Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Angers Cities, Towns With $2 Billion Giveaway To Wireless Carriers (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the pitchforks-and-torches dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission's plan for spurring 5G wireless deployment will prevent city and town governments from charging carriers about $2 billion worth of fees. The FCC proposal, to be voted on at its meeting on September 26, limits the amount that local governments may charge carriers for placing 5G equipment such as small cells on poles, traffic lights, and other government property in public rights-of-way. The proposal, which is supported by the FCC's Republican majority, would also force cities and towns to act on carrier applications within 60 or 90 days. The FCC says this will spur more deployment of small cells, which "have antennas often no larger than a small backpack." But the commission's proposal doesn't require carriers to build in areas where they wouldn't have done so anyway.

The FCC plan proposes up-front application fees of $100 for each small cell and annual fees of up to $270 per small cell. The FCC says this is a "reasonable approximation of [localities'] costs for processing applications and for managing deployments in the rights-of-way." Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers and would have to prove that the fees are a reasonable approximation of all costs and "non-discriminatory." But, according to Philadelphia, those proposed fees "are simply de minimis when measured against the costs that the City incurs to approve, support, and maintain the many small cell and distributed antenna system (DAS) installations in its public rights-of-way." Philadelphia said it "has already established a fee structure and online application process to apply for small cell deployment that has served the needs of its citizens without prohibiting or creating barriers to entry for infrastructure investment." The city has also negotiated license agreements for small cell installations with Verizon, AT&T, and other carriers. In addition to Philadelphia, the Rural County Represenatives of California (RCRC), a group representing 35 rural California counties, also objects to the FCC plan. They told the FCC that its "proposed recurring fee structure is an unreasonable overreach that will harm local policy innovation."

"That is why many local governments have worked to negotiate fair agreements with wireless providers, which may exceed that number or provide additional benefits to the community," the RCRC wrote. "The FCC's decision to prohibit municipalities' ability to require 'in-kind' conditions on installation agreements is in direct conflict with the FCC's stated intent of this Order and further constrains local governments in deploying wireless services to historically underserved areas."

131 comments

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Giveaways by Kohath · · Score: 0

    Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service, or did you want local governments to cash in?

    1. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local government is going to spend X. You either pay them directly, through taxes, or you pay them as passthrough your carrier who won't just take on the fees themselves...

    2. Re:Giveaways by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Spend less than X

    3. Re:Giveaways by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service

      Well, I guess you can at least rest assured that there won't be any "giveaway" from the companies to their customers.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Giveaways by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

      I want local governments to act in the best interests of their citizens, and require ISPs to fully cover the regulated areas and not just cherry-pick only the most profitable.

      I want them to require that, as a condition of being able to provide 5G mostly in high-density environments, telcos provide 100% broadband coverage for every household and business in the regulated area -- State or County.

      By 100% broadband I mean 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up speeds, which is the FCC definition of broadband. I'd add to that no usage cap or throttling based on anything other than real-time, actual congestion and capacity checks (95th percentile) to ensure they don't plant a single, overloaded cell out in an area and claim constant congestion. This can be fixed or wireless (4G LTE, WiMax, etc.)

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, as long as we're wishing for things I want a million dollars. And a sexbot.

    6. Re:Giveaways by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      They aren't collecting the fees for these new installations now and are for the most part seem just fine. It just means no new shiny trucks for town employees to take a nap in the local park every day.

    7. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it's going to be local taxpayers who makeup for the costs.... It's basically the federal government forcing local cities to pay for 5G rollout. What happened to small government and local rights? oh, doesn't matter when it's the new republican party's rich friends... wtf happened to us, the republican party is dead.

    8. Re:Giveaways by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Local government is going to spend X.

      Government doesn't work that way. They don't decide on the services they want to provide, and then set the tax rates accordingly. Instead, they look at the pile of money they have, and then decide what to spend it on. The list of spending options is always bigger than the money pile.

      You either pay them directly, through taxes, or you pay them as passthrough

      You really think they are going to see the money coming in from the telcos and say, "Hey, we can use this to reduce other taxes"?

