Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC's New 5G Rules Favor Fast Setup Over Federal Reviews (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the headache-free dept.

In a 3-2, party-line vote Thursday, FCC commissioners passed a measure that exempts small cell radio deployments from federal environmental and historical preservation reviews originally meant for large cell phone towers. The vote didn't affect reviews from towns and cities, but the agency may consider exemptions for those reviews later this year. CNET reports: Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has been leading the agency's charge in promoting 5G. He said the exemptions are sorely needed because reviews have been costing wireless operators too much and have slowed deployments. In 2017, these federal reviews cost providers $36 million. He anticipates that as 5G deployments increase in the coming year they could cost providers as much as $241 million. Meanwhile, he said FCC records show that less than 1 percent of cases reviewed resulted in any changes to planned deployments.

"The disproportionate fees are the product of a broken and outdated system," Carr said. "This threatens to hold us back in the race to 5G or limit the business case to densely populated or affluent areas." He added that with Thursday's rule change, the FCC "can flip the business case for thousands of communities." Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, however, said that though the current reviews process does involve red tape, Thursday's change "misses the mark" and also runs afoul of key environmental and historic preservation values.

53 comments

  1. Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    making these calls? Not that the outcome would be any different given who we put in charge, but still.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

      Duh! So what does the EPA have to do with Federal Communications Regulations?

      Actually I think the federal government needs to radically downsize and butt out of 20-30+% of what they have their fingers in. If I recall from my 8th grade civics class, the states retained all responsibility for everything not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution. In my mind the federal government has badly over reached their powers.

      Just my 2 cents ;)

    2. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump will die a traitor in prison next to his bitch traitor sons either way.

    3. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the federal government needs to radically downsize

      We can start with the $716 billion we're spending on this shit. It adds up to $5682 for each household in the US. Every year. Year after year, and it goes up 10% every year even though the only time it gets used is for useless fuckery in third world sandboxes like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. And that's not counting our nuclear arsenal, which doesn't get included in the defense budget.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it should, but the EPA and other similar regulatory bodies have proven that they cannot tolerate reasonable activity without creating excessive costs and delays. The US is not a giant national park and 5G towers aren't going to destroy the environment. The US is not a museum model and our historical sites will not be defiled beyond recognition if a few small towers appear in the area. Thankfully we have been provided with at least a brief window during which the regulatory powers will be kept in check and new competition for broadband service will be allowed to establish itself.

    5. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      The truth is!

      Our current spending on the books is 4 trillion+
      We are in real trouble, I agree partly about the need to eviscerate defense, but if we were to close most overseas military bases. tell our allies if your attacked we will be there when we can. Mothball most of the airforce/navy just keep some planes/ships and the coast guard. Cut everything to the bone, if something happens, we will accept loses and take the mass casualties for the first year+ until we reengage. I don't like the policy, but we are broke.
      The problem you have is, if we do this to our defense budget our federal budget is not even in the black yet.
      Our problem is not military spending, it is domestic spending!

      Just my 2 cents ;)

    6. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 2

      The problem isn’t just spending but unnecessary tax cuts.

    7. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

      The government allowing individuals to keep more of what they earn (what is theirs?) is a problem?

    8. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      The government allowing individuals to keep more of what they earn (what is theirs?) is a problem?

      Yes, as long as our economic system is little more than a tool for siphoning wealth from the middle class and below and giving it to the top 0.1%.

      Anyway, we're not talking about "what they earn". We're talking about people who own shit for a living. A fraction of the top percent. They don't "earn" a goddamn thing.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The jealousy and envy are strong with this one! -Yoda teaching Econ 1

    10. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      Federal government revenue per capita in inflation-adjusted dollars is up by 3x in the last 40 years.

      The problem is that spending is up 4x in the same measure.

      Spending is completely the issue, not the near record levels of revenue. Even a relatively minor slowdown in the annual spending increases would balance the budget in 20 years.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    11. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In terms of along the country run better, that might be a good idea, but don't expect it to make any difference from a monetary perspective. The US government is basically a giant retirement program (including Medicaid) with a portion of military on the side (most of which is salaries and pension). Everything else the government does is a rounding error compared to those two things.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by peragrin · · Score: 1

      You should really look at the doending again then. Domestic spending is a fraction of military spending.

