Skip Maine state header navigation
Draft Report of the
MAINE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD
November 2005
SUBMITTED TO THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE STEERING COMMITTEE
MAINE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD
Committee Members
Pursuant to the Executive Order, the Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board is comprised of eighteen members appointed by the Governor. Membership consists of the following: five (5) wireless service providers; one independent wireless salesperson; one representative of local government; one County Sheriff; and, one representative of an emergency service agency. In addition, the following state agencies are represented: the Maine Department of Economic and Community development; the Maine Public Utilities Commission; the Office of the Public Advocate; the Department of Public Safety; the Department of Transportation; the Maine Turnpike Authority; the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; the Department of Marine Resources; and, the Department of Administrative and Financial Affairs.
Markham L. Gartley Rick
O’Connor John
Liantonio
United States Cellular
Corporation RCC Cingular
Richard
Enright Jamie Hastings Gary
Horewitz
Verizon Wireless T-Mobile
Nextel
Mathew
Polstein Sheriff
Everett B. Flannery, Jr. Steve
Ward
Town
of Millinocket Kennebec
County Public
Advocate
Kurt
Adams Mike
Cantara
Chairman,
Maine PUC Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety
Janet
Yancey-Wrona Richard
Thompson Clifton Curtis
DECD Chief
Information Officer Maine
DOT
Art
Landry Peter
Merfed Art
Cleaves
Wireless
Distributor & Retailer Maine
Turnpike Authority MEMA
Donald C. Cody David
Littell Tom
Federle
Tower
Developer Deputy
DEP Commissioner Governor’s
Office
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary…………………………………………………. 4
Background & Introduction………………………………………… 7
Subcommittee Deliberations &
Recommendations………………… 10
Fashioning a Wireless Telecommunications Expansion
Plan....…… 17
Proposed Budget…………………………………………………..….. 21
Appendices
A.
Authorizing Executive Order
B.
Amendment to Authorizing Executive Order
C.
Wireless Infrastructure Data & Maps
D.
Master Wireless Telecommunications Lease Agreement
Form
E.
Individual Site Agreement Form
F.
Draft SHPO Procedures for Communications Facilities
G.
Statutory Citation for PUC Rule Making Authority
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board was originally created pursuant to Executive Order 31 FY 04/05 (dated February 2005) and amended by Executive Order 37 FY 04/05 (dated April 15, 2005). The committee plays a crucial role in achieving the goals of the Governor’s Connect Maine initiative, which he introduced in his January 2005 State of the State address. Consistent with the Executive Orders and the Connect Maine proposal, this report of the Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board provides details of a wireless infrastructure development plan that will ensure that 100% of Maine communities have wireless coverage by 2008.
The Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board divided its responsibilities into separate subject areas and created four subcommittees to cover the subject matter. Each subcommittee has been meeting regularly since March. The following subcommittees were established and tasked with the following basic responsibilities (the chair persons are listed at the end of each description).
Service Availability Study: identified areas of the State where service availability required improvement by utilizing available public and private information. (Stephen Ward, Maine Office of the Public Advocate)
Technology Assessment: assessed the various forms of wireless infrastructure available to consumers in Maine, including the wireless infrastructure used by State agencies, and identified synergies that could be realized by coordinated use. (Richard Thompson, Maine Office of Information Technology)
State, Local and Federal Regulatory Review: reviewed the relevant local and state tower siting criteria and explored methods of streamlining regulatory review; and propose state agency co-location and easement potential. (David Littell, Maine Department of Environmental Protection)
Wireless Communications Expansion Plan: utilized the service availability study and the technology assessment results to develop a plan and draft any necessary implementing rules or legislation to achieve universal wireless telecommunications coverage by 2008. (Brian Whitney, Maine Department of Economic & Community Development)
Based on the work of
these four subcommittees, the Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure
Committee offers the following summary of its recommendations:
·
Use the Universal Service Fund (USF) as an
incentive to assist in providing wireless infrastructure to areas that most need service and then funding
the construction based on bids submitted by competing carriers.
·
Offer a
standardized state lease to wireless companies to provide a more uniform and
simplified process by which to access state owned land or infrastructure.
