Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority: Telecommunications Issues Impacting Local Governments May 7, 2015 Kenneth S. Fellman, Esq. Kissinger & Fellman, P.C

New FCC rules on Collocations and Related Wireless Siting Issues

Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 mandates that a State or local government approve certain wireless broadband facilities siting requests for modifications and collocations of wireless transmission equipment on an existing tower or base station that does not result in a substantial change to the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. In October 2014, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved rules interpreting Section 6409(a).

Wireless industry associations PCIA and CTIA worked the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors to develop a model ordinance for reviewing eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a) Some jurisdictions have also developed application forms to address these siting requests

FCC Collocation Rules Definitions (can be mirrored in local ordinance) Base Station: A structure or equipment at a fixed location, enabling FCC authorized wireless communications. It is not a tower or any equipment associated with a tower Private, broadcast, public safety services, wireless and fixed wireless services, microwave backhaul fixed wireless services, microwave backhaul Radio transceivers, antennas, cabling, backup power supplies, distributed antenna systems (“DAS”) and small cell network equipment Structures other than towers that support or house equipment described here that has been reviewed and approved under applicable zoning or siting processes

Ordinance Definitions Collocation: the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting/receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes Eligible Facilities Request: Any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: Collocation of new transmission equipment; Removal of transmission equipment; or Replacement of transmission equipment (does not include ‘drop and swap’)

Ordinance Definitions Eligible support structure: Any tower or base station as defined in this section, provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the jurisdiction under this section Existing: A constructed tower or base station is existing if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of the ordinance (this requires both a physical and a legal existence - i.e., does a valid permit exist for the antennas on this structure? Mandatory collocation does not apply to structures (1) that merely could support transmission equipment or (2) were illegally constructed without all proper wireless site review

Ordinance Definitions Site: For towers other than towers in PROW, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground Substantial Change: A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than 10% or more than ten feet, whichever is greater

Ordinance Definitions Substantial Change: For towers other than towers in the PROW, adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the Tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than 6 feet; For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed 4 cabinets; or, for towers in the public rights-of-way and base stations, it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than 10% larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure;

Ordinance Definitions Substantial Change: It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site;

Ordinance Definitions Substantial Change: It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; Is this really an antenna site?!? Is this really an antenna site?!?

Ordinance Definitions

Substantial Change: It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment, provided however that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non-compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified in this section. It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment, provided however that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non-compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified in this section.

Ordinance Definitions Substantial Change: With respect to non-compliance with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment … Essentially, if a prior condition of approval does not have to do with changes to height or width of the original site, and there would be a violation related to any of those prior conditions, then the proposed change would be a substantial change, and therefore not subject to Section 6409(a) In other words, if a condition for the original site bars expansion, then that condition would be not be enforceable if the proposed collocation would not be a “substantial change” under Section 6409(a) But … if there is a condition of approval limiting height that is tied to concealment, then a small increase in height that defeats concealment, could be a substantial change, and not subject to mandatory approval

Ordinance Definitions Substantial Change: Section 6409(a) does not mandate approval for all requests to collocate or modify facilities Approval mandated only those that do not “substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station”

Ordinance Definitions Substantial Change: The new FCC rules generally preempt compliance with subjective requirements for wireless site modifications that do not result in a substantial change, but preserve objective requirements “States and localities may continue to enforce and condition approval on compliance with generally applicable building, structural, electrical, and safety codes and other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety”

Ordinance Definitions Substantial Change: However, applicants may modify legal non-conforming towers and base stations under the new rules without bringing those structures into code compliance The FCC determined that a different rule would allow municipalities to exclude towers and base stations through a change in zoning laws that transforms a conforming site Whether the new rules preempt zone-height limits and setbacks remains unclear Generally applicable laws contain objective standards and reasonably relate to health and safety, which the new rules expressly do not preempt But … height limits and setbacks may also serve subjective aesthetic purposes, which the new rules generally do preempt The answer will likely come from future case law

Ordinance Definitions Transmission Equipment: Equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC-authorized wireless communication service, including, radio transceivers, antennas, cable, and power supply…includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul

Ordinance Definitions Tower: Any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC authorized antennas and associated facilities

So let’s review … is this chimney an eligible support structure, and … is this chimney an eligible support structure, and …

Is this a collocation that must be approved?