      5G deployment is in the interest of the public. It is a silly thing to tax. It is even sillier to add pointless bureaucratic delay.

    9. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if your opinion would change if one of those 5g backpack sized cells were mounted outside your home on a light post. Or even worse, it also ran LTE LAA and affected your 5 ghz network.

    10. Re:Giveaways by msauve · · Score: 1

      Yep. In addition, the FCC has no Constitutional authority to regulate local/state matters (only the actual communication can even remotely be considered Interstate Commerce). And using public rights-of-way, especially for profit, legitimately subjects users to regulation such as net neutrality. Finally, "selling" spectrum is not only without Constitutional authority, but a gross dereliction of fiduciary responsibility to the public.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:Giveaways by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

      The contrast between Slashdot and Ars Technica is interesting. Most slashdotters appear in favor of "capping" how much local governments can tax these 5G towers.

      Ars posters have the opposite opinion, saying the local governments should be able to Tax whatever amount they wish.

      I thought the two websites would be more identical in view, given they share similar backgrounds (engineers, technicians, programmers).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Giveaways by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service, or did you want local governments to cash in?"

      Apparently everyone wants everything. If we want good 5G coverage, and quickly, limiting the taxes and paperwork and requiring quick approvals will cut the red tape.

      BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...

    13. Re:Giveaways by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      /. is full of shills.

      The only thing limiting the shills is that /.'s readership is declining, so the value in paying shills to post here is also declining.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    14. Re:Giveaways by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I wonder if your opinion would change if one of those 5g backpack sized cells were mounted outside your home on a light post. Or even worse, it also ran LTE LAA and affected your 5 ghz network.

      Actually, given the quality of cell service where my parents live, the neighborhood would throw a small parade if it was realized that 5G backpack-sized cell was going in on one of the local light posts. It's absurd to have a dead zone in the middle of a major metropolitan area.

      I suspect that the neighborhood did not vote the way the then-current local government liked, back when the last round of cell network deployment went through here. I mean, when you've got a street locally notorious for people not managing to stay on it and a spot where you can in fact achieve liftoff in a car without having to modify it at all, you'd think the area having working, reliable cell service would be a priority...

    15. Re:Giveaways by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3

      Government doesn't work that way. They don't decide on the services they want to provide, and then set the tax rates accordingly. Instead, they look at the pile of money they have, and then decide what to spend it on.

      No. Governments have sovereign authority (granted by their electors) to decide what to spend and what to tax. Both have, and will, go up and down.

      The list of spending options is always bigger than the money pile.

      We agree on that.

      You really think they are going to see the money coming in from the telcos and say, "Hey, we can use this to reduce other taxes"?

      Well, maybe. Wouldn't that be in the interest of their taxpayers?

      5G deployment is in the interest of the public. It is a silly thing to tax. It is even sillier to add pointless bureaucratic delay.

      Neither the FCC nor the 5G providers should be the only deciders here. There are competing interests that local governments want to protect. Timely processing of applications is reasonable, but arbitrary caps on fees are not.

      And as for 5G being a "silly" thing to tax -- it's not silly to tax it so as to balance public and corporate interests. It won't be the first time that has been done.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    16. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Similar? Hardly. Ars is the Gawker of the tech world.

      People like to complain about Slashdot but it still has the best commenting/moderation system of any website ever. It seems most sites use either none or "democratic" voting system (ie. "mob rule") which sucks balls. Most people are simply too stupid to be trusted with the power to moderate others.

    17. Re:Giveaways by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I would like that, but I also do not care what level of the government does it--local, state, federal, alien overlords deciding for some reason to finally reveal they're not merely the product of crazed conspiracy theorists, I don't care as long as it's done. Local governments are perfectly capable of screwing over their citizens, too; it's just a lot easier to do housecleaning when you don't have to travel very far to remind them that they won't always get away with it.

    18. Re:Giveaways by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...

      Stick that into the terms for using the set fee/limited paperwork/quick approval process--so it's functionally part of the price, and have it so you're asking for a geographic area. That'd also keep local governments from causing neighborhoods to get skipped for their own reasons.