      THE ISSUE IS THE DEBT. That eats up 30% of our budget via interest alone. No payments to prinicpal.

      No the only solution is to raise taxes on the rich, cut all spending, and lose ,2-3 generations of econmonic growth to pay back what the baby boomers have spent.

      To start? We need to pass a balanced budget law. Keep it simple. This year's budget is equal to last year's tax revenue unless war has been declared by Congress. That will allow increase in spending as the economy grows and taxes cuts will force the decrease in spending they require.

      Republicans keep doing the tax cut increase spending to stimulate the economy. Except the two never pay for themselves

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    13. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      If you want to start reducing federal expenses, then start with the military budget, which accounts for 50%.

      As for regulation it is the to reduce the risk of corporations doing any shit they want, impeding on the rights of the citizens of the land. Would you want a NFL or NBA game without rules, well thatâ(TM)s what removing all regulations would be like? Also, it is better for a corporation to have to deal with one regulation at federal level, than dozens spread out amongst different states.

      When it comes to trusting the government or mega corporations less, then I am torn. Then again corporations do a better job of influencing the government these days, than the average US citizen.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    14. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by tsqr · · Score: 1

      If you want to start reducing federal expenses, then start with the military budget, which accounts for 50%.

      Military spending accounts for about 54% of the approximately 1/3 of Federal spending that is classified as "discretionary". So about 18% of total spending. The overwhelming majority of Federal spending is for Social Security and Medicare.

    15. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Holi · · Score: 1

      Um, Did you not see the previous story?

      https://mobile.slashdot.org/st...

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    16. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true dullard.

    17. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the federal government needs to radically downsize and butt out of 20-30+% of what they have their fingers in. If I recall from my 8th grade civics class, the states retained all responsibility for everything not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution. In my mind the federal government has badly over reached their powers.

      The problem is RF doesn't respect state boundaries a bit. Not a bit.

      I'm happy to state's right's stuff, but trying to imagine a country where each state sets the RF communications rules, frequencies, and modes would be completely chaotic. 50 different sets of rules.

      What should probably scare you even more is that it isn't only the Federal government, but all of this radio and electronic stuff is regulated by the world! Every few years, most all the countries of the world get together and hammer out rules as to what frequencies are used for what.

      Anyhow yeah, its a complicated and intricate job hammering out how to work this stuff. I have a big poster of this in my office https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files... .

      And that's just one country. But its worth a read. And time after time we have interests that try to mess with it - thing the failed Broadband over Power Line or setting up broadband service that nukes GPS. It's usually people trying to trump physics for money or ideology.

      There is a good chance that this initiative will create interference and destroy the very service it aims to create. The reviews were put in place for a reason. Physics was the reason, not left wing bureaucrats trying to impede progress.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Domestic spending is a fraction of military spending.

      Huh?

      Military spending - $609B (15.8%)
      Foreign aid - $50B (1.3%)
      Interest - $229B (6%)
      Domestic programs - $2.9T (76%)

      Where did you get your supposed numbers from?

    19. Re: Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The jealousy and envy are strong with this one! -Yoda teaching Econ 1

      Maybe, but it's true. All the benefits of industry -- offshoring, productivity gains, mergers, they all go to the top. The lower and middle class just sees stagnant wages and job losses. Maybe they have reason to blame those issues on the people who are getting all the money. It didn't just come from nowhere.

      The lower and middle classes struggle and get screwed. Meanwhile, the wealth gap is the highest that it's been since the 1920s. Don't think they have reason to be a little pissed? But sure, it's just jealousy of their 'betters' who benefit the most from the system they set up.

    20. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple : cell tower radiation is known to cause serious health issue not limited to cancer. If the EPA had any sense ( but what in the US does ? ) they would check the new bands and it's effects on human health . At the moment they say " ok whatever the harm it does to humans , we rubber stamp it like idiots and we'll deal with the deaths .. anyways the planet's overloaded .. nice way to get rid of a few thousands without having to lift a finger .. they should have been in the " kill them all " project while it was still running on rasterbator :D

    21. Re:Um... shouldn't it be the EPA by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's get Scott Pruitt on the phone and see if he objects to skipping his department's reviews! He'd have to hate the department he's in charge of to allow that..