Ordinance Contents Application –You can require an application –Should include all the info staff needs to determine whether it is an Eligible Facilities Request –More on this later … Type of Review (Administrative) Timing – shall approve the application within 60 days unless it is not a covered request Incomplete applications can toll the deadline to act if notice is giving within 30 days

Ordinance Contents Interaction with Previously Adopted Shot Clock Rules Implementing Section 332 (c)(7) If the application is not a valid 6409(a) request the presumptively reasonable timeframe for the application under the prior shot clock order begins to run from the issuance of the City’s decision that the application is not a covered request Shot clock rules apply to DAS and small cells Shot clock rules apply to DAS and small cells There is no “deemed granted” rule for 332 (c)(7) applications There is no “deemed granted” rule for 332 (c)(7) applications

Ordinance Contents Related to Action on Application If you fail to approve or deny a request under this chapter … … within 60 days, accounting for any tolling The request is DEEMED GRANTED Deemed Granted does not become effective until applicant notifies the jurisdiction in writing that the review period has expired Remedies: Either the jurisdiction or the applicant may bring any claims under Section 6409 (a) to any court of competent jurisdiction

Application Form Contents You want to get all the information you need to determine whether the application qualifies for mandatory approval The new rules limit the issues the local jurisdiction can decide, but still permit the local government to decide what information it needs to resolve those issues

Application Form Contents (what you can’t require) Demonstration of need for the facilities Business case showing necessity to fill a gap in coverage or increase network capacity

Application Form Contents (what you can require) whether the applicant holds a valid property interest in the site (i.e., a lease or license) whether the proposal qualifies as an eligible facilities request whether the structure qualifies as an existing wireless tower or base station whether the proposal will cause a substantial change in the physical dimensions whether the proposal violates objective generally applicable laws or prior conditions of approval that reasonably relate to public health and safety whether the proposal raises any environmental or historic preservation concerns

Application - Timing Can toll the shot clock if application is incomplete Notify applicant of deficiencies within 30 days - must cite to an application defect in some “code provision, ordinance, application instruction, or otherwise publically-stated procedure” If applicant responds and is still incomplete, but advise of deficiencies within 10 days

Other Issues – Historic Preservation The new rules adopt a new categorical exclusion from NHPA requirements for collocations on utility structures that applies when: the proposed collocation does not exceed certain size limitations; the proposed collocation does not involve any new ground disturbance; and the proposed collocation is not (1) within a historic district; (2) on a structure registered or eligible for registration in the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) subject to a pending complaint about adverse effects on historic value

Other Issues – Historic Preservation (cont.) The new rules adopt a new categorical exclusion from NHPA requirements for collocations on buildings that apply when: an antenna already exists on the structure the proposed collocation is within a certain size and proximity to the existing antenna; the collocation antenna will comply with all zoning and historic preservation conditions (i.e., camouflage) designed to mitigate adverse effects on historic value; the proposed collocation does not involve new ground disturbance; and the proposed collocation is not (1) within a historic district; (2) on a structure registered or eligible for registration in the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) subject to a pending complaint about adverse effects on historic value

Other Suggestions We should not necessarily throw out our pre-Section 6409(a) wireless ordinance standards and procedures for collocations and modifications These continue to apply to the extent that a proposed collocation or modification does not qualify as an eligible facilities request or does result in a substantial change Publish application materials on City website Update and improve with experience Be explicit about what and how materials must be submitted Make sure there’s a good rationale for each application requirement Avoid any requirements that empower local officials to require additional information on a case-by-case basis

Other Suggestions Consider requiring pre-submittal meetings to make sure applicant and staff understand what is going to be submitted May want to develop and use a ‘notice to applicant’ form to identify incomplete applications with check-the-box line items for each required application material Advice to your clients: When ambiguities arise about whether an application contains sufficient information, review immediately with legal counsel

Cable Franchising 2015 – What’s the Same and What’s Changing

Some companies beginning to provide video services over an Internet Protocol (IP) platform From regulatory standpoint, provision of multi-channel video services over IP platform does not change the fact that the services are still “cable services” as defined in the Cable Act, and therefore subject to cable franchises AT&T’s U-Verse service was a “cable service” and that delivery in IP did not affect its regulatory classification. [Office of Consumer Counsel v. S. New England Tel. Co., 515 F. Supp. 2d 269, (D. Conn. 2007), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 368 F. App’x 244 (2d Cir. 2010).]

Cable Franchising 2015 – What’s the Same and What’s Changing IP Video is a format – not a delivery mechanism IP Video may never touch the Internet but rather be delivered over a closed (Cable TV) system

It’s all about the bandwidth!