    19. Re:Giveaways by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if your opinion would change if one of those 5g backpack sized cells were mounted outside your home on a light post.

      Not at all, since I have a working brain and an education.

      Although the risk from a 4G station is infinitesimally close to zero, 5G is even less. 5G is directional, and since the frequency is higher, the absorption is higher, so they need more fine grained locations. So each station is covering a smaller area, and has lower intensity.

      Anyway, even if there was a risk, why would a tax make it less risky?

    20. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local governments can't tax interstate commerce (defined as stuff moving through a state/local area, sales taxes are perfectly valid). Telecomms* have historically been considered part of interstate commerce. State/local governments can tax the end users, but not the infrastructure inbetween.

      *Yes, ISPs are shitheads for claiming that they aren't telecomms to avoid regulations. Smart states/cities would force them to declare one way or another to trip them up.

    21. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03683.pdf

      "since I have a working brain and an education." - In your child's imagination educated people talk like that? Lol. I think you've demonstrated all we need to see, you're uneducated and willfully dumb, possibly illiterate.

    22. Re:Giveaways by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Please put one outside my house. I want good 5G service.

    23. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are tech wasn't famous for the slashdot effect. Because ppl associate this site as a trendsetter we are more often besieged by political hacks, Nazi bots, corporate public relations and foreign spammers who only care about news for nerds as long as it helps them push their agenda.

      The true nerds that care are still sprinkled in here but our voices tend to be drowned out by those that gamed the site long time ago.

    24. Re:Giveaways by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

      Slash always had a more libertarian bent, and they have been baited into fascism.

    25. Re:Giveaways by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      5G deployment is in the interest of the public. It is a silly thing to tax. It is even sillier to add pointless bureaucratic delay.

      None of that matters, because it's local property and the Constitution doesn't give the FCC or any other Federal agency the right to set limits like this. Essentially, it's taking property without compensation.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    26. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not usually an option. There's this view that governments waste tons of money and in general it's just not true. Occasionally, money is wasted, but when it's wasted, it's usually on things that the voters are believed to want like bike lanes all over the place.

      Most of the time things like utilities and health care are better provided by government entities as they don't need to generate profit.

      Around here, the liquor used to only be available from the state, you went to a state liquor store to buy the bottle and it worked pretty well. It wasn't perfect, the stores weren't everywhere and they weren't open on Sundays, but they did a much better job of preventing minors from buying. When voters voted to privatize the liquor distribution, the prices wound up going up 20-30% as now you have to pay not just tax on the liquor, but each store wants to make a profit.

      Personally, I don't drink, so it doesn't affect me, but I find it absolutely hilarious that morons voted for the initiative thinking that they would see the cost of liquor go down. Prices rarely go down when you replace a government service with a for profit private business.

    27. Re:Giveaways by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3

      Did you want good 5G service, ...

      What makes you think we'll actually get that?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    28. Re:Giveaways by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I'm a liberal socialist, but this is about the only thing the FCC has done lately that I like. Tax corporate profits more -- don't let local governments add stupid inefficiencies as a backdoor tax. Think about how much vastly more efficient it is to have reason-based fees for every telecommunications company everywhere in the country, compared to leaving the corporations to hire a bunch of lobbyists and contribute campaign donations to thousands of mayors and boards of supervisors so they can negotiate a separate favorable deal in each town.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    29. Re:Giveaways by Jack9 · · Score: 2

      There is no value to in paying shills to post here. There's literally no value at all. Trolling and flamebaiting has always been the goal of what alarmists call "shills". Nobody in govt or industry cares what gets said on /. in regard to their business. Not a single person. Technical questions and answers are often brought up, which interests some nerds. Delusional introverts, people suffering from persecution complexes born from the impotent position of watching their old lifestyle being etched away, are also a problem (eg you).

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    30. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i.e. we're not progressive and keeping up with the Joneses'.

      No, we don't have to be "hip" to be part of the collective humanity. From what I've seen so far it's a race against people that know reality and a bunch of pussy-ass freaks with pink hairstyles that don't understand the ramifications of what they're doing. In 20 years they'll be saying the same things we are - probably to a new audience of purple haired freaks.