  2. Aren't they deploying on existing towers? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    Is there something fundamentally different about 5G that they can't deploy on all the existing towers?

    If you're building new towers I certainly understand environmental impact and historical preservation reviews.

    What is it though about putting more antennae on existing towers that requires an expensive review? Or any review at all?

    (And costing operators too much? Hah. We all know they're just going to pass their costs on to us.)

    1. Re:Aren't they deploying on existing towers? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They'll probably be deploying more smaller towers closer together to mitigate the shorter range due to the higher frequency.

    2. Re:Aren't they deploying on existing towers? by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there something fundamentally different about 5G that they can't deploy on all the existing towers?

      Yes, there is. The higher frequency (15GHz!!) affords higher bandwidth, but requires many more towers because of the shorter range:

      As far as frequency, the 5G test network used a 15 GHz frequency band, which is higher and shorter range than current 3G/4G cellular frequencies that top out at around 2.6 GHz, i.e. 2600 MHz LTE Band 7. The choice of short-range would make deployments of this technology suitable for densely populated urban areas, where many base stations could be deployed to offer super-fast speeds over a small area.

      I'd also wager, that tracking your device's location will also become more precise...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Aren't they deploying on existing towers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Location tracking will improve mostly due to improved timing on the basestations with 5G.

    4. Re:Aren't they deploying on existing towers? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Mainly though shorter range means fewer people in one area which means they can each receive a lot more data per phone. That's the real trick going on.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. Farewell craigslist personals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was fun. You will be missed

    1. Re:Farewell craigslist personals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU

  4. Waaaaaaah by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

    $36 million is what? 1/100th of Verizon and/or AT&T’s yearly revenues? Poor things...

    1. Re:Waaaaaaah by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Should be 1/100th of 1%.

    2. Re:Waaaaaaah by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Considering they're short range and thousands of them would be needed to adequately cover medium through large cities, that a real cost.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Waaaaaaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are pointing out a very important aspect to this. Those of us who pay hundreds of thousands to the FCC for testing while only bringing in 1 or 2 million annually are disproportionately being disadvantaged against our competitors such as Verizon, AT&t, etc. Why do these changes always favor the large corporations and not the small business struggling to stay alive? Dumb question I know. No money to lubricate the already too greasy politicians.

    4. Re:Waaaaaaah by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Sure, but as the reviews are pointless 99% f the time, that's basically just throwing wealth away in compliance costs.

      Sure, $241 million next year is a little less than $1/person in the country, but if you don't mind wasting that, feel free to send me $241 million and I'll make much better use of it than blowing it on pointless paperwork.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  5. lemme ask this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what exactly is so great about 5G, that we need to be in such a rush over?

    1. Re:lemme ask this by guruevi · · Score: 1

      5G will bring the speeds promised by 3G to your phone.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:lemme ask this by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      AC Re: 'So, what exactly is so great about 5G"?

      5G supports real broadband speeds.
      Build a few new towers and make a great new connection to the internet.
      With useful upload and download speeds.
      Internet speed beyond speed on paper insulated wireline.

      So much great broadband that the internet will get boring.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re: lemme ask this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about bandwidth? You should talk about latency as it's much more important for a mobile network. The short range of 5G also means if you live near enough to a fast base station, you have access to fiber at home.

    4. Re:lemme ask this by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      5G supports real broadband speeds.
      Build a few new towers and make a great new connection to the internet.
      With useful upload and download speeds.
      Internet speed beyond speed on paper insulated wireline.

      Yeah, and cell phone contracts with far more ridiculous restrictions over bandwidth and use than even Comcast and AT&T put on their landlines! Woohoo!

    5. Re: lemme ask this by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Who cares about bandwidth? You should talk about latency as it's much more important for a mobile network.

      Anyone who cares about video streaming! You can have a 5ms ping, and it won't do you much good if your bandwidth is so low that you still can't push through many bits at once. Now for gamers like me, latency is king. But I can't think of many (any?) cell phone games off the top of my head that need it, probably since they were designed assuming high-latency connections.

    6. Re:lemme ask this by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Getting data down using real bandwidth?
      Waiting for HD and 4K data to stream over paper insulated monopoly telco wireline?
      The race is on to get the USA connected and able to enjoy new internet products and services.
      Products that need real speed and much more bandwidth all the time to enjoy.
      5G can allow the USA to escape its old telco networks and the wireline monopoly brands that kept the US internet slow for generations of new content.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you call someone who takes the property of another person by force or threat of force?