· Continue to use the state model wireless communications siting ordinance approach as a fair method to address municipal review across the State, and continue to allow that local control of zoning and land-use remain without state preemption in this area.
· Recommend a balanced approach to municipalities to allow for reasonable regulation of the use while also recognizing the need for wireless service coverage, particularly of intra-State arterials
· Allow a “fall zone” requirement to be waivable by a municipal zoning authority upon an engineering study showing that a tower is designed to fail by bending or doubling over at a design weak point, thus requiring less than a full “fall zone” otherwise required of older style towers.
· Recommend that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) revise procedures for the review of tower construction projects subject to the nationwide Programmatic Agreements.
· Adopt appropriate standards for minimizing the risk of bird collisions and avian mortality by siting authorities such as those put forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
· Require the wireless carrier or applicants to prepare a view shed visual analysis by showing an accurate representation of the proposed installation from public areas in the vicinity, including major public roads, parks and other important view sheds.
· Undertake an official statewide appraisal study done under the auspices of the Department of Economic and Community Development to help put the misperception that towers reduce the value of adjacent and nearby property to rest. Recognizing the state resources are very limited, the wireless carriers would be asked to fund some or all of such a study
· Delays in electrical power installation, pole installation and line extensions have caused carriers and tower companies delays in establishing service in some cases. Better educate the wireless companies about the role of the Consumer Assistance Division at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as an office of first resort for addressing delays in line extensions and power installation requests.
· Amend the Statewide comprehensive planning requirements to specify that municipalities must incorporate wireless facility siting coverage of highways, commercial and industrial zones, and intra-state arterial roads.
BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION
The Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board was created via Executive Order 31 FY 04/05 (dated February 2005) and amended by Executive Order 37 FY 04/05 (dated April 15, 2005) (See appendix A & B). The Board was tasked with mapping out a strategy to achieve statewide universal cellular coverage by the year 2008.
The concept was originally introduced by Governor Baldacci in his State of the State address in January 2005. During that address, the Governor offered the following anecdote and mission:
“Like many of you, my
phone calls are lost while I’m on the road.
Recently, I was driving to Portland and my call was repeatedly
lost. This made me think – when will
wireless service actually serve all of Maine?
There are communities from Cape Elizabeth to Sebec where there is very
little service. Maine’s busiest road,
the Maine Turnpike, is plagued by service problems.
People visiting
Maine used to tell jokes about the old Downeaster who would say, “You can’t get
there from here.” Well, now people
visiting Maine are saying, “Can you hear me now?”
Maine’s
telecommunications infrastructure is sound through substantial investments by
Verizon and others. We have a fiber
backbone that is second to none. Still,
in this fast-paced global economy we cannot rest. We need to build on our foundation to keep every advantage we
have.
Tonight I am announcing “Connect
Maine.” A broad and aggressive
telecommunications strategy for this State.
Connect Maine will give nearly every Mainer the opportunity to plug into
the global economy from their community.
It will ensure that 90% of Maine communities have broadband access by
2010; 100% of Maine communities have quality wireless service by 2008; and
Maine’s education system has the technology infrastructure that leads the
nation.
The Connect Maine strategy will be devised
with input from public and private agencies over the next few months. These goals will become reality with hard
work and vision.”[1]
In order to go about achieving the goals set forth by the Governor in his State of the State address and subsequent Executive Orders, the Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board was divided into 4 subcommittees.
The four committees were established as follows:
1. Service Availability Study. Identify areas of the State where service availability requires improvement by utilizing available public and private information.
2. Technology Assessment. Assess the various forms of wireless infrastructure available to consumers in Maine, including the wireless infrastructure used by State agencies, and identify synergies that could be realized by coordinated use.
3. State, Local and Federal Regulatory Review. Review relevant local and state tower siting criteria and explore methods of streamlining regulatory review. Propose state agency co-location and easement potential.
5. Wireless Communications Expansion Plan. Utilize the service availability study and the technology assessment results to develop a plan and draft any necessary implementing legislation to achieve universal wireless telecommunications coverage by 2008.
Coverage: Coverage refers to the geographic area where mobile telephone subscribers can use their cell phones. Cell phones must be able to receive or pick up a signal from a mobile telephone carrier’s network. Coverage varies by carrier and is determined by the extent to which carriers have built out their networks.[2]
Cell Phones: Cell phones generally refer to all mobile phones that operate on any of the three types of mobile telephone spectrum: cellular, PCS or digital SMR.[3]
Dead Spots: Even where a carrier offers coverage in a specific geographic area, you may not be able to complete a given call due to limitations in network architecture and capacity. When a carrier fails to hand off a call in progress, as you travel from one part of a carrier’s network to another, a “dropped call” results. When many customers use a carrier’s network at the same time, its capacity becomes constrained. Other customers trying to connect may hear a busy signal instead of being able to complete their calls. Topography can also affect coverage, causing “dead spots.” A dead spot is an area where service is not available because the signal between the handset and the cell tower is blocked, usually by hilly terrain, excessive foliage, or tall buildings. Carriers are constantly improving and upgrading their networks in order to minimize these types of problems.[4]
Low Hanging Fruit
The various subcommittees commenced meetings in early 2005. The consensus reached at the onset was to first look at immediately addressing some of the most elementary issues that tend to discourage a more aggressive build out of wireless infrastructure. Among the issues categorized as “low hanging fruit,” the representatives of the state’s wireless providers expressed an interest in the following:
By way of process, the Service Availability Committee met first to address some definitional issues. Specifically, they tried to determine if service availability throughout Maine required that each provider serve the entire state? The consensus, at that time, was that the aggregate of all providers’ service territory should be the populated portions of the state. Some areas are not licensed for service for an individual provider, so serving the entire state is not necessarily feasible in some cases.
The group also discussed the appropriate decibel level (DB)/contour minimum to rely on and settled on 95 DB as a minimum standard as adopted by CTIA. The committee noted that due to the fact that coverage availability is essentially comparable to line of sight, there are many portions of Maine (both within and beyond populated areas) where there will simply not be adequate available cellular coverage even with significant new infrastructure.
The committee discussed how to coordinate existing maps that show 95 DB availability. It was determined that it was possible to aggregate proprietary information without identifying any company as long as a neutral third party (like the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) or Maine GIS) actually receives the digital information and keeps it confidential. Such an arrangement would have required an agreement among all providers governing non-disclosure and confidentiality.
The committee believed that it also would have been possible to overlay the 95 DB contours with a map showing where 65% of a service territory’s population reaches. The 65% figure was derived from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensing requirements for wireless providers.
The committee ultimately decided to undertake two maps: a map showing where no service exists today and where no construction is planned for expanded service through 2008; a second map showing current coverage areas at 95 DB with service expansions through 2008. Both maps could be overlayed with the 65% of population data.
The committee also researched the viability of seeking confidentiality agreements that would enable competing providers to release coverage data to a neutral third party such as Maine GIS.
This confidentiality issue consumed much of the board’s energy in the early phases of the process. Wireless providers were not comfortable releasing the information to a state entity fearing that the information would have to be turned over to outside parties under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
As a result of this concern, it was noted that the Maine Department of Economic & Community Development (DECD) has a confidentiality protection clause within its statute allowing it to withhold proprietary information from FOI requests. Given this fact, the committee considered empowering DECD to compile and house this data. In conjunction with an Executive Order (see appendix) issued by Governor Baldacci, it was believed that this alternative would protect carrier-specific coverage data as confidential, notwithstanding a Freedom of Access record request.
After the wireless providers and committee participants reviewed copies of the statutory provisions relating to DECD’s confidentiality provision, it was determined that the carriers did not have an adequate comfort level that their proprietary information would be protected in the event of a FOI.
At that point, it was determined that the committee should explore the idea of having a third party non-governmental entity accept the service territory data and keep it confidential prior to aggregating it and turning it over to the Connect ME Task Force. Apparently precedent for such a process existed in Massachusetts and New York.