Negotiation Issues in Franchise Renewals Related to Changing Technology Consideration –Franchise Fee –PEG Fee –In-Kind Services PEG Issues Competitive Equity (operator issue)

Compensation Cable Act – provides: “during any 12 month period the franchise fees paid by the cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5% of the operator’s gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services” 47 U.S.C. §542

Gross Revenues under federal law Gross revenues can include –late fees, return check fees –revenues from program guides and electronic guides –home shopping revenue –advertising revenue –upgrade and downgrade fees –installation and reconnection fees –converter rental fees and lockout device fees –revenue from Interactive Services to the extent they are considered Cable Services

PEG Fees The term "franchise fee" does not include: –Capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities 47 U.S.C. § 542 What is a capital cost? –Depreciable asset –Fixed, one-time expense –Land, buildings, construction, equipment –Total cost needed to bring a project to a commercially operable status

Schools and Public Buildings How many free drops in place today? How many additional outlets are in use? –Has digital conversion occurred? –Is equipment required for every TV set? Existing drops v. new drops –Construction cost allocation for new drops Can operator offset all in-kind costs? –From Franchise fees? –Operator will cite FCC 621 Order

Competitive Equity

Negotiations for High Definition (HD) PEG Channels How many channels does current franchise require? What do you have to trade? The issue isn’t IP specific –How much P, E and G programming is occurring? – Does is justify the additional bandwidth for simultaneous SD and HD channels?

Hold On … Do you really want HD PEG channels???

OK … You’ve decided that you do, in fact, want your PEG channels in HD

So what do you do when your cable operator says you’ll get an PEG channel when …

Who’s got the leverage in negotiations? (Not the LFA)

Statutory Authority to Require HD Channels for PEG 47 USC Sec. 546 – in the formal renewal process the cable operator makes a proposal and the franchising authority determines whether (among other things) …

Statutory Authority to Require HD Channels for PEG The cable operator has the legal, technical and financial ability to comply with the terms of its proposal and Whether the proposal “is reasonable to meet the future cable related community needs and interests, taking into account the costs of meeting such needs and interests.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 546 (c)(1)(C) and (D) Whether the proposal “is reasonable to meet the future cable related community needs and interests, taking into account the costs of meeting such needs and interests.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 546 (c)(1)(C) and (D)

Future Cable-Related Needs and Interests Many of the other channels on the cable system are shown simultaneously in SD and HD The transition to all HD will take time While many of your citizens watch in HD, why should they have to watch PEG programming like …

This …

Competitive Equity FCC has preempted “Level Playing Field” language “Competitive Equity” is nothing more than reverse level playing field –Nothing in federal law requires such a provision –Check for state obligation Issues to watch for in proposed language –“Opt-out” provisions that allow operator to avoid franchise obligations without city approval –“Line item veto” – allows operator to unilaterally modify franchise if different than competor’s –Consider “all or nothing” approach operator can have the same terms as the competitor but it must take all requirements – no pick and choose

Other States: Cable Operators Providing HD for PEG (list not exclusive) CenturyLink – CO, OR, WA, MN Comcast –Portland, Vancouver, East Multnomah County, OR –Seattle and Bellingham, WA –Denver, Aurora, Lakewood, CO (among others) –Cambridge, MA Cablevision –New York City Cox –Fairfax County, VA RCN –Chicago

PEG Video on Demand Fixed number of hours of storage and access through the cable operator’s VOD menu May be required to sign cable operator’s VOD license agreement Will want periodic reports from cable operator showing number of views of VOD programming May want provision to increase hours based upon number of views Will want to agree on providing content in format meeting certain specifications Will want provision to engage in good faith efforts to discuss alternatives to including Access programming on any VOD platform as programming distribution evolves

PEG Video on Demand Possibility of cable operator assistance to enhance municipality’s on-line PEG presence Money, or equipment (server, etc.) for on-line programming Free commercial grade broadband service connection to enable delivery of web-based PEG content Municipality may agree to acknowledge cable operator support by displaying its logo on community’s web-based programming

PEG Video on Demand – Other States Cablevision – New York City (25 hours) Cox –Fairfax, County, VA (30 hours) Comcast –Denver, Cambridge, Portland, Vancouver, East Multnomah County, Seattle (on cable system) –Other CO communities (web-based) RCN –Chicago

PEG Video on Demand – Other States Cablevision – New York City (25 hours) Cox –Fairfax, County, VA (30 hours) Comcast –Denver, Cambridge, Portland, Vancouver, East Multnomah County, Seattle (on cable system) –Other CO communities (web-based) RCN –Chicago

NPRM on Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors MVPD is a “person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a [DBS] service, or a [TVRO] satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.” 47 U.S.C. § 522(13). Important to remember: not all MVPDs are “cable operators” subject to Cable Act franchising