    An armed robber.

  7. Commies using capitalist inventions to complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People who risk their money to finance the building and innovation of human civilization don't earn anything," says entitled message board poster without a hint of irony whilst using technology that the richest people on Earth didn't have 50 years ago.

    1. Re:Commies using capitalist inventions to complain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      "People who risk their money to finance the building and innovation of human civilization don't earn anything," says entitled message board poster without a hint of irony whilst using technology that the richest people on Earth didn't have 50 years ago.

      Said by someone who participates in commie inventions like social security and public schools, public libraries, national parks, etc. Believes everyone should have to pitch in to pay for the President's golf trips and a pension for life, but doesn't realize that there are stock markets and private investment in socialist countries too.

      And he makes these opinions known on a worldwide network that was initially developed using public funds.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. ...hold us back in the race to 5G... by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who are we "racing" to get 5G deployed and why?

    Is there some huge issue with people hitting the wall speed-wise on existing LTE networks? Last I heard no one was getting anywhere close to the maximum speeds of the infrastructure we've got -- mostly due to a lack of back-haul capacity supplying it.

    Considering how the government coddles the incumbent telcos and doesn't hold them to any standards when it comes to fully supporting the markets they have been given exclusive access to, it's obvious that they don't consider high speed internet access an important thing, so that's not why.

    1. Re:...hold us back in the race to 5G... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is there some huge issue with people hitting the wall speed-wise on existing LTE networks?

      By pushing more data faster to the device the device is usually faster at shutting up and freeing the airwaves for someone else. Just because you're loading slashdot doesn't mean there isn't a benefit from a faster service.

      Last I heard no one was getting anywhere close to the maximum speeds of the infrastructure we've got -- mostly due to a lack of back-haul capacity supplying it.

      You heard wrong. Well maybe depending where you are. There are plenty of places especially in densely built up areas where backhaul capacity is not at all an issue where cell congestion is a very real limiting factor. Incidentally a faster but shorter range service is exactly a way to combat this. Cell congestion is basically what you see when 2 users normally could get 100mbit each, but 20 users can't get more than a couple. The airwaves are far more easily congested than an even moderately built backhaul link.

    2. Re:...hold us back in the race to 5G... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are racing to make as much money as possible before the next market tank that causes people to elect government officials with common sense.

    3. Re:...hold us back in the race to 5G... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of places especially in densely built up areas where backhaul capacity is not at all an issue where cell congestion is a very real limiting factor

      Pretty much any "event" location. A concert, a stadium, a convention, a hotel, anyplace where lots of people gather. The Cell network in the area is usually pretty slow, however, it's almost always an order of magnitude faster than any supplied Wi-Fi network.

  9. What race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what race are those morons talking about?
    "This threatens to hold us back in the race to 5G "
    THERE IS NO RACE.
    Just because you want to get there faster than the rest of the world, doesn't make it a race, it just make you childish.
    ISPs and the likes have been lagging behind the rest of the world in nearly everything else, that race came and went already, the US lost.

    1. Re:What race? by tgeek · · Score: 1

      Exactly. While we may be anxious to get 5G deployed, who is going to "race" in and do it ahead of us? Space aliens?

      And that whole rationale about cost is simply ridiculous. We (I work for a cellphone provider) spend about a million bucks PER enodeB (LTE) tower. (construction or leasing, the enodeB hardware, backhaul and licensing). And they're yakking about 37 million INDUSTRY WIDE????? Gimme a break.

    2. Re:What race? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Other countries will race ahead because they don't have the arguably pointless emvironmental and historical research required.

      For the cynical, follow-the-money types out there, this is a legal way for politicians to get in the way, to get legally paid via donation to get back out of the way.

      The corrupt DMV person demanding $200 or your driver's license is delayed a few years, so prevalent in many countries, is an amateur.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  10. Few changed deployments just means itâ(TM)s w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Itâ(TM)s likely less than 1% changed because carriers are submitting plans that would likely pass review to begin with. Without such a review, they may not be so careful when planning new deployments.

  11. And now they they won't be reviewed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll plan to place the towers in spots that would have been rejected by reviews.