At that time the plan called for requesting information for mapping purposes from a number of existing or potential providers of cellular sites, including existing tower companies, state agencies (Conservation, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, DOT, MEMA, Public Safety and other law enforcement, as well as the University system), cable TV companies, broadcast TV companies, railroads and paper companies. It was suggested that the requests should seek to identify existing facilities that provide analog service in view of the February 2008 phase-out of analog technology.
Throughout much of the spring and summer, the committee continued to grapple with the lack of consensus about how to ensure confidential treatment of mapping data or other carrier input, and the absence of agreement among the carriers regarding the appropriate DB level for benchmarking current (as well as, ultimately, 2008) wireless coverage in Maine.
Finally it was determined that the wireless carriers (Nextel, T-Mobile, Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Unicel, Sprint and U.S. Cellular) would agree to the use of an independent third-party digital mapping coordinator (Mitchell Geographics) in order to avoid the potential of disclosure of confidential wireless coverage data following a Freedom of Access request.
In addition, the wireless providers agreed to employ individual agreements governing the protection of confidential information that each wireless carrier has already developed, rather than seeking to implement the same confidentiality agreement for all carriers; and finally there was agreement that the minimum signal strength level for digital mapping purposes should be negative 95 decibels, despite consideration of several alternatives.
Issue: Some public concern exists surrounding the possible aesthetic impacts of wireless towers or other wireless facility installations on roof tops, water tanks and other structures.
Recommendation: To address concerns with visual impact and aesthetics, the subcommittee endorses the requirement of a view shed visual analysis prepared by the wireless carrier or applicant showing an accurate representation of the proposed installation from public areas in the vicinity, including major public roads, parks and other important view sheds.
II. Issue: The subcommittee examined the regulatory models from other jurisdictions, including the Connecticut Siting Commission and possible regional siting approaches
Recommendation: The subcommittee, primarily carriers, experience with the Connecticut Siting Commission was that it does not add appreciably to the goal of legitimizing the need for certain tower locations and adds time and expense to tower siting. Maine’s home rule structure is not particularly friendly to attempts to zone based on regional needs. Thus, the subcommittee does not recommend either alternative.
III. Issue: There is a huge diversity of municipal requirements adopted for cellular tower siting, some of which are exceptionally restrictive.
Recommendation: The subcommittee reviewed the Model Telecommunications Facilities Siting Ordinance prepared by a stakeholders group under the auspices of the State Planning in 1998. Although the model ordinance is far from perfect from the carrier’s point of view because it suggests significant local review criteria, the subcommittee felt that it represented a balance of carrier and municipal interests and thus recommended the state model wireless communications siting ordinance approach as a fair method of addressing municipal review across the State. The sub-committee considered State preemption of local zoning for wireless facilities and by consensus recommended that local control of zoning and land-use remain without state preemption in this area.
IV. Issue: Some municipal siting criteria are unduly restrictive or even punitive. An example of a punitive measure is an excessive “fall zone” requirement where towers can and are design to bend at a mid-point rather than “fall” like old-style radio towers
Recommendation: As above, the State can recommend a balanced approach to municipalities to allow for reasonable regulation of the use while also recognizing the need for wireless service coverage, particularly of intra-State arterials. Specifically, the committee feels that a “fall zone” requirement should be waivable by a municipal zoning authority upon an engineering analysis showing that a tower is designed to fail by bending or doubling over at a design weak point, thus requiring less than a full “fall zone” otherwise required of older style towers.
V. Issue: Satisfying the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act was an issue raised by the carriers and tower companies as one of the most substantial impediments to state review of wireless projects.
Recommendation: The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reviews tower construction projects in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The scope of this review is further defined by two Nationwide Programmatic Agreements contained in Appendix B (NPA for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas) and Appendix C (NPA Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Review Process) to the Federal Communication Commission’s rules in 47 CFR Part 1. These agreements were developed “to improve compliance and streamline the review process for construction of towers and other Commission undertakings.” In response to these developments, the SHPO has drafted revised procedures for the review of undertakings subject to the nationwide Programmatic Agreements. These draft procedures will be circulated for comment before they are implemented by the SHPO. The SHPO will establish bi-annual meetings with representatives of the wireless industry to review Maine’s implementation of the National Programmatic Agreements. (See Appendix for SHPO Draft Procedure)
Additionally, in order to ensure that the objectives of
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and
the Nationwide Programmatic Agreements are being met, the Maine Historic
Preservation Commission will host bi-annual meetings with all interested
parties regarding consultation procedures for communications facilities in
Maine.
