN A DOUBLE RECOVERY OR A FRANCHISE OR OTHER FEE BASED ON REVENUE. EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE ARTICLE. HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS MAINTAINED. IT AFFIRMS THE AUTHORITIES RIGHT TO ENFORCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF ZONING REGULATIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR LOCAL CODE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO HISTORIC AREAS. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES RETAINED. IT ENABLES AN AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE ZONING, LAND USE, PLAN NING, PERMITTING AUTHORITY, AND AUTHORIZATION RIGHT-OF-WAY AWAY DUE TO REASONABLE PUBLIC INTEREST DESIGNATED BY PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, EXERCISING A REASONABLY COMPETITIVELY NEUTRAL AND A NONDISCRIMINATORY MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLE ALSO PROVIDES FOR FLEXIBLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. IT REQUIRES DISPUTES TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 13, WHICH WE WILL HEAR ABOUT IN A FEW MOMENTS, AND ESTABLISHES TEMPORARY RATES REGARDING ACCESS TO RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CO-LOCATION, AND THOSE WILL BE -- THAT IS THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE NINE. LET ME JUST -- >> COMMENTS TO ARTICLE NINE? ANDY? >> THANKS FOR RECOGNIZING ME AHEAD OF CHARLES HERE. I HAVE A HISTORY OF SPARRING ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES, RIGHT. AND IT IS A GOOD-NATURED AND I THINK RESPECTFUL SPAR. I HAVE GOT A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES WITH ARTICLE NINE, AND I WILL DO MY BEST NOT TO TAKE UP A LOT OF TIME INDICATING THESE, AND I WANT TO BE FAIR TO DISCLOSE THAT KELLY HAD ASKED ME AFTER THE LAST MEETING IF I WOULD SPEND SOME TIME WITH ARTICLE NINE AND HELP WITH THAT, BUT FROM PERSONAL BANDWIDTH STANDPOINT I DIDN'T HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO DO THAT. MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT, KELLY. >> WHENEVER CONCILIATION COMING UP. >> I HOPE I DIDN'T JUST RAISE MY HAND FOR SOMETHING. >> YES COMMUTED. -- YES, YOU DID. >> YOU DID. >> I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS I'M CHALLENGED BY. FIRST OF ALL, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, 1.1.1., TALKING ABOUT MORATORIUM. THE GROUP BACKED OFF OF THIS LITTLE BIT. RECOGNIZING THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME CONDITIONS WHERE THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM MIGHT BE ALLOWED, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THERE BE SOME RECONCILIATION BETWEEN -- OR AT LEAST THOUGHT PUT INTO THAT IN LIGHT OF THE STATE AND LOCAL BARRIERS LANGUAGE THERE. ARTICLE 1.5.1 TALKS ABOUT THINGS YOU SHALL NOT REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO SUBMIT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS CITED IN THEIR WAS THE QUALITY OF SERVICE. THE PEOPLE WHO GET THE CALL OFTENTIMES OTHER DISABILITIES -- ARE THE MUNICIPALITIES AT CITY HALL. WE TRY TO DIRECT THEM TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE. WE DO CARE ABOUT IT. IT IS SOMETHING THAT MATTERS, AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO OVER REGULATE IT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF UNHAPPY CITIZENS. IT IS A DEAL FOR US THAT WE THINK ABOUT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE AUTHORITY FAILS TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION, THE PROVISIONS FOR WORKLOAD WHEN THERE WAS A BARRAGE OF APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN. I THINK THAT IS THE EXCEPTION AND NOT THE RULE BUT IT STILL IS THE POSSIBILITY, AND WE THINK ABOUT THAT. WHERE I REALLY GET INTO A NEGATIVE REACTION IS WHEN YOU GET INTO THE FEES. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS 3.1 PERMITTING FEES. WE TALKED ABOUT FOR THAT FIRST CATEGORY, THE APPLICATION FEES AND PERMIT FEES, WE BELIEVE THOSE SHOULD BE COST-BASED. BUT YOU HAVE SOME EXCEPTIONS LISTED HERE. THE AUTHORITY FOR FEES PAID TO AN AUTHORITY FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED BY A THIRD-PARTY, DIRECT PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT BY THE THIRD PARTY, FEES PAID TO THE MANAGER SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL DIRECT REASONABLE COST. MY QUESTION IS, IF THE AUTHORITIES INCURRING THESE COSTS, WHO HAS THE BURDEN FOR PAYING THEM? IF THEY ARE INCURRING THE COST BECAUSE OF THE APPLICATION MADE, WHO HAS TO PAY FOR THEM? THE WAY I READ THIS IS WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM. MAY NOT THE AN OPTION. IT MAY BE SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO. THAT IS AN UNFUNDED MANDATE. FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. I FLAGGED TO THAT ONE. IN A NUMBER OF SPOTS HERE YOU TALK ABOUT CAPS ON FEES, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF COST RECOVERY FOR APPLICATIONS THAT PERMITS, WHERE YOU SAY THE LESSER OF THE ACTUAL COSTS OR THE CAP. I WOULD BE FINE WITH THIS LANGUAGE IS THE LANGUAGE AROUND CAPS WAS TAKEN OUT, BECAUSE I THINK IT SORT OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE. I'M SURE THERE WAS A REASON FOR HAVING THAT IN THERE THAT PROBABLY DEALT WITH BAD PLAYERS AND SO FORTH, BUT IN THE BIGGER PICTURE, I THINK WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT COST RECOVERY ON THOSE THINGS AND NOT THE LESSER OF THIS, OR A CAP THAT HAS BEEN POLITICALLY NEGOTIATED SOMEWHERE. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I PROBABLY HAVE MORE, BUT I WILL LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK. >> CHARLIE. >> THANKS. FIRST OF ALL, ANDY, DEBATING WITH YOU IS THE MOST FUN PART OF THE WHOLE THING. IF -- WE HADN'T HAD -- IF WE HADN'T HAD FUN ON THE WORKING GROUPS, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FUNDED ALL. JUST RESPOND QUICKLY ON QUALITY OF SERVICE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM. ONE OF THE REASONS THIS IS AN ISSUE IS WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT QUALITY OF SERVICE TO THE CUSTOMER, WE WILL FREQUENTLY GET A DEMAND FROM THE CITY SAYING THAT WE NEED TO PROVE THAT THE SERVICE IS IN FACT BAD ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN BUILD THIS TO OUR THAT BUILD THIS TOWER. IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE CONCERN EXPRESSED HERE -- WE DON'T BUILD TOWERS BECAUSE WE HAVE EXTRA CASH AND FEEL LIKE THROWING UP SOME TOWERS. WHAT IS AGGRAVATING IS THAT THE ENGINEERS SAY, WELL, SHOW US YOUR RADIOFREQUENCY COVERAGE MAPS PROVE THAT THERE IS A WHOLE HERE. IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE COVERAGE. BUT MY FOCUS IS ON A SEPARATE THING, UTILITY POLE, AUTHORITY POLL, AND HONESTLY, THE WAY THIS READS IS IT IS A LITTLE HARD TO KNOW FOR SURE HOW THE DEFINITIONS PLAY OUT. AS I LOOK THROUGH THE EFFORT, TRY TO READ IT CLOSELY, THE WAY TO DEAL WITH UTILITY POLE ISSUE IS TO ADDRESS IT WITH THE AUTHORITY POLLE, THE LATEST TRANSLATE IN ARTICLE NINE -- THE LATEST TRANSLATE IN ARTICLE NINE IS TO TALK ABOUT THE CHILE PEOPLE ON BY THE AUTHORITY -- UTILITY POLE OWNED BY THE AUTHORITY. IT MAY BE -- I WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE DOUBLE-CHECK ME HERE -- IT MAY BE A WAY TO FIX THIS IS TO CHANGE THE AUTHORITY POLE TO INCLUDE STREETLIGHTS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS FROM OTHER VERTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OWNED BY THE CITY. BUT RATHER THAN TRYING TO REDEFINE WHAT THE UTILITY POLE IS CAN LET'S DEFINE WHAT THE AUTHORITY POLE IS, BECAUSE FOR THE MOST PART ARTICLE NINE IS ADDRESSING AUTHORITY POLES, IT MAKES REFERENCE TO UTILITY POLES, BUT MORE IN AN INDIRECT SENSE. I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. >> WE ARE VERY OPEN TO SUGGESTION. CHARLES I WOULD ASK THAT YOU SUBMIT SOME LANGUAGE TO ME. >> I RESPECTFULLY CHALLENGE THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT THIS LANGUAGE RETAINS LOCAL CONTROL WHEN YOU HAVE THREE PAGES OF WHAT YOU CAN'T DO. PARAGRAPH SEVEN, THE UTILITY POLES -- WE ARE NOT HITTING THE MARK HERE. I THINK MY FRIEND -- I CANNOT READ HER NAME TAG HERE -- MAY HAVE HAD A GREAT IDEA THAT WE DEFINE POLES AS ANY POLE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT WOULD GIVE US A MORE BALANCED APPROACH AND SPEED THE DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND. >> I THINK ALAN WILL RESPOND -- [LAUGHTER] YOU CAN GO AHEAD. >> THE INVESTOR UTILITIES ARE ALREADY REGULATED. ONE SET OF REGULATIONS IS ENOUGH. THAT IS PLENTY. IF THESE ARE STATE REGULATED, YOU WOULD HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED. THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. WHEN YOU ARE IN THE FCC-REGULATED STATE, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT PEOPLE ARE USING TO DEPLOY ALREADY AND BRING IN ANOTHER SET OF RULES IS NOT GOING TO SPEED UP DEPLOYMENT. >> THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE ABOUT THE CHALLENGE I HAVE WITH THIS DOCUMENT IS THAT BY CREATING MULTIPLE EXEMPTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE DIFFERENT CLASSES, WE ARE NOT ACHIEVING THE GOAL OF SPEEDING AVAILABLE, AFFORDABLE BROADBAND ACROSS THE NATION. WE NEED ONE SET OF RULES THAT WILL APPLY TO EVERYBODY. THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE CONFUSION. THE CONFUSION, WE WOULD SIT DOWN AND ARGUE THAT WE TOOK OUR DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS OFF AND SAY ONE SET OF RULES ACROSS ALL INFRASTRUCTURE IS WHAT WE ARE AFTER. >> WE ARE, WE ARE DEPLOYING BROADBAND TODAY. >> ONLY TO THAT POINT AND THEN WE WILL GO OVER TO CHRIS. THERE ARE SOME STATES THAT ARE NOT FCC-REGULATED. THE STATES THAT ARE NOT FCC-REGULATED NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES, WHICH GOES BACK TO DAVID YOUNG'S POINT. WE SHOULD TAKE THAT QUESTION UP. >> TRADITIONALLY THE FCC HASN'T EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER STREETLIGHTS. IF YOU WANT TO GET MORE DEPLOYMENT, YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE STUFF TO DEPLOY BROADBAND ON, AND IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS, THE ONLY VERTICAL STRUCTURES ARE STREETLIGHTS OR TRAFFIC LIGHTS, FOR THE MOST PART. WE WILL NOT ACHIEVE OUR SOCIETAL GOAL OF GETTING MULTIPLE COMPETITIVE, AVAILABLE, AFFORDABLE BROADBAND IF WE DON'T HAVE DEPLOYMENT WHERE YOU NEED IT. YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE IT ON THE STREETLIGHTS. THE OTHER PLACE YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT IS WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE HOUSE AND UTILITIES ARE IN THE FRONT YARD OR THE BACKYARD, YOU HAVE CABLE TV IN THE FRONT YARD WITH A BACKYARD, MULTIPLE WIRELESS DEVICES, YOU NEED THE SMALL CELLS TO GO. IN THE SECTION HERE, THEY CARVED OUT THE REAR EASEMENTS, THE PRIVATE EASEMENTS, AND CABLE HAS DEPLOYED ON THE REAR EASEMENTS, AND WIRELESS NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DEPLOY ON THE REAR IS MINCED LIKEWISE BECAUSE THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT NEIGHBORHOODS CERTIFIED BY THE BACKYARD UTILITIES. ON THE QUALITY-OF-SERVICES SHOULD WIRELESS CARRIERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO MUNICIPAL OR STATE REGULATION AND QUALITY SERVICE. WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO START THAT. WE THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS REMOVING THE BARRIERS TO DEPLOYMENT AND NOT SETTING UP QUALITY OF SERVICE. WHAT IF YOU GOT A SURGE OF APPLICATIONS, THE CIRCUIT BREAKER LANGUAGE AND A LOT OF STATE BILLS FROM YOU CAN APPLICATIONS IN A CERTAIN ROLLINGPERIOD, YOU ADD ONTO THE EXTENSION, WHICH IS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION, AND WE CAN GET YOU LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT. I WOULDN'T AGREE ON THE AUTHORITY POLE. THE SOLUTION IS TO FIX IT ON THE UTILITY POLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS ON BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE COMPANY. YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEPLOY ON IT. I DON'T THINK THE FCC PROBABLY HAS JURISDICTION TO COMPEL THAT. SINCE THIS IS A CODE THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO DO, THE FCC COULD RECOMMEND TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT WHOEVER OWNS THE STREETLIGHT COULD LET THE WIRELESS BE DEPLOYED ON IT. THAT IS THE TICKET AS TO WHY WE WOULD DO THIS AND WHY HISTORICALLY THE FCC HAS NOT DONE THIS. 2.5, JUST AN ODD SENTENCE AT THE END WHERE THEY START TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT LIMIT. YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE PARAMETERS. IT MAY APPROVE DIFFERENT ONES. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE KIND OF INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT THAT THEY MAY OR THEY CAN -- IT WAS A LITTLE WEIRD. ON 3.1 ON THE PERMITTING FEES, I UNDERSTAND THAT SMALL CITIES HAVE TO DO ENGINEERING ANALYSES ABOUT WHAT IS THE LOAD -- THIS IS DEALT WITH WELL IN THE MINUTES OF -- MUNICIPAL. IF THEY DO A LARGE AMOUNT OF APPLICATIONS THEY HAVE TO DO LOW STRESS ANALYSES. THAT IS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE. THERE ARE CONSULTANTS TO INTERJECT THEMSELVES BETWEEN CARRIERS AND PROVIDING SERVICE AND MUNICIPALITIES. SOMETIMES QUITE CONSIDERABLE AMOUNTS, WHICH ARE A REAL DRAG ON THE PROCESS. THAT IS WHAT SOME OF THE THIRD-PARTY FEE PROHIBITIONS ARE GETTING AFTER, PARTICULARLY RECURRING ONES. THAT IS VERY MUCH A CONCERN FOR US. AND I THINK SECTION SEVEN WAS THE PRIVATELY OWNED STRUCTURES AND PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSENT TO THE OWNER. THE BACKYARD EASEMENT ISSUE. THOSE WERE MY CONCERNS. >> THANK YOU. MARY, WE WILL TAKE YOUR COMMENTS, AND THAT WILL BE THE LAST. >> MY CARD IS THE ONLY ONE REMAINING. SOME OF THE POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT PERMITTING FEES -- I JUST THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE THIRD-PARTY ISSUE NOT BEING ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT, AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY. FOR INSTANCE, IT SAYS REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION, MANY GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT OUTSOURCING PLAN REVIEW. PLAN REVIEW COULD BE DIFFERENT THAN REVIEWING A TYPICAL APPLICATION. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. ALSO IN PERMITTING AND INSPECTIONS COULDN'T MANY CITIES ARE OUTSOURCING TO PRIVATE COMPANIES. THE THIRD-PARTY DID ACTUALLY DO THE INSPECTIONS -- WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL AND NOT WRITE THIS IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE NOT PROHIBIT BEHAVIOR THAT EXPEDITES PERMITTING BY BASICALLY SAYING ONLY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF CAN DO THESE THINGS. THEY NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE. THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE RECOVERY, JUST THE TERMINOLOGY CONCERNS ME, BUT EVEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE, IT CAN BE ACTUAL COST. IT IS ACTUAL COST IT CANNOT BE FOR DOUBLE RECOVERY. BUT THE COST OF AN APPLICATION IS THE COST OF AN APPLICATION. LIKEWISE OF ISSUING A PERMIT. I THINK -- I DON'T THINK THOSE PHRASES SHOULD BE IN THE EXAMPLE OF DOUBLE RECOVERY. DAVID HAS BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT HELEN AND TREATING EVERYONE THE SAME WAY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. WE DON'T SUGGEST THAT A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT INSTALLS THE TOWER AND HAS THE COST OF PUTTING IT UP STARTS WITH ONE COMPANY PUTTING THE ANTENNA ON IT AND FIVE OTHERS IN THE FUTURE DECIDE TO PUT AN ANTENNA ON THOSE, THOSE WOULD ALL BE CONSIDERED DOUBLE RECOVERY AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET COMPENSATED FOR THEM. WE NEED BALANCE AND HOW WE LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND NOT THE ARBITRARY. IDENTICAL WAS THE POINT AND HE MADE. THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IN SAINT ACTUAL COST OF HAVING A CAP. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IF COST IS COST, YOU CANNOT HAVE THE CAP. THE FINAL POINT IS ON PROHIBITING THE USE OF A FRANCHISE-TYPE MODEL OR A MODEL BASED ON REVENUE OR CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS. THAT SEEMS TO SORT OF PREDETERMINED AND IT IS INCONSISTENT IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN AROUND THE COUNTRY. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD EXCLUDE MODELS BEFORE WE FULLY ANALYZE THEM. >> OK, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. IT IS ONE: 20 -- IT IS 1:20 --OH, YEAH, GO AHEAD. >> LET ME GO TO THE DECK REAL QUICK. >> OK, SO IT IS 1:21. WE HAVE ACTUALLY SOME FAIRLY CONTROVERSIAL THINGS TO DISCUSS WHEN WE COME BACK FROM THE WOULD ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 MINUTES TO DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT PEOPLE GIVE THEIR COMMENTS SORT OF HIGH-LEVEL CONCERN AND NOT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE CONCERNS, AND IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE CONCERNS, GIVE THOSE TO KELLY AND LET THEM TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT AS WE GO THROUGH THE REROUTE AND RECONCILIATION PROCESS. IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS OVER CONCEPTS OR ISSUES OR THINGS LIKE THAT, I THINK THE LAST DISCUSSION WAS EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE ABOUT ARTICLE NINE AND I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE SIMILAR LEVELS OF CONCERNS IN ARTICLES 10 AND 11, AND 12, ACTUALLY, THE REST OF IT. WE ARE SHORT ON TIME. ALL OF THAT STUFF. LET'S BREAK FOR LUNCH AND TRY TO BE BACK IN OUR SEATS BY 2:00, IF THAT IS POSSIBLE. WE WILL HAVE 30 MORE MINUTES OF STATE MODEL CODE AND THEN MOVED TO MUNICIPAL CODE. >> WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO START CALLING PEOPLE OUT. OK. OK KELLY, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET STARTED. THIS IS ME GAVELLING IT IN, BACK IN SESSION. >> WHERE IS YOUR GAVEL? >> IT DIDN'T MAKE IT DOWN, BUT I'LL HAVE IT NEXT TIME BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE TIME TO -- >> OK, IS THERE SOMEBODY BACK THERE THAT CAN WORK -- THERE YOU GO. SO JUST SHOWING YOU A COUPLE OF SMALL CELL DEPLOYMENTS ON COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA, I BELIEVE, AND THEN DOWN IN SOUTHERN LOUISIANA, SMALL CELLS HERE AND HERE AND THEN HERE IS ANOTHER ONE, I BELIEVE, THAT'S GOING DOWN CANAL STREET IN NEW ORLEANS THERE. AND JUST -- AND THAT'S IT. OK, SO ARTICLE 10 STATE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, ARTICLE 11, BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT, ASSISTANT FUND AND ARTICLE 12, RURAL MUNICIPAL HOME BROADBAND NETWORKS WILL BE PRESENTED BY DR. TOM SLOAN WHO IS A LONGTIME STATE LEGISLATOR IN THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE. >> THANK YOU, AND I'M ASSUMING ALL OF YOU CAN READ THE SLIDES, IF YOU NEED IT TRANSLATED INTO WHATEVER STATE LANGUAGE YOU USE FROMKANSANS, LET ME NOW. THE INTENT OF HAVING THE STATEWIDE FRANCHISE OPTION AND I REPEAT, IT'S AN OPTION, IT'S NOT MANDATED IS PARTICULARLY EARMARKED TOWARD RURAL AREAS, LOW POPULATION DENSITY, THE HIGH COST DEPLOYMENT AND THAT IF YOU CAN AGGREGATE CUSTOMERS OVER A LARGER AREA, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO AFFORD MORE DEPLOYMENTS. AND SO WE ALSO ARE DEALING WITH THE EXPEDITED NATURE OF STATEWIDE FRANCHISE PROCESS. YOU GOT TO NOTIFY AN APPLICANT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THEIR APPLICATION IS COMPLETE OR NOT. THE STATE AUTHORITY, WHETHER THAT'S THE EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY OR SOMETHING ELSE, HAS 180 DAYS TO MAKE A DECISION, PREFERABLYLESS. WE ESTABLISHED THAT NO MUNICIPALITY DEFINED CAN IMPOSE ANY OTHER UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN WHAT THE STATE DOES, AND IN EFFECT, WE HAVE CREATED THAT ONE STOP APPROVAL PROCESS WHERE INSTEAD OF NEGOTIATING WITH A CITY LIKE LENEXA, YOU WOULD BE NEGOTIATING WITH SMALL TOWNS AND MAYBE UNDER500 PEOPLE, COUNTY COMMISSIONS, TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONERS, OTHER PUBLIC GROUPS, SO WE WOULD HAVE THE STATE IN EFFECT ASSUME THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND THEREFORE WE WOULD HAVE ONE STANDARD FOR ACCESSING RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND ONE ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BROADBAND PROVIDER AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CUSTOMERS. YOU KNOW, IT'S SIMILAR IN CONCEPT TO WHAT A NUMBER OF STATES HAVE DONE ON STATEWIDE VIDEO FRANCHISE AUTHORITY. MADAM CHAIRMAN, I WILL RESPOND TO QUESTIONS. >> COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS? >> I LOVE IT, THEY'RE STILL AT LUNCH, OH, DARN. >> TOM, YOUR NEIGHBOR FROM THE NORTH. >> I KNOW, YEAH. >> YOU'RE MY GOOD FRIEND, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING TODAY AND PRESENTING ON THIS ISSUE. I THINK THIS REALLY GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. IF THIS WAS A BROADBAND FRANCHISE AND A STATE FRANCHISE FOR BROADBAND ONLY, FINE. >> IT IS. >> BUT THE WAY THIS IS DEFINED, IT'S CABLE, BROADBAND, TELEPHONE, WIRELESS, SATELLITE SERVICE, BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION IN THE FIRST SECTION HERE THAT SAYS A PROVIDER, I'M FLIPPING BACK TO IT AT THE MOMENT. ONE OR MORE TYPES OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES, THEY CAN GO STATEWIDE FRANCHISE FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS. IT REALLY GOES TO THE POINT OF ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND OR TRYING TO DO STATEWIDE FRANCHISES FOR CABLE? I REALLY HAVEN'T SEEN ANY STUDY OR DOCUMENTATION WHERE STATEWIDE FRANCHISES ARE ENCOURAGING THE DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND. I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW -- >> MADAM CHAIRMAN, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. WE'RE NOT ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR BROADBAND FOR SATELLITE OR TRADITIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICE OR WIRELESS SERVICE OR ANY OF THE OTHER STUFF. YOU HAVE TO BE PROVIDING BROADBAND SERVICE AS DEFINED AS 253 AND A BUNCH OF OTHER FACTORS. AND IT'S TARGETED TO RURAL AREAS. NOW, THERE IS NO STATEWIDE FRANCHISE, THERE IS NO HISTORY OF THIS IMPROVING THINGS. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE AND THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE TO NEGOTIATE FRANCHISES ON A CITY BY CITY BASIS, WE'RE SAYING THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO INTO JUST SAY SIX COUNTIES OF RURAL NORTH DAKOTA OR KANSAS OR ANY OTHER STATE, YOU WOULD BE DEALING WITH CITY COMMISSIONS OF PROBABLY, IN KANSAS, IF IT WERE SIX COUNTIES, YOU WOULD HAVE AT LEAST 12, WHAT WE WOULD CALL CITIES AND A CITY IN MY AREA IS 500 PEOPLE OR LESS. YOU WOULD BE DEALING WITH SIX COUNTY COMMISSIONS. YOU WOULD BE DEALING WITH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TOWNSHIP BOARDS. SO WE'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO DO THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT BASIS, LET'S GO FOR A STATEWIDE, YOU DEFINE THE STATE AS WE LOOK AT IT, CAN DEFINE THE AREA, THE PROVIDER CAN DEFINE OR SUGGEST AN AREA. IT ONLY IS FOR BROADBAND SERVICES. >> THE LANGUAGE I'M READING SAYS ONE OR MORE TYPES OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES. I AGREE WITH YOUR INTENT. >> I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO RUN FIBER A CERTAIN DISTANCE AND THEN PUT A WIRELESS SYSTEM AT THE END OF THAT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE BEING AS AS TECHNOLOGICALLY AS NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF BROADBAND. SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS -- >> NO, LARRY HAS A QUESTION. >> I'M SORRY. [LAUGHTER] >> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT UNSERVED AND UNDERSERVED AREAS, I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO THAT. BUT REALLY THIS IS A PREEMPTION ORDINANCE, WE WORK TO DEVELOP A MODEL MUNICIPAL CODE THAT IS REALLY GOOD, MY PREFERENCE WOULD YOU WOULD HAVE A STATE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AS A FALLBACK IF IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE SO THAT BUSINESS CAN CONTINUE, YOU SHOULDN'T BE HELD UP BECAUSE A COMMUNITY HAS CHOSEN NOT TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE OR NOT TO HAVE A POLICY, BUT TO SUPERSEDE EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND INCLUDING THE MODEL MUNICIPAL CODE WE WORKED REALLY HARD ON WITH MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION CONCERNS ME. THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME WAS SOME OF THE STATE MODEL AGREEMENTS, IT'S INTERESTING THAT IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE BUT THE STATE. TO CHRIS' POINT EARLIER AND DAVID'S POINT IF WE REALLY TRULY WANT ROBUST AND FULL SERVICE BROADBAND COVERAGE EVERYWHERE, I WOULD WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE STATE IS INCLUDING ITS OWN RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THIS AGREEMENT AND NOT JUST THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, SO I WOULD SUGGEST UNDER 2.2, THE NEXT TO LAST SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO ACCESS TO STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE STATE SHOULD WANT TO MANAGE LOCAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND NOT INCLUDE THEIR OWN RIGHTS-OF-WAYS IN THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY'RE ALSO NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT AS A COMMITTEE. AND THEN FINALLY, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME, I'M SURE IT'S THE INTENT, BUT THE COMPENSATION, IF THE STATE HAS A RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGER AND THE STATE'S OWN ROADS IN THIS, THAT CONCERNS ME, BUT THE COMPENSATION IS NOT CLEAR THAT IT WOULD ACCRUE TO THE OWNER OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO IN OTHER WORDS IT TALKS ABOUT A STATE DETERMINING FEES AND COLLECTING FEES, BUT WE NEED TO BE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT IF IT'S A LOCAL RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THERE IS COMPENSATION FOR IT, IT DOSE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT TO THE STATE. >> KELLY. >> SO TO DAVID'S COMMENT AND TO LARRY'S COMMENT, THOSE ARE, I THINK WELL TAKEN. JUST SOME ANECDOTAL, WE HEARD A LOT OF STORIES, WE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT WE DO HAVE -- THERE IS A COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE AT LEAST IN FLORIDA WE KNOW AND THAT AREA, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH EVERY MUNICIPALITY. IN YOU'RE A COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER, YOU PAY THE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE TAX AND YOU ARE THEN IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT MODEL, FRANKLY, IS A BARRIER. I HAVE TOLD THIS STORY BEFORE, BUT IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, WE HAD TO NEGOTIATE 48 FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH 48 SEPARATE MUNICIPALITIES.48 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, ATTORNEYS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, TO GET A MUNICIPALITY TO ENTER A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH US, WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. IT'S A BARRIER TO OTHER COMPETITORS COMING IN AND TRYING TO COMPETE WITH US BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE THREE TO FOUR YEARS OF HOOPS THAT WE'VE HAD TO JUMP THROUGH TO GET ALL OF THAT IN PLACE. THAT'S AN ASSET OF OUR COMPANY WE'VE DEVELOPED, BUT OTHERS HAVE NOT. SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE COMPETITION AND IF WE'RE TRYING TO PROMOTE MORE CONNECTIVITY, WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THOSE BARRIERS AND REMOVE THEM, AND WE SEE THOSE AS, LOCAL MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AS A BARRIER, ESPECIALLY WHEN TYPICALLY IT TAKES THREE TO -- AT LEAST 60 DAYS TO 120 DAYS OR LONGER TO NEGOTIATE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, GET IT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEN GO FORWARD ON THAT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN STATES WHERE WE DO OPERATE PURSUANT TO THE STATEWIDE FRANCHISE, WE SIMPLY MOVE IN, WE BEGIN PAYING THE COMMUNICATION SERVICE TAX AND THE COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDER IS QUICKLY IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DEPLOYING OUT THE CONNECTIVITY. >> SO THE FEES THAT YOU PAY, THE COMMUNICATION SERVICE FEES WHO -- WHERE DO THOSE GO? >> THEY GO TO THE STATE AND THEN THE STATE DOES PAY THOSE OUT TO THE VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES PURSUANT TO WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BUILT. >> SO WOULD A MODEL WORK WHERE YOU HAD A STATEWIDE FRANCHISE GRANT, BUT THE FEES UNDER THE FRANCHISE WERE PAID DIRECTLY TO THE MUNICIPALITIES AS OPPOSED TO STATE? >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT STRUCTURE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M AGAINST IT. >> I'M CURIOUS, I DON'T DO FRANCHISE. >> I'M AWARE OF IT'S PAID TO THE STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE OR THE STATE AND SOME ENTITY AND THEY IN TURN PAY THAT MONEY OUT TO THE VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES. >> THE OTHER POINT THAT DAVID MADE IS THAT IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THIS ONLY APPLIES TO BROADBAND AND USURPING EXISTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS THAT MAY BE OUT THERE, DID I UNDERSTAND, TOM, THAT IS THE INTENT? >> THE INTENT IS NOT TO USURP EXISTING FRANCHISES. IT'S TO DEAL WITH THE MULTIPLE SMALL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULDN'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO ANY OF THE STUDIES. >> DOES THERE NEED TO BE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT MAKES IT CLEAR IT'S NOT -- I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN -- >> WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT IN LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT THIS DOES NOT OVERRIDE OR USURP AN EXISTING FRANCHISE. AS I SAID, THIS ISOPTIONAL, ANYWAY. AND THEN ELSEWHERE IN HERE, PARTICULARLY UNDER THE DARK FIBER AREA, WE TALK ABOUT STATE FIBER BEING ACCESSIBLE TO PROVIDERS, SO, AGAIN, THE INTENT TO THE WHOLE DOCUMENT AND CERTAINLY IN THIS SECTION IS THE STATE IS NOT EXEMPTING ITSELF FROM ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AND, YEAH, YOU HAVE ALREADY RAISED WITH KELLY THE ISSUE OF WHERE FEES ARE PAID. YOU COULD THROUGH EITHER STATUE OR RULES AND REGULATIONS SAY THAT THE MONEY IS PAID DIRECTLY TO THE AFFECTED GOVERNMENTAL THOUGH MOST PROVIDERS WANT TO WRITE ONE CHECK AND YOU WRITE THAT TO THE STATE AND THEN THE STATE WOULD CUT MULTIPLE CHECKS. >> AND IN THAT MODEL, DOES THE STATE THEN TAKE A PART OF THAT BEFORE -- >> WE GENERALLY DON'T. WE JUST PASS THROUGH. I MEAN, THAT'S A HECK OF AN IDEA, YOU KNOW. >> THAT WAS NOT AN IDEA. IT WAS A QUESTION. >> THE NORMAL PROCESS IS WE SIMPLY ACT AS THE PASSTHROUGH. IT'S CLEARLY, IT'S A CLEARINGHOUSE AS KELLY SAID, BUT AT&T OR SOMEBODY WOULD WRITE ONE CHECK TO THE STATE. WE DO THE SAME THING ON, I THINK FOR RAILROADS WHO PAY PROPERTY TAXES ACROSS MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS, I THINK THEY WRITE ONE CHECK AND WE DISTRIBUTE IT. >> OK, SO THE REASON THAT I WAS ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS IS THAT AS I THINK YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT GETS BROUGHT UP ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS AS BEING KIND OF CONTENTIOUS BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL PREEMPTION OF STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITY. I WOULD SUGGEST WE HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS PROVISION. THERE ARE VERY SERIOUS PROS AND CONS WHY TO STREAMLINE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT. IF WE CAN FIND A MODEL THAT WORKS THAT STREAMLINE IN THE WAY WE WANT TO STREAMLINE BUT DOESN'T INJURY THE MUNICIPALITIES LOCAL CONTROL AND THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE FEES FOR THE USE OF THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE AIMING FOR, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE AIMING FOR IN THIS PROVISION. I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION FROM YOU, SO THANK YOU. >> PERHAPS, MADAM CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE THREE CLASSES OF CITIES. FIRST CLASS TEND TO BE, AT LEAST IN MY STATE, I THINK IT'S 5,000 PEOPLE OR MORE. MOST PLACES, THAT'S A SMALL TOWN. SO MAYBE THE CLARIFICATION IS CITIES OF THE FIRST CLASS NEGOTIATE THEIR OWN FRANCHISES IF THEY WISH. CITIES OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CLASS, LITTLE GUYS COULD FALL UNDER A STATEPREEMPTION. THAT IS STUFF TO BE DISCUSSED, WAYS TO DIFFERENTIATE. CERTAINLY THERE WAS NO INTERNT TO USURP AN EXISTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. >> THANK YOU. ARTICLE 11. SORRY, TOM. >> I WAS JUST WONDERING, GIVEN KELLY'S EXAMPLE, I'M SURE I COULD PROBABLY DIG UP EXAMPLES OF T.D.S., IT SEEMS LIKE THE VALUE OF THE STATE FRANCHISE IS YOU CAN GO INTO ONE PLACE AND GET IT ALL DONE. IF IT DOESN'T USURP MUNICIPAL CODES AND EVERYTHING, THEN YOU KIND OF LOSE A LOT OF THE VALUE. IF IT'S ONLY FOR THE PLACES THAT DON'T HAVE CODES OR DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO SMALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN YOU'RE KIND OF IN AN IN BETWEEN WORLD WHERE I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED. I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT. >> MADAM CHAIRMAN, ON THAT ONE, THIS AND THE SUBSEQUENT ARTICLES FOCUS ON RURAL AREAS. IF YOU HAVE GOT A MUNICIPALITY, THERE ARE PROVIDERS IN A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, JIM. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE IT OR HAVE INADEQUATE SERVICE WHICH DOESN'T LET YOU DO MUCH. YEAH, WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION AS YOU WISH, BUT I'M TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF YOUR TIME. WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA OR SOMEPLACE LIKE THAT OR SIOUX FALLS. THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE IT ON THEIR OWN. WE'RE LOOKING AT A PLACE IN KANSAS, POPULATION 800 AND ALL OF THE SURROUNDING FARMS. >> MARK. >> I'M NOT ONE TO USUALLY STICK UP FOR INCUMBENTS, BUT IF AN INCUMBENT HAS AN EXISTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT IN PLACE THAT IS NOT OVERRIDDEN BY THE STATE FRANCHISE ACT, A NEW ENTRANT IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER THAT INCUMBENT WHO IS IN A LEGACY AGREEMENT. IN MICHIGAN, WE HAVE SEEN LEGACY AGREEMENTS HAVE A HIGHER RATE STRUCTURE THAN THE MICHIGAN UNIFORM FRANCHISE ACT THAT WAS PASSED IN 2006. SO IT'S GOING TO BE AN UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD IF IT DOESN'T APPLY TO EVERYBODY. >> SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, IF I MAY, THAT WE TAKE THE REST OF THIS DISCUSSION OFFLINE WITH THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE AND KIND OF TALK THROUGH THESE SORT OF MEATY ISSUES AND SEE IF WE CAN ARRIVE AT SOMETHING THAT WORKS. THERE IS AN INTERPLAY BETWEEN THIS PROVISION AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT WE NEED TO EXPLORE MORE FULLY THAT WE CAN IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE HAVE. >> YOU'VE GOT THE VOTING RECORD SOMEWHERE. THERE WE GO. YOU CAN SEE THE VOTING, 17 IN FAVOR, THREE DISSENTED, ONE ABSTAINED AND ANOTHER PICTURE OF CHAIRMAN PAI, YOU KNOW, AT THE CONTROLS OF A BORING DEVICE AS OPPOSED TO THE CHAIRMAN BEING A BORING PERSON. YEAH. ALL RIGHT, ARTICLE 11. >> I THINK ALL OF US AGREE THAT FUNDING IS KEY TO RURAL DEPLOYMENT, THAT POPULATION DENSITY FACTOR IS OFTEN THE ECONOMICS, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THAT POPULATION MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO COST-EFFECTIVELY DEPLOY TO THEM. THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE BASICALLY IS SUBSIDIZING ITS RURAL ROOTS BY HAVING THE URBANITES PAY MORE FOR THEIR POSTAGE STAMPS THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE. THE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES OF WHICH I AM A CUSTOMER, ONE, GENERALLY HAVE HIGHER RATES THAN I.O.U.S BECAUSE THEY HAVE HIGHER COSTS. STATE SUBDY DIES RURAL SCHOOLS MORE THAN THE URBAN SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF THE TAX RATE BASE DIFFERENCES. WE'RE SUGGESTING HERE THAT FOR THOSE STATES TO HAVE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUNDS OF THEIR OWN, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO WAYS TO GO ABOUT GETTING MORE FUNDS INTO THAT STATE U.S.F. ONE IS TO HAVE A SALES TAX ON SUBSCRIPTION-BASED CONTENT PROVIDERS. THE SECOND ONE IS TO SAY THAT THE SUBSCRIPTION-BASED CONTENT PROVIDERS ARE IN A LOT OF WAYS THE COST DRIVERS, THE CONSUMER WANTS ACCESS TO NETFLIX OR AMAZON PRIME OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE. FROM A RURAL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S MORE THAN JUST THOSE MOVIE STREAMING SERVICES. IT'S THERE ARE LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS THAT ARE STREAMED. IN FACT, I WAS -- WE HAVE A REGISTERED SHEEP FARM AMONG OTHER ENTERPRISES AND I WAS AT A SHEEP SALE IN NORTH DAKOTA. MY WIFE WAS HOME IN KANSAS. SHE COULD WATCH THE SALE. SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER WE HAD BOUGHT THE ANIMALS, BUT SHE COULD SEE THE ANIMALS AND SHE KNEW WHICH ONES WE WERE INTERESTED IN. THAT TAKES BANDWIDTH. IT'S AN ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR RURAL AREAS. ALSO, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE TRYING TO COMPETE ON A STATEWIDE OR NATIONAL BASIS OR INTERNATIONALLY NEED TO HAVE BANDWIDTH. SO WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO WAYS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO THAT STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND WE'RE NOT LIMITING IT TO THOSE TWO, IF THERE ARE OTHER SUGGESTIONS, WE'RE OPEN TO IT AND THE STATES WOULD BE OPEN TO IT. AND THEN THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE USED TO SUPPORT DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND AGAIN ON A TECHNOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL BASIS. THEY WOULD BE GEARED TO A PROCESS, AN APPLICATIONPROCESS, IF YOU WILL, THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF DOING IT, WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT, WHAT IS YOUR MARKETING PLAN GOING TO BE SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET CUSTOMERS AND THE SUBSIDY WON'T JUST BE WASTED. HOW MUCH TIME IS IT GOING TO TAKE YOU TO BUILD OUT, ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE LAY OUT HERE, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT SO MUCH PRESCRIPTIVE AS IT IS ILLUSTRATIVE. THE OBJECTIVE IS THAT WE GET MORE MONEY TO SUPPORT DEPLOYMENT. WE DON'T TALK ABOUT SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL COSTS. WE TALK ONLY ABOUT SUPPORTING DEPLOYMENT COSTS. I'LL TAKE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> KELLY. >> I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT QUICKLY ON 1.1. THE LANGUAGE THAT I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING ON A STATE LEVEL AND I RECOMMENDED THIS LANGUAGE ACTUALLY, BUT WHEN WE DID OUR STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUNDS REVISION LAST YEAR, THE HARDEST PLAN CONTENTION WAS HOW THAT FEE WAS GOING TO BE COLLECTED. AND THERE WAS, THERE WAS NOT CLARITY ON IF OUR STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE FEE AND SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE OF ALLOWING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENGAGE IN A RULE-MAKING PROCESS IS HELPFUL ON TWO FRONTS IN THAT, FIRST OF ALL, IT DOES GIVE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY TO COME UP WITH A RATE AND IT ALSO ALLOWED OUR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO SPEND A GOOD YEAR OR SO WORKING WITH THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS TO FIGURE OUT THAT METHODOLOGY WHICH WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM STATE TO STATE. I THINK THAT THIS LANGUAGE GIVES SOME FLEXIBILITY AND I APPRECIATE ALLOWING THAT INCLUSION JUST BASED ON THESE VARIANTS THAT WE HAD RECENTLY. >> THANK YOU, GO AHEAD. >> KELLY, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ASPECT, BUT ON BEHALF OF NRCA WHICH REPRESENTS RURAL COMMUNITIES, WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THIS SECTION AND THIS ARTICLE. WE WANT TO THANK EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE TO WORK WITH US ON THIS AND WE BROADEN OUT THE ENTITIES THAT COULD PARTICIPATE IN THIS. WE WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF AND GREATLY APPRECIATE THIS. OBVIOUSLY WE CAN TALK ABOUT -- I AGREE THE PAYMENT INTO IT IS GOING TO BE THE BIG FIGHT, BUT I THINK WE DID PUT A GOOD FOOT FORWARD HERE AND I THINK IT'S A VERY POSITIVE INCLUSION AND SOMETHING THAT WE FULLY SUPPORTED AND WILL VOTE ON WHENEVER WE GET AROUND TO A VOTE TO SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU, CHRIS. >> KELLY, I THINK YOUR POINT ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATORS, THE BROADBAND CZAR, WHATEVER, THE ENTITY'S JURISDICTION AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE P.U.C., DO THEY OVERLAP, DO THEY NOT MEET, DO THEY DUPLICATE IS THE ISSUE. TOM, YOU HAD THE ISSUE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE FUNDED BY A SUBSCRIPTION-BASED SERVICE, A TAX ON SUBSCRIPTION-BASED SERVICE? >> THAT IS A PROPOSAL. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING BETTER, WE'RE AMENABLE TO CONSIDERING THAT. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS. >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT FROM BROADBAND WOULD PAY FOR THIS. SO CUSTOMERS WHO SUBSCRIBE TO NETFLIX WOULD PAY, BUT PEOPLE WHO USE AMAZON OR USE GOOGLE OR USE FACEBOOK OR YOUTUBE WOULD NOT PAY BECAUSE THOSE ARE ADVERTISER SUPPORTED, NOT SUBSCRIPTIONS? >> INTERESTING. WE DIDN'T APPROACH IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. NO, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD SUBSCRIBE TO HULU, BECOME A MEMBER, SOMEHOW YOU HAD SIGNED UP AND SO WE SAW ALL OF THOSE AS BEING A CATEGORY OF BOTH CUSTOMERS AND CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES, PERSONS IN THE LEGAL SENSE, WHO WERE BENEFITTING BUT NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEPLOYMENT. >> NO, I UNDERSTAND THE THING HERE, IT'S THAT THE MECHANISM SEEMS TO TAX THE WAY THAT THE SERVICE GENERATES ITS REVENUE. IF YOU GENERATE YOUR REVENUE FROM ADVERTISING, YOU GET A FREE RIDE. IF YOU GENERATE YOUR REVENUE FROM SUBSCRIPTIONS, YOU WOULD GET TAXED. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A CONSCIOUS -- >> IT WAS NOT CONSCIOUS. IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE ASSUMING THAT YOU HAD SIGNED SOME KIND OF A CONTRACT TO PARTICIPATE AND THAT MAKES IT A SUBSCRIPTION-BASED SERVICE. >> AND NUMBER TWO, THERE IS THE EXCLUSION IF YOU HAVE A PHYSICAL CONNECTION TO THE CUSTOMER'S HOME AND YOU HAD TALKED EARLIER ABOUT RUNNING FIBER DOWN THE STREET AND THEN USING WIRELESS FOR THE LAST, SAY, 200 FEET WHICH I THINK IS A VERY REASONABLE SCENARIO LOWERING DEPLOYMENT COSTS. SO IF YOU HAD TWO PROVIDERS AND ONE RAN ALL THE WAY, FIBER ALL THE WAY TO THE HOUSE AND ONE STOPPED 250 FEET AWAY AND WENT WIRELESS, WOULD ONE PAY THE TAX AND ONE NOT PAY THE TAX? >> WE BELIEVE THAT A PHYSICAL CONNECTION, IF THE COMPANY HAS INSTALLED OR I HAVE INSTALLED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE SERVICE A WIRELESS RECEIVER, THAT'S A PHYSICAL CONNECTION. SO THE INTENT IS THAT AS WITH TODAY, IF YOU ARE -- IF YOU ARE PROVIDING A SERVICE TO MY HOME OR BUSINESS, YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. FOR US PHYSICAL CONNECTION SIMPLY IS HOW ARE YOU RECEIVING THE SIGNAL. >> SO ESSENTIALLY IF THERE IS C.P.E., SO CUSTOMER PREMISES EQUIPMENT, THERE IS A SATELLITE DISH AT THE HOUSE, THEY WOULD PAY? >> IF IT'S BROADBAND. >> BROADBAND-BASED, YES. >> SO SOMETHING -- >> SATELLITE, SATELLITE INTERNET WOULD PAY THE TAX BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE EQUIPMENT INSTALLED AT THE HOUSE? >> SO, I THINK, IF I MAY, THAT THE WAY THAT THIS WAS CONCEPTUALIZED, I'M REENCAPSULATING, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, IF YOU ARE A BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDER AND YOU PROVIDE BROADBAND AS DEFINED IN THIS STATUTE, THEN YOU WOULD BE PAYING THE TAX. SO IF SATELLITE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, THEN, YES, THEY WOULD BE PAYING THE TAX. IF IT'S NOT BROADBAND SATELLITE, IF IT'S JUST WHAT THEY CURRENTLY DO WITH THE HIGH LATENCY -- >> WIRELESS WOULD BE EXEMPTED. >> IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED, BUT NOT EXCEPTED. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE U.S.F. RIGHT NOW, FEDERAL AND STATE, THE TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDERS PUT IN, THEY GET OUT IF THEY'RE AN E.T.C. FIXED WIRELESS PROVIDERS DO NOT CONTRIBUTE NOR DO THEY GET IT OUT UNLESS THEY GET THEMSELVES DECLARED AS AN E.T.C. BY THE STATE. THIS WOULD FLIP THAT BY THE STATE LEVEL, OK, IF YOU PUT IN, YOU CAN TAKE OUT. IT PROVIDES TO ANYONE PROVIDING A BROADBAND CONNECTION. IT WOULD INCLUDE FIXED WIRELESS, BROADBAND, IT WOULD INCLUDE EVERYBODY WHO IS PROVIDING BROADBAND TO THE HOME IN A FIXED LOCATION TO THE HOME. >> JUST MY LAST QUESTION, WHAT'S THE COORDINATION OF THIS STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND WITH THE FEDERAL, THE F.C.C.'S FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUNDS AND NOW THER.U.S. $600 MILLION OR SO GRANT PROGRAM, HOW WILL THIS BE COORDINATED SO WE DON'T HAVE WASTEFUL DUPLICATION. >> I FEEL LIKE IN UTAH, THE STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND IS A MAKE WHOLE FUND THAT HELPS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PART THAT IS NOT COVERED BY THE F.C.C. THAT'S DONE ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS. SOME STATES DON'T HAVE A UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND. IT'S VERY STATE TO STATE AND I THINK THE STATES DETERMINE HOW BIG THE FUND IS. THERE IS A LOT OF LOCAL CONTROL OVER THAT ISSUE. >> I'M NOT SAYING BY CLASS OF 1,000, $700 OF FEDERAL FUNDING, IF I AGREED TO DO A BILLOUT, IS THIS PROGRAM GOING TO THEN FUND, IS THE STATE FUND GOING TO THEN FINANCE SOMEBODY TO COME OVER BUILD ME WHERE IF THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME UP FRONT, I MIGHT NOT HAVE TAKEN THE OBLIGATIONS THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE PROGRAM. HOW DO WE STOP THEM FROM CRASHING TOGETHER INCONSISTENTLY, COUNTERPRODUCTIVELY? >> RECONCILIATION PROCESS, BUT THE INTENT IS WE'RE LOOKING AT RURAL AREAS WHERE THERE IS EITHER NO PROVIDER OR NO ONE WHO MEETS THE 25.3 IN LATENCY AND CAP NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR WORKING GROUP. SO AND WE SEE THAT 11 TIES IN WITH ARTICLE 10 WHERE YOU WOULD, IN EFFECT, BID TO SERVE IN AN AREA AND WOULD THEN BE ELIGIBLE TO SECURE THE STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND ASSISTANCE FOR THAT BUILDOUT. >> OK, WE HAVE ANDY. >> THIS IS MORE JUST INFORMATION, NUMBER TWO TALKS ABOUT THE FEE LEVEL FROM CURRENT PROVIDERS SHALL NOT BE INCREASED ABOVE 2017 ASSESSMENTS. AND I WROTE A NOTE THAT JUST EVER QUESTION MARK? >> WHAT SYSTEM? >> WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT BEING PUT IN THERE? >> IT WAS A CAREFULLY BALANCED STATEMENT BETWEEN THOSE WHO WANT TO HAVE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE IN THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND TO SUPPORT BROADBAND TO THOSE PARTICULARLY HIGH COST AREAS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE LOCAL TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDER, THE AT&TS, THE CENTURY LINKS, THE WHOMEVER CUSTOMERS PAYING MORE, THEY WANT TO HAVE THE SUBSCRIPTION-BASED CONTENT PROVIDERS TO CONTRIBUTE OR SOMEONE ELSE TO CONTRIBUTE. SO IT WAS A BALANCE OF COMPETING INTERESTS, IF YOU WILL. IT ALSO IS A RECOGNITION THAT MOST STATES DO NOT HAVE STATE GENERAL FUND MONIES AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT A LARGE SCALE BUILDOUT IN THOSE AREAS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS, YOU KNOW, INTERESTING IN BUILDING WALLS OR OTHER THINGS AND NOT NECESSARILY RURAL BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE. IT'S A BALANCE, GOOD, BAD, OR INDIFFERENT. >> YES, SIR. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU. YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT THOSE WHO PUT IN CAN TAKE OUT, IF YOU DON'T PUT IN, YOU DON'T TAKE OUT, I THINK. IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT, EVERYBODY CONTRIBUTES, ALL COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS, IS THAT RIGHT? SO WIRELESS THEY PUT IN, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BROADBAND. >> YOU CAN TAKE OUT IF YOU OFFER BROADBAND AS DEFINED IN THE DOCUMENT. >> WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TAKE OUT, BUT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PUT IN? >> OK, I DON'T KNOW. >> AS DRAFTED, YES. AGAIN THE IDEA IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS AS SMALL A FEE AS POSSIBLE BY SPREADING IT OUT OVER THE LARGEST NUMBER OF ENTITIES. >> WOULD THE SERVICE PROVIDER BE ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE? >> IF THEY'RE PROVIDING BROADBAND SERVICES, WE DIDN'T DIFFERENTIATE. WE DIDN'T ADDRESS IT, BUT WE DIDN'T DIFFERENTIATE. >> SO THE ISSUE THAT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS, WE NEED TO FLESH OUT THIS PROGRAM, WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT KIND OF MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHO CAN GIVE AND WHO CAN'T. THERE MAY NEED TO BE SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE NEEDED. THE WHOLE IS THE ADVERTISERS SUPPORTED SERVICES. TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT WE WERE AT LEAST WHEN I WAS APPROACHING THIS AND I WORKED WITH TOM ON THE RURAL SUBCOMMITTEE, THAT OUR INTENT WAS EVERYONE WHO BENEFITS FROM THE INTERNET ECOSYSTEM FROM A MONETARY STANDPOINT AND IT'S PRETTY EASY WHEN IT'S A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE TO TELL COMPANY X THAT IS CHARGING $7.99 A MONTH FOR STREAMING VIDEOS, THEY NEED TO CHARGE $-1 ASSESSMENT ON TOP, THAT'S EASY TO DO. THE ADD-BASED MODELS ARE HARDER TO GET AT. IT NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU BILL FACEBOOK FOR THEIR ADVERTISING FOR KANSAS' PORTION OF THE ADVERTISING REVENUE. I DON'T KNOW. >> I DON'T KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE DIDN'T TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING AT EVERYONE HAS TO SIGN SOME KIND OF A CONTRACT AND, THEREFORE, IT'S A SUBSCRIPTION-BASED FROM THE WAY WE WERE THINKING. >> EVERYONE DOES SIGN A CONTRACT. WHEN YOU SIGN UP FOR FACEBOOK, YOU SIGN A CONTRACT. YOU DON'T PAY A MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE. YOU SIGN A CONTRACT, YOU SIGN A CONTRACT WITH ANY OF THOSE STREAMING -- YOUTUBE, YOU CAN WATCH YOUTUBE WITHOUT AN ACCOUNT, BUT THERE ARE ACCOUNTS THAT YOU SIGN UP YOUTUBE TO VIEW CERTAIN KINDS OF CONTENT, YOU CAN'T WATCH WITHOUT AN ACCOUNT. I DON'T KNOW, LET ME LOOK AT IT, SORRY, YES, LARRY. >> THIS KIND OF GOES A LITTLE BIT ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT ANDY WAS GETTING AT. WHAT'S THE RATIONALE ON THE FEES WHERE YOU'RE RATCHETING IT DOWN, SO YOU PUT THESE CAPS ON THE FUTURE YEARS. IT ALMOST SEALS TO BE COUNTERINTUITIVE. THEY'RE BUILDING BROADBAND, WHY WOULD YOU RATCHET THEM DOWN? >> AGAIN AS I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO ANDY, IT WAS A BALANCE BETWEEN THOSE WHO SAY THE EXISTING PROVIDERS WHO ARE FUNDING THE STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND THE CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING. WE NEED TO BROADEN THE BASE OF WHO CONTRIBUTES. SO THAT'S WHY THAT LANGUAGE IS THERE. YEAH, IF IN THE RECONCILIATION, YOU WITH AENT TO -- YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT OUT AND LEAVE IT MOOT, I WOULDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO IT. THE INTENT WAS TO SAY, WE NEED MORE MONEY, BUT WE NEED TO GET THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING, BUT ARE BENEFITING. >> THERE ARE A LOT OF STATES THAT DON'T HAVE U.S.F.S. THIS WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM GETTING INTO AN U.S.F., RIGHT? >> NO, ANY STATE CAN CREATE A U.S.F. >> 90% OF ZERO IS ZERO, RIGHT? >> YEAH, BUT AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS MODEL LEGISLATION. IF A STATE DOESN'T HAVE A STATE U.S.F. AND THEY WANT TO CREATE ONE, THEY IGNORE THAT SECTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELEVANT. >> SO DID YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALSO THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THE MOST RURAL STATES, ALSO THE ONES MOST BROADBAND CHALLENGED HAVE THE SMALLEST POPULATIONS. THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAVE A KANSAS CITY OR AN OMAHA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO THEY HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF BROADBAND, WHICH MEANS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES, THE LOWEST POPULATION, AND THE GREATEST DEMAND FROM AN INVESTMENT PERSPECTIVE. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT? >> WE CAN'T. IF THIS IS ACCEPTED, IF YOU WILL, BY THE COMMISSION, THEY MAY WANT TO LOOK AT CHANGING THE U.S.F., WHICH WOULD BENEFIT THOSE STATES THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING. ALL WE COULD DO IS SAY REGARDLESS OF YOUR POPULATION, IF YOU HAVE RURAL AREAS THAT NEED ASSISTANCE, HERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE FUNDING OR ADDITIONAL FUNDING MECHANISM FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. SOMETHING WILL BE BETTER THAN NOTHING IN WYOMING. I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE PHRASED THAT DIFFERENTLY. >> WELL, YEAH, I KNOW, MONICA, YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. I THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF NEW YORK, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAD ALL OF THIS U.S.F. MONEY, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FEDERAL U.S.F. MONEY BECAUSE OF MANHATTAN. THAT MONEY WASN'T SPENT IN MANHATTAN. IT WAS SPENT IN THE REST OF THE STATE. LUCKY THEM. I HAVE LOOKED AT SOME POPULATION FIGURES, STATE OF ARKANSAS IS NEVER GOING TO HAVE THAT REVENUE. THAT'S JUST PART OF WHY NEW YORK SUED FOR THEIR MONEY. NO ONE TOOK IT AND THEY WERE GOING TO REDISTRIBUTE IT ACROSS THE TON AND NEW YORK SAID NO, THAT'S OURS. THIS IS A REALLY GOOD START TOWARDS GETTING SOME REVENUE INTO THOSE SMALLER STARTS SUCH AS KANSAS AND ARKANSAS AND WYOMING WHERE YOU JUST DON'T HAVE -- AND NEBRASKA, WHERE YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THOSE DENSE, DENSE POPULATION CENTERS THAT YOU SEE IN CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, AND TEXAS. THAT'S MY THINKING AT LEAST. >> YOU ALMOST HAVE TO BE A STATE AVERAGING PROCESS. >> EXACTLY. >> IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE U.S.F.LEVEL, BUT NOT WITHIN EACH STATE. >> IT HAPPENS AT THE STATE LEVEL, TOO. THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK WILL PAY A LOT MORE AND GET A LOT LESS BENEFIT OUT OF IT THAN THE REST OF THE STATE. THAT'S THE PRICE BENEFIT FOR LIVING IN A METROPOLITAN AREA THAT YOU FUND THE REST OF THE STATE. MONICA. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO WHO HAS TO PAY INTO THE FUNDS REAL QUICKLY AND BECAUSE I'M HEARING A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS. THIS SAYS EVERY PROVIDER OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES WHICH INCLUDES INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDERS AND THERE ARE SOME PROVIDERS OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES UNDER THIS DEFINITION THAT DON'T HAVE OR OFFER A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE. SO SOME COMPANIES LIKE, PART OF WHAT WE DO IS PROVIDE A WHOLESALE SERVICE WHERE CARRIERS CARRIER AND I'M THINKING THAT WE WOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO U.S.F. BECAUSE OUR CUSTOMER WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO U.S.F., BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR HERE. I THINK IF WE CAN MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT REFINING THIS A LITTLE BIT, I THINK YOU WANT TO LIMIT IT TO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND JUST MAKE THAT A LITTLE CLEARER. >> MICHAEL. >> TOM, I FEEL YOUR PAIN. UNIVERSAL SERVICES IS CERTAINLY A WORTHY GOAL. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE COMMISSIONED TO DO AND IT NEEDS TO BE PAID FOR SOMEHOW. WITHOUT GETTING TOO MUCH INTO REPEATING TO THE PEOPLE THAT KNOW THIS BETTER THAN I DO, JUST RECENTLY WE HAD A TREMENDOUS POLITICAL EMOTIONAL UPHEAVAL OVER SOMETHING LITTLE CALLED NET NEUTRALITY. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET ACCUSED OF TAXING THE INTERNET, WHICH IS WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE. I THINK I HAVE HEARD THE WORD TAX A COUPLE TIMES. >> I'LL LET YOU ASSESS IT'S AN ASSESSMENT, NOT A TAX. [LAUGHTER] >> THAT'S WHY THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS LISTED AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS WE JUST DIDN'T THINK ABOUT. ONE ISSUE PUT A SALES TAX ON THE SERVICE. THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU WANTED TO TAX BARBER'S SERVICES. THIS GETS INTO ALL KINDS OF ARGUMENTS OVER WHETHER THE STATES HAVE THAT AUTHORITY OR NOT. UNLESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, UNLESS THE COMMISSION TALKS ABOUT IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY PROGRESS. AS I HAVE SAID IN THE WORKING GROUP, IF FEES AREN'T THE ANSWERS, WHAT IS? WE NEED MONEY, WE NEED IT NOW. WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND ANOTHER FIVE YEARS TALKING ABOUT IT. AND IN RESPONSE TO MONICA, I'M SORRY, MICHAEL, I INTERRUPTED YOU, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CONNECTION TO THAT ULTIMATE CUSTOMER, THEN WE DON'T ANTICIPATE YOU BEING INVOLVED, BUT I INTERRUPTED. >> THE NICE THING ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT IS A MODEL CODE FOR STATES AND I CAN SEE STATES ADAPTING THIS TO FIT THEIR OWN LOCALITIES. I CAN SEE IT BEING IN HERE, BUT HAVING A LITTLE CONTENTION OVER IT, MORE THAN IN OUR COMMITTEE. >> WE PROBABLY NEED TO MOVE ON -- >> ISSUED A SEPARATE STATEMENT, I WOULD NOTE THERE ARE FEDERAL LEGAL STANDARDS AROUND STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE PROGRAMS AND UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE, IT IS LIMITED TO CONTRIBUTIONS ARE LIMITED TO TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES. THIS OBVIOUSLY GOES WELL BEYOND THAT AND ARGUABLY THIS MIGHT HAVE SOME TENSION WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THAT TAKE. >> DO YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE SLIDE DECK.12, 15 PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT, THREE DISSENTED AND THREE ABSTAINED. AND ARTICLE 12, AND THIS OBVIOUSLY WON'T BE RECONCILED BY SOMEONE WITH THE MUNICIPAL GROUPS, BUT WE COULD NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES THAT WE DID IN OUR WORKING GROUP WITHOUT ADDRESSING MUNICIPAL-OWNED SYSTEMS AND WE SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A ROLE FOR MUNICIPALLY OWNED SYSTEMS WHEN THERE IS NO PROVIDER THAT WILL COME IN, OR THE PROVIDER, THE INCUMBENT ISN'T MEETING THE NEEDS OR EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT BEFORE THERE ARE -- MUNICIPAL SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED, THAT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT AT LEAST FOUR OTHER OPTIONS. AND WE LAY THOSE OUT, BASICALLY VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF INVESTMENT BY THE MUNICIPALITY WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTING OR PRIVATE SECTOR OPERATING, BUT WE BASICALLY NEEDED TO GET TO THE POINT THAT IF THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE OPTION, THEN MUNICIPAL SYSTEM MAY BE THE ONLY WAY THAT PEOPLE GET HIGH SPEED INTERNET IN THEIR AREA. OBVIOUSLY SUMMARIZED THAT ONE PRETTY QUICKLY. >>DAVID. >> I REALLY RESPECT WHAT WE'RE WORKING TO PUT TOGETHER HERE. I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY ADDRESS THIS TO MEET SOME NEEDS, BUT I THINK THAT INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT WE PREFER THAT NETWORKS BE OPERATED BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD SAY IS THAT WE PREFER AVAILABLE AFFORDABLE AND AMPLE BROADBAND, HOWEVER WE GET THERE. I DO THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL STATES, NEBRASKA IS ONE OF THEM, WHERE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT RURAL POPULATION THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE FOR A PRIVATE CARRIER TO COME IN. I WOULD HATE TO SEE US CREATE FOUR LEVELS OF BURDEN IN ADDITIONAL REGULATION WHERE WE ALL PROBABLY KNOW WHERE THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE THAT AREN'T GOING TO GET PRIVATE INVESTMENT. I THINK IT IS VERY GOOD TO PUT THIS OUT THERE. >> THANK YOU. WE DIDN'T PROPOSE THIS AS CREATING A BURDEN. WE BASICALLY SAID OUR PREFERENCE IS THAT PRIVATE SECTOR MAKE THE INVESTMENT. IF THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION AND WE LAID OUT SOME OTHER POSSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, THEN THE MUNICIPALITY OR A COLLECTION OF MUNICIPALITIES. IT COULD