[1st-mile-nm] NN Query

[John Brown]

Certainly there are parts of the Wheeler NN that people didn't like.
There are other parts that significantly enabled more competitive
options and growth.

NN was about more than just "fast lane / slow lane" for content. It
was about creating
a level playing field for basic access to the infrastructure.  Now thats gone.

One example:  Pole Attachment rights.
Under Wheeler's NN Broadband providers had a legal right to attach
fiber and wireless to
the poles of electric and incumbent telecom.  After Thursdays vote
that right disappeared.

Current NM pole owners are a significant barrier to entry.   City
legal folks don't seem to care,
NM PRC doesn't wish to get involved, and so it was left to the Feds.
Now that is gone.

The only way to get to the poles now is to become a CLEC (under 1996)
rules.  Why would
a new entrant want to be encumbered by 20 year old scheme ???

Multiple states have created pole attachment regulations and enable
competitive and neutral
access to poles.  New Mexico IS NOT one of those states.

Incumbent providers (Comcast aka Xfinity, CenturyLink, Cox, Cable One,
T-Mobile, ATT, Verizon, et al)
all have good reason to prevent new comers from accessing the poles.
So they work with pole
owners and regulators to keep open access from happening.

With all the lip service paid by politicians to wanting to get more
broadband deployed in NM, they
don't take the simple steps of creating a framework (and enforcing it
or existing ones) that
will actually do that.

So if we really want fast broadband delivered via reliable
technologies like fiber and fixed wireless
and we want competitive choices, then we as a state need to suck it up
and create/enforce a frame
work that enables that.  And not be captured by the incumbents.

1. Create a regulatory framework that requires open access to things
like Poles and Ducts.
    This doesn't mean free access, but it does mean access.  The Feds
have a pricing
     scheme for poles that is level across the country. It works. We
can use it.  PNM / CenturyLink
     need to be required to allow access to their poles so that fiber
and wireless can be deployed
     by broadband providers.   Keep in mind that the money paid to PNM
for pole attachment helps
     offset their operational costs for delivering electricity.
Read, that reduces the need to increase
     electric rates.

2. Create a regulatory framework that allows for a single point of
application for RoW access.
    This would enable a provider to apply at the State level and then
be granted access to all
     municipal, county, and state RoW, state wide.  As it sits today,
a provider has to seek application
     in every county, town, city in our state that they wish to
operate in.  This is a significant cost and
     barrier to entry.   This would NOT remove the requirement(s) that
such construction must be
    permitted and follow generally acceptable standards in each
community.  It would NOT remove
    requirements for special construction steps in historical areas.
It simply means that once the
   State issues a RoW "franchise" one can goto any location and
complete the permitting / engineering
   and begin work.   The framework should also prohibit communities
from creating burdensom rules.

3.  Create a regulatory framework that enables a State Wide "Dig Once"
requirement.
     When a provider is going to dig the ground up and place
infrastructure, they should announce it
     to others and those others have 10 business days to decide on if
they want to "get in on the project"
     and place their own structures or not.   This should be an
absolute requirement for any Muni based
     or tax payer funded funded public works project.  If the City of
Santa Fe is going to dig a street and
     put new water, sewer, etc in the ground, then all of the RoW
users should have an option to share
     in the cost and place their own conduits etc into the project.
This works well in other states.!!
     It would REDUCE the muni's cost, it would enhance broadband deployment.

Politicians, do the three things above, in a sensible manner and watch
our state flourish.
Put it to vote this session.  Drive it, Get it DONE!!, Ignore
CenturyLink / Comcast / PNM
Have the guts to care about the every day citizen.


Stay tuned to my upcoming essay on how a New Mexico City wasted over
$50 Million dollars
in tax payer money on a broadband project they didn't act on.   We all
wonder while we are
always last on the good lists....................


Respectfully,

John Brown, CISSP


On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote:
> Given the amount of 'noise' as well as informative info., for those
> who can parse it, I'm personally pleased that we've not had a major
> Network Neutrality back-and-forth on this list.
>
> The Benton Foundation has long been a good (biased?) source of info.
> for those wanting to follow news aggregation on this and other
> tele-networking matters.  https://www.benton.org/headlines
>
> Here's the excerpted conclusion of their long, multi-sourced Friday report:
>
> "Even before the FCC's Order was released, a number of groups (including
> states) promised to challenge it in court."
>
> "The litigation process will not begin today. First, the FCC order will have
> to be released and published in the Federal Register. Although FCC Chairman
> Pai may want to move fast, that process could take days or weeks. FCC staff
> indicated after the FCC's meeting December 14 that the Office of Management
> and Budget will have to approve the FCC's new transparency rule, a process
> that could take months."
>
> "After suits are filed -- and, seriously, suits will be filed -- it could
> take 6 months or longer before a trial begins and another six months or so
> before a decision comes down. Whoever loses -- the FCC or the loyal
> opposition -- could then appeal the ruling. So this fight will continue
> through 2018, possibly (well, likely, actually) becoming an election issue.
> All cheer regulatory certainty!"
>
> RL
>
>
> On 2017-12-16 20:18, Roman Maes III wrote:
>>
>> Query;  I was a bit surprised that few if any remarks on Net
>> Neutrality camel about from 1st mile communicators .,,yes its great or
>> not so great?
>>
>> Roman Maes BBA, JD
>> 619-230-5582
>> Roman at romanmaes.com
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director
> 1st-Mile Institute     505-603-5200
> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504,
> rl at 1st-mile.org     www.1st-mile.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm