Public Rights-Of-Way,Public Management,and the New Urban Telecommunications Infrastructure

Abstract

Public right-of-way (PROW) is prime real estate for the telecommunications industry. Cable television and wired and wireless networks are the latest to seek PROW, and conflicts occur among local governments, utility systems, telecommunications providers, and the federal government. Should local governments profit from ownership of PROW or should utility and telecommunications interests be permitted to capture the profit generated from establishing networks that use extensive PROW? This question is analyzed, resulting in four key findings. First, historically, private utilities had the upper hand in right-of-way (ROW) occupancy, using bribery, negotiation, and eminent domain. Second, local jurisdictions have a defensible rationale for PROW management, but the change from wired to wireless systems is weakening municipal control. Third, federal law has set the parameters of local control of telecommunications PROW. Fourth, local PROW management can be reduced to a set of fee-based policies designed to allow jurisdictions to recover costs associated with controlling ROW.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Apogee Research. (1996). Shared resources: Sharing the right-of-way for telecommunications (Report for the U.S. Department of Transportation). Washington, DC: Author.

Armstrong

E. L.

(Ed.). (1976). History of public works in the United States 1776–1976. Chicago: American Public Works Association.

Auerbach

J. G.

(1997, December 23). Holy toll calls: Telecom companies now turn to Heaven. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1

Barlowe

(1986). Land resource economics: The economics of real estate (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Blake

N. P.

(1991). Waterand the city: Lessons from history. In Rosen

Keating

A. D.

(Eds.), Water and the city (pp. 59–67). Chicago: Public Works Historical Society.

Boyer

M. C.

(1983). Dreaming the rational city: The myth of American city planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cauley

(1997, December 18). Open and closed: Genuine competition in local phone service is a long distance off. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1

CEAM Task Force. (1996, August 14). Model ordinance, city of, Minnesota [Photocopy]. St. Paul, MN: Author.

Covington

(1996). Wireless world. Planning, 62(12), 8–11.

10.

Estrella

(1996, April 29). With more franchises come more headaches. Multichannel News.

11.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (1997, June 27). Policy statement on state and local rights of way and telecommunications service competition. Available: http://www.fcc.gov/state&local/recommendationl.html.

12.

Glaab

C. N.

Brown

A. T.

(1967). A history of urban America. New York: Macmillan.

13.

Industry-municipal division on franchising, rights-of-way issues still evident. (1996). Telecommunications Reports, 62(24).

14.

Jacobson

C. C.

Tarr

J. A.

(1996). Patterns and policy choices in infrastructure history. Public Works Management & Policy, 1(1), 60–75.

15.

Keating

A. D.

(1991). Many systems: Water provision in nineteenth century Chicago. In Rosen

Keating

A. D.

(Eds.), Water and the city (pp. 91–104). Chicago: Public Works Historical Society.

16.

Klingler

(1996). The new information industry. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

17.

Marvin

Slater

(1997). The new urban infrastructure crisis: Competition for urban space. Public Works Management & Policy, 2(2), 148–158.

18.

McCombs

H. K.

(1997). Pricing the right-of-way: Suggestions for city managers. State and Local Communications Report, 15(2).

19.

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. (1995, June). Local rights-of-way management (Report to the U.S. Congress, prepared on behalf of the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties). Washington, DC: Author.

20.

Nye

D. E.

(1990). Electrifying America: Social meanings of a new technology, 1880–1940. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

21.

Rosen

C. M.

(1986). Infrastructure improvement in nineteenth-century cities. Journal of Urban History, 12(3), 211–256.

22.

Rosenberg

E. A.

Rubia

(1996). Rights of way and other customer access facilities: Issues, policies, and options for regulators. Columbus: National Regulatory Research Institute, Ohio State University.

23.

Rubleske

J. B.

Nunn

(1997, December). Pricing the use of local public rights-of-way: An interim report. Indianapolis: Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.

24.

Scheiber

H. N.

(1973). Property law, expropriation, and resource allocation by government: The United States, 1789–1910. Journal of Economic History, 33(1), 232–251.

25.

Tarakji

(1995, May). The effect of utility cuts on the service life of pavements in San Francisco (Study conducted for the Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco). San Francisco: Department of Public Works.

26.

Tarr

J. A.

(1984). The evolution of urban infrastructure in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In Hanson

(Ed.), Perspectives on urban infrastructure (pp. 4–66). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

27.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1996a). Statistical abstract of the United States, 1996. Washington, DC: Author.

28.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1996b). Value of construction put in place: May 1996 (Annual report). Washington, DC: Author.

29.

U.S. Federal Communications Commission. (1985–1997). Statistics of Communication Common Carriers (Annual report). Washington, DC: Author.