March was a big month for lobbyists visiting the Federal Communications Commission, which opened the doors to wireless special interest groups for “ex parte” meetings with agency staffers that, in turn, brief the three Republicans and two Democrats that serve as FCC commissioners.

Last month’s ex parte filings reveal strong evidence of a coordinated, well-financed campaign by America’s wireless operators and cable companies to get the FCC to ease off regulations governing forthcoming 5G networks, particularly with respect to where tens of thousands of “small cell” antennas will be installed to deliver the service.

Four industry trade groups and companies are part of the concerted campaign to scale back third party control over where 5G infrastructure will end up. Some want to strip local governments of their power to oversee where 5G infrastructure will be placed, while others seek the elimination of laws and regulations that give everyone from historical societies to Native American tribes a say where next generation wireless infrastructure will go. The one point all four interests agree on — favoring pro-industry policies that give wireless companies the power to flood local communities with wireless infrastructure applications that come with automatic approval unless denied for “good cause” within a short window of time, regardless of how overwhelmed local governments are by the blizzard of paperwork.

Here are the big players:

The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)

The CCA is primarily comprised of rural, independent, and smaller wireless companies. In short, a large percentage of wireless companies not named AT&T or Verizon Wireless are members of CCA. The CCA’s chief goal is to protect the interests of their members, who lack the finances and political pull of the top two wireless companies in the U.S. CCA lobbyists met ex parte with the FCC multiple times, submitting seven filings about their March meetings.

CCA’s top priority is to get rid of what they consider burdensome regulations about where members can place cell towers and antennas. They also want a big reduction in costly environmental, tribal, and historic reviews that are often required as part of a wireless buildout application. CCA lobbyists argue that multiple interests have their hands on CCA member applications, and fees can become “exorbitant” even before some basic reviews are completed. The CCA claims there have been standoffs between competing interests creating delays and confusion.

Costs are a relevant factor for most CCA members, which operate regional or local wireless networks often in rural areas. Getting a return on capital investment in rural wireless infrastructure can be challenging, and CCA claims unnecessary costs are curtailing additional rural expansion.

NCTA – The Internet & Television Association

The large cable industry lobbyist managed to submit eight ex parte filings with the FCC in March alone, making the NCTA one of the most prolific frequent visitors to the FCC’s headquarters in Washington.

The NCTA was there to discuss the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) band, which is of particular interest to cable companies like Charter Communications, which wants to get into the wireless business on its own terms. Cable lobbyists, under the pretext of trying to avoid harmful interference, want to secure a large percentage of the CBRS band for their licensed use, at the expense of unlicensed consumers and their wireless industry competitors.

The cable industry wants CBRS spectrum to be wide, spacious, and contiguous for its cable industry members, which should open the door to faster speeds. The lobbyists want to make life difficult for unlicensed use of the band, potentially requiring cumbersome use regulations or costly equipment to verify a lack of interference to licensed users. They also want their traffic protected from other licensed users’ interference.

CTIA – The Wireless Association

The wireless industry’s largest lobbying group made multiple visits to the FCC in March and filed 10 ex parte communications looking for a dramatic reduction in local zoning and placement laws for the next generation of small cells and 5G networks.

The CTIA has been arguing with tribal interests recently. Tribes want the right to review cell tower placement and the environmental impacts of new equipment and construction. The CTIA wants a sped-up process for reviewing cell tower and site applications with a strict 30-day time limit, preferably with automatic approval for any unconsidered applications after the clock runs out. Although not explicitly stated, there have been grumblings in the past that tribal interests are inserting themselves into the review process in hopes of collecting application and review fees as a new revenue source. Wireless companies frequently question whether tribal review is even appropriate for some applications.

Sprint has had frequent run-ins with tribal interests demanding several thousand dollars for each application’s review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which is supposed to protect heritage and historical sites.

