FCC Action on Wireless Infrastructure Hamstrings Cities but Won’t Spur More 5G Deployment - Public Knowledge

["DAVID FARBER" <dfarber () me com>]

> https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/fcc-action-on-wireless-infrastructure-hamstrings-cities-but-wont-spur-more-5g-deployment
>  
> <https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/fcc-action-on-wireless-infrastructure-hamstrings-cities-but-wont-spur-more-5g-deployment>
>
> FCC Action on Wireless Infrastructure Hamstrings Cities but Won’t Spur More 5G Deployment
>
> BySeptember 25, 2018
>
>
> On Wednesday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on an Order and Declaratory Ruling 
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-353962A1.pdf> it claims will promote deployment of next-generation 
> wireless networks. The crux of the FCC’s action will impose stringent limits on the fees states and localities charge 
> wireless companies to install and maintain small cells <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_cell> in public 
> rights-of-way (ROW) and on other government property. Additionally, the FCC substitutes decision-making by local 
> elected officials with its own on issues ranging from public safety to community aesthetics when a locality considers 
> a wireless small cell application.
>
> While the FCC is correct to take steps to promote broadband deployment (like its recent Order promoting a 
> one-touch-make ready regime for pole attachments 
> <https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-finds-fccs-one-touch-make-ready-item-an-important-step-for>),
>  its proposal to limit state and local oversight of wireless deployments on public property is likely to have little 
> success in promoting deployment, and instead is little more than a brazen wealth transfer of $2 billion from state 
> and local taxpayers to the nation’s largest wireless companies. The sad fact is that the FCC didn’t have to take this 
> approach of pitting broadband providers against state and local governments. The Commission should have pursued a 
> consensus solution that promoted flexibility for local officials to work with wireless companies to find solutions 
> that work for the individual jurisdictions. Instead, the FCC opted for Washington-imposed unfunded mandate on state 
> and local governments that constrains local decision-making and substitutes the judgement of three FCC commissioners 
> for local elected officials.
>
> As Ars Technica explains 
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/fcc-angers-cities-and-towns-with-2-billion-giveaway-to-wireless-carriers/>,
>  the fee structure the FCC recommends states and localities abide by for ROW fees is insufficient to cover the costs 
> that cities incur when determining whether wireless infrastructure should be approved for installation in public ROW. 
> In addition to setting a ceiling for fees, the FCC also establishes tight shot clocks for states and cities to 
> approve or deny wireless company small cell applications, and explains the FCC expects the grant of applications 
> after expiration of the shot clock, regardless of whether the locality has had the time to conduct an appropriate 
> review of the proposed deployment. This is further compounded by the fact the FCC gives carriers a green light to 
> file hundreds or thousands of applications all at the same time, and does not grant any flexibility in its shot 
> clocks for state and local governments to process this flood of applications. The FCC explains that ROW fees should 
> be similar to the costs incurred and that aesthetic and other determinations by local governments have to be 
> “reasonable.” However, in a move that makes a mockery of this Commission’s claims of “regulatory humility,” the FCC’s 
> proposal announces the Commission will inserts its judgement in place of local officials regarding what is and is not 
> “reasonable” in these instances.
>
> As former FCC official Blair Levin explains 
> <http://www.localnetchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Levin-letter-20180917.pdf>, not only is the FCC’s plan a 
> giveaway to the largest wireless carriers, it is unlikely to actually solve the problem the Commission claims it is 
> trying to address -- promoting deployment of next-generation wireless networks to rural areas. First, the FCC’s 
> premise is implausible -- that a multi-billion reduction in ROW fees in major U.S. markets will lead to wireless 
> carriers investing their windfall in unprofitable rural areas. In reality, carriers are unlikely to ever deploy 5G 
> networks (or other advanced networks) in areas that don’t offer sufficient return on investment 
> <http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf>. Further, the millimeter wave spectrum that is 
> necessary to deliver the low-latency, gigabit speeds being promised by 5G deployments is wholly unsuited for rural 
> deployments. In all likelihood, rather than investing in unserved communities, carriers will almost certainly invest 
> in executive bonuses, higher stockholder dividends, and stock buybacks. Unfortunately, the FCC’s action will actually 
> undermine and prevent the innovative and pro-deployment arrangements 
> <https://www.axios.com/5g-digital-divide-19b70d34-4978-44df-a1cb-ae9222d113ef.html> that cities and wireless carriers 
> have negotiated that actually serve to connect disadvantaged and unserved communities. And, for all of the hoopla 
> earlier this year about the FCC establishing an Office of Economics and Analytics 
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-7A1.pdf>, the premise underlying the FCC’s proposal appears based on 
> little more than two paragraphs of anecdotal evidence from the largest wireless carriers and an industry-sponsored 
> study.
>
> Lastly, and critically, the Commission’s action essentially boils down to merely hoping against hope (and economic 
> reality) that wireless companies will invest excess revenues in unprofitable areas, all without any deployment 
> obligations or federal, state, or local oversight to prevent the digital redlining 
> <https://www.digitalinclusion.org/blog/2017/03/10/atts-digital-redlining-of-cleveland/> that has occurred 
> <https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/att-fiber-deployment-california-leaves-middle-and-low-income-communities-behind> 
> where broadband providers have deployed fiber networks 
> <http://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/google-s-broadband-war-redlining-black-communities/article_78510d50-d377-59ef-8032-2db568d647c4.html>.
>  Instead, carriers are likely to pocket this new FCC-provided windfall; proceed with their already announced 5G 
> network deployment plans; sue state and local governments that attempt to ensure 5G deployments reach unserved and 
> underserved communities; and deplete the limited budgets that local governments rely on to pay for public safety 
> services and public schools.
>
> The Commission has the requisite authority (under Title II of the Communications Act) to take positive steps to spur 
> broadband deployment to all Americans. However, rather than take actual steps toward achieving its historical 
> universal service mission to make communications services more accessible and more affordable, this FCC action only 
> enriches wireless carriers while doing nothing to change the economic realities of rural broadband deployment or 
> require providers serve communities they have left behind.
>
> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Rohanmkth <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Small_Cell_by_Samsung.jpg>

-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20180927014404:553DB732-C218-11E8-B038-EFECFDF47BF6
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com