VI. Issue: Obtaining a utility opening permit from the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) can delay construction of wireless facilities when location of telephone or electrical conduits requires opening of an MDOT jurisdictional roadway.
Recommendation: MDOT should investigate whether a procedure for expediting these requests for wireless facilities is possible.
VII. Issue: Certain types of towers can present an unreasonable risk of bird kills or avian mortality.
Recommendation: The subcommittee recommends adoption of appropriate standards for minimizing the risk of bird collisions and avian mortality by siting authorities such as those put forth by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The most authoritative statement on such siting standards is put forth in the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning,” prepared by USFWS to meet its obligations under the Migratory Bird Treaty.
VIII. Issue: Lack of wireless coverage on major intra-state arterials presents a public safety issue when emergency calls may not get through.
Recommendation: Consider use of existing federal and state universal service funds to assist in providing wireless infrastructure funds for under-covered portion of major intra-state arterials.
IX. Issue: There is no recognition in State law or often no recognition at the local level of the need for wireless voice and date transmission infrastructure at the municipal, regional or state levels.
Recommendation: Amend the Statewide comprehensive planning requirements to specify that municipalities must incorporate wireless facility siting coverage of highways, commercial and industrial zones, and intra-state arterial roads.
X. Issue: There is still often a concern expressed that a telecommunications facility will depreciate nearby properties.
Recommendation: While numerous appraisal studies of current and newly siting facilities disproves the theory that property values are negatively impacted by nearby telecommunications facilities, the misperception persists. An official statewide appraisal study done under the auspices of the Department of Economic and Community Development would help put this misperception to rest. Recognizing the state resources are very limited, the wireless carriers may be willing to fund some or all of such a study.
IX Issue: Delays in electrical power installation, pole installation and line extensions have caused carriers and tower companies delays in establishing service in some cases.
Recommendation: Consumer Assistance Division at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is an office of first resort for addressing delays in line extensions and power installation request delays. The PUC’s Consumer Assistance Division can be contacted at (800) 452-4699.
The Technology Assessment
Committee accumulated significant amounts of data and produced that data in
tabular format and on maps identifying state property and infrastructure that
may be available for development. The data loaded to date includes: FCC
database, Conservations property sites, DOT maintenance lots and bridges, MEMAs
data, Accounts and Control Data, etc. Also the Maine Turnpike Authority
has participated in the effort. The
committee analyzed the data with state agencies to enhance the information to
allow developers or service providers to obtain information and contacts to
explore state property for potential development. The Office of Information
Technology will also use the information to develop the statewide radio network
and to seek and gain partnerships.
The committee developed a standardized lease (See appendix) at the suggestion of the wireless carriers who expressed frustration with the current process of leasing state property due to the varied mix of agency requirements and standards.
Some report tools were also
developed as a means of obtaining support for this effort and to allow state
agencies to view what their agencies currently have for information and data
included in the database. The agencies are able to utilize the survey to
correct or amend their data.
FASHIONING A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
EXPANSION PLAN
The Wireless Expansion Plan Subcommittee used the information and data gathered by the other three subcommittees, and input from Maine’s wireless providers to fashion a proposal that achieves the objectives of the Governor’s vision and Executive Order.
The committee reviewed and considered a number of different options with respect to enhancing Maine’s wireless communications infrastructure and service. As a starting point, the notion that it is in the public’s best interest to have universal access to telecommunications in the United States is not a new idea. Many years ago, it was determined that public money should be spent ensuring that, no matter where in the United States a person lived, he or she should have access to the national telephone network at an affordable price. Maine has long been among the leaders in the number of citizens with telephone service, with approximately 97% of Maine households having at least one telephone.