In Houston, Sprint deployed small cells around the NRG Stadium, but found itself paying fees to at least a dozen Indian Tribal Nations as part of the NHPA. The NHPA opens the door to a lot of Native Americans interests because of how the law is written. Any Tribal Nation can express an interest in a project, even when it is to be placed on public or private property that is not considered to be tribal land. In Houston, Sprint found itself paying $6,850 per small cell site, not including processing fees, which raised the cost to $7,535 per antenna location. Those fees only covered tribal reviews, not the cost of installation or equipment. Some tribes offered better deals than others. The Tonkawa Tribe has 611 remaining members, mostly in Oklahoma. But they sought and got $200 in review fees for the 23 small cell sites deployed around the stadium. The Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, not Texas, charged $1,500 for the 23 applications it reviewed.

Sprint complains it has paid millions in such fees over the last 13 years and no tribe to date has ever asked to meet with Sprint or suggest one of its towers or cell sites would intrude on historic or tribal property.

“Tribal Nations are continuing to demand higher fees and designate larger and larger areas of interest,” says Sprint. “At present, there are no constraints on the amount of fees a Tribal Nation may require or the geographic areas for which it can require payment for review. The tribal historic review process remains in place even in situations—such as utility rights-of-way—where the Commission has exempted state historic review.”

The CTIA wants major changes to the NHPA and other regulations regarding cell tower and antenna placement before the stampede of 5G construction begins.

Verizon

Verizon has been extremely busy visiting with the FCC during the month of March, filing 10 ex parte communications, also complaining about the tribal reviews of wireless infrastructure.

Verizon argues it wants to expand wireless service, not effectively subsidize Native American tribes.

“The draft order’s provisions to streamline tribal reviews for larger wireless broadband facilities will likewise speed broadband deployment and eliminate costs, thus freeing up resources that can, in turn, be used to deploy more facilities,” Verizon argued in one filing.

Verizon has also been carefully protecting its most recent very high frequency spectrum buyouts. It wants the FCC to force existing satellite services to share the 29.1-29.25 GHz band for 5G wireless internet. Verizon has a huge 150 MHz swath of spectrum in this band, allowing for potentially extremely high-speed wireless service, even in somewhat marginal reception areas.

“Verizon assured the commission that even when sharing with other services, we would be able to make use of the 150 MHz of spectrum in this block to provide high-speed broadband service to American consumers,” said one filing.

Charter Communications is taking the city of El Centro, Calif., to federal court for interfering in a dispute between Spectrum and a local TV station owner that has resulted in two stations being blacked out on the local cable system for nearly three months.

Northwest Broadcasting, Inc., has been in a contract extension dispute with Charter Communications over multiple stations, including its two El Centro-area affiliates KYMA (NBC) and KWST (CBS). Charter accuses Northwest of gouging, claiming “Northwest demanded an 80 percent increase in carriage fees, more than double the rate Charter pays any other broadcaster anywhere else in the entire country.”

On March 7, 2018, the City of El Centro got involved and cited the cable operator, alleging Charter violated five provisions of Article X of the City Code, and began fining the cable company $100 a day for each violation, assessed each day the dispute continues.

El Centro accuses Charter of:

• Discriminating against subscribers based on specific protected classes;
• Failure to notify the city and subscribers 30 days in advance of any changes to cable service or rates;
• Failure to establish a time frame to respond to service interruptions;
• Failure to refund customers for service interruptions exceeding a stated period;
• Failure to notify the city and subscribers 30 days in advance of any changes to the cable television channel lineup.

El Centro Mayor Sheryl Viegas Walker: “I’m taking it to the streets. I’m so fed up with [Spectrum’s] disregard for this community,” KYMA in El Centro reports. (3:02)

Northwest Broadcasting CEO Brian W. Brady strongly disputes Charter’s claims, dismissing them as “lies,” particularly surrounding the removal of two El Centro stations from Charter’s lineup after the cable company claimed Northwest refused permission to continue carrying the stations while renewal talks continued.

“Charter accepted the first two extensions which were offered to them, however, they refused the third extension and took our stations off with 10 minutes notice,” Brady said.