NPRM on Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors NPRM seeks comment on what MVPD rights and obligations should apply to linear programming “Over the Top” (OTT) providers –Rights include programming access rules (access to vertically integrated programming) and right to seek relief under retrans consent rules –Obligations include program carriage agreement limitations (47 U.S.C. § 536); competitive availability of navigation devices (47 U.S.C. § 549); retrans consent (47 U.S.C. § 325); EEO requirements; closed captioning

NPRM on Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors NPRM proposes to classify providers of OTT subscription linear (i.e., pre-scheduled) programming as MVPDs … this would suggest that any entity that provides such services over landline, ROW-crossing facilities that it owns or in which it or its affiliates have a significant interest is a “cable operator,” providing a “cable service” over a “cable system” NPRM tentatively concludes on-demand (like Netflix) and free OTT would not be classified as MVPDs, but seeks comment on that conclusion

NPRM on Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors NPRM tentatively concludes that OTT video provided by a cable operator is not a cable service This conclusion is at odds with Cable Act’s definitions of “cable service” and “cable operator” But cable operators argue that FCC does has no authority to define some OTTs as MVPDs for purposes of ensuring they receive nondiscriminatory access to programming Poses potential negative consequences to LFA ability to impose franchise obligations as cable operator provisioning of programming service shifts to OTT

American models for public fiber Institutional: government fiber as an economic development platform for the private sector Public-facing: government fiber to the home where the private sector has not acted

Existing US institutional model Middle mile/anchor networks (I-Nets) The economics work, based on 15 years of data: –Low cost to construct and operate –Incremental cost construction opportunities –Reduced operating costs and dramatic savings –Platform for innovation –Platform for last-mile buildout

Your government network as economic platform, creating: Open platform for new applications and new providers Middle-mile connection points for alternative last-mile systems Competitive market and price restraints on incumbents Opportunity for small business providers

Efficiency and economic viability –Multi-use, multi-sectoral –Regional, multi-community (or modest in scale— can be a single connection to a business park) Fiber “middle mile,” wireless “last mile” –Fiber projects to “anchors” with commitments/ interest of last-mile wireless partners –Meet anchor needs and enable last-mile providers to meet public needs Economic platform network vision

… access to affordable, high-speed internet services is critical to the state's economic future and that the planning, development, and delivery of quality internet services should be a coordinated effort among state government, local governments, and private enterprise … access to affordable, high-speed internet services is critical to the state's economic future and that the planning, development, and delivery of quality internet services should be a coordinated effort among state government, local governments, and private enterprise. –It is the policy of this state to: (a) recognize that private sector enterprises engaged in the delivery of internet access and related services should have an opportunity to provide those services without undue interference or competition from the state or its political subdivisions; and (a) recognize that private sector enterprises engaged in the delivery of internet access and related services should have an opportunity to provide those services without undue interference or competition from the state or its political subdivisions; and (b) encourage agencies and political subdivisions to publicly announce requirements for internet services and negotiate contracts for internet access with private enterprise to ensure that innovative technology is available to serve the public's needs at the most fair and reasonable cost. (b) encourage agencies and political subdivisions to publicly announce requirements for internet services and negotiate contracts for internet access with private enterprise to ensure that innovative technology is available to serve the public's needs at the most fair and reasonable cost. Montana State Law

As used in this part: As used in this part: (1) "Agency" has the meaning provided for in (1) "Agency" has the meaning provided for in (2) "Internet services provider" means a person or an entity that provides a service, available to the public, that enables the person's or entity's customers to access the internet, purchase internet server or file-hosting services, colocate internet equipment, or use data transmission over the internet for a fee. (2) "Internet services provider" means a person or an entity that provides a service, available to the public, that enables the person's or entity's customers to access the internet, purchase internet server or file-hosting services, colocate internet equipment, or use data transmission over the internet for a fee. (3) "Political subdivision" has the meaning provided for in (3) "Political subdivision" has the meaning provided for in Montana State Law