Federal funds aimed at subsidizing low income customers and high cost areas, as well as rate structures that socialize the costs of the public switched network between local and long distance users and business and residential users, have long been employed in an effort to make telephone service affordable as well as available. One of the largest of these efforts is the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). Currently all Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) are eligible to receive federal USF. This includes all of Maine’s Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILEC) and, recently, two wireless carriers. U.S. Cellular and Unicel have applied for and have been granted ETC status, enabling them to qualify for federal USF funds to support their service in Maine.
Maine also has established a State USF[5] that currently provides high cost support for those local exchange telephone companies that are not able to maintain affordable and reasonably comparable local service rates without that support. The fund is generated by assessing the intrastate retail service revenue of all telecommunications providers.
As the Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board’s work progressed, the idea of a state USF fund supporting wireless expansion was suggested -- early and often. Staff at the Maine Public Utilities Commission was tasked with investigating alternatives for expanding wireless coverage, including USF financed mechanisms.
It was generally
agreed that there were three different models to fund the wireless
infrastructure expansion.
A.
The State, as
an anchor tenant, contracts with one provider to construct facilities and then
serve the under-served parts of the state.
B. The State constructs the towers and then leases space to carriers, possibly at below cost rates initially.
C. The State identifies the areas that need service and then funds the construction based on bids submitted by competing carriers.
Ultimately, the
committee determined that option C – a state funding mechanism to subsidize
build out by private companies - was the most workable option for several reasons.
First, option A was
rejected because of the committee’s general reluctance to create a
monopoly. In addition, carriers told
the committee that they would generally be more interested in applying for USF
funding to build towers that are adjacent or in near proximity to existing
service. The current landscape of
wireless facilities in Maine does not lend itself to one provider building out
the remaining areas.
Option B was
rejected because there is no current state agency in Maine with the manpower or
expertise to oversee the construction of a wireless network. This option should only be pursued in the
event that no commercial carrier is willing to participate in the USF build
out. The committee does not believe
this is the case.
The committee
rejected the idea of combining the PSN with the commercial cellular network
because the needs and characteristics of the two networks are not
compatible. The biggest hurdle is that
the two networks use different frequencies.
The PSN currently uses a 150 MHz VHF radio network.[6] Commercial cellular companies operate at 800
MHz and above. The higher frequencies
offer more capacity but require more towers.
That fact also makes an 800 MHz system more vulnerable to power loss.
(Louisiana’s emergency system, which is 800 MHz, went down fairly quickly after
Katrina hit. Once the commercial power
was lost, the towers quickly went out because the towers had very little back
up battery power. Because an 800 MHz system requires more towers more work had
to be done to get the system back on-line.)
In addition, because of the PSN’s interoperability mandates, local and
state agencies are heavily invested in equipment that communicates at 150 MHz. It would be difficult, if not impossible,
to quickly change all of that equipment.
Public safety officials also expressed some concern that their
requirements for reliability and redundancy may not be met by commercial
standards. The effort did uncover the
potential that these two projects may be able to share fiber backbone
facilities.
This leaves option C – a state subsidy for the build-out of wireless service by private companies. The committee believes that the PUC currently has the statutory authority (See Appendix for Statutory Citation) to create this subsidy through a state Universal Service Fund pursuant to 35-A M.R.S.A. §§ 104, 111, 7101 and 7104. The subsidy could be structured in one of three ways. [7] The current state fund is an assessment on all intrastate telecommunications in Maine, this includes radio pagers and mobile telecommunications carriers and radio paging service providers, as well as interexchange carriers (IXC), and local exchange carriers (LEC). As stated above, the fund currently only supports local telephone companies. The difference between their costs and the revenue received from local rates is the amount of support the carrier receives from the fund. These LECs are gradually increasing their local rates to Verizon’s rates. As they increase their rates, the amount of USF needed will decrease.[8] Thus, if the assessment that supports the State USF is held at its current level, there would be excess funds to distribute to wireless carriers as the LECs’ need for USF decreases.
Another alternative
the committee explored is that all assessments collected from cellular and
paging companies could be used to support wireless expansion and IXC and LEC
assessments could continue to support LECs.