      It's not that we're a problem, it's that we don't want you to fuck up the world. Because that's what you'll do. Try not to fuck up too badly because we're watching...

    31. Re:Giveaways by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, comrade.
      With our new price controls, we will eliminate all overcharging in that pesky capitalist market.

    32. Re:Giveaways by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm a liberal socialist, but this is about the only thing the FCC has done lately that I like.

      That's because price controls (don't let people dress this up as anything but what it is) are an idea that has had a lot of traction in the traditional socialist movements.
      What blows my mind is that the Trumpians are too fucking stupid that this idea isn't the kind of red they think it is, and they're absolutely willing and happy reconfigure their brain to accommodate.

      Think about how much vastly more efficient it is to have reason-based fees for every telecommunications company everywhere in the country

      This is always the reasoning behind price controls. It doesn't fucking work, because different areas have different fair-market values.

    33. Re: Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, dumbass, but x is a variable, x is the amount of money they can extract from the people actually doing something. City governments are much, much more corrupt than state or feeds, even with pick your most hated president.

    34. Re: Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. The constitution blatantly gives the Fed's the sole responsibility for regulating interstate commerce, and in fact addresses the internet tangentially by establishing authority for a postal service, the primary means of interstate communications at the time.

      The FCC authorizing legislation clearly spells out that the CBC had the responsibility to regulate telephony and separately data communications. Fuck him, but Pai is right that Obama's net neutrality stunt was illegal.

      Read the constitution, read the law. Stop repeating propaganda.

    35. Re:Giveaways by gtall · · Score: 1

      "willing and happy reconfigure their brain" That's a bit rich. Rather they are merely pass-thru conduits for the mothership, no reconfiguration necessary.

    36. Re:Giveaways by andydread · · Score: 1

      You really think they are going to see the money coming in from the telcos and say, "Hey, we can use this to reduce other taxes"?

      Some do. Some don't. Look at Kansas and Sam Brownback for an example. Sure it leads to massive deficits but to your point. Yes some do reduce taxes.

    37. Re:Giveaways by gtall · · Score: 1

      Many things are without Constitutional authority. Regulation of drugs to keep Ma and Pa Kettle from hawking "Kettle's Back Pain and Paint Remover". Also not authorized is regulation of the airlines so their "accountants" don't set repair policies on the basis of an acceptable number of crashes. Pollution of the air and water regulated as well.

      These and more are under threat from an Administration that feels if it is good for industry, the people be damned because us rich folks can live outside of polluted parts, buy our own damn airplanes, source our own drugs.

    38. Re:Giveaways by virtig01 · · Score: 1

      The same way we got good 3G service and good 4G service. Customers will flock to a carrier with good coverage.

    39. Re:Giveaways by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      What costs? This is for the most part a money grab by local governments. The telcos are building out infrastructure, they're not imposing any costs of significance to the local governments per-tower.

      Infrastructure in general should not be taxed. Profits? Sure. But taxing infrastructure serves no benefit, it discourages businesses from improving their services for no good reason.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    40. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a municipality that currently works with the carriers to deploy 4G service on microcells/DAS on light-poles. We average about $450 per pole for permitting because it actually costs us that much to figure out a lot of the engineering specs of "will the pole support the weight?" to "where will get power?" to things dealing with traffic, maintenance, and all the other stuff related to pole attachments. When everything is figured out and the carrier agrees, it usually costs about $1200 to $2500 to do the actual attachment. Most of our poles are not ready for active electronics, so we have to install power rectifiers, leak chargers (the power we get from the street light circuits are only on at night, so we charge a battery at night and provide power during the day from that). The cell companies really don't like their antennas below the power lines, so in our cases, we've had to build pole extensions because we've attached the high-volt lines near the top.

      If they pick a prime pole that is already attach-ready, off a side street, and has the specs they are looking for, I could see this working out to the costs they are proposing. Outside of that, the muni is going to bear a lot of the costs ($270 annual is super low if you have to put in active electric to support only their stuff). AT&T pays more than double that for their UVerse box pole-attachments.