BE THREE SMALL CITIES, TWO COUNTIES AND THE DOG CATCHER CONTRIBUTING TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OR MUNICIPAL SYSTEM. SO WE DIDN'T SEE THIS AS A BURDEN, BUT WE SAW IT AS, OK, HERE ARE THINGS YOU MIGHT LOOK AT, MUNICIPALITY, YOU MAY NOT HAVE ALL OF THE RESOURCES YOU NEED OR YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGICAL EXPERTISE TO RUN IT OR YOU MAY NOT WANT TO RUN IT, BUT HERE ARE YOUR OPTIONS. >> TOM, I THINK THE OVERALL CONCEPT IS REALLY GOOD, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WORD SMITHING GETS US SOMEWHERE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD REALLY QUICKLY TO THAT POINT AND, MARK, THE FOUR MODELS WEREN'T LIKE YOU HAVE TO ANALYZE THESE FOUR MODELS, THE WORDSMITHING WILL BE GREAT. I WILL SAY THAT PART OF THE THRUST OF THIS WAS THAT THERE ARE 23 STATES THAT BROAD OWNERSHIP ENTIRELY, ARKANSAS IS ONE OF THEM. THAT IS BAD POLICY. I GET A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT CAN'T GET ANYONE TO COME DOWN. THIS IS A WORKAROUND. IN A STATE LIKE MASSACHUSETTS, MAYBE IT DOESN'T APPLY. IN ARKANSAS WE WOULD RATHER THEY HAVE THIS THAN NO MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP AT ALL. >> MADAM CHAIR, IT DOESN'T WORK QUITE THAT WAY IN MASSACHUSETTS BUT -- >> SORRY. >> I APOLOGIZE. [LAUGHTER] >> SO JUST STARTING WITH POINT NUMBER FOUR WHERE WE START OFF WITH SAYING THESE ARE IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT COULD BE MISCONSTRUED THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT THIS NEEDS TO TURN INTO AN ACTUAL FRAMEWORK RATHER THAN JUST AS A SUGGESTION AND WHEN WE GO INTO NUMBER FIVE, WE SUGGEST A REQUIRED EVALUATION AND THAT'S WHERE I START TO, I THINK, TAKE ISSUE WITH IT BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY LOCAL CHOICE AND TAKING AWAY A MUNICIPALITY'S FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR BROADBAND FUTURE. AS A CAPITALIST AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER MYSELF, I EMPATHIZE WITH THE NOTION OF PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS COMPETING WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT A CASE STUDY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DOING A PARTNERSHIP WITH SIX MUNICIPALITIES AND A SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT HAVE FORMED A CONSORTIUM THAT ARE BUILDING THEIR OWN OPEN ACCESS TO THE FIBER NETWORK AND WORKING WITH US TO PROVIDE SERVICE IN THEIR COMMUNITY. THERE ARE THREE EXISTING PROVIDERS IN THOSE COMMUNITIES, NONE OF WHICH PROVIDED ANY GIGA BIT SERVICE. SINCE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THAT PARTNERSHIP, ALL THREE PROVIDERS MAYBE COINCIDENTALLY ARE NOW OFFERING GIGA BIT SERVICE INCLUDING ONE WHICH IS A NATIONAL CABLE COMPANY WITH NEARLY A MILLION SUBSCRIBERS THAT IS BUILDING THEIR FIRST FIBER TO HOME PROJECT IN ONE OF THOSE MUNICIPALITIES. SO I THINK I THINK IT IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE LOCAL CHOICE SPURRED ALL SORTS OF GREAT THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT PARTNERSHIP I DESCRIBED IS NOT EVEN -- I DON'T KNOW WHICH BUCKET IT WOULD FALL INCOME OF BETWEEN 4.3 AND 4.4, BUT I GO TO 5.3 AND SAY THIS PARTNERSHIP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IF THIS IS THE RULE SET BE OPERATING BY. THE OTHER POINT IS JUST THAT I BELIEVE INSPIRED BY THIS GROUP, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HAS CREATED SOMETHING CALLED THE MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM ADVANCED NETWORKS, WHICH I CALL MUSIC -- MICHIGAN INSERTION BDAC. THEY LOOK FORWARD TO THE STATE MODEL CODE COME ANXIOUSLY AWAITING TO SEE WHERE WE END UP WITH THIS. FOR ME IT IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD WERE I HAVE TO LOOK ACROSS THE TABLE AND MUNICIPAL PARTNERS IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEPLOYING INFRASTRUCTURE -- I KNOW THIS IS A VERY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE FOR THEM, AND WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY THAT WILL LAND AS FAIR AND BALANCED IN THE REAL WORLD, AND THIS IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE TO TAKE A PARTICULARLY CLOSE LOOK AS IT IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. >> I ACTUALLY HAVE TO SAY THAT THAT COMMENT ENCAPSULATES SIMILAR COMMENTS FROM OTHER PROVIDERS LIKE YOU WHO ARE ABLE TO WORK WITH MUNICIPALITIES ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE-OWNED PARTNERSHIPS. I HAVE A PARTNERSHIP WITH A 10-COUNTY ECONOMIC INVOLVEMENT DISTRICT IN ARKANSAS AND IT IS HARD TO GET THIS DONE. IN MY WORLD WE WOULD BE FAR BETTER OFF WITH THIS THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY LIVE WITH FROM WHERE ALL OF THESE TOWNS -- YOU CAN'T OWN THAT. THERE HAS BEEN A VERY AGGRESSIVE PUSH IN AS A LOT OF STATES FOLLOWING CHATTANOOGA'S TAKING GRANT MONEY AND OVERBILLING ALL OF THE PROVIDERS THERE TO FORECLOSE MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP OF BROADBAND. WHEN I PERSONALLY WOULD WELCOME WOULD BE -- MAYBE IN NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED AS ALTERNATIVES FOR STATES WHERE THIS IS ALREADY A POSSIBILITY, THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS THAT SHOULD BE INVOLVED. AND IN STATES WHERE IT IS PROHIBITED, THAT IS BAD POLICY AND THIS IS WHAT WE RECOMMEND INSTEAD. THE REASON THERE IS A PREFERENCE IN HERE FOR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS TO AVOID THE PUSHBACK FROM PRIVATE PROVIDERS WHO PUSH LEGISLATION TO BAN IT ENTIRELY. IF THEY GO THROUGH THIS ANALYSIS AND YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO COME IN HERE AND BUILD THEM OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ON THE NETWORK, AND WRITE OUT THEY CANNOT AT ALL. I WOULD PERSONALLY WELCOME SUGGESTIONS ON HOW THEY MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE STATES THAT ARE DOING THIS RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE GOT TO GET TO. A LOT OF STATES ARE FRANKLY NOT DOING THIS RIGHT, AND THEY HAVE FORECLOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BROADBAND FOR PEOPLE. OK. >> I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD IN THIS, AND I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF IT. I WOULD ASK FOR SOME CONSIDERATION THAT THE STANDARD ALREADY SEEMS TO BE PRETTY HIGH THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN CONSIDER SERVING ITSELF ONLY WHEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS CHOSEN NOT TO. THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE CHOSEN TO START. NOW WE SAY THAT WHEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS CHOSEN NOT TO SERVE YOU, YOU HAVE TO STUDY FIVE OPTIONS FROM AT THE LAST ONE IS FOR -- YOU CANNOT EVEN USE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS, SO A COMMUNITY THAT IS PRETTY SMALL I CANNOT GET A PROVIDER AND A HAVE TO HIRE SOMEONE THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PAY FOR BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO USE CONSULTANTS TO DO FIVE STUDIES, PERHAPS THEY ARE GOING TO SAY THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THESE OPTIONS AND NOT HAVE THAT IN ANY ORDER OF PREFERENCE, BECAUSE REALLY, A LOCAL COMMUNITY AT THAT STAGE WHERE THEY CANNOT GET ANYBODY TO SERVE THEM, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE LOCAL CONTROL TO DO THAT FOR THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS FOR THE CITIZENS. >> I THINK WHAT WE ANTICIPATED WAS A MUNICIPALITY BROADLY DEFINED WOULD ISSUE AN RFP, WE WANT BROADBAND. THESE CHARACTERISTICS SERVING THIS GENERAL AREA. WE WOULD LIKE PROPOSALS REFLECTING TOTAL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION, ONE IN WHICH A PRIVATE CARRIER OR PROVIDER WOULD WANT TO PARTNER WITH US, ONE IN WHICH THEY MIGHT WANT TO PROPOSE THAT WE BUILT AND OPERATE, SO WE DON'T SEE THAT THE MUNICIPALITY WOULD CONDUCT OF THESE STUDIES, BUT THAT THE RFP WOULD SAY WHO IS OUT THERE THAT IS INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING TO BENEFIT OUR CITIZENS? >> KELLY, YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS POINT? >> KEEP IN MIND, OUR OVERALL CHARGES TO IDENTIFY BARRIERS AND COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO REMOVE THEM. WE HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE INSTANCES WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT. ONE WAY IS THE 23 STATES THAT OUT RIGHT BAN MUNICIPALLY-OWNED NETWORKS, BUT THE OTHER WAY AS WE HAVE SEEN MUNICIPALLY-OWNED NETWORKS, AND IN THOSE CITIES, THERE IS POOR SERVICE, SPOTTY COVERAGE, AND HIGH RATES. AND WHEN THEY FINALLY ARE FORCED TO ALMOST ALL OUT -- ALMOST ALLOW PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO COME IN AND COMPETE WITH THEM, CUSTOMERS ARE SAYING THINGS LIKE "I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CALL THE CITY FOR YEARS, BUT BECAUSE OF THESE RATES AND OUR TERRIBLE SERVICE, NOW THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT HERE, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE A CITY PERSON WANTING TO REFRESH OUR RATES AND TALK ABOUT OUR SERVICE." WE WERE TRYING TO ADJUST BOTH OF THESE. MUNICIPALLY-OWNED NETWORKS CAN BE VERY GOOD TO -- BARRIER TO DEPLOYMENT OF LOW COST AND HIGH QUALITY. WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS WELL AS RECOGNIZE THERE ARE AREAS IN STATES WHERE NO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IS WILLING TO GO IN, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMICS. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO COME IN. >> ANDY. >> CITY-ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE HAVE A LOT OF OBLIGATIONS, AND ONE OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS HAS BECOME PROVIDING -- MAKING SURE THAT OUR PEOPLE HAVE MADE. NOT A PROBLEM WHERE I AM, WE HAVE LOTS OF IT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO FAR TO THE WEST WHERE I LIVE IN HOUSTON COUNTY, SOME OF THE OUTLYING -- IN OUR SAME COUNTY, SOME OF THE OUTLYING SUBURBS THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, AND THEY CAN'T GET IT. AND I GET CALLS FROM CITY MANAGERS AND CITY COUNCILS AND SO FORTH, BECAUSE THEY KNOW I AM INVOLVED IN THIS AND THINK I KNOW SOMETHING, WONDERING HOW DO WE DO THIS. THEIR MINDSET IS, WELL, NOBODY WILL COME HERE, SO WE HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL. THIS IS A DANGEROUS MINDSET. WHAT THEY LAID OUT HERE, TOM -- IT'S VERY GOOD FROM BECAUSE IT GIVES GUIDANCE TO THERE ARE MORE POSSIBILITIES THAN JUST GOING OUT AND BUILDING AND OPERATING YOURSELF. THAT MAY BE THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION YOU NEED TO GO TO. LET'S LOOK AT THESE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, BECAUSE THERE ARE LOTS OF PROVIDERS AND LOTS OF POSSIBILITIES, LOTS OF MARKS OUT THERE WHO WANT TO PARTNER WITH COMMUNITIES TO PROVIDE BROADBAND. BUT THESE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IF ARE OUT THERE, AND I THINK THE STATES THAT HAVE BANNED IT OUT RIGHT HAVE MISSED THE BOAT. I HOPE THEY TURN THE BOAT AROUND. WE WANT A REASONABLE LOOK AT IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE BROADBAND BUSINESS -- I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY ANY MUNICIPALITY WOULD WANT TO DO THAT -- BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THAT CAN GO INTO IT WITH YOUR EYES OPEN, UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD. 4.1 THROUGH 4.5 FOLLOWS WHAT MTIA IS DESCRIBING WITH HER ASSESSMENT TOOL AND SO FORTH. I THINK IT IS VERY HELPFUL. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR PUTTING THAT IN THEIR RE, AND SOME OF THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE AND SO FORTH, THAT IS UP TO YOU, I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT FIGHT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS IS A REAL ISSUE, AND THE REAL DANGER OF THE MUNICIPALITY WHEREVER THEY ARE, NOT KNOWING THE RESOURCES OR THE POSSIBILITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE, AND THEN GOING AND TRYING TO REINVENT THE WHEEL, NOT KNOWING HOW TO DO THAT. THAT IS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THEY NEED HELP. THERE'S A POSSIBILITY TO DO THAT HERE. >> THE OTHER CONCERN WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT NOTHING IS STATIC. YOU CAN HAVE AN AREA WHERE NO PRIVATE PROVIDER WOULD BUILD OUT ANYTHING. THE MUNICIPALITY SAYS WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING FOR OUR CITIZENS, AND THEN THEY BUILD IT OUT. FOR WHATEVER REASON, ECONOMIC AND OTHERWISE, IT BECOMES MORE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND EFFECTIVE FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY TO WANT TO BUILD OUT COMMENDED THE CITY SAYS, WEIGHT, WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR INVEST -- BUILT OUT, AND THEN THE CITY SAYS, WEIGHT, WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT. WE HAVE THIS CAPTIVE CUSTOMER BASE AND WE WANT TO KEEP THEM CAPTIVE. YOU HAVE INDUSTRY LEADERS CONTACTING PRIVATE PROVIDERS SAYING THIS IS NOT WORKING. WE TRY TO TRACK THAT AND CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS. >> CHRIS. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] I THINK WE ARE DEALING WITH THE SYMPTOM AND NOT THE PROBLEM. WHY TO BE HAVE AREAS IN THE STANDS THAT ARE NOT SERVED? YOU DON'T HAVE SUPPORT TO MAKE THEM VIABLE. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT MANY MEN IF THEY DON'T ENTER INTO MONEY-LOSING PROPOSITIONS. IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTERS INTO A MONEY-LOSING PROPOSITION, THEY LOSE THE MONEY, TOO. IT IS JUST THAT THEY SUBSIDIZE IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. YOU LOSE $5,000 HOUSE COMMITTEE DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS LOSING. THE PROBLEM IS THE $500 -- YOU LOSE $500 A HOUSE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS LOSING $500 A HOUSE. IT IS -- THE PROBLEM IS THE $500. WHEN YOU COULD REASONABLY GENERATE FROM THE AREA, THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T HAVE TO STEP IN FOR A FUNDING PROBLEM AND NOT AN ENTITY PROBLEM. TO KELLY'S POINT, IT IS A PROBLEM, AND I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THE -- IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPETE AGAINST YOUR REGULATOR. THAT IS INHERENTLY UNFAIR. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES. YOU ARE COMPETING AGAINST SOMEBODY, EXCEPT YOU GUARANTEE THEY WILL BE ON THE PLATFORM, BECAUSE THEY WILL USE AS MUCH TAX REVENUES TO SUBSIDIZE THE MONEY-LOSING OPERATION AS NECESSARY. THAT IS TEXTBOOK UNFAIR COMPETITION COME WHEN YOU ARE COMPETING AGAINST SOMEBODY WHO CANNOT LOSE, WHAT KIND OF RACES THAT -- RACE IS THAT? >> THE ONLY POINT I WOULD MAKE TO THAT IS THAT THE INHERENT UNFAIRNESS OF A PRIVATE FUNDED ENTITY HAVING TO COMPETE AGAINST A TAXPAYER ENTITIES SOMETHING THAT I AM PERSONALLY VERY SENSITIVE TO COME BUT I DON'T THINK THE UNCERTAIN -- I DON'T THINK THE ANSWER IS AN OUTRIGHT BAN. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE TOWNS LIKE TO MUSLIM ARKANSAS, THERE A-- DUMAS, ARKANSAS, THERE AIN'T NOBODY THERE. >> THAT INDEPENDENT FACT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT BUILDS THE NETWORK OR A COMPANY BUILDS THE NETWORK. JUST LIKE UNDER THE PROGRAM COULD MIME BUILDING 1.1 MILLION ON -- I AM BUILDING 1.1 MILLION ON ECONOMIC LOCATIONS THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE GO TO. YOU CAN GET A PROGRAM AND OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED, THE SUBSIDY SHOULD -- DIRECT THE SUBSIDIES ARE YOU THAT YOU DON'T HAVE INEFFICIENT OVERBUILDING. IF WE HAVE THAT PROGRAM SCALED TO TAKE CARE OF EVERY HOME IN AMERICA, WE WOULD NOT NEED THE MUNICIPAL AVENUE. THAT IS JUST EVIDENCING THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN BROADBAND TO AND WE NEED TO GET BROADBAND IT TO EVERYBODY. >> ON A FIZZLE OF -- ON A PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL I AGREE WITH YOU BUT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY, THE FUNDING IS NOT THERE FROM AND WHAT HAPPENS IN STATES LIKE MINE IS THAT BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY CANNOT OWN THE BROADBAND NETWORK, THEY HAVE TO JUSTIFY EXPENDING -- THEY HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS THEY COULD SPEND OR INVEST IN BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY DON'T OR CAN'T BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN THE FACILITIES. ONE OF A SUPPOSED TO DO, WRITE ME A CHECK TO DEPLOY -- WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO, WRITE ME A CHECK TO DO IT FOR THEM? ENGAGING IN A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, WHICH IN MY OPINION IN SOME CASES IS OPTIMAL -- THERE ALWAYS REGULATIONS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH TO GET A CHECK. IT IS A REALLY ELEGANT SOLUTION THAT CAN EXIST EXCEPT WHEN THERE IS AN OUTRIGHT BAN THAT I THINK IT IS KIND OF TRUE, AND YET THERE IS ANOTHER NUANCE -- >> BY AND JUST NEEDS TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE MONEY. -- RYAN JUST NEEDS TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE MONEY. >> THAT'S RIGHT, RIGHT OBJECTS. >> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH ANYTHING CHRIS IS SAYING. THE INTENT OF ARTICLE 12 IS THAT IF THE PRIVATE SECTOR CANNOT MAKE IT FINANCIALLY PROFITABLE, SHALL WE SAY, THERE MAY BE A MUNICIPAL ROLE TO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT WHICH WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE FULL MUNICIPAL SYSTEM. BUT I WOULD CONCLUDE WITH THE DISCUSSION OF ARTICLES 10, 11, AND 12 BY SAYING THAT EACH IS PART OF A PATH TO DELIVERING BROADBAND TO RURAL RESIDENTS. ARTICLE 10 PROVIDES AN OPTION TO SIMPLIFY THE REGULATORY PROCESS IN THOSE RURAL AREAS. WE HAVE MULTIPLE GOVERNMENTS. POSSIBLE FUNDING STREAMS TO GET INTO THAT STATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND ENHANCE IT. ARTICLE 12 SAYS THAT IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS NO PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNER WILLING TO COME IN THAT THERE ARE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU GO TO A FULL MUNICIPAL SYSTEM. WE SEE THE THREE OF THEM AS BEING COMPLEMENTARY ON THAT. >> SO IF WE TAKE -- GO BACK TO THE DECK WILL QUICK AND WE WILL SHOW OUR BALLOTING THERE. 14 CONCUR, 2 ABSTAIN. OUR FINAL ARTICLE IS ARTICLE 13. WE WILL HOLD THAT, WE WILL SKIP THAT. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF SOME SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RURAL, AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO ARTICLE 13. I HAVE ASKED MARTY TO GIVE THIS PART OF OUR PRESENTATION. MARTY IS THE CHAIRMAN OF OUR VERBAL SUBCOMMITTEE. -- RURAL SUBCOMMITTEE. MARTY IS A VISITING LECTURER AT UVA IN MARKETING. HE HAS OF BA FROM RUTGERS AND MA FROM COLUMBIA. CHIEF PARTNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP TREAT MICROSOFT AND NBC THAT FORMED MSNBC, AND WON AN EMMY FOR HIS WORK ON THE BARCELONA OLYMPICS. >> ABSOLUTELY NONE OF WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANYONE HERE. I'M VERY AWARE OF THE TIME I WILL BE BRIEF. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK KELLY FROM HIS LEADERSHIP -- FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN CHINA SPECIAL SPOTLIGHT ON THE RURAL SPECIAL SIGNING A SPECIAL SPOTLIGHT ON THE ROLE PROBLEM TO WRAP UP OUR PRESENTATION. IT COMES DOWN TO ONE OVERARCHING ISSUE, WHICH IS THE ECONOMIC UNATTRACTIVENESS OF BRINGING BROADBAND TO RURAL RELATIVE TO THE ROI THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY WOULD SEE IN NONVERBAL AREAS. WE KNOW -- NONRURAL AREAS. WE KNOW THAT A RISING TIDE LIFTS ALL BOATS. THERE'S A STRANGE PHENOMENON COMING OUT OF THIS CAN WHICH IS REMOVING THE BARRIERS IN OTHER VERSIONS HAS RISEN THE TYPE FOR ALL BOATS. HE WILL CALL IT A RISING CRIMSON TIDE FOR KELLY'S SAKE. BUT THAT -- [LAUGHTER] YOU DON'T GIVE THEM MONEY FOR NOTHING. THAT STRANGELY LEAVES THAT RELATIVE GAP BETWEEN RURAL AND NONRURAL THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE. MAKING MATTERS EVEN WORSE COME AS THE STANDARDS FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS ON THE INTERNET GO UP AND UP DUE TO THE WONDERFUL SERVICE USUALLY PROVIDED IN NONVERBAL -- NONRURAL AREAS, RURAL BECOMES LESS AND LESS COMPETITIVE RELATIVE TO NON-RURAL. THE PROBLEM IS BECOMING WORSE, AND IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE TRAGIC IF ONE OF THE RESULTS OF THIS WONDERFUL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WERE THAT WE INADVERTENTLY CAUSE THIS CAP TO WORSEN AS A RESULT OF GREAT WORK THAT WAS DONE. THEREFORE, WE WANTED TO FOCUS THE SPECIAL SPOTLIGHT ON RURAL TO SAY BASICALLY THREE THINGS. THE FIRST IS THE STANDARDS THAT WE THINK BROADBAND WANT TO BE HELD TO IN TERMS OF SPEED, LATENCY, MINIMUM CAPS, AND SO FORTH, SHOULD APPLY TO THE WHOLE STATE. FOR CERTAIN IT SHOULD APPLY TO RURAL, BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT FROM ANY OTHER SERVICE -- BELIEVE ME, WE UNDERSTAND THAT ANY SERVICE IS BETTER THAN NO SERVICE. IF YOU GET AND ALLOW RURAL TO GET A LOWER STANDARD OF SERVICE, IT IS GOING TO LOCK RURAL INTO THAT SECOND-CLASS STATUS. THAT WOULD BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THAT NOT TO HAPPEN. ON THE NEXT SLIDE CAN WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED HERE. FEES SHOULD BE COST-BASED. STATE FRANCHISING. LOCAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION, SUCH THAT NOT ONLY IS THERE A STATE AGENCY THAT CAN'T RESOLVE THIS COMPANY WOULD BE PRECEDENT-SETTING FOR THE ENTIRE STATE, SO EVEN LEGITIMATE DISPUTES DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN MUNICIPALITY BY MUNICIPALITY, AND THE MUNICIPAL NETWORK DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD. NEXT CHART. THE REAL ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, THOUGH, TO ME IS WHAT CHRIS HAS BROUGHT UP AND OTHERS HAVE BROUGHT UP, AND THAT IS IT IS REALLY A FUNDING ISSUE. WE HAVE COME UP WITH IDEAS SUCH AS BROADENING THE CONTRIBUTION BASE, TAXING CERTAIN SERVICES CAN WHICH COULD BE INTERPRETED AS TAXING THE INTERNET, REVISING THE FEDERAL USF, WHICH THERE IS VIRTUAL UNANIMITY IN THE OPINION THAT IT IS LONG PAST SINCE TIME THAT THAT OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED. THERE IS NO APPETITE IN GOVERNMENT FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT MICHAEL AND OTHER HAVE BROUGHT UP -- IT IS VERY CONTROVERSIAL. WHICH MAKES IT ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT THAT THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH IS NOT UP FOR REELECTION, TACKLES THE PROBLEM AS BEST AS CAN BE DONE AND COMES UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THIS, BECAUSE THE LONGER RURAL STAYS IN THE WHOLE IT IS IN, THE DEEPER THAT BECOMES, THE HARDER IT IS TO CLIMB OUT OF THAT HOLE, AND WE KNOW HOW DEVASTATING THAT CAN BE. THANK YOU. >> THANKS. WE -- THANK YOU -- WE ARE WAY OVER TIME. >> ONE FINAL ARTICLE. >> DO YOU THINK YOU CAN COVER IT IN 10 MINUTES? >> SURE, ABSOLUTELY. [LAUGHTER] >>OK, CAN I GET MY DECK BACK UP? OUR FINAL ARTICLE. >> OK. >> STATE BROADBAND MANAGER TALKING ABOUT THE STATE BROADBAND -- >> I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS QUICK MINUTE BEFORE I GET INTO THE DETAILS OF ARTICLE 13. I'M GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK CHAIRMAN PAI AND FCC FOR CREATING BDAC AND REMOVING BARRIERS TO BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO RURAL COMMUNITIES. I'M SUCH A FAN OF THE WORK THAT EVERYONE HAS DONE HERE. I ALSO WANTED TO THANK KELLY AND JOHN, ELIZABETH, ANDY. YOU HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB OF LEADING THE WORKING GROUP THROUGH AN INCLUSIVE AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, WHERE I FELT LIKE MY PERSPECTIVE WAS BOTH HEARD AND RESPECTED. THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT IS ARTICLE 13, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, CREATES A SECRETARIAT BROADBAND AND BRINGS BROADBAND ACCESS ISSUES AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT TO THE CABINET LEVEL OF STATE GOVERNMENT. IN STATES THAT ARE MAKING PROGRESS ON CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE, THERE WAS A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT THE GOVERNOR OF THAT STATE HAS MADE BROADBAND ACCESS A PRIORITY. THAT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE IN WISCONSIN UNDER GOVERNOR WALKER'S LEADERSHIP. THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE STATE BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGER IS TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE THE STATE MODEL CODE WITH A VIEW OF PROMOTING AN INCREASE IN AVAILABILITY OF REPORTABLE BROADBAND FACILITIES, PARTICULARLY BY REDUCING THE TIME, COST, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK. THE STATE BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING STATE EFFORTS TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE BROADBAND CAPACITY AND AVAILABILITY BY SERVING AS THE SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT, FORMULATING, UPDATING, AND MAINTAINING THE STATE BROADBAND PLAN ALONG WITH GATHERING BROADBAND INFORMATION AND DATA. FOR EXAMPLE, IN WISCONSIN, THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE HOME OF THE STATE BROADBAND OFFICE, TO WORK WITH OTHER STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES TO ENCOURAGE THE TIMELY AND EFFICIENT ISSUING OF PERMITS AND THE RESOLUTION OF RELATED ISSUES. MANY OF THE ARTICLES IN THE STATE MODEL CODE REFERRED TO THE STATE BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGERS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION. THE MANAGER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROMULGATING RULES AND REGULATIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT, ENFORCE, AND MANAGE THIS MODEL, INCLUDING THE ESTABLISHMENT AS APPROPRIATE OF REASONABLE FEES FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS, APPLICATIONS, AND RECEIPT OF INFORMATION. THE ARTICLE 13 ALSO CREATES A BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY COUNCIL WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE STATE. THE PURPOSE OF THE COUNCIL WOULD BE TO ADVISE THE GOVERNOR AND STATE BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGER ON POLICY AND FUNDING PRIORITIES TO EXPEDITE DEPLOYMENT AND REDUCE THE COST OF BROADBAND ACCESS IN THE STATE AND TO ADVISE ON MATTERS RELATING TO MANAGING AND IMPLEMENTING THE MODEL CODE. IN CLOSING, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE FOOTNOTE TO ARTICLE ONE OF THE MODEL CODE, AS I BELIEVE IT SETS THE TONE FOR CONVERSATIONS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL. THE WORKING GROUP ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ALL STATES ARE DIFFERENT AND THAT THERE IS NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL SOLUTION TO BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT. THAT IS WHY THE DOCUMENT IS STRUCTURED AS A SEVERABLE COLLECTION OF INDEPENDENT PROPOSALS THAT ADDRESS VARIOUS ASPECTS OF DEPLOYMENT. THE WORKING GROUP ENCOURAGES EACH STATE TO REVIEW THE MODEL CODE AND ADOPT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE CODE WHICH BEST ADDRESS THE REALITIES ON THE GROUND IN THEIR STATE. I KNOW THAT I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING ON THESE CONVERSATIONS AND WORKING TOGETHER WITH FOLKS IN WISCONSIN AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, KELLY. >> THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? >> AND THAT IT IS OUR FINAL ARTICLE. I THINK I HAVE ONE SLIDE -- THAT IS THE TOTAL -- ARTICLES ONE THROUGH SEVEN, AND THEN EIGHT THROUGH 13. >> I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE WHO DISSENTED TO EVERYTHING. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE LARGE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT WERE IN THIS COMMITTEE. THERE WERE TWO VOTES AGAINST ALL ARTICLES, AND NOT FROM THE STATE CONSTITUENTS -- CONSTITUENCIES, BUT FROM TWO DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE. THE OTHERS WERE SPECIFIC FOR VARIOUS REASONS. YOU DON'T HAVE BLOCK VOTING AGAINST EVERYTHING. THE NAY VOTES WERE KIND OF DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY ON AN ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE BASIS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE TWO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KELLY, AND THE STATE MODEL CODE, YOU HAVE DONE HUMANS WORK. I FOOT -- YEOMAN'S WORK. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS A LITTLE MORE TO DO. DOUG IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE MUNICIPAL CODE WORKING GROUP FOR EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE PUT IN -- ACTUALLY, THEY ARE GOING TO PRESENT THIS -- I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THEM ON EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE, WORKING SHOW HARD SINCE JANUARY. 33 ITERATIONS OF THIS CODE HAVE GONE THROUGH. I AM VERY IMPRESSED WITH THAT AND I WILL LET YOU ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS OF YOUR WORK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ELIZABETH, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR LISTENING VERY LATE IN THE DAY. WE ARE GOING TO GO QUICKLY. LARRY IS GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE, UNFORTUNATELY. YOU ARE NOT RESIGNING, ARE YOU? [LAUGHTER] WELL, WHAT WE WILL DO VERY QUICKLY, THE GOALS LAID OUT FOR THE FCC -- I'M NOT GOING TO COVER THIS, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON. EVERYBODY SHOULD RECALL WHAT THE GOALS WERE. A MODEL CODE FOR STATES TO COME UP WITH A RESOURCE FOR COME IN OUR CASE, MUNICIPALITIES, AND DESIGN IT FOR MUNICIPALITIES OF ALL KINDS AND TO DEVELOP A CODE. EARLY ON THERE WERE FOLKS THAT REALLY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD CREATE THE CODE, FRANKLY. I AM THRILLED TO TELL YOU ALL TODAY THAT WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING IS A FINAL DRAFT, IS A CONSENSUS DRAFT. WHEN I PUT TOGETHER THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE, "CONSENSUS" WAS IN QUOTES BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING FOR ONE MORE PERSON TO RESPOND, AND SINCE THEN THEY HAVE RESPONDED A 100% UNANIMOUS VOTE IN FAVOR. THAT BEING SAID, NOT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH EVERY POSITION. THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF IT. LOTS OF DISCUSSION, LOTS OF DEBATE, LOTS OF PASSION, LOTS OF COMPROMISE. WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT IN A FEW MINUTES. SPECIFICALLY I WANT TO THANK LARRY FOR STEPPING IN AS VICE CHAIR AND THE RELATIVELY LATE PART OF THE PROCESS AND HELPING TO LEAD THE GROUP GETTING FOLKS TO COME TOGETHER ON ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DEBATED AND WILL FURTHER DEBATE AROUND. THANKS, ANDY, FOR THE MUNICIPAL SIDE, TO COALESCE FOLKS AND REACH OUT TO PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT MUNICIPAL AND GET FOLKS TOGETHER. I CANNOT THANK ENOUGH OUR NEWEST MEMBER, DAVID. CANNOT BELIEVE HOW QUICKLY HE CAME UP TO SPEED. IT WAS THE 11TH HOUR, AND WE FIRST TALKED AFTER YOUR WAS NAMED AND WE HAD TO DO NOTHING, FRANKLY. HE HAD DONE IT ON HIS OWN. HE HAD HIT THE GROUND RUNNING AND WAS A REAL DRIVER TO GETTING THIS THING OVER THE GOAL LINE, SO TO SPEAK. THANK YOU AS WELL FOR ALL OF THAT EFFORT. LARRY, ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT DOUG HAS BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN. HE HAS BEEN THE GLUE, HE HAS EXHIBITED GREAT SKILLS, GREAT PATIENCE, PUSHED US, ALLOWED PEOPLE TO TALK FREELY, COACHED US TO COME TO CONSENSUS. WE ARE FORTUNATE THAT HE CHAIRED THIS EFFORT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS THE GROUP -- EVERYBODY SHOULD TAKE NOTE OF THE MEMBERS. I JUST WANT TO AGAIN, ONE MORE TIME, NOT THE LAST, BUT ONE MORE TIME SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY INCLUDING THOSE IN THE ROOM TODAY. NOW WE WILL GET THROUGH THE DRAFT MODEL CODE -- CAN WE PUT ON THE SCREEN THE CODE ITSELF? IS THAT POSSIBLE? ALL RIGHT, SO EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A HARD COPY IN FRONT OF THEM. WE ARE GOING TO MORE LET'S GO TOP TO BOTTOM, AND IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION, FEEL FREE TO TURN YOUR CARD AND WE WILL GET TO THAT. JUST PROCESS-WISE, ELIZABETH ALLUDED TO LOTS OF ITERATIONS ON THE DRAFT. WE MET -- THIS IS THE QUESTION ONE OF THE MEMBERS ASKED ME, HOW MANY CALLS WERE WE ON. WE STARTED ON MAY 19, AND SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE HAD 47 CALLS AND AVERAGED 2.5 HOURS OF THESE AND HAD ONE FULL DAY IN PERSON MEETING. SINCE JANUARY 3, WE HAVE HAD OVER -- ALMOST HALF 20 OF THOSE 47 CALLS, VERY INTENSE WORK. IT RESULTED IN UNANIMOUS CONSENT. GETTING OUT OF THE CODE SPECIFICALLY, MANY THINGS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. THE CODE ADDRESSES COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AS BROADLY DEFINED. THEY ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL. SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TERM -- THEY REFERRED TO AS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK FACILITIES. ESSENTIALLY SAME DEFINITION AS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE CODE IS ADDRESSING WHEN THOSE FACILITIES CAN BE INSTALLED ON A LOCAL DISH WITHIN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT -- WITHIN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES, AND WHETHER THAT CAN OCCUR UNDER THE DISCRETION REVIEW OR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. THERE IS TWO DEFINED TERMS. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IS A BUILDING PERMIT-TYPE PROCESS. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW REQUIRES DISCRETION TO BE HANDLED TYPICALLY BY THE ZONING BOARD, CITY COUNCIL, ETC. WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST MEETING, BUT I WILL HIGHLIGHT IT AGAIN. WE ADDRESSED IT AND SPLIT IT INTO TWO PARTS. THE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY INSTALLATIONS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THEN OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHAT YOU SEE IS A SET OF PARALLEL RULES -- NOT IDENTICAL, BUT THEY ARE PARALLEL. I THANK LARRY THOMPSON MAKE THAT -- FOR THAT BRILLIANCE. IT WORKED OUT GREAT. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON DEFINITIONS. WE TALK ABOUT DEFINITIONS ONE MORE TIME. WE GOT THROUGH IT. IN TERMS OF WHERE INVENTED, THEY ARE VERY SOLID. WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THAT. LET ME MOVE TO ARTICLE TO COME INSTALLATIONS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ESSENTIALLY IN 2.1A, GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT, YOU HAVE THE OPTIONAL APPROACH YOUR -- OPTIONAL APPROACH HERE. SOME MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRE AN AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. SOME DON'T. WE HAVE A PROVISION IN A 2.1A THAT TALKS ABOUT IF A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WOULD REQUIRE -- WANTS TO REQUIRE A MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT BY APPLICANT TO INSTALL AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT. LICENSE AGREEMENT, RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT, FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, ETC. IN TERMS OF FEES AND RATES, WHAT DO WE DO? WE SIMPLY DEFER TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE. WHAT WE DIDN'T DO IS WE HIGHLIGHTED A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF THESE RIGHTS, AND OUR DEFINITION OF FEES ARE A ONE-TIME, TYPICALLY UPFRONT COST , LIKE AN APPLICATION FEE, AND THE RATES OTHER OCCURRING FEES. ANNUAL FEE, QUARTERLY, WHENEVER ATTACHMENT TO THE UTILITY POLES. WE HAVE THE DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY, THE NARROW, APPROPRIATELY SO. WE ARE DEALING WITH MUNICIPAL-RELATED GOVERNMENTS. WE DO NOT NEED TO ADDRESS IN OUR CODE STATE AND NONLOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. BACK TO THE FEES AND RATES DESCRIPTION, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE DIDN'T PUT ANY DOLLAR VALUES OR FORMULAS, WE JUST HIGHLIGHTED WHAT THEY MAY BE. OCCUPANCY RATE, APPLICATION FEE, ETC. WE CAME UP WITH THE NOTION THAT THE APPLICANT WON'T BE SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER FEES AND RATES EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND IT IS A BRACKET. IF THERE IS ANOTHER FEE OR RATE OUR AD HOC COMMITTEE COMES UP WITH, THE BOOK WAS SO TO SPEAK, IT CAN INCLUDE IT, BUT IT NEEDS TO INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION. WE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE REST OF THE SECTION 2.1 THE TYPES OF PROVISIONS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT AS BETWEEN THE AUTHORITIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE APPLICANT. WE THEN CAME UP WITH IN SECTION 2.0 -- SECTION 2.2 A SECTION OF PERMITTED ABUSES REVIEWS, NOT JUST BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES AND INDUSTRY FOLKS, BUT WITHIN THE INDUSTRY AND FRANKLY, A LOT OF THE NON-MUNICIPAL MEMBERS OF OUR GROUP IN A VERY VALUABLE WAY TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND SAY THAT THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IS A GOOD BALANCE. I THINK WE FOUND THAT BALANCE. VERY BRIEFLY, WHAT ARE THE 4 EXAMPLES -- ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PUBLICATION OF A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY. THAT ME GO BACK TO THE DEFINITIONS AT THIS POINT JUST TO HIGHLIGHT, IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO LOOK AT THAT DEFINITION, WHICH IS IN SECTION 1.2, PAGE, I BELIEVE, 4. A LOT OF DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE. WE CAME UP WITH A VOLUMETRIC DESCRIPTION, SO IT INCLUDES THE ANTENNA AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR THE WIRELESS FACILITY WHICH IS SEPARATELY DEFINED. WITHIN THE VOLUMETRIC LIMITS, WE LEFT OF THOSE VALUES BLANK. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS DEVELOP AN APPENDIX WHICH GIVES GUIDELINES ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF THINGS ARE IN FACT OUT THERE IN THE WORLD. WE HAVE AN APPENDIX WHICH HAS SOME DESCRIPTIVE WORDING AROUND WHAT IT CAN INCLUDE, AND THEY ARE MORE EDUCATIONAL FOR MUNICIPALITIES. FIXED WIRELESS, ETC. I WANT TO THANK RICK FOR GUIDING US IN ONE OF THE SECTIONS ONE THEN HAVE TO GO WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION, EDUCATIONAL FOR ALL OF US. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE, WHAT WE ARE MISSING, BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF TIME, HIS PHOTOGRAPHS. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ON THE CALL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. THERE PROBABLY ARE IN THE PUBLIC RECORD OF SOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEING UNDERTAKEN CURRENTLY BY THE COMMISSION THAT CAN DRAW UPON PHOTOGRAPHS OF WHAT SOME OF THESE THINGS LOOK LIKE. THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IS AN EASY ADD, BUT THIS NOW IS LIKE AND YOU WON'T SEE PHOTOS. I LOOKED AT KELLY'S PRESENTATION AND WAS ENVIOUS OF THE GREAT PHOTOS WE HAVE. SORRY WE DON'T HAVE THOSE, PARTICULARLY AT THE END OF THE DAY. IN ANY EVENT, BACK TO SECTION 2.2, WHAT IS PERMITTED USE? THE LOCATION OF THE SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY, HOWEVER IT MAY BE DEFINED BY A METRICALLY BY THE MINISTER QUALITY OR THE CO-LOCATION OF THE OLD -- ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST DEFINED UNDER FEDERAL LAW. PLACEMENT OF THE POLL FOR THE CO-LOCATION OF THE FACILITY THAT QUALIFIES EITHER AS AN ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. NOT A LOT OF WORDS, BUT A LOT OF CAREFUL REVISION TO THIS ONE, AND WE WILL HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS. ACTUALLY, WE ARE GOING TO HOLD FOR JUST A MINUTE. WE GOT SOME COMMENTS EARLIER THIS WEEK, OVER THE WEEKEND, THAT ADDRESSED THIS A LITTLE BIT . THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION AROUND YOU CANNOT REPLACE -- LET ME START OVER--POLL TOWER SUPPORT STRUCTURE, THREE SEPARATELY DEFINED TYPES OF STRUCTURES, AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. HOWEVER, A TOWER COULD BE A TYPE OF POLL. THE TOWER IS DEFINED AS A PURPOSE-BUILT STRUCTURE. YOU COULD HAVE THE UTILITY POLE, WHICH HAS A BLANK TO BE FILLED AND IN TERMS OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF WHAT THE POLE IS. THAT IS A MUNICIPAL DECISION TO MAKE. BUT IN ANY OF THESE CASES, THERE ARE REALLY DISTINCT TYPES OF STRUCTURES. YOU HAVE GOT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. THE OTHER THING I WILL HIGHLIGHT IS THAT THE TERM "REPLACEMENT" IS LIMITED. IT REALLY MEANS REBUILDING OR REPLACING STRUCTURE WITH THE SAME DESIGN, SCALE, AND TYPE THAT IS BEING REPLACED. YOU CANNOT REPLACE, FOR EXAMPLE, 40-FOOT POLE WITH A 200-FOOT POLE, OR A 100-FOOT TOWER. IT HAS GOT TO BE THE SAME DESIGN, SIZE, AND TYPE. THE THIRD IS CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW POLE, OR A MONOPOLE TOWER, NO OTHER TYPE OF TOWER, TO BE USED FOR CO-LOCATION THAT DOES NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM HEIGHTS, AND WE WILL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. THE FOURTH CATEGORY IS CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY OTHER THAN THOSE THREE I JUST DESCRIBED THAT DESCRIBE THE INSTALLATION OF OTHER CABLING THAT IS INSTALLED UNDERGROUND WERE ABOVE GROUND -- OR ABOVE GROUND. WE DID GET SOME COMMENTS ON THAT ONE THAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT A LOT. WE DON'T NEED THAT, IT IS UNNECESSARY. PERMITS ARE NOT GRANTED FOR THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES. IN THE END, THE GROUP THOUGHT IT WAS BETTER TO LEAVE IT IN BECAUSE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE IT WAS REQUIRED AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND STREAMLINED THE WAY WE HAVE SAID THAT FOURTH. THE NEXT PART DEALS WITH THE FACT THAT THE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE APPLICATION. WE HAVE THE DEFINITION OF ORDINARY MAINTENANCE. WE HAVE -- WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE JANUARY MEETING. A DEBATE ON THIS AND WORDSMITHING. I KNOW I GOT FRUSTRATING FOR SOME. -- I KNOW IT GOT FRUSTRATING FOR SYMBOLS ARE A GOOD, SOLID DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS TWO THINGS. ONE IS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF FACILITIES DOES NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT. BUT THEN ALSO -- IT IS ESSENTIALLY MAINTENANCE REPAIR, ETC. REPLACEMENT, WHICH WE NARROWLY DEFINED AS WHEN YOU CAN DO A REPLACEMENT. REPLACEMENT IS INTENDED TO INCLUDE REPLACING EQUIPMENT -- LET'S SAY ANTENNA-RELATED EQUIPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH NEW EQUIPMENT -- LET'S SAY, 4, B5G -- AS LONG AS IT IS WITHIN THE VOLUMETRIC LIMITS WE DEFINED. ANOTHER KEY COMPONENT OF WHAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH -- I THINK THIS IS A REALLY HELPFUL IDEA, AND MAYBE IT IS RELEVANT AND MAY BE VALUABLE TO SOME OF THE OTHER WORK BDAC IS DOING ON THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS. A LOT OF OTHER DEBATE AND NEGOTIATION, ULTIMATELY COMPROMISE. THE CONCEPT IS THAT THE REVIEW PROCESS IS AS FOLLOWS. THE APPLICANT MAKES A SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION, AND IT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE APPLICATION, THE CITY --WE HAVE "CITY" IN QUOTES BECAUSE IT COULD BE ANOTHER TYPE OF TOWNSHIP -- THE CITY MUST NOTIFY THE APPLICANT WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, OR IF NOT MUST IDENTIFY WHAT THE MISSING INFORMATION IS. THE APPROVAL PERI OD IN THIS CASE CAN BE TOLD. THE APPLICANT CAN SUBMIT THE COMPLETED APPLICATION WITHIN 20 DAYS AND THE REVIEW IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS MISSING. IF THEY DON'T DO IT WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME, YOU HAVE TO REFILE. THIS IS WHERE WE SORT OF REALLY GOT DOWN TO SOME DISCUSSION AND COMPROMISE, I THINK. THE CITY HAS TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION TO APPROVE OR TO DENY THE APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS FOR A MUNICIPAL LOCATION OR 90 DAYS FOR THE NEW STRUCTURE. THE CITY MUST ADVISE THE APPLICANT IN WRITING OF ANY FINAL DECISIONS, INCLUDING THE BASIS OF ANY DENIAL. THESE ARE TYPICAL PROVISIONS. HERE'S THE KEY -- THE REVIEW PERIOD, OR WHAT SOME MAY CALL A SHOT CLOCK, MAY RUN UNTIL THE WRITTEN DECISION SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS RELEASED AND SUBMITTED TO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT MAY RESUBMIT THE APPLICATION WITHIN 30 DAYS UNLESS IT WAS ISSUED IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ARTICLE. THIS IS WILL APPROVE OR DENY THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS KEY THING IS FOR THE -- THIS FOR THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, IF THE CITY FAILS TO ACT WITHIN THAT REVIEW PERIOD, APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE THE CITY ARE IN NOTICE THAT THE TIME PERIOD HAS ELAPSED, AND THE CITY HAS 20 MORE DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE WITHIN WHICH TO RENDER THE DECISION. FAILING WHICH, IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THE APPLICATION IS THEN APPROVED. THE SHOT CLOCK, IF YOU WILL, RUNS, BUT ONLY AFTER AN ADDITIONAL 20-DAY NOTICE PERIOD PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. WE HAD A LOT OF DEBATE ON WHETHER THAT IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. GETTING TO SOMEWHERE WHERE WE HAVE A BALANCE WHERE WE HAVE THE CONCEPT IN THE CODE. NOW WE WILL GET TO -- [INDISCERNIBLE] SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY. THIS SECTION ADDRESSES THE IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS ON HEIGHT, AND WITH RESPECT TO SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN PARTICULAR, MODIFY POLES, TOWERS, AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES. WHAT WE SAY HERE IS THAT IN ANY NEW MODIFIED OR REPLACEMENT POLE TOWER, IT WON'T EXCEED OR HAVE AN OPTION, AND IT IS A FIXED HEIGHT AT THE GROUND LEVEL, AND THE CHOICE OF THE MUNICIPALITY ON THIS CODE OR PROVISION, OR FIVE FEET ABOVE THE POLE TOWER IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN PLACE OF THE EFFECTIVE CHAPTER. THERE COULD BE A CONTINUAL RATCHETING UP OF HEIGHTS. YOU FIX THE FIVE-FOOT ADDITION AS OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CHAPTER. IT HAS GOT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE. THE LATE ADDITION, THE 10-FOOT ADDITION, IN THE CAP ON THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, IT COULD BE UP TO 10 FEET ON THE CHILL OF THE POLLS -- 10 FEET ON THE UTILITY POLES. THAT IS WHERE WE TALK ABOUT -- YOU RAISE THE QUESTION YOU IDENTIFIED OR YOU WANT TO -- >> ONE SMALL THING. I APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE. THERE MIGHT BE A LOOPHOLE THAT MIGHT SURPRISE MUNICIPALITIES IF THEY FIND OUT A SUPPORT STRUCTURE IS VERY TALL AND IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. A NEW STRUCTURE COULD BE BUILT THAT COULD BE THE SAME HEIGHT. ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT THAT THE MINISTER QUALITY OTHERWISE SET. THE IDEAS THAT FOR THE NEW STRUCTURE, NOT FOR MODIFICATIONS OR REPLACEMENTS, BUT FOR THE NEW STRUCTURES, YOU WOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF THE SAME HEIGHT LIMIT THAT YOU HAVE ELSEWHERE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WOULD BE LIMITED TO NOT EXCEEDING -- ELSEWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE AN OPEN-ENDED HEIGHT LIMIT. SOME COMMUNITIES WANTED IT LOWER. WHATEVER NUMBER THE COMMUNITY ASSERTS, FOR SUPPORT STRUCTURE NOT EXCEEDING X FEET FOR A NEW SUPPORT STRUCTURE. FOR MODIFICATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS, YOU WOULDN'T CHANGE IT. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE AND A OF THE OTHER ITEMS HERE. IN TERMS OF ALL THE PROTECTIONS IN THIS, IT WOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF THE NEW STRUCTURES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT TAKE TO ANY SUPPORT STRUCTURES ABOUT -- THAT ARE NOT PEGGED TO ANY SUPPORT STRUCTURES ABOVE X HEIGHT. >> I THINK IT IS A LOGICAL ONE. WE JUST HAVE TO BREAK IT OUT. IT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT WAS INTENDED. THE QUESTION IS SHOULD WE INCLUDE SUPPORT STRUCTURES, BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN EVERYTHING ELSE, JUST TO GIVE CONTEXT TO THIS POST OF THE THINKING WAS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A 50-STORY BUILDING IS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, DOES THAT MEAN YOU CAN BUILD SOMETHING ELSE? 500-FOOT TOWER IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY? NO, THAT IS NOT THE INTENT HERE. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED THROUGH ANYWHERE ON THE CODE IF YOU MADE THAT THE ARGUMENT, BUT WE WANT TO TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE. WE SPLIT IT OUT AND ADDRESSES SO THAT WE ARE NOT -- THERE ISN'T IN SOME ARGUMENT THAT SOMEBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. ON THE SAME TOKEN, ON THE FLIP SIDE, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE SUPPORT STRUCTURES, STREET FURNITURE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF ATTACHING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES TO OTHER TYPES OF SUPPORT STRUCTURES. I THINK THAT IS A MEASURE WE SUPPORT. >> SHOULD WE MOVE THE AMENDMENT? SHOULD WE DO IT NOW OR -- >> GO AHEAD. MOVE THE AMENDMENT. >> ALL IN FAVOR? >> ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? >> LET'S SEE, MOVING QUICKLY -- HOW ARE WE DOING ON TIME? WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN ADDITION ON UNDERGROUNDING AND ABANDONMENT. I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OTHER THAN TO SAY THANK YOU TO SEVERAL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT CAME TOGETHER TO WEEKS AGO TO REALLY GET IT THROUGH THE DETAILS AND COME UP WITH WHAT I THINK IS A GREAT, BALANCED APPROACH. CHRIS, LARRY, DAVID, AND CLARK. ONE OF THE THINGS -- I JUST REALIZED IN MY NOTES THAT I SKIPPED OVER, I WANT TO GIVE A SPECIAL THANK-YOU TO CLARK AS WELL, BUT ALSO DEBBIE GOLDMAN OF CWA. THEY WORKED ON AN APPENDIX ON DIGITAL INCLUSION AND THEY DID REALLY LABORING WORK. WE HAD UNANIMOUS SUPPORT AFTER TWO DISCUSSIONS ON THE TOPIC, AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THAT THE LAST MEETING WITH ALL OF US IN JANUARY, A QUESTION AROSE ABOUT WE REALLY DIDN'T ADDRESS TWO OF OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES THAT THIS BODY VOTED ON IN NOVEMBER AND APPROVED. THAT DIGITAL INCLUSION APPENDIX ADDRESSES THAT QUESTION. THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE MANY CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO LAST MEETING WE HAD WITH THIS GROUP IN JANUARY. THE OTHER -- ANOTHER HIGHLIGHT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS IN CONNECTION WITH DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THIS, FRANKLY, WAS ADVOCATED BY A NUMBER OF FOLKS INCLUDING FORMER MEMBERS, AND THIS LANGUAGE IS THANKS TO THEM, STARTED AS THE BASIS OF WHAT WAS PROVIDED AT THE TIME. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WORKING ON IT AND BUILDING IT OUT FURTHER. THESE ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, AND IT APPEARS IN ARTICLE TWO, THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION, AND THE PRIVATE OR THE NONPUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY SECTION, ARTICLE THREE, THE IDEA IS TO ESTABLISH THE MINISTER QUALITY THAT ADOPTS THIS CAP -- THE MUNICIPALITY THAT ALL CAPS THIS CODE CAN FACE ON THIS MODEL, SHOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY DEVELOPED A SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS. ON PAGE 18 OF THE CODE IN FRONT OF THEM, SUBSECTION B2, THERE ARE A SERIES OF DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THOSE ARE MEANT TO FLAG FOR THE MINISTER POLITY, IF YOU WILL, THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROPOSAL FOR THE APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE POLE OR TOWER ADJACENT TO A HISTORIC PROPERTY, HOW THAT SHOULD BE TREATED. WE DIDN'T DICTATE WHAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS SHOULD BE, BUT WHAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO DICTATE IS THAT IT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. WE ARE LEAVING THAT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO CONSIDER WHAT THAT SHOULD BE. IT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED AND CROSS-REFERENCED IN THE CODE BASED ON THIS MODEL CODE. IN ADDITION, WE HAD A GOOD DEBATE AND DISCUSSION. YOU HELPED DELETED THIS ON DECORATIVE -- YOU HELPED TO LEAD THIS ON DECORATIVE POLES. IT IS A POLE THAT LOOKS LIKE A SIMILAR TRADITIONAL MONOPOLE BUT A POLE DESIGNED TO FIT INTO A SPECIFIC AESTHETIC AREA, HISTORIC AREA, DOWNTOWN AREA, WHEREVER IT MAY BE. BECAUSE THOSE MANY TIMES ARE THE ONLY STRUCTURES ABOVE GROUND SUITABLE FOR CO-LOCATION OF THE SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, THERE IS TREATMENT ON HOW THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. AGAIN, LOTS OF LANGUAGE WHICH DIFFERS TO THE MUSES ABOUT -- DEFERS TO THE MINISTER QUALITY ON WHAT THE AESTHETICS LOOK LIKE. IT MAY NOT BE PRECISELY IDENTICAL. FROM THE STRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVE IT MAY NEED TO BE MORE STOUT. BUT IT HAS GOT TO LOOK SIMILAR. BUT THE JUDGMENT IS IN THE AUTHORITY. THAT IS IMPORTED. ARTICLE 3 -- LET ME MOVE TO THAT NOW. THIS IS DEPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. EXTENSIVELY -- ESSENTIALLY PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE HAVE A NOTE THAT LARRY AND OTHERS FELT STRONGLY NEEDED TO BE FLAGGED, AND I WILL PARAPHRASE IT. IT COVERS -- THIS ARTICLE COVERS DEPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. APPLICABLE TO YOUR JURISDICTION, IT MAY REQUIRE THAT THESE PROVISIONS BE ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE APPLIANCE AND CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE STATE LEVEL LAWS. CONSULT WITH YOUR ATTORNEY -- MUSIC TO MY YEARS AS A LAWYER. THAT OUTCOME ADJUSTOR FLAG FOR FOLKS THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO BE THINKING CAREFULLY ABOUT ARTICLE THREE AND THE RELATED PROVISIONS. WHAT DO WE DO HERE IN SECTION3.1A, PARALLEL PROVISION REGARDING THE OTHER PERMITTED USES OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PRIVATELY-OWNED PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE PRIVATE EASEMENT -- I WILL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. WHAT SHOULD BE THE PERMITTED USE FOR REVIEW ONLY? IT IS ESSENTIALLY PARALLELING WHAT WE HAD AND WHAT I REFERENCED IN SECTION 2.2 REGARDING INSTALLATIONS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A COUPLE OF KEY EXCEPTIONS. I MENTIONED PRIVATE EASEMENT. WE HAVE GOT A DEFINITION OF PRIVATE EASEMENT. RATHER THAN READ THROUGH WHAT THAT IS, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT -- YOU REFERRED TO IT AS THE BACKYARD EASEMENT. THESE ARE NOT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS, BUT THE UTILITY RUNS AND UTILITY POLES THAT ARE IN THE BACK OUT, SIDE YARDS AND SOMETIMES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SOMETIMES COMMERCIAL AREAS, RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THE NOTION IS THAT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE TIGHTLY DESCRIBED AND LIMITED, A SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY CAN BE OR AN ELIGIBLE FACILITY'S REQUEST A SITUATION CAN BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE PRIVATE EASEMENT. BUT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH HEIGHT LIMITS, CONSISTENT WITH VOLUME LIMITS, CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITIONS, ETC., ETC. MORE TIME WAS SPENT ON THE QUESTIONS THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY IS ATTACHING SOMETHING THAT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF AN AESTHETIC IMPACT THAT IS IN A SIDE YARD OR BACKYARD. AGAIN, ONLY WHERE THERE IS ALREADY POLLS, ALREADY INFRASTRUCTURE. IN MANY CASES, WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY MICRO CELLS OR OTHER SIMILAR INSTALLATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED WITHOUT INCREMENTING PROCESS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CABLE FRANCHISE. LET'S SEE. IN ADDITION, PARALLEL PROVISION WITH FIXED -- WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE REGARDING THE DEEMED APPROVED, SAME TIME FRAMES APPLY HERE. OTHER THAN THE SIMILAR FOUR EXAMPLES OF THE MINISTER REVIEW ONLY, ALL THE OTHER USE CASES THAT ARE NOT ADMINISTERED OR REVIEWED ARE AUTOMATICALLY BUMPED INTO A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT EXISTS UNDER THE LOCAL CODE OF THAT MUNICIPALITY TODAY. IF THEY DON'T HAVE ONE, THEN IT IS EITHER FLAGGED ADMINISTRATIVE OR CREATE ONE. THERE ARE PLACES -- I'VE SEEN THEM. EVEN IN THE NORTHEAST. WHERE THERE IS NO ZONING. FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. BUT THEY DO EXIST. WE DID NOT WANT TO INADVERTENTLY TRIP INTO A FORCED DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OR REVIEW PROCESS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY INSTALLATIONS. SIMPLY BECAUSE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY WANTS TO ADDRESS WHAT THEY DO IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE ALSO HAVE PROVISIONS REGARDING TEMPORARY AND EMERGENCY INSTALLATIONS. WE DEFINE IT AS DEPLOYABLE. THAT, WE SETTLED ON. MANY, MANY WEEKS AGO. MONTHS AGO IN FACT. WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE. DESIGN STANDARDS IN SECTION 3.6, AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT BRIEFLY, WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. THIS IS SECTION 3.7 ON PAGE 27. WE HAVE MORE OF A PERMISSIVE PROCESS. I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT KELLY, YOU HIGHLIGHTED MONTHS AGO, FOR US TO THINK THROUGH. THE CONCEPTS ESSENTIALLY ARE THAT WHERE THERE ARE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USED AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, THE AUTHORITIES PLANNING MAY REQUIRE OR REQUEST THAT PROJECT DEVELOPER PUBLICLY OFFERED TO QUIT IN A WITH PROVIDERS AND OUR DEFINITION OF PROVIDER IS EITHER A WIRELESS PROVIDER OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, A CABLE COMPANY. OR INFORMATION SERVICE PROVIDER. OR A WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDER, SO TIRE COMPANIES AND OTHER COMPANIES. PROVIDERS BROADLY DEFINED AS ALL THOSE SETS OF FOLKS THAT MAY HAVE FACILITIES. ALSO, SOME LANGUAGE ON CONDUIT, INSTALLATIONS FROM BELOWGROUND COMMUNICATION FACILITY, THE DEVELOPER, THE BIG ONE. THAT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED OR REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON A NONDISCRIMINATORY BASIS ACCESS TO THE AREAS. ALSO, A SUGGESTION AND A CONSIDERATION FOR ESTABLISHING A PLANNED CONSTRUCTION DATA PAYS THAT PROVIDERS CAN HAVE -- A DATABASE THAT PROVIDERS CAN HAVE ACCESS TO. ANOTHER QUICK HIGHLIGHT, SECTION 3.8, VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER, THIS ONE WAS A SUGGESTION OF, GUESS WHO? THE MUNICIPAL FOLKS. WE DID NOT HAVE THIS IN, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE A VIOLATION SECTION. VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. NOBODY HAD ANY OBJECTION TO IT. IT IS HERE. IN CASE THE WAY THIS GETS ADOPTED, IT WOULD NOT HAVE RELATED TO VIOLATION SECTIONS OF THEIR CODE OR CHARTER OF THE CITY. WE BUILT IT RIGHT INTO THE SMALLER CODE. WE HAVE SECTION 3.9, EXCEPTIONS TO WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY CHANGES. THOSE ARE THINGS LIKE TELEVISION, RADIO BROUGHT -- RADIO BROADCAST TOWERS, RESIDENTIAL BROADCAST RADIO AND TV RECEPTION, DISH, DIRECTV, ETC. SATELLITE. SORRY, THAT IS SIDE ANTENNAS FOR RESIDENTS. THAT'S IT. AN IMPORTANT ONE. 3.10, WE MADE A CHANGE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE WE PREVIOUSLY HAD 10 DAYS AFTER PASSAGE THAT WE SAID AFTER SOME GOOD DISCUSSION, IT NEEDS TO BE BLANK. DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY MAY NEED MORE TIME. I WENT VERY FAST. >> YES, YOU DID. SO, I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHICH IS, I UNDERSTAND WHY ALL OF THE HEIGHTS AND MEASUREMENTS AND ALL ARE BLANK. THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT I GUESS I WOULD ASK -- I'M JUST CURIOUS, IF YOU HAVE PUT THIS OUT IN THIS FORM, THEN TWO MUNICIPALITIES, ONE GETS THE HEIGHT LIMIT ON POLLS AT 30 FEET COMMIT THE OTHER GETS THE HEIGHT LIMIT ON POLES THAT 50 FEET. OF ALL THE POLLS OR 40 FEET BY THE PROVIDER, THEN IN ONE MUNICIPALITY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ORDER NEW POLLS. IT DOESN'T REALLY GET AT THE PROBLEM OF ADJACENT OR MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN A MASSIVE DEPLOYMENT HAVING RADICALLY DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENTS. THAT IS ONE OF THE DRIVERS, BY THE WAY, FOR THE STATE FRANCHISE RECOMMENDATION THAT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE VARYING ROLES. HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT CONCERN? >> ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO TACKLE THAT ONE FIRST? >> IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT NUMBER YOU PUT IN. YOU WILL HAVE VARIATION AROUND THAT. I THINK WHAT I LEARNED FROM MY MUNICIPAL FRIENDS IN THIS, IS WE HAD A CERTAIN SET OF NEEDS AND THEY HAD A CERTAIN SET OF NEEDS. AND THERE WAS AN OVERLAP IN THE MIDDLE. AND THAT WE GOT TO THIS. I THINK ABOUT THIS AS YOU HAVE GOT 20,000 MUNICIPALITIES, THE BIGGEST 100 HAVE LARGE LOT APARTMENTS AND YOU DON'T NEED TO DO A THING FOR THEM. THE SMALLER