Government competition with private internet services providers prohibited -- exceptions. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b), an agency or political subdivision of the state may not directly or through another agency or political subdivision be an internet services provider Government competition with private internet services providers prohibited -- exceptions. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b), an agency or political subdivision of the state may not directly or through another agency or political subdivision be an internet services provider. (2) (a) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider if: (2) (a) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider if: (i) no private internet services provider is available within the jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision; or (i) no private internet services provider is available within the jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision; or (ii) the agency or political subdivision provided services prior to July 1, (b) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider when providing advanced services that are not otherwise available from a private internet services provider within the jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision. (b) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider when providing advanced services that are not otherwise available from a private internet services provider within the jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision. (c) If a private internet services provider elects to provide internet services in a jurisdiction where an agency or political subdivision is providing internet services, the private internet services provider shall inform the agency or the political subdivision in writing at least 30 days in advance of offering internet services. (c) If a private internet services provider elects to provide internet services in a jurisdiction where an agency or political subdivision is providing internet services, the private internet services provider shall inform the agency or the political subdivision in writing at least 30 days in advance of offering internet services. Montana State Law

(2) (a) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider if: (2) (a) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider if: (3) Upon receiving notice pursuant to subsection (2)(c), the agency or political subdivision shall notify its subscribers within 30 days of the intent of the private internet services provider to begin providing internet services and may choose to discontinue providing internet services within 180 days of the notice. (4) Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit an agency or political subdivision from: (a) offering electronic government services to the general public; or (a) offering electronic government services to the general public; or (b) acquiring access to the internet from a private internet services provider in order to offer electronic government services to the general public. (b) acquiring access to the internet from a private internet services provider in order to offer electronic government services to the general public. Montana State Law

Building a Business Plan Avoided costs –Core government functions –Education and other (independent) anchors Revenue support –Internal anchor revenues –E-rate and Health Care Connect –Spare conduit/fiber/service capacity for leasing Capital support: incremental builds –E-rate and Health Care Connect

Local government needs VoIP, public safety, SCADA GIS, client/server, Internet access, cloud applications, CCTV, radio/wireless backhaul, document management, traffic management Interconnection with county and state (dispatch) Schools © CTC

Potential funding sources E-rate Health Care Connect Lease fees Service fees 75

Health Care Connect New program (December 2012 order) that allocates funding from the Universal Service Fund to subsidize service to health care institutions Replaces and reforms Rural Health Care program created by ‘96 Act (widely considered poorly designed) Adopts the E-Rate model with variation

Leasing/Service Strategies Conduit lease Fiber lease Wholesale services Retail services Hybrid/multiple offerings © CTC

Challenges and Benefits Public broadband driven by benefits that don’t accrue to the enterprise Public broadband metrics for success have been defined by carriers –Cash flow and profit—these are commercial metrics –Public metrics are off the financial statements

79 A Conservative Strategy Fiber as core of network and key investment Fiber as core of network and key investment Wireless as extension and for mobility Wireless as extension and for mobility Build when you can Build when you can Utilize your processes, assets, team Utilize your processes, assets, team Sewer, water, ROW, housing developmentSewer, water, ROW, housing development

80 Using What You Already Have Existing assets can significantly decrease the cost of building, maintaining, and operating a public broadband network Existing assets can also entice third party providers to work with you ©2006 CTC

81 Types of Existing Assets Physical plant, facilities –Existing fiber, conduit, hub location space, light and utility poles, towers, land Rights –Right of way, pole access, spectrum Personnel –Customer service reps, line workers, IT personnel, inspectors, construction crews ©2006 CTC

82 Surveying Your Assets Meet with various departments to discuss your project –In large municipalities it is difficult to know the resources of your counterparts in other departments Determine what assets exist that can be used for your project Determine if new assets can be built or obtained in time for your project ©2006 CTC

83 Construct new underground fiber~$ ,000/mile –Pull fiber in existing conduit ~$15-30,000/mile Use tall muni building as a microwave site vs. lease space on private tower –$1,000 to $5,000 per month for an antenna for backhaul Leverage traffic signal control enclosures, light poles for WiFi hardware and electricity –$200 per radio for new electrical service is about $6,000 in initial costs per sq. mi. of coverage (~ 30 radios) ©2006 CTC

84 Interdepartmental collaboration is crucial –Install conduit during road construction (or other CIPs, including sewer, water) –Design space on new tower or new building rooftop –Include power, HVAC in key telecom areas during construction and remodel Every municipal project has the potential to provide long term cost savings on your municipal broadband project ©2006 CTC

85 Install conduit during road improvements and other CIPs Conduit is key for future proofing your infrastructure Low incremental cost to install conduit during roadwork or utility installation (sewers, electrical) Conduit can be leveraged to entice commercial carriers to offer services in your municipality or to build municipal networks –Cost of pulling fiber through existing conduit: $6- 12,000/ mile –Cost of new underground fiber construction: $ ,000/ mile ©2006 CTC

86 So as a result of this presentation, can you be assured that your communications endeavors will be successful? ©2006 CTC

Ken Fellman Kissinger & Fellman, P.C