A GLG Expert Contributor analyzes an FCC Daily Digest with an emphasis on a ‘Connecticut Commission Order to Sustain Network Right of Way Builds Exclusivity to network operators with Certificates of Public Convenience’.  At this point in time, ’Right of Way’ is not in the hands of Wireless Network Operators.

Discussion of this situation took place at conferences this past week at Enterprise Connect in Orlando, at CEBIT in Hannover, in forums, on Facebook walls … Bits and pieces of these conversations we share here.

Hunter Newby, CEO of Allied Fiber sees two things here, “First, allowing for wireless operators to apply, get and build in public Right of Way. Second, facilitating bypass of any incumbent in any area by anyone.  As the link states this is a ‘double edged sword.’ The large incumbents are also competitors in out-of-market regions, so they are both in favor of and also against the two points above. It all depends on ‘where’  physically the bypass is taking place and to whom. The last line ‘wireless backhaul fiber does not seem to be an issue of wireline network’ is interesting. That would be nice, but we shall see. Clearly wireless and fiber in the same sentence is a mind-bending exercise for most in the industry especially the FCC folks. All of this points to the value of and need for independent dark fiber and interconnection facilities for ALL.”

Peter Radizeski, a popular CLEC and IP communications consultant, studies the issue and concludes, “One of the chief reasons to become a CLEC is for right-of-way.  But most of the network of CLEAR and other cellcos is not being built by the cellcos. They are outsourcing the build. Some Cellcos are CLECs in some states, and some cellcos have a *Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity (CPCN).

CTIA doesn’t want to limit state and FCC regulations on cellcos. PSC wants to regulate cellcos like a common carrier. Let’s face it: we are going mobile, so the cellcos will become the ILEC. Shouldn’t they have some responsibility?  It’s public spectrum that they are utilizing for their business.

The battle is … How relevant will the FCC be after it auctions off all its spectrum … other than as a reporting agency?”

* What is a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity? Firms seeking to offer telephone services in New York State for a fee must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity (CPCN) from the Public Service Commission (PSC) before constructing facilities and/or offering telecommunications services to the public for hire.

The statute applies to providers of local exchange (dial tone), long distance, alternative operator, and other types of telephone services, whether they utilize their own facilities or resell the services of other telephone companies. Providers of cellular telephone service or providers of telephone service by means of customer-owned or leased, currency or credit card operated telephones (COCOTs), and motels, hotels or hospitals are not required to obtain a CPCN from the PSC.

Noreen Rucinski, VP of business development at Schneider Rucinski Enterprises shares some thoughts also, “On February 25 2011, the FCC is seeking public comments regarding entitlement actions of the Public Rights of Way (PROW). Is this public filing for comment merely subterfuge to find another way to rewrite access qualifications, rules and regulatory to these networks that want to gain access and use these Right of Ways? ROWs that were meant to be used for public access for companies bringing services to the masses?

If anyone wasn’t aware, states all have different rules and regulatory with different mandates for each company asking for usage of the right of way for public services such as, gas, energy, water, telecom.  Connecticutt is asking comments about a wireless carrier being allowed to have access.  Companies are staging to build out networks creating revenue, jobs and economic recovery.  There shouldn’t have been a question asking for granting of access, but instead of how that access will be granted?  Access should be granted with a structure for expansion in place.

Today that really doesn’t exist.   A roadmap, or path that would allocate access to all is needed.  This question for comment shows us why the restructuring of access has to be put in place.

The Tier 1 carriers in the U. S have access. They might be challenged in some out-of-network areas, as the regional Bells, hardly a hardship.  Old Rules, old demographic before cable, before Internet is still in place.  Today, old access rules are hindering the public right for companies in granting the Right of Way.  There could be equal access for all companies.

If a wireless carrier wanted access then access should be granted to all wireless carriers. This structure should equally apply to all other carriers or company’s desiring access for public services.

All companies desiring to use the Right of Ways should be granted access, paying equally.   That responsibility of fees and maintenance should be shared by those companies, however they should be grouped rather than individually identified, wireless, wired, enhanced, mobile, cable (etc.) all given equal values. The same pooling of resources for each group and made available for others.   It is not the access that should determine the companies advantage but what it has to offer as a service to the public.  That is where the concern should be, not currently in the public’s interest today.

These companies asking for access are meeting the requirements and willing to “Pay” to build out the services. An example could be if a company requires 200 strands (or equivalent), then 400 would be provided.  The company keeps 200 and 200 for the pool of supplies managed by a joint group of companies desiring the access point or resource.  Moreover, if a company is being allocated funds from any grant money, that requirement should have been created as pooling, supplies or sources, while building it, to provide for the future.   Some cities want to keep the practices they have limiting new business.

I can’t think of the last time, I stopped to pay a toll, because so many of those roads are paid for. The people had to fight to break down the tolls the cities wanted to keep.  This could be considered analogous to the public access.

People aren’t asked to personally pay to build the roads to get to from point to point. If that road was built by the cities, it was to allow for access and use. When that access was paid, it was free.  It should be for the Right of Ways too.
Companies shouldn’t have to rebuild the roads (so to speak) to be granted the same public access already paid for.  Just the cost to rejuvenate, or realign usage.  This view should be no different than access to lay fiber for future business and educational benefits for the cities.  Access is only limited by a closed door view of who runs the city  business forgetting, perhaps, who it is for.

Access shouldn’t not be challenged. It should be managed, allowing for open access for all companies.  I understand this is a very optimistic outlook, but then again, when most of these ducts and conduits were built, it was by an incumbent when the internet was still dialup if you had a modem.

In a land of opportunity like the U.S.A., one company should not be allowed access when another company is being denied.   No provider should have to go through more hardship for access than another, or pay more. Yet it happens every day in every city.  It should not be a consideration of a wireless provider asking … as opposed to … do I have enough for all the wireless providers that need access?”

Original item being discussed here is “The Barriers to Entry for Wireless Network Creation Start to Mount” at http://www.glgroup.com/News/The-Barriers-to-Entry-for-Wireless-Network-Creation-Start-to-Mount-52750.html. The original analysis refers to the Universal Service Fund Contribution, area code 500, local number porting, how to define who are wireless operators such as former paging and cellular networks, and more.