Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pharr commissioners approve first reading of fiber-optic ordinance after public objections from Charter and AT&T
Summary
Pharr commissioners approved on first reading Ordinance 0-2023-46, updating subdivision fiber-optic requirements. Representatives from Charter/Spectrum and AT&T urged changes, saying the amendment could create an unfair advantage for a city-owned network and raise legal concerns; the mayor defended the city's actions and invited collaboration.
Pharr commissioners voted to approve on first reading Ordinance 0-2023-46, a change to the city's subdivision code that modifies requirements related to fiber-optic conduit and city network connections.
The vote followed public comment from private broadband providers who warned the ordinance could mandate developers to dedicate conduit and city-dedicated fiber on new construction and thereby disadvantage competing providers.
Ned Munoz of Charter Communications (Spectrum) told the commission the proposed expansion "to all buildings with a slab foundation" and the requirement that developers dedicate both conduit and fiber to the city's network raises "serious questions of self-dealing, regulatory overreach and potentially an unconstitutional taking of private property," and could limit competition and increase housing costs. "Mandating that private developers and builders install this fiber exclusively dedicated to the city's own competing broadband provider is not a neutral exercise," he said.
Mario Baragan, director of external and legislative affairs for AT&T, urged the commission to adopt provider-neutral standards and argued the amendment "goes beyond reasonable construction standards" by effectively steering new developments toward the city's network and shifting costs to developers and, ultimately, residents.
Mayor Ambrosio Hernandez responded that Pharr moved to build connectivity in areas private providers had declined because the business case did not exist for them. He said the city intends to remain in compliance with federal, state and municipal law and that the city acted "in the best interest of Pharr residents," adding that the city is open to meeting with private providers to explore collaborative solutions.
The ordinance received a motion to approve, was seconded, and carried on first reading with one recorded opposition. The meeting record does not show a roll-call vote tally by name.
What it means: The first-reading approval advances the ordinance toward eventual adoption if subsequent readings and votes approve it. Supporters say the city's efforts address connectivity gaps where private investment has been limited; industry representatives warn the ordinance could create legal and competitive concerns unless revised to be provider-neutral. Mayor Hernandez repeatedly invited private providers to bring data and proposals for collaboration.
Next steps: The ordinance is on the council's docket for further readings. The mayor and city staff said they are willing to meet with provider representatives after the meeting to discuss technical and legal concerns.
