[M]ONTPELIER — Vermont is on the brink of an important decision about how to strengthen cellphone and internet services during the next 25 years, particularly for emergency responders.
But some of those following the decision-making process say the state is operating in the dark as it prepares to decide whether to participate in an agreement between the federal FirstNet program and telecom giant AT&T.
At stake, say some of those watching the Vermont Public Safety Broadband Commission’s deliberations, are an expected tens of millions of dollars in spending on network improvements and an opportunity to use the FirstNet project to strengthen the state’s often spotty cellphone and broadband coverage.
As government increasingly outsources its functions to the private sector, the tension between the transparency widely seen as necessary to democracy and the secrecy demanded in a competitive private sector comes increasingly into play. For example, Vermonters have had to go to court to win access to information about both a private prison company and a medical records management firm doing business with the state.
FirstNet is a program Congress created in 2012 to address a problem that came to wide notice 11 years earlier, when different types of first responders couldn’t communicate with one another on Sept. 11, 2001.
In March, FirstNet announced it had selected AT&T as its nationwide vendor. But it said states could opt out if they wanted to find another vendor and could come up with a plan that could meet or exceed federal standards.
Friday was Day 19 of a 45-day period during which the state was to review the FirstNet-AT&T plan. Gov. Phil Scott is slated to make a final decision later this year.
Ron Kumetz, a first assistant fire chief in Alburgh and the representative to the broadband commission for 4,500 volunteer firefighters around the state, said in an interview that he is unable to tell his fellow firefighters what AT&T is proposing and get their feedback because of the secrecy surrounding the plan.
A “terms of use” document FirstNet sent to state officials makes extensive references to the proprietary nature of AT&T’s proposal, which is available only through a special web-based portal accessible to those with a sign-on and password.
“FirstNet has the ability to monitor and track all access to and use of the Portal,” say the terms of use. “You must maintain the confidentiality of the information you obtain or learn through the Portal at all times. No other use (of the information) is permitted.”
Without sufficient public scrutiny — and comparison shopping for alternatives — Kumetz said he was worried the state Department of Public Safety was “just going to hand this off” to AT&T “with really no effort to look at another possible solution. … We’re pretty much just going to take what they’re going to give us.”
Kenneth Jones, an economic research analyst with the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development who is a broadband commission member, said many of the people he serves in Vermont’s business community are eager for any news about improvements in the state’s cellular and broadband coverage.
“If I can’t share the build-out information with the non-public-safety community, then I really can’t get useful responses on whether the AT&T proposal is adequate or useful or anything,” Jones said.
Kumetz said he also worried about the potential for litigation over intellectual property. If AT&T plans to build a cell tower on a hill in St. Albans as part of a proposal that ends up not being selected, and state officials ask the vendor that is selected to build a tower on the same hill, that could open Vermont to a lawsuit, Kumetz said.
That makes him nervous about agreeing to the AT&T/FirstNet terms of use. “If you click that box, you have access to the portal, but you’re signing your life away,” Kumetz said.
William Griffin, chief assistant attorney general, said the state had responded to the secrecy concerns by negotiating an addendum to its terms-of-use agreement with FirstNet.
One change Griffin noted: Earlier drafts had said any disputes that went to court would be heard in federal court in Washington; the addendum says any disputes surrounding secrecy versus disclosure will be resolved “under applicable state law” — meaning in Vermont’s courts.
But the addendum, distributed Thursday to broadband commission members by Deputy Public Safety Commissioner Christopher Herrick, makes clear that secrecy remains the default position.
In an email to which the addendum was attached, Herrick told commission members that when they are approached for information about what AT&T and FirstNet are offering, “the addendum requires the (Vermont user) to exercise exemptions to disclosure that can be made pursuant to Vermont,” including those relating to trade secrets, proprietary financial information and the like.
The addendum itself says, “The State of Vermont will not disclose information for which a reasonable claim of exemption can be made” under the state Public Records Act. It further says anyone fielding a request for such information “shall promptly notify FirstNet” so it can seek a court order blocking information from being released.
FirstNet plans to have dedicated use of a piece of the broadcast spectrum called Band 14, officials said, and first responders would have priority use of that part of the spectrum. But when it is not deployed in emergencies, it would be open to civilian use.
That has people like Jones and Stephen Whitaker, a longtime critic of Vermont’s telecom endeavors, eager for more public involvement in setting the course of the project.
One of Vermont’s chief problems with cellphone coverage is its hilly terrain, which often blocks signals from reaching the valley floors where most of the state’s roads and travelers are. One idea under discussion is that if FirstNet funding could be used to deploy “micro-cells” on utility poles along roadsides, that would greatly enhance cell coverage and high-speed internet in parts of the state where they are unreliable or nonexistent.
Such an outcome might require robust public discussion and resident demand for better telecom services, but that discussion is being severely hampered by the secrecy surrounding the project, according to Whitaker, Jones and Kumetz.
Kumetz said the approach appears to be, “Trust us, we’re from the government.”
A Department of Public Safety spokesman, Mark Bosma, said Herrick and broadband commission Chairman Terry LaValley were not available Friday for comment.
Questions sent to AT&T were referred to a Washington-based spokesman for FirstNet, Ryan Oremland, who said in an email, “FirstNet has a good working relationship with the state of Vermont and their public safety commission, chaired by Terry LaValley. We will ensure that Vermont’s authorized users are able to access the FirstNet State Plan materials online.”
/