Charter’s lawsuit argues El Centro officials have no right to intervene in the dispute, force Spectrum to put the stations back on the lineup, or require Charter to issue refunds to customers for channels that are no longer available to them.

“Northwest’s pulling its authorization for Charter to carry its broadcast signals is not a ‘service interruption’ within the meaning of the City Code provisions in question,” Charter argued in its lawsuit. “Even if it were, while El Centro demands that Charter ‘cure’ its alleged violations, the only means for Charter to do so is to finalize a retransmission agreement with Northwest. The City’s citations are thus intended to pressure Charter to accept Northwest’s unreasonable terms by imposing fines and intentionally damaging Charter’s reputation and harming its goodwill and relationships with its existing and prospective customers.”

Charter argued giving refunds to customers over the lost channels was “contrary to Charter’s terms of service, and in so doing improperly interfere [sic] with Charter’s contractual relationship with its customers.”

Charter is relying heavily on California’s statewide video franchise law — the 2006 Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA), heavily pushed by telecom lobbyists a decade ago, which stripped most local authority over cable systems and transferred it to the state government. Charter is using DIVCA’s light touch regulations to support its assertion El Centro officials cannot interfere in programming disputes and that their actions during the dispute have only made things worse.

“The effect of the City’s actions has been to harden Northwest’s negotiating position and make a deal on reasonable terms even more difficult,” the complaint says.

“I have never seen a corporate entity act with such disregard for our community,” said El Centro Mayor Sheryl Viegas Walker. “We have a contract with them that spells out certain steps that they’re required to take if those kinds of changes are going to be made. They didn’t do that. We wake up one morning and we’re suddenly without two major channels.”

“Rather than negotiating in good faith like all other parties would do and what the law requires, Charter has taken a ‘take it or leave it’ approach,” added Brady. “In an effort this week to get this back on track, Northwest submitted a new proposal to Spectrum. Spectrum’s representative communicated that they really wanted to get this resolved, but would not counter Northwest’s proposal and would not respond at all in writing. Odd behavior for a company that claims to be negotiating in good faith. It appears that Charter would rather bully a small municipality than to engage in a good faith negotiation.”

It appears other small cities are joining Brady’s cause, complaining to the Federal Communications Commission that Charter was unfairly profiting from station blackouts. In Crescent City, Calif., city officials accused Charter of charging a Broadcast TV surcharge of $7.50-8.85/month, but didn’t change or adjust rates after the Northwest Broadcasting blackout began.

“Despite the fact the fee is itemized and justified as a pass-through, Charter did not eliminate or reduce that fee, even though it was no longer incurring costs associated with carriage of … at least two network affiliates,” Crescent City officials told the FCC.

The two California cities have also been joined by officials in Yuma, Ariz. and Jackson, Wyo., where Charter has removed Northwest Broadcasting stations as well.

“We have learned that it is no different for numerous municipalities which have been forced to sue Charter to collect the fees that are contractually owed to them,” Brady said. “Most disputes are settled because Charter uses their army of lawyers to outspend the municipalities forcing the municipality to settle on Charter’s terms, regardless of their contractual obligations. It’s no different for their customers who have told us that Charter recently raised the broadcast surcharge fee in spite of the fact that the programs they want to watch are unavailable because Charter removed the programming. Many have asked for refunds only to be told no. What is the customer to do, sue Charter?”