If this method were chosen, the current assessment on IXCs and LECs
would likely increase in the short term but decrease again as local rates
continued to rise. The amount of
wireless assessment would depend on the speed with which wireless expansion is
achieved.
The committee was extremely concerned about the approach taken to determine USF awards. The committee wanted to ensure that the funds be used to fund expanded service areas rather than increasing capacity in existing urban service areas.
§ Areas with no existing coverage (based on Connect Maine map)
§ Areas with certain population densities.
§ Prioritize areas to receive funding. Points awarded for:
o SPO “Service Center Hubs”
o Pine Tree Zones
o State highways with certain threshold of riders
o Proximity to another wireless coverage area or fiber end-point
o Companies willing to co-locate wi-fi equipment on towers for reduced cost to Connect ME broadband designees in broadband deprived areas
o State property suitable for tower(s) exists in area
§ After locations are determined, the PUC (or another state agency) issues an RFP for target areas. Bidders must include:
§ View Shed analysis
§ Engineering analysis showing that less than a full “fall zone” is required (if appropriate)
§ Documentation showing that the project conforms to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning
§ Cost to build tower(s) and cost to provide service. Threshold of users/minutes above which the location will be self funding and state USF funding will cease.
During its deliberations, the committee also considered possible state tax credits and incentives to assist with the wireless build out. However, by and large, most of the wireless providers agreed that since they are presently required to contribute to the USF, they would welcome access to the USF to help incentivize the build out in areas that would not typically provide the type of return on investment (ROI) usually needed to justify such expansion.
PROPOSED BUDGET
Arriving at an amount expected to fund the wireless infrastructure expansion is difficult to ascertain.
Given that the wireless providers are generally reluctant to divulge the actual costs of tower construction and given the fact that costs differ depending on the type of infrastructure constructed (Greenfield Site with Tower, Rooftop Cell Site, a Repeater/Distributor Antenna, etc.), the committee had to make a number of assumptions with respect to the costs associated with the expansion.
Basing the estimates upon the state’s land area, existing land line coverage, existing wireless coverage, existing cellular towers and an average estimate of the cost to construct a tower, the Wireless Expansion Plan subcommittee estimates that it will cost roughly $55 million to fund the wireless telecommunications infrastructure build out.
In terms of reallocating the existing State USF assessments and dedicating the wireless provider assessments to an aggressive build out of wireless infrastructure, some difficult decision will need to be considered. The current USF assessment is factored at 1.27% for both wireless and wireline providers. It is conceivable that in order to fund this expansion to the extent outlined herein that the assessments will need to increase rather significantly to meet the 2008 deadline set forth in the Governor’s Executive Order.
Appendix A
Authorizing Executive Order
31 FY 04/05
February 2, 2005
AN ORDER TO CREATE THE MAINE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
BOARD
WHEREAS, Maine’s economy is increasingly reliant on innovation and entrepreneurship; and
WHEREAS, telecommunications infrastructure is essential for all economies to compete in a global marketplace; and
WHEREAS, telecommunications infrastructure is critically important in harnessing the creative power and energy of sectors of the Maine economy, such as the Creative Economy and Maine’s young people; and
WHEREAS, as a rural State, Maine is particularly dependent on wireless communication services to connect Maine businesses and communities to the global community; and
WHEREAS, a strong telecommunications infrastructure can be a catalyst for encouraging entrepreneurial activity, expanding cultural and tourism opportunities, creating new technology and financial sector jobs, rebuilding our downtowns, and enhancing the overall economic health of our communities; and
WHEREAS, Maine’s wireless communications network is plagued by poor service quality; and
WHEREAS, Maine has taken a leadership role in developing a telecommunications infrastructure that can be a strong foundation for further investments in wireless communications;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John E. Baldacci, Governor of the State of Maine, do hereby announce the Maine Wireless Telecommunications Infrastructure Board (“MWTIB”):
I. Purpose
The MWTIB shall develop and lead the implementation of a plan to provide universal wireless telecommunications coverage by 2008. To wit, the MWTIB shall:
1.