ONES, THEY -- IT IS THE MIDDLE GUYS WHO HAVE ONE PART-TIME TOWN ATTORNEY, OR MAYBE ONE ATTORNEY IS DOING SLIP AND FALLS AND WORKER COMP AND NOW HE HAS GOT THIS. AND HE IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS. AND HE HASN'T READ FIVE ENTERED PAGE FCC ORDERS. IF WE CAN GIVE HIM A STRUCTURE THAT GIVES HIM 90% OF THE WAY THERE, HE CAN FIGURE OUT THE FEES AND THE HEIGHTS OF THOSE THINGS. IT WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY A FIGHTING CHANCE IF HE GOT HIRED AND THEY SAID IN TWO DAYS, YOU NEED TO HAVE A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE. COULD HE TAKE THIS AND GET THERE IN TWO DAYS? I THINK THEY COULD. THERE WILL BE VARIATION AROUND IT. THERE IS A STRUCTURE TO IT. PART OF IT IS LIKE, IF THERE IS ANY HEIGHT LIMIT AT ALL, I CAN LOOK UP WHAT IT IS. I KNOW WHAT I AM IN THE BLACK AND WHITE. IF THERE IS CRITERIA -- IT'S NOT SO MUCH OF THE CRITERIA IS. IT'S THAT THE CRITERIA IS STATED. THE APPLICATION NEEDS THESE THINGS. TELL ME WHAT IT IS. DON'T TELL ME TO PUT IT AN END TELL ME I MISSED A SPOT. THAT IS THE STRUCTURE. THE RATES ON THE HEIGHTS, THOSE THINGS ARE NOT IN THERE, I'M COMFORTABLE AS AN EMPLOYER THAT THIS IS GOING TO GET IN AS A PALATE IS CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THEY WILL FILL IN THOSE POINTS AND THAT WILL BE OK. I WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH THAT AND WORK WITH THAT. IT'S NOT PERFECT. BUT IT IS GOOD ENOUGH. WE ARE -- IF WE TRY FOR PERFECT, WE WILL GET NOTHING. YOU KNOW, IT TOOK A NORM IS COMPROMISED OR IT I LEADERSHIP STEPPING UP. -- TOOK ENORMOUS COMPROMISED, AND I RESPECT LARRY FOR STEPPING UP. IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HIM. [LAUGHTER] WE EITHER COMPROMISE ON THINGS OR WE BUILT SOLUTIONS TO BRIDGE THE GAP. DAVID BEAT ME UP FROM HIS CAR WHERE I WAS CALLING FROM A BEDTIME. WE GOT HERE AND THIS IS A CONSENSUS. UNANIMOUS VOTE. I THINK IT IS USEFUL. I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY COULD PICK THIS UP TOMORROW AND USE THIS AND WOULD COME OUT WITH A GOOD OUTCOME. >> IF YOU TOOK THIS UNFILLED IN THE BLANKS WITH ANY NUMBER, YOU BASICALLY WOULD NOT GET SUED AND YOU WOULD GET DEPLOYMENT. IT'S A GOOD THING. THAT IS WHY I SUPPORT IT. >> JONATHAN? >> I HAVE ONE MORE THING ON THE LAST AMENDMENT. I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB OVERALL ON THIS. YOU WERE MOVING FAST. A COUPLE THINGS MAY HAVE BEEN MISSED. ON SECTION 3.1, MODIFICATION ON PAGE 20, 3 POINT -- 3182, YOU ALLOW FOR THE MODIFICATION OF A STRUCTURE. IN TERMS OF REPLACEMENT COME IT AS REPLACEMENT OF A POLL. WE'RE THINKING IT WOULD BE GREAT IF IT COMES TO INFRASTRUCTURE, IT IT MAKES SENSE AS A MATTER OF POLICY FOR POLLS AND TOWERS TO BE REPLACED. YOU HAVE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, THE WORD TOWER MIGHT SCARE PEOPLE TO BUT THE WAY TOWERS ARE DEFINED IS ACTUALLY VERY MUCH LIKE THE POLLS. WHAT WE ARE SEEN BY ADDING THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE THAT SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REPLACE A MONOPOLE WITH A GUIDE TOWER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF ANYONE NEEDS A COPY, I HAVE IT HERE. ADD TOWER AFTER POLL IN THAT SECTION. TWO WORDS TO ALLOW WHAT WE CALL AN INDUSTRY DROP AND SWAP FOR THESE. >> 3182, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? >> YES. AFTER REPLACEMENT OF A POLL, ADD OR TOWER. >> TOWER DOES NOT MEAN 250 FOOT TOWER. IT BASICALLY MEANS 50 FEET OR SHORTER. >> IT IS CLEAR WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MONOPOLE. >> IF YOU HAD 150 FOOT TOWER THERE TO REPLACE, YOU COULD REPLACE IT WITH A -- WITH ANOTHER 150 FOOT TOWER OR YOU COULD NOT? >> IT WOULD NOT BE THE DEFINITION OF A TOWER. >> THIS IS ALL BY IF YOU HAD 150 FOOT TOWER AND YOU WANTED TO REPLACE IT WITH A STRONGER ONE, GO TO ZONING. >> OK. >> NOT BECAUSE YOU GO TO THE NORMAL TOWER REPLACEMENT WHICH IS A DIFFERENT AND MORE ROBUST PROCESS. >> YES. >> YOU SEE AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH, THE BOLD PART SITE TO THE ZONING. >> CONGRATULATIONS. >> I HAVE ANOTHER THING. >> INSIDE. -- I'M SORRY. DO YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? OK. WINDY. -- THANK YOU. IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE, JONATHAN? >> ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN OUR GROUP, AND IN COMCAST, IN THE PROCESS, EXTRA CONDITIONS ARE IMPOSED BEYOND JUST THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS CONSIDERED AT ALL? FOR EXAMPLE, SOMETIMES WE WILL SEEK A PERMIT TO OPEN A ROAD WHICH WILL BE ASKED TO REPAIR MUCH MORE -- GRACIAS -- GREATER SPACE THAN WHAT WE ARE GETTING. OR BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS, OR THINGS AGAINST REDLINING. DID YOU GUYS CONSIDER WHETHER MUNICIPALITY SHOULD BE CIRCUMSCRIBED IN THEIR AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THESE KINDS OF CONDITIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS? >> YES, TO SOME DEGREE WE DID. WE DID IN THE CONTEXT OF UNDERGROUND AND WHERE THERE IS AN UNDERGROUND PROCESS THAT'S UNDERWAY. THERE IS SOME PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT THAT IS SIMILAR -- HAS SIMILAR LANGUAGE ABOUT WHAT IS APPROPRIATE. WE DID NOT TREAT IT AS -- FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CONDITIONS. IT'S INTERESTING. WHAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON IS ON THE REVIEW PROCESS, THEY'RE PROBABLY CANNOT BE CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNRELATED TO THE PROJECT. BUT WE DID NOT SPEND REALLY ANY TIME, LET'S THINK ABOUT HOW WE PRESCRIBED LIMITATION CAN -- CONDITIONS, RATHER, TO A PERMIT. SOME OF WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, THERE ARE. WE CAN SEPARATELY ADDRESS THEM. >> YOU BELIEVE A COMMUNITY COULD BE CIRCUMSCRIBED UNDER THIS FROM IMPOSING REQUIREMENTS ARE PROHIBITING REDLINING? >> IT IS NOT ADDRESSED. I WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE. THERE IS NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS YOU CAN. THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T. MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT. ANY REACTIONS? >> NOT ON THE REDLINING. BUT I THINK ON THE REPAIRS, WE TRIED TO WRITE IT IN A WAY THAT IT IS RELATED TO THE PROJECT. YOU WOULD BE REPAIRING WHAT YOU DISPLACED OR CONSTRUCTED, I APPRECIATE YOUR GENEROSITY, BUT I DON'T SUPPORT MUNICIPALITIES TRYING TO MAKE YOU PAY FOR THE ENTIRE WRIST -- THE ENTIRE STREET FOR ONE SECTION. I AGREE ON THAT. >> VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AROUND RESTORATION AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS AS A GUIDE FOR THE CITY TO A DROP -- TO ADOPT. IT IS IN THE BACK HERE. >> THE DOCUMENT THAT I HAVE -- 3, 4, 5, AND SIX. YES. IT REALLY LAYS OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE COMMON SENSE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES TO ADVERSITIES. -- TO ADD FOR CITIES. >> THE ABILITY OF THE CITIES TO EXERCISE SOME OF THEIR AUTHORITY HERE. >> MONICA? >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DOUG, AND YOUR GROUP FOR YOUR WORK. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT FOR A FEW MINUTES IS DEEMED APPROVED. I SEE IT IN THE RIGHT AWAY AND OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT AWAY. I ASSUME THAT MEANS DEEMED APPROVED CONCEIVED TO CONSTRUCTION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FIND OFTEN IN PRACTICE IS THAT EVEN THOUGH A PERMIT IS DEEMED APPROVED, LET'S SAY UNDER 649 AND THE REALLY FACT, THE COMMUNITIES ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS. SO WE ARE STALLED. IT SEEMS LIKE NO ONE KNOWS WHAT TO DO. I AM ASKING IF WE CAN CONSIDER SOME CLARITY HERE AND JUST EITHER STATE AND PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION, OR SOME OTHER LANGUAGE, OR EVEN DURING THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS WITH THE STATE MODEL CODE, THE STATE MOTTO CODE HAS GOOD LANGUAGE IN IT THAT ADDRESSES THIS BED IS NOT HERE. IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL -- I THINK WE'LL MEAN YOU CAN PROCEED. IT JUST, YOU CAN'T PROCEED. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THAT IS A LANGUAGE ISSUE. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ADDRESS THAT. LARRY IS REALLY -- HAS TO LEAVE. ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH A VOTE? >> YES, WE HAVE A COMMENT, BUT YES, I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR A SPECIFIC TYPE OF VOTE. WHICH IS -- AND WE CAN -- I WELCOME COMMENTS ON WHETHER WE WANT TO DO THIS FOR BOTH OF THE CODES OR JUST AS CODE. SINCE THIS IS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE STATE MODEL CODE WAS PREDOMINANTLY SUPPORTED BY THEIR COMMITTEE, I WOULD SUGGEST WE HAVE A MOTION THAT APPROVES BOTH OF THESE AS A FINAL WORK PRODUCT OF THOSE WORKING GROUPS AND RECOMMENDS GOING INTO A RECONCILIATION PROCESS FOR THESE THINGS. YOU CAN DO THEM AS SEPARATE PROVISIONS. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS A RECOMMENDATION, THEN THAT IS OBVIOUS IN YOUR DECISION. WE WILL GO INTO THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS. I AM GOING TO LEAVE THAT FOR WHAT MOTION YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR. >> I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE -- SINCE WE HAVE UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS -- TO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT. WITH RECONCILIATION. >> OK. >> THAT IS HOW WE WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER. >> SO YOU ARE ASKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT AND INTO RECONCILIATION? >> WITHIN A NECESSARY RECONCILIATION. >> OK. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT. >> OK. DO WE WANT TO TAKE THOSE IS TO BRING SEPARATE VOTES? -- TWO SEPARATE VOTES? I THINK ANYBODY CAN MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE -- WE ARE STARTING WITH MUNICIPAL MONACO. EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MUNICIPAL MODEL CODE SUBJECT TO RECONCILIATION? BRETT HAS TO MAKE HIS COMMENT. >> OUR LITTLE DEBATE MADE ME THINK THAT TOWERS IS A BAD WORD FOR WHAT THOSE STRUCTURES ARE. IT CAN CONFUSE PEOPLE HERE. THEY ARE NOT REALLY TOWERS. THEY ARE PURPOSE BUILT WIRELESS STRUCTURES. IF YOU GO TO MANY OF US -- ME AND AS A POLITY, YOU PUT THE WORD TOWER, IT WILL FREAK PEOPLE OUT. NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH TOWERS. YOU MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT CALLING IT -- WE DON'T NEED THIS NOW, BUT CALLING IT -- >> LARRY, LEAVE YOUR PROXY WITH JOHN TO VOTE ON THIS ON HOWEVER YOU WANT TO VOTE. IF YOU DON'T MIND. OR DON'T. HE CAN VOTE FOR YOU. THAT'S FINE. I DON'T CARE. AS LONG AS IT IS SOMEBODY. >> YOU CAN CALL IT TOWERS IF YOU WANT. I JUST THINK IT WILL WRIT -- RAISE UNNECESSARILY -- UNNECESSARY ALARMS. >> I THINK WHAT WE MIGHT DO IS WE MIGHT REFERENCE MONOCLE'S IS ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH IT. THE WAY WE DID IT IN ARTICLE TWO. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MONO POLES ONLY. I THINK IT IS A RECONCILIATION. I DON'T THINK IT IS A DIFFICULT ISSUE. >> THERE IS A DEFINITION IN THE STATE MOTTO CODE FOR TOWER. WE SHOULD -- >> WE GET THE POINT. >> LOOKS GREAT. JUST ONE THING ON THE CIVIL PENALTIES. EACH DAY THE VIOLATION OCCURS, THERE WILL BE -- MY SUGGESTION WOULD HAVE SOME NOTICE. IT COULD BE IN VIOLATION FOR YEARS AND THERE MIGHT BE AN ATTEMPT TO CLAWBACK. >> THAT IS A AMENDMENT -- AN AMENDMENT TO ADD THAT WORD. >> WE DIDN'T MEAN TO TELL YOU THAT YOU CREATED A VIOLATION FOUR YEARS AGO AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT AND NOW WE WILL GET YOU WITH FOUR YEARS OF PENALTIES. >> I THINK WE SHOULD GET SOME 14 DAY OPPORTUNITY, AND THEN AFTER THAT. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE WORK -- LOOKING FOR. >> NOTICE AND ERIC HERE. >> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. I READ IT LAST NIGHT. FIRST I WANTED TO NOTE THAT I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP DEEMED APPROVED TODAY. [LAUGHTER] THIS TELLS YOU HOW TO GO ABOUT DOING A PERMIT ANY -- IN A MUNICIPALITY. IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE COMMUNICATION OR THE TELECOMMUNICATION PROVIDER HAS ACCESS TO THE IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT ADDRESSES THAT? >> TO BE CLEAR, IT IS ONLY ACCESS TO STRUCTURES THAT ARE PUBLICLY OWNED OR NON-PUBLICLY OWNED. OR THE LAND ITSELF. >> I GUESS I WASN'T QUITE SURE ON WHERE THAT WAS SPELLED OUT. WHAT WAS COVERED? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAYS NOW. OR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CITY LIMITS? >> GOOD QUESTION. ANYTHING REFERENCING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE HAD A LOT OF CHANGES ON THIS. ANYTHING THAT IS ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY REFERENCES ONLY THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE DON'T HAVE A PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT IS DIFFERENT. PRIVATE EASEMENT IS ALSO PRETTY NARROWLY DEFINED -- I DID SKIP OVER IT AND IT IS A GOOD QUESTION. IT IS THE AREA ON BELOW OR ABOVE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERLY -- PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR USE OR IS USED FOR A UTILITY PURPOSE SUCH AS ELECTRIC CABLE OR OTHER UTILITY PURPOSE AND IS EVIDENCED BY HER -- BY EASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY OR IS OTHERWISE ILLEGALLY ENFORCEMENT. AND DOES NOT INCLUDE PORTION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT IS PRIVATE EASEMENT. >> WHICH WOULD BE A TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY. -- WRITE. WHICH WOULD BE A TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THE WAY THIS IS SET UP, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, THIS DEALS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMIT. >> IN THE DEFINITION OF UTILITY POLE, DEFINITIONS MATTER. AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 11, NOT INCLUDING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION POLES. STRUCTURES. >> YES. >> I DON'T WANT TO BE ON -- IT IS DEFINITION NUMBER 66. >> I DON'T SEE. >> IT SHOULD SAY IT. >> I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT. >> AND YOU MAY NOT BECAUSE THAT IS A PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. YOUR TRANSMISSION TOWERS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED. PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> RIGHT. >> NOBODY CAN INSTALL A FACILITY ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. >> RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS STILL THE CASE. I DID NOT FIND ANYTHING IN HERE -- >> NO. A LOT OF FOLKS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. LET ME GIVE YOU THE COMFORT AND LIQUID. IN 3.18, IN THE PERMITTED USE, THE BEGINNING SECTION, INCLUDING WITH A PRIVATE EASEMENT TO THE EXTENT FOR BELOW, SHALL BE PERMITTED USE. AND ISSUANCE IN THE SECTION. AN SUBJECT TO APPLICANT'S LEGAL RIGHT TO INSTALL AND OPERATE THE PROPERTY OR STRUCTURE. THINK OF IT AS -- JUST BECAUSE A PERMIT COULD BE GRANTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO INSTALL OR CO-LOCATE ON A STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEAN THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IMPACTED OR DO YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. >> THIS DOES NOT ADDRESS ANY ACCESS TO PRIVATE FACILITIES. >> NO. AND THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER PROVISION THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT. IT WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED TO BE COMFORTABLE THAT WAS THE CASE. THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION HERE. HERE IT IS. PAGE 23. A PERMIT GRANTED NO PROPERTY WRITER -- DOES NOT CREATE A PROPERTY RIGHT FOR A GRAND AUTHORITY TO INFRINGE UPON THE -- UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. >> THANK YOU. >> OK. SO, KELLY HAS TO LEAVE SOON. OTHER PEOPLE DO AS WELL. UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THAT WOULD IMPACT THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM, I WOULD LIKE -- WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE SECOND THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS TO A VOTE. IF YOU RECALL THE MOTION AS WORDED WAS TO APPROVE THIS AS A FINAL WORK PRODUCT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. PURSUANT TO RECONCILIATION -- SUBJECT TO RECONCILIATION. >> JUST FOR PEACE OF MIND, WHEN WE SAY SUBJECT TO RECONCILIATION, IF IT IS AMENDED, WE HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY. >> THERE IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE. YES. THAT IS TRUE BECAUSE KELLY WOULD LIKE A SIMILAR MOTION ON THE MODEL STAKE CODE. THIS IS BASICALLY SAYING THE WORKING GROUP DID THEIR JOB. THIS IS THE CODE THAT WAS APPROVED FOR WE ARE VOTING THIS OUT OF THEY WORKING GROUP AND SENDING IT INTO RECONCILIATION, IS HOW I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. I BELIEVE MONO MENISCAL CODE IS LOOKING FOR APPROVAL. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IF THE TAX CHANGES, WE HAVE TO VOTE AGAIN. >> ONE VOTE FOR THE WHOLE CODE. THEN WE WILL SEE DOWN THE ROAD. >> YES. THEN IT CAN BE ARTICLE BY ARTICLE TO CORRECT. -- ARTICLE BY ARTICLE. CORRECT. OK. >> IS THERE A WAY TO JUST VOTE FOR RECONCILIATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DOCUMENT? >> NOT PURSUANT TO THAT NOTION -- MOTION. WOULD YOU LIKE -- LET'S SEE. >> YOU WANT TO A PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT? >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO? >> SHARE. -- SURE. I WILL AMENDMENT THE VOTE TO SIMPLY MOVE DOCUMENTS INTO RECONCILIATION. >> I WOULD OPPOSE THAT. ON THE MUNICIPAL SIDE. PEOPLE WORK VERY HARD. MADE A LOT OF COMPROMISES. BUILT A LOT OF BRIDGES. I THINK THAT IS ENTITLED TO THE RECOGNITION THAT THAT IS THE FINAL WORK PRODUCT. THAT DESERVES THE RESPECT AND RECOGNITION OF THAT. I FIND IT KIND OF MINIMIZING TO SEND IT TO THE DEFECT SHOP IN THAT SENSE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT APPROVED AS YOU SAID, IF WE NEED TO DO SOME TWEAKS, THAT IS FINE. >> OK. I DON'T THINK IT IS A DEFECT, BY THE WAY. >> THE WORK THAT THE STATE MODEL CODE COMMITTEE DOES. >> EVERYBODY HAS BEEN WORKING VERY HARD. IT'S IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE TO SPLIT THE MOTION, THEN WE CAN SPLIT THE MOTION AND HAVE A VOTE ON APPROVAL OF THE CODE AND A SEPARATE VOTE ON MOVING IT INTO RECONCILIATION. IF THAT WILL MAKE PEOPLE FEEL BETTER. THAT IS UP TO DOUG. IT'S HIS MOTION. >> I KNOW LARRY IS COMPLETELY IN SYNC WITH ME. WE WOULD AGREE WITH CHRIS. WE WANT THE LOCAL CODE TO BE VOTED ON AS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO RECONCILIATION FOR WE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE AT THAT MODIFICATION PROPOSAL? >> WOULD YOU ACCEPT JOE'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AS REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO RECONCILIATION AND TRADE -- TREAT THAT AS A SEPARATE MOMENT? >> NO. I WANT TO LEAVE IT. DAVID AND THE OTHERS, ANGELA? THIS IS UNANIMOUS. THE FOLKS WHO ARE ON OUR WORKING GROUP, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY -- LARRY, SORRY. WE WANT THIS TO GO FINAL. >> OK. >> NOT TO BE DIFFICULT, WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING IN A FEW MONTHS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO POTENTIALLY VOTE -- IF WE GET THERE -- A REPORT OF ALL OF THE THINGS WE VOTED ON OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO. >> CORRECT. >> THEN WE VOTE ON THAT AGAIN. WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY TO DO -- IF WE VOTE ON THIS NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THERE ARE NO MORE DISCUSSIONS TO BE HAD ON ANY OF THIS PART OF THE CODE? >> NO. FOR ME, WHAT I MEAN BY THIS -- I'VE HAD A HARD TIME ARTICULATING COME I HAVE A HARD TIME BEING CLEAR. THE WORKING GROUPS PUT THEIR HEARTS AND SOULS INTO THE WORK PRODUCT MAY HAVE CREATED. WE VOTED OUT OF THOSE COMMITTEES AND SAID, OK, THIS IS THE FINAL WORK PRODUCT OF COMPETITIVE ACCESS. THIS IS THE FINAL WORK PRODUCT OF FEDERAL SIDING. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VOTE THAT THIS IS THE FINAL WORK PRODUCT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WORKING GROUP. WE STILL HAVE TO CREATE A FINAL REPORT. RECOGNIZING THAT THESE ARE THE WORK PRODUCTS THAT COME OUT OF THOSE COMMITTEES IS A STEP TO MOVING IT TO SAY, OK, NOW WHERE HAVE WE BEEN INCONSISTENT AND DO WE AGREE AND HOW DO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS DOVETAIL WITH EACH OTHER? I PREFERRED THE WORD HARMONIZED TO RECONCILE. I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO HARMONIZE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. IN SOME PLACES, THESE THINGS FIT TOGETHER LIKE PIECES OF A PUZZLE. IN SOME PLACES, THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONTRARY. AND WE WENT THROUGH THE MODEL STATE CODES, YOU CAN SEE THE FLAGS THAT WENT UP OF WHERE THERE IS DIRECT CONFLICT. FOR ME, GOING BACK TO COMPETITIVE ACCESS WHICH WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY, WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE SAME TYPE OF APPROVAL THAT COMPETITIVE ACCESS GOT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT WORKING GROUPS WORK. WE ACKNOWLEDGE SOMETHING'S REALLY MODEL STAKE CODE THAT MIGHT WANT TO BE IMPORTED TO THAT RECOMMENDATION AND VICE VERSA. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE GO INTO THIS HARMONIZATION PROCESS. FOR ME, THIS VOTE IS SAYING, YOU DID YOUR JOB, THIS IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION, AND WE APPROVE THIS RECOMMENDATION. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE MORE WORK TO BE DONE VERSUS HOW IT INTERACTS WITH THE OTHER PIECES OF WHAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS DONE. >> I WILL PROPOSE A CHANGE TO REFERENCE, INSTEAD OF THE TERM RECONCILIATION, HARMONIZATION. I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. >> OK. >> I HAVE A POINT. TO ME, IT SEEMS WE HAVE VOTED ON EVERY OTHER COMMITTEES DOCUMENT, WHETHER WE APPROVE THEIR REPORT OR WE DIDN'T. THAT'S CORRECT, RIGHT? AND I THINK WHAT DOUG IS ASKING IS FOR HIS DOCUMENT TO BE APPROVED OUT. >> CORRECT. >> I THINK YOU STAND ON PART OF THAT, LISA, ON THE FACT THAT THOSE UNANIMOUSLY WERE VOTED ON. WE KNOW THAT WAS NOT THE CASE WITH SOME OF THE OTHERS. THEY WERE VOTED OUT AS WELL. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THERE IS REALLY NO REASON FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT. OR YOU WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE TO SEND THAT DOCUMENT TO SOME OTHER AD HOC COMMITTEE TO RECONCILE IT WITH ANY OTHER DOCUMENT YOU WANT TO HAVE IT RECONCILED WITH YOUR TOUR HARMONIZED WITH. CORRECT? >> I THINK SO. [LAUGHTER] >> IF THAT'S THE CASE, THE STATE MODEL CODE HAS OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN OUR COMMITTEE. WE HAD 21 VOTERS AND WE HAD ABOUT 18 -- 16-18 VOTES ON EVERY ARTICLE. IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON BOTH OF THOSE? THEN WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION AFTER THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO SET UP AN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND RECONCILE OR NOT. >> IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO VOTE THEM OUT. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD VOTE THEM TOGETHER. >> I UNDERSTAND. WHEN I'M SAYING IS THERE IS NOTHING ON THE FLOOR TO EVEN TALK ABOUT SENDING THESE TWO DOCUMENTS TO ANY TYPE OF HARMONIZATION COMMITTEE. RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT GOT TO THE LEVEL OF MOTION, BUT WE DID DISCUSS IT DURING PRIOR TO OR DURING THE STATE MODEL CODE. THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE MOTION FOR ONE ARTICLE TO SEND IT TO RECONCILIATION. I DON'T THINK -- LET'S TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A TIME TO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE MODEL. THAT IS THE MOTION. >> SUBJECT TO HARMONIZATION. >> SUBJECT TO HARMONIZATION. LET'S CALL THAT WENT TO A VOTE. UNLESS THERE IS ANY PROCEDURAL ISSUES WITH DOING THAT? OK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY, AYE. ANY OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR HAND. >> I ABSTAIN. >> TWO ABSTAIN -- ABSTENTIONS. OK. CONGRATULATIONS. NOW WE MOVE ON TO MODEL STATE CODE. CAN I PLEASE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUT THE MODEL STATE CODE? >> SUBJECT TO HARMONIZATION. >> SUBJECT TO HARMONIZATION. OK. WHO IS A SECOND? ANY COMMENTS? >> I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH ENEMIES -- EVERYTHING HERE. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ARTICLE 12 IN THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN. AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE ABSTAINING ON THAT. I WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS AN AMAZING DOCUMENT. IT IS JUST THAT ONE CARVEOUT OF, CAN WE ADDRESS STATES THAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO REMOVE BARRIERS OR ADDING BARRIERS TO. >> I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. >> IT WAS. >> WE ACCEPTED THAT. >> YES. WE ACCEPTED THAT. >> YOU HAVE BEEN VOTING BY ARTICLE. >> DO YOU WANT TO VOTE BY ARTICLE? >> THERE ARE ARTICLES I WOULD SUPPORT AND THERE ARE ARTICLES I WOULD OPPOSE. LUMPING IT IS AWKWARD. >> LET'S VOTE OUT BY ARTICLE. >> FUN. >> WHAT DOES HARMONIZATION MEAN? WHAT CHANGES CAN WE MAKE HERE? I'M CONFUSED. >> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK I CAN -- WE CAN MAKE TUBING CHANGES. NOW, I THINK -- AND THERE ARE DIRECT CONFLICTS. MY ANSWER IS AS FEW AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK IN AND REWRITE OR RELITIGATE ISSUES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEBATED WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS ABOUT. I THINK I USE THE EXAMPLE OF THE 25 DAYS I CAME OUT OF COMPETITIVE ACCESS, WE DEBATED IT NOT BEING WE OPENED. THE ISSUES ARE NOT BEING REOFFEND, BUT IF YOU HAVE 15 DAYS HERE AND 25 DAYS THERE, THEN WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE ANSWER LIES AND SO, WE HAVE TO ENSURE WE ARE BEING CONSISTENT AND THE BENEFIT OF THE GROUPS THAT WENT BEFORE IS THAT THEY HAVE STAKES IN THE GROUND IN THE GROUND AND THOSE THINGS WERE ALREADY LITIGATED IN THIS COMMITTEE. THESE WERE VOTED ON, IN THIS CASE, WE HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME. THE TWO CHOICES BEFORE THIS GROUP ARE THE ONES WE ARE TAKING, WHICH IS VOTING THESE OUT, AND TRYING TO HARMONIZE THEM WITH PREVIOUS VOTES WITH AS MINIMAL CHANGES AS POSSIBLE TO OTHER CODE. BUT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE INTERNALLY CONSISTENT, OR VOTING THEM OUT AND BEING INCONSISTENT AND NOT HARMONIZING THEM WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING I AM PERSONALLY COMFORTABLE WITH FROM THIS SEAT. I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE IN THE POSITION OF PRESENTING INCONSISTENT RECOMMENDATIONS WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO? INSOFAR AS CHRIS'S REQUEST -- >> TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLER, WE WILL VOTE THIS STRAIGHT UP OR DOWN. THEN WE CAN LOOK AT ARTICLES WHEN IT COMES BACK IN THE FINAL VERSION. >> OK. >> ONE QUESTION ON THAT POINT, YOU HAVE A MUNICIPAL CODE WITH A LOT OF BLANK SPACES OF TIMES AND HEIGHTS. THE STATE MOTTO CODE DOESN'T. IF WE APPROVE BOTH TODAY, DOES THAT MEAN THOSE DEFINITIONS BECOME THE BLANK SPACE FILLERS IN THE MINUTES OF PAUL MODEL CODE? -- IN THE MUNICIPAL MODEL CODE? >> I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK THERE ARE MANY PLACES WHERE THE MUNICIPAL CODE HAS A BLANK AND THE STATE CODE HAS A NUMBER. BUT IF THERE IS, I GUESS THE ANSWER IS YES. I DON'T WRECK ON THE STATE MODEL CODE ADDRESSING HEIGHTS OF TOWERS OR OFFSETS FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. TIMELINES ARE PERMITTING. YES. >> THE DEFINITION OF A SMALL SALE, SIX CUBIC FEET, -- >> THAT'S CORRECT. THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE WE ARE DEFINING IT AS -- THEY ARE DEFINING IT AS MULTIPLE THINGS. THAT IS WHERE YOU HAVE TO HARMONIZE. >> I LIKE THE WAY THEY LEFT IT BLANK AND REFERRED TO IT AS AN APPENDIX. TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF THE DIFFERENT SIDES. AFTER ALL, IT IS A MODEL CODE. >> PERSONALLY, I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING NUMBERS THAT BECAUSE WHATEVER NUMBER YOU PUT INCOMING YOU WILL REGRET FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. IT'S REALLY HARD TO CHANGE. >> ON THE HARMONIZATION POINT, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WE NEED ABSOLUTE HARMONIZATION. IT'S POSSIBLE -- POSSIBLE THAT SOME STATES WILL IMPOSE THE STATE MODEL CODE AND THERE MAY BE A DAYS DIFFERENT WITH LOCAL. OTHER STATES WILL NOT HAVE THE CODE. IN THE LOCALITIES CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT DATE. >> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I'M SORRY IF I IMPLIED WE DID. THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. I AM SAYING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, YOU CANNOT DEFINE A TOWER AS ONE THING, ONE PLACE, AND IS SOMETHING ELSE SOME ARE ELSE. IF THAT DEFINITION INFORMS THE WAY EVERYTHING ELSE IS BEING DONE AT THE TWO MODEL CODES. THEY HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER SO THAT IN A STATE THAT WANTED TO ENACT PARTS OF THE CODE, AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GUESS AS TO WHICH OF THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS THIS BODY THINKS IS THE BETTER CHOICE. THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING FOR. AS FAR AS 100% AGREEMENT, NO. A DOUBLE EVENTS NECESSARY OR REALISTIC. CHARLES? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHEN I'M VOTING FOR. WE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES WHERE THERE SEEMS TO BE CONTINGENT IN DISPUTE OVER WHAT SHOULD BE THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. THE ONE I WAS MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEFINE AN AUTHORITY POLE? WHAT ARTICLE NINE MEANS IN A VERY SUBSTANTIVE WAY, DEPENDS ON HOW THAT ISSUE IS RESOLVED. IF WE ARE VOTING -- MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE VOTING YEAH, NAY, AS IT EXISTS WITHOUT AMENDMENT? >> I THINK ONE OF THE MOTION WAS TO ACCEPT OUT THE STATE MODEL CODE VOTE ITEM, SUBJECT TO HARMONIZATION, WITH THE MUNICIPAL. IT IS THE MIRROR IMAGE OF MUNICIPAL. >> YES. BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAT CHILD IS ASKING. I THINK CHARLES IS ASKING A QUESTION LIKE THE QUESTION CHRIS WAS ASKING. WHICH I SUPPORT ARTICLE 3, 4, AND FIVE AND ARTICLE TWO, THE DEFINITIONS EXCEPT FOR AUTHORITY POLE WHICH I DO NOT LIKE. WHEN -- WE HAVE 20 MINUTES. WE CAN DO AN ARTICLE BY ARTICLE VOTE. WE DID IT WITH COMPETITIVE ACCESS. >> THE THING IS, THE COMMENTS MADE THROUGHOUT THE DAY, SPECIFICALLY YOURS, CHARLES, BUT-- THAT WAS A TERRIFIC REASONABLE THOUGHT. MY THINKING AT THE TIME WAS, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. DO WE WANT -- WHAT WE DID NOT DO IS ACCEPT FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS AT THE TIME BECAUSE WE WERE THINKING, WE ARE GOING TO GET TO THE END OF THE DAY, WE WILL SEND THIS TO A RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE WITH THE CODE. AND WE WILL DEAL WITH ALL THOSE. WE DID NOT TEND TO THAT. >> I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE RECONCILIATION DISCUSSION. I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. I WOULD HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY THROUGHOUT THE DAY IF I HAD KNOWN THIS. I WOULD'VE SAID, LET'S MAKE THAT FROM THE AMENDMENT TO TAKE THAT OFF THE PLATE. SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? I APPRECIATE THE WORK INTO THIS AND THERE ARE A LOT OF GREAT THINGS. THROUGHOUT THE DATA, THERE ARE ISSUES LIKE THAT THAT WERE RAISED. WAS CONCERNED DEEPLY ABOUT HOW PRIVATE CONTRACTS EXIST TODAY IN ARTICLE -- AND HOW ARTICLE FOR WOULD BE TREATED. REALLY BIG ISSUES. I PERSONALLY THINK MORE WORK MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS READY. I WOULD LOVE TO SUPPORTED WE ARE CLOSE. THERE'S A MUCH GOOD STUFF. THE WAY WE WORKED IT TODAY, WE DID NOT CLEAN THOSE THINGS UP AS MUNICIPAL CODE. >> THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID. >> NOW WE ARE NOT READY. >> WE DID NOT CLEAN THOSE UP BECAUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS WAS GOING TO RECONCILIATION. >> RECONCILIATION DOES NOT ALLOW US TO MAKE SUBSTANTIVE EDITS. THERE ARE ISSUES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN -- >> RECONCILIATION CAN BE WHATEVER WE WANTED TO BE. I'M SORRY, -- LET ME PUT THIS ANOTHER WAY. I DON'T THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS SAY TO THE MODEL STATE CODE WORKING GROUP, OK, GUYS, HERE ARE THE COMMENTS. GO TAKE THIS BACK TO YOUR COMMITTEE AND TURN AROUND ANOTHER DRAFT. I THINK WE WANT TO TAKE THIS DRAFT ALONG WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE HEARD TODAY AND GO INTO THIS RECONCILIATION PROCESS WITH THE DRAFT PLUS COMMENTS. MAYBE WE NEED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MODEL CODE. SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS OF THE BDAC TODAY WHICH ALLOWS ALL OF THAT STUFF TO BE IMPORTED THROUGH THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS. I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANOTHER THREE MONTHS TO DO I HOLD ANOTHER -- A WHOLE OTHER DRAFT. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD. >> THAT IS HOW WE DID THE ONE TOUCH PROCESS. WE RELIED ON THE TAPE AND WE WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE TAPE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID AND WHAT WAS AGREED IN WHAT WAS PROPOSED. IF THE RECONCILIATION CAN ADDRESS THINGS THAT ARE GOOD, WHEREAS HERE WE HAVE PROBLEM AREAS LIKE NONSTARTERS THAT WOULD MAKE ME VOTE AGAINST THIS BUT WE CAN FIX IN THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS. THOSE HAVE BEEN RAISED TODAY. IF THE SCOPE OF RECONCILIATION IS SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, I THINK THAT IS A GOOD WAY TO PUT THE MOTION. >> I THINK KELLY HAD A WORDING. >> I DON'T KNOW IF RECONCILIATION IS A RIGHT WORD. I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO VOTE IT OUT OF THE COMMITTEE SUBJECT TO BDAC REVIEW. AND THEN ONLY BDAC -- THE MAIN BOARD WILL WORK WITH IT. IT HAS BEEN RELEASED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE. >> I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH ELIZABETH THAT WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO KEEP GOING THROUGH MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS. I DON'T -- DURATIONS. I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY, GO NEGOTIATE. I DON'T KNOW, DID YOU GET A SENSE -- IF WE HAVE A MOTION ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT CHRIS SAID, DO YOU THINK YOU COULD ACCEPT -- >> YES, SIR. WHAT I ENVISION WHAT THE COMMITTEE WAS, WAS NOT JUST THOSE EXTRANEOUS THINGS, BUT THE REASON WE WERE NOT TAKING FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS TODAY ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IS BECAUSE THOSE WERE GOING TO BE PART OF THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION WE HAD AN RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE. HOW DO WE CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY POLES TO SATISFY CHARLES'COMMENTS? HOW DO WE MAKE REVISIONS BASED ON CHRIS'S POINTS? I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE DOING THAT TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT GOING TO RECONCILIATION. >> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FAIR. I WAS OF THE SAME MINDSET. THE BIND I FEEL MYSELF IN IS I FEEL LIKE I'M VOTING FOR TWO POLAR OPPOSITE THINGS. I CAN'T APPROVE BOTH THE DEFINITION AND THE MUNICIPAL AND THE STATE BECAUSE THEY ARE AT COMPLETE ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. IF THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN VOTE THIS OUT, AND SAY, SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS MADE HERE TO BE ADDRESSED IN A RECONCILIATION PROCESS. >> WE CAN SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT SAYS WE VOTE OUT THE MODEL STATE CODE. SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS I WERE MADE BY THE BDAC AT THE MEETING OF THE STATE. TO BE RESOLVED DURING RECONCILIATION PROCESS. HARMONIZATION. THE HARMONIZATION PROCESS. >> AND THAT WILL BE RECONFIRMED BY THE BDAC. >> YES. IT HAS TO BE. >> THERE WAS SOME OTHER CONCERNS THAT WE MAY HAVE HAD THAT I DIDN'T RAISE BECAUSE WE WERE GOING THROUGH THINGS QUICK. CAN WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THEY DID -- LIKE THEY DO IN CONGRESS? >> AS LONG AS KELLY CAN HAVE A SAY -- I THINK THAT'S FINE. >> WE CAN SAY, WE WERE PRESSED FOR TIME SO I DIDN'T BRING UP TWO CONCERNS. >> WE HAVE A PRECEDENT FOR THAT. I BELIEVE WE DID THAT WITH FEDERAL SIDING. AFTER THE VOTE WAS DONE. WE CAN LEAVE IT OPEN. YOU HAVE TO DECIDE, KELLY, AND MARK, DID YOU SECOND IT? OH, MICHAEL. YOU GUYS WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF YOU ACCEPT THE REVISED MOTION. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S TO VOTE OUT THE MODEL STATE CODE, SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS MADE AT THIS MEETING, AND THEY WILL BE SUBMITTED WITHIN THE NEXT TWO DAYS WHICH WILL BE RESOLVED DURING HARMONIZATION WITH THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BDAC. ARE WE OK WITH THAT? OK. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL IT TO A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? TWO. ANDY, JOSEPH, BOB, BOTH LARRY AND DAVID. AND BRIAN O'HARA. ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OF SIEGE AND? JAMIE. -- ANY PROVISIONS? JAMIE. PAST. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE, SEVEN OPPOSED AND ONE ABSTENTION. I BELIEVE THAT LEAVES THE MAJORITY. IT DID CARRY. CONGRATULATIONS. WE ARE -- SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO HEAD OUT NOW. THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE ARE AS A COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CALL NEXT WEEK OF THE CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS OF THE WORKING GROUPS TO DISCUSS HOW WE ARE GOING TO ENTER THE BEST WAY TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT KELLY AND HIS COMMITTEE GO THROUGH AND GET ALL THE COMMENTS TOGETHER AND BRING A REVISED DRAFT OF THE MODEL STATE CODE TO THAT PROCESS SO THAT WE HAVE ALL THE COMMENTS IN ONE PLACE, OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JOHN DOES WHERE THE COMMENTS ARE IN THE MARGINS AND WE KNOW WHAT PEOPLE SAID ABOUT THE THINGS TO HELP WITH THAT PROCESS. DOES THAT SOME MIKE A GOOD PLACE TO START? -- DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A GOOD PLACE TO START? >> YOU SAID TWO DAYS FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? >> I DID. IT'S WEDNESDAY. IF YOU HAVE THE COMMENTS BY MONDAY, IS THAT FAIR? KELLY, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? OK, FRIDAY. YOU LOST THE WEEKEND THERE. THEY GET THE WEEKEND. [LAUGHTER] IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS -- WE SHOULD TENTATIVELY PLANNED FOR JULY\/AUGUST MEETING BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE ONE. IT WOULD BE MY GOAL THAT WE GET THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS BY THE NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN BRING THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE. I GUESS, BRIAN HURLEY WILL GET -- GET IN TOUCH WITH EVERYONE ABOUT SETTING UP A TIME FOR THE CHAIRS CALL. ANY OTHER BUSINESS. NEW OR OLD? >> HOW DO YOU SEE RATES AND FEES GETTING RECONCILED? >> I DON'T THINK RATES AND FEES, HONESTLY, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS GOING TO GET RECONCILED. I DO KNOW THAT THERE WERE DELIBERATE CHOICES IN THE MODEL STATE CODE AND IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THE MODEL STATE CODE ELECTED A COST MODEL. THE MUNICIPAL CODE IS PENDING OF RATES AND FEES. I REALLY WISH WE HAD THREE MONTHS TO FINALIZE THAT. AND THEN COULD GO INTO RECONCILIATION. THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. WHAT I AM HOPING IS THAT WE GET-- AND HE SAID IT WAS 80% COMPLETE. I HOPE WE GET THAT WITHIN THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS OR SO. SO THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO BRING THAT INFORMATION IN. THERE IS A LOT OF WORK WE CAN DO WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION. YES, I SEE IT AS A PART OF IT BECAUSE IT INFORMS OTHER THINGS, AT LEAST IN THE TWO MODEL CODES. >> ARE WE VOTING ON THAT? >> IT IS NOT UP FOR VOTE TODAY, NO. AND HE CAN CALL THE VOTE ON THE PART TO HAVE PRESENTED, IF YOU WANT. NOT VOTING ON THAT TODAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? I THINK EVERYONE IS READY TO GET OUT OF HERE. I KNOW THE PERSON TYPING AS WE SPEAK IS READY TO GET OUT OF HERE. FIRST OF ALL, BIG THANK YOU TO MICHAEL FOR BRINGING THE CHOCOLATE. HE HAS REQUESTED THAT YOU ALL TAKE IT. SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BRING IT HOME. WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.