Northwest Broadcasting Owned and/or Operated Television Stations

KPVI-TV in Pocatello, Ida. was widely seen in parts of Wyoming over Charter Communications until the station was blacked out in a contract dispute. Now viewers want to see Charter fined. (1:11)

Charter officials claim there was insufficient time to notify subscribers about the loss of Northwest Broadcasting stations from the TV lineup, but Jackson, Wyo., officials noted Charter bought a new domain name reflecting the contract dispute at least two weeks before stations like KPVI were blacked out. (1:02)

Jackson city officials question a Charter representative about refunds for customers paying surcharges for broadcast TV stations no longer on Charter’s lineup. (0:57)

How to File a Petition on this Issue with the Federal Communications Commission:

This petition allows for public comment until April 16, but the FCC requires some special steps for individuals wishing to file comment. Below is a list of the requirements to file a public comment with the FCC regarding Charter Communications:

• Members of the public who wish to comment should do so on or before April 16, 2018.
• Filing should be submitted to the FCC via the electronic comment filing system (ECFS).
  • That system is accessible at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings.
  • A member of the public should type his or her comments and save them.
  • At the top of the ECFS page, select standard filing and in the “proceedings” box, type 18-91 (the proceeding is MB Docket No. 18-91).
  • Fill out the remainder of the boxes with information that is required (some information is optional).
  • At the end of the form, there is a box where saved comments can be uploaded.
• Comments that contain statements of fact (for example, “Here is what happened to me”) should be supported by an affidavit.
• “Comments or oppositions shall be served on the petitioner and on all persons listed in petitioner’s certificate of service…” The petitioners here are the Cities, and the certificate of service is at the end of the communities’ filing, which can be downloaded from https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1032236683943.

Stop the Cap! today filed recommendations with the New York State Department of Public Service suggesting Charter Communications face additional sanctions in New York State if it is found once again to have missed its rural broadband buildout commitment, agreed to as a condition of its merger with Time Warner Cable.

New York’s Public Service Commission has accused Charter/Spectrum of using invalid or unqualified addresses to pad the number of new passings the company is required to achieve each quarter in its latest agreement with the Commission. As a result, the PSC is considering imposing a $1 million penalty and New York City officials are considering franchise revocation proceedings.

“In upstate New York we are focused on rural broadband and our recommended sanctions seek relief for the 75,638 homes and businesses that are going to be saddled with satellite internet access as the state’s rural broadband expansion program winds down,” said Stop the Cap! founder and director Phillip M. Dampier. “We believe Charter should be compelled to make good on disqualified addresses by expanding service to an equal number of customers that are currently assigned to get HughesNet satellite internet instead of true broadband service.”

Under Stop the Cap!’s proposal, Charter would be given a list of all census blocks assigned to satellite service and be required to buildout to many of those homes and businesses, particularly those  just 1-2 miles away from existing Charter infrastructure.

“Some western New Yorkers are livid because Gov. Andrew Cuomo repeatedly promised to ‘fulfill a goal of providing access to high-speed internet to every New Yorker in every corner of this state,’ and offering them satellite internet service breaks that promise,” Dampier said.

The New York State Broadband Program Office’s last round of awards failed to attract bids from providers for the 75,000+ affected homes and businesses. Because the awards program requires providers to pay a significant portion of expansion expenses, with the rest subsidized by the state, these rural addresses were effectively orphaned.

“It appears the state is giving HughesNet $15,426,269 of taxpayer funds to allow the governor to declare ‘rural broadband victory’ — money Hughes will use to discount satellite dish equipment and installation expenses — something it already does out of its own pocket in its marketing campaigns,” Dampier said.

Hughes will charge grant-funded users no more than $60 per month for the next five years, and no more than $49 for installation. But HughesNet’s website shows new customers are given installation for free, and without more information it is hard to discern what each customer will get for around $60 a month. The website shows a satellite plan costing $49.99 a month that includes just 10 GB of usage per month, with a 24-month commitment. A 20 GB plan costs $69.99 a month with the same commitment. Customers also have to pay $449.98 to own the necessary equipment or a one time fee of $99 + $14.99/mo to lease it.

“Satellite internet is not broadband and while it is a useful tool for those living in extremely rural areas, it should not be the only answer for a customer who has neighbors with Spectrum cable service just a mile or two down the road,” Dampier added. “We feel Charter could be an important partner in achieving 100% coverage in New York, if they are compelled to act.”

