A public hearing Tuesday night on beginning the analysis of Cox Communication’s franchise agreement with Gloucester County was fraught with controversy, as a couple dozen residents turned out to voice their displeasure with the telecom company.

The Gloucester Board of Supervisors’ hearing was intended merely as an introduction to the renewal or expiration process and strictly deal with issues of cable television and right-of-way; however, multiple speakers steered the discussion towards issues of telecom monopoly, low quality of service, and lack of access to broadband throughout the county.

Cox’s franchise agreement, which allows the company to make use of county rights-of-way for the purpose of laying cable lines, is set to expire in 2021.

According to county administrator Brent Fedors, “there is a very limited amount of things the county can require” of Cox, per FCC regulations.

Supervisor Phillip Bazzani asked if increasing competition was something that the board had the power to do as part of this process.

County Attorney Ted Wilmot explained that there is no legal prohibition to a second telecom company coming into the county while this franchise agreement is in place, although it is virtually unheard of in the industry.

Telecom companies, said Wilmot, have an “unwritten agreement” with each other not to encroach on their respective customer bases. Furthermore, since each company uses its own infrastructure and would not share with a competitor, a competing company would have to first iron out its own franchise agreement then run its own lines adjacent to those of Cox.

This upfront infrastructure cost combined with the fact that companies would be competing for a very limited customer pool in such a rural area means any serious competition is unlikely. In short, competition between two companies in rural areas is viewed within the industry as not profitable enough to pursue.

Supervisor Andy James called the situation a “monopoly” and was of the opinion that “there needs to be a little give and take” between Cox and the county.

Bazzani then pitched the idea of a citizen advisory committee to be made up of locals who work or worked in the telecom and information technology fields to inform the board’s decision-making moving forward. Later in the meeting this was discussed and eventually approved, with Fedors taking on the task of leading the process of putting the committee together.

Supervisor Michael Winebarger, following an extensive and contentious public comment period, said, “It seems to me that we’re in a box here.” He then asked how the county could impose demands upon Cox or bring in another company.

According to Fedors, one such demand the county could make would be to lower the density requirement from the current 25 homes per mile to a lower figure. This would mean that, instead of serving all areas where there are 25 or more houses per mile, Cox could theoretically be forced to serve all areas with a lower density as well if they wanted to continue to profit in the county.

And, since Cox’s self-imposed business model calls on broadband to be in service wherever it lays cable lines, this could be a backdoor way of proliferating internet access in Gloucester.

Wilmot clarified that, if the county elects not to renew the franchise agreement and lets it expire, “they [Cox] might pursue legal action to enforce a renewal or they could leave if that were unsuccessful.”

While Cox leaving would open the door for a nearby competitor such as Verizon Fios® to move in, it would likely leave the county without cable and reliable internet until another company decided to move in and begin building its own infrastructure. 

The board will continue to hold public hearings as part of this franchise agreement examination process and is currently gauging interest in the citizen advisory committee created Tuesday.

In-part parcels

In addition to the cable issue, the board also heard a presentation by planning staff related to in-part parcels.

There are currently 400 parcels in the county that are designated as a singular plot of land despite being split by a county or state road. While these areas are physically two, three or, in some cases, four lots, they are handled legally as one.

The board voted unanimously to allow in-part parcels; that is, allow property owners to subdivide these lots based on physical separation by roads.

In terms of requirements, plats would have to be prepared by a licensed surveyor, as the Commissioner of Revenue indicated county records are not accurate enough for a simple boundary survey to be sufficient to represent lots.

This simplification in regulation also allows people to subdivide their in-part parcels that may not otherwise meet minimum lot size requirements for their respective zone.

Supervisor Ashley Chriscoe moved to approve the proposal, which had come unanimously recommended by the planning commission, and it passed unanimously.

To view this article in its entirety, subscribe here. Already an online subscriber? Login Here