Stop the Cap! is also recommending a statewide audit of the “new passings” Charter is claiming towards its rural broadband expansion commitments. The group also wants the state to spend the proceeds of the proposed $1 million fine towards further broadband expansion for would-be satellite customers.

“There is no reason to believe Charter is only counting unqualified addresses downstate, so there needs to be a statewide audit,” said Dampier. “The governor made an important commitment to rural New Yorkers and we want to see him keep it to as many people as possible, with Charter picking up more of the costs. It is the least they could do after paying their CEO Thomas Rutledge $98 million after successfully completing the merger deal.”

Submission Follows:

April 5, 2018

Hon. Kathleen H. Burgess
Secretary, Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223-1350

Dear Ms. Burgess,

In reference to the proceeding 15-M-0388 and 18-M-0178, in which the Commission proposes to disqualify more than 14,000 New York addresses shown as “newly passed with broadband services,” we offer our views about Charter Communications’ buildout performance and make recommendations about possible additional penalties and sanctions that should be considered by the Commission if Charter Communications is found to be in violation of its agreements.

Need for Statewide Audit

If Charter Communications is found to be in violation of its commitment and agreed-upon timetable to expand broadband to 145,000 new homes and businesses, there is no reason to believe addresses miscounted in New York City represent an isolated incident. Indeed, the Commission has already seen fit to impose sanctions against Charter Communications for missing its buildout commitments, and should the Commission now find Charter to be out of compliance once again, it appears the Commission’s earlier threats of forfeiture were not compelling enough to ensure future compliance.

Stop the Cap is concerned that Charter’s counting of invalid or disqualified addresses towards its 145,000 new passings commitment may not be limited to the New York City area.

In Erie County, Charter claims to have completed 4,357 passings, including the City of Buffalo, the Towns of Angola, Eden, Grand Island, and the Village of Williamsville.[1] In Monroe County, Charter claims to have built out service for approximately 3,395 passings, including the City of Rochester, and the Towns of Perinton, Greece, Webster, Gates, and Henrietta. These are remarkable numbers in counties that have shown almost no population growth[2] or dramatic upswing in new major new housing developments.[3] As a result, we urge the Commission to carefully audit Charter’s buildout reports for possible evidence that, like in New York City, there may be a number of unqualified or invalid addresses in upstate New York as well. In fact, the Commission should, at the least, undertake random audits of each report claiming new passings to verify compliance.

Proposed Sanction: Charter should prioritize “make-up” buildouts to reach New York addresses currently assigned by the New York Broadband Program Office to Hughes Network Systems, LLC for satellite-delivered internet access.

Despite efforts by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the “New NY Broadband Program (NNYBP),” the state’s Broadband Program Office (BPO) has identified at least 75,638 New York locations[4] that will be offered substandard satellite internet access from Hughes Network Systems, LLC.[5] This option is considered a last resort for addresses Charter and other providers have refused to service, despite the potential of funding available during Round III of the NNYBP awards.

Hughes cannot guarantee access to 25 Mbps service 24 hours a day across its New York footprint[6], meaning these locations will not be guaranteed broadband service.[7] The company has also confirmed it will impose a low data usage cap that, when exceeded, reduces broadband speed to well below anything approximating true broadband service.[8]

The decision to supply satellite service instead of wireline internet access may permanently leave these residents and businesses disadvantaged with inferior internet access, with little incentive or a compelling business case for other companies to buildout to these locations, especially after Hughes receives a state subsidy to reduce its service and installation expenses.

While satellite access may indeed be the best available, last resort service for some extremely rural and inaccessible locations in isolated parts of New York, there are many examples of residents living in census block areas now assigned to Hughes Network Systems that are very close to existing Charter service areas.

One example is Mr. Matt Stern, [redacted], Middleport, N.Y.[9] His Niagara County census block has been identified in Round III of the NNYBP expansion program as 360630240013000. That census block has been assigned by the BPO to receive Hughes’ satellite service because Verizon does not offer DSL at his address and Charter did not bid to serve Mr. Stern’s immediate neighborhood because he lives 1.3 miles away from existing Charter facilities. As a result, Mr. Stern is exploring selling his home and moving out of state because his school age children lack internet access.

Should the Commission find it reasonable to strike more than 14,000 addresses from Charter’s latest buildout list, we respectfully recommend the Commission sanction Charter by requiring it to make up the disqualified addresses starting with locations like Mr. Stern’s, currently assigned to get satellite internet service.

Although costlier than counting business parks or new housing projects as new passings that Charter would have likely serviced with or without its commitment to New York State, this sanction will deliver real benefits to many location-disadvantaged rural New York residents and businesses tantalizingly close to existing wired broadband networks, but unlikely to get true broadband service any other way. The Commission can develop a formula to identify addresses in census blocks that are located within a reasonable distance (perhaps 1-2 miles) of existing Charter facilities to keep expansion costs reasonable.

Sanction Proposal: A portion or all of the forfeiture penalties collected as a result of Charter’s alleged missed targets should be devoted to a further expansion of wireline broadband service to areas currently assigned to Hughes Network Systems, LLC.

Drawing $1,000,000 from the letter of credit to penalize Charter Communications for missed targets will, by itself, not bring broadband service to areas that were originally promised true broadband service by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s NY Broadband Program.[10]

Instead, 75,638 homes and businesses will be offered satellite service that cannot guarantee to consistently meet the FCC’s definition of broadband: 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speed. In contrast, wireline providers like Charter Communications have committed to offer 100 Mbps service with the option of gigabit speed by the end of 2018.[11]

These locations assigned satellite service attracted no bidders in the final round of the NNYBP awards. Therefore, there is little chance a wireline provider will extend service to these locations without additional subsidies.

By allocating some or all of the proceeds from fines or forfeitures to an additional buildout subsidy program limited to locations currently assigned to satellite internet service, the costs to wire at least some of these census blocks could be more tolerable to wireline providers around the state.

The shared goal by all concerned is to bring 21^st century broadband internet access to every New York home and business. It is our view that Charter’s alleged failure to meet its obligations to New York after getting approval of its multi-billion dollar merger with Time Warner Cable, offers a unique opportunity to compel Charter to share a small amount of the company’s overall revenue towards resolving the urban-rural broadband divide, while at the same time gaining new customers and additional revenue as a result of these service expansions.

Yours very truly,

Phillip M. Dampier
Director

[1]15-M-0388 – Charter’s Build-Out Report – January 8, 2018
[2] New York Counties Population Measurements (https://bit.ly/2Emx4dS)
[3] Year 2017: https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/txt/t3yu201712.txt; Year 2016: https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/txt/tb3u2016.txt
[4] http://stopthecap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/phase_3_awarded_census_blocks_3.xlsx
[5] https://nysbroadband.ny.gov/new-ny-broadband-program/phase-3-awards
[6] “Stated speeds and uninterrupted use of service are not guaranteed. Actual speeds will likely be lower than the maximum speeds during peak hours.” Part 1.1 HughesNet Subscriber Agreement: http://legal.hughesnet.com/SubAgree-03-16-17.cfm
[7] http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2018/03/hopeful-skeptical-about-broadband/
[8] http://www.lockportjournal.com/news/local_news/frustration-continues-with-broadband-build-out/article_855e3058-fa8e-5b01-94e5-8c3bce287004.html
[9] ibid.
[10] https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-next-step-implementation-500-million-new-ny-broadband-program
[11]15-M-0388 – Charter’s Build-Out Report – January 8, 2018

Bad results for Frontier DSL in Nevada. (Source: Elko Residential Broadband Survey)

Only six Frontier Communications customers surveyed in Elko, Nev. gave the phone company an “A” for its DSL service, while 42% flunked Frontier for what they considered unacceptable internet service.

The Elko Broadband Action Team has surveyed residential and business customers about broadband performance and found widespread dissatisfaction with Frontier Communications over slow connections and service interruptions.

“I’m pretty disappointed in them,” said Elko councilman John Patrick Rice.

Businesses and residential customers were in close agreement with each other rating Frontier’s service, with nearly 87% complaining they endure buffering delays or slowdowns, especially when watching streaming video. When browsing web pages, nearly three-quarters of surveyed customers still found service lacking.

Among the complaints (Res)-Residential (Bus)-Business:

• Service interruptions: 74.43% (Res)/79.69% (Bus)
• Too slow/not receiving advertised speed: 72.16% (Res)/65.75% (Bus)
• Price: 63.64% (Res)/37.5% (Bus)
• Customer Service: 38.07% (Res)/45.31% (Bus)

The Nevada Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection received a steady stream of complaints about Frontier’s DSL service in the state over the past year.

Answering the survey question, “would you be interested in faster download and upload speeds at prices that are somewhat comparable to what you are paying now?” 97.87 percent of residential respondents said yes.

Frontier representatives responded to the survey results at a March 27 Elko City Council meeting.

“Frontier did recognize it could improve upstream and downstream flow and educated the council and the public on some of the issues,” Elko assistant city manager Scott Wilkinson said.

Gamiño (Image: Mayoral Photography Office)

New York City’s chief technology officer is fed up with a FCC broadband advisory board that is intentionally stacked with cable and phone company interests and has quit the panel after claiming his recommendations were ignored.

Miguel Gamiño Jr. wrote in his March 29 resignation letter that any further participation on the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) that doesn’t accept anything except the telecom industry’s agenda was a waste of his time.

“It is clear that despite good faith efforts by both the staff and members involved, the membership structure and meeting format of the BDAC has skewed the drafting of the proposed recommendations towards industry priorities without regard for a true public-private partnership.” Gamiño wrote. “These circumstances give me no choice but to step away from this committee in order to direct the City’s energy and resources to alternative forums that provide more productive opportunities for achieving the kind of cooperative progress in advancing broadband deployment in the public interest.”

He is the second major public official to call it quits on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. In January, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo stormed off the board claiming it only paid “lip service” to the concept of broadband expansion in the public interest. Liccardo accused the BDAC of being little more than an industry lobbying group being put in charge of shaping America’s future broadband policies.

“I have expressed concerns with other municipal colleagues in multiple meetings and documents that the makeup of the BDAC, with roughly 75 percent of members representing large telecommunications and cable companies or interests aligned with those companies, would result in recommendations unfavorable to localities looking to responsibly manage public rights-of-way to promote public safety, quality of life, and other priorities,” Gamiño added. “This has resulted in the BDAC producing pre-packaged one-size-fits all proposals that industry lobbyists have pushed nationwide rather than working in a cooperative fashion to find creative solutions to dynamic local issues.”

Gamiño noted that his working group of public officials had been effectively sidelined, and there has been no effort to replace Mayor Liccardo after he resigned three months ago. The final recommendations of the BDAC are likely to run contrary to the public interest, warned Gamiño.

“I am concerned that the current draft of the code could lead to municipalities entering into agreements with wireless providers that are counter to the interests of their constituents,” wrote Gamiño. “Most importantly, we do not believe that the recommendations will help close the digital divide. Therefore, we are not able to recommend that a municipality adopt the code without significant legal and financial analysis or for it to be referenced as a ‘model’ for legislatures, the FCC, or other regulatory bodies.”

The suggestion by two public officials that the BDAC effectively used them as ‘window dressing’ to legitimize the wireless industry’s agenda to ease restrictions on antennas and tower siting threatens the legitimacy of the Committee itself.

In Liccardo’s comments regarding his resignation, he also dismissed the BDAC as an industry-stacked, de facto wireless company lobbying group.

The BDAC already threatens to become a political football. In late January, Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn warned BDAC’s single standard for broadband expansion was unlikely to work in every community.

“As I have said many, many times before, one size does not fit all, and private industry infrastructure investments do not always flow to communities that are most in need,” Clyburn said.