    41. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always. Cable companies have to apply for franchise agreements, and are often bound by those local agreements. They often pay money or taxes back to the local municipalities, or build community centers, etc.

      Local telcos (ILECS) have agreements, often at the state level and have similar agreements. They are bound to pay local taxes, fair pole attachment rates, etc. This is usually done at the Public Utilities Commission level (or its equivalent).

      The only ones that get off "scott free" tend to be the cellular companies. Part of their infrastructure and IXC agreements falls under the local PUCs, but the rest is regulated by the feds (states can't control or regulate airwaves like the can other resources).

    42. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Essentially, it's taking property without compensation.

      Why does it not surprise me this is a Republican plan? Disempower the locals and stoke Big Business.

    43. Re:Giveaways by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The remarkable acceleration in new uid numbers while the number of replies to articles suggests otherwise.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    44. Re: Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is plenty of value to be found in schill and shit posting. Specifically, whatever value a site once had can be destroyed and in that process, some fraction can be potentially siphoned off by the rest of the internet.

      Even if you simply destroy the value of someone else's property with no spillover effects, it increases your own relative value.

      Or quote Michael Caine from Batman.

    45. Re: Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had either, you wouldn't need the other.

    46. Re:Giveaways by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I see you are rather thin-skinned.

      I dared to contradict you and you make me one of your foes. Well, all I can say is good-riddance. It's no loss to me that I won't see your few posts.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    47. Re:Giveaways by pots · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's an interesting comparison. Ars has been a Conde Nast property for ten years now, like Wired, and gets promotion which pulls in a broader crowd of people. Slashdot was bought by a classifieds company, and is now owned by a financial company, neither or which know about or do anything with news or news publications.

      Is Slashdot promoted at all? I've never seen it advertised, or any mention of it in other places for many years now. This means that the crowd who comes here really is the narrow group that it always has been, rather than expanding as Ars did. It also means that the people here are older, and older people tend to be more conservative, though I expect that there's more to it than that.

      As for this story: there are a lot of "libertarians" here. A libertarian might oppose the FCC on this, since libertarians are generally in favor of keeping power as local as possible; but a "libertarian" would probably go the other way, since a "libertarian" only cares about cutting taxes and nothing else.

    48. Re:Giveaways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the time things like utilities and health care are better provided by government entities as they don't need to generate profit.

      Counterargument: Food.

      Food is more essential than utilities and health care, yet nobody argues the government would do a better job delivering it.

  3. This is why rural areas have bad coverage by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    They want to extort money from companies to provide services to their customers and then wonder why they refuse to pay

    1. Re:This is why rural areas have bad coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want to extort money from companies to provide services to their customers and then wonder why they refuse to pay

      Lots of governments try to squeeze every bit of "giveaway" from cellular companies for a "license to operate" while making the licensing process so overly complicated, red-tape-filled, and insanely expensive.

      "Sure you can paint your antennas on that building, but you must use the following specific PANTONE registered colors."

      "Sure you can put up your antennas. You know, the community needs a new swimming pool and the elected officials want to visit a few foreign countries on 'fact finding tours' as part of the process."

      "Why doesn't my cell phone work everywhere? Why do those cell phone antennas look ugly? Get rid of them. Did I tell you that I hate cell phone antenna radiation? Do you like my sun tan, it's natural."

      There are lots of other silly and hypocritical examples.

    2. Re:This is why rural areas have bad coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Comunities want to be able to charge companies what is needed to cover costs. I love how the Reds are against federal overreach until there campaign contributors pay for that overreach. The reason rural areas can't have good broadband is because Comcast and friends pay for regulations to prohibit local government from supplying it. Apparently that's not enough, how they want to force local communities to sell access at whatever price they see fit.

    3. Re:This is why rural areas have bad coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast and friends pay for regulations to prohibit local government from supplying it.

      Local governments.. hmm. What about associated private parties? Local associations are those which have provided for certain rural communities fiber connections here in the Eurolandia.

    4. Re:This is why rural areas have bad coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ehh. wrong. rural areas get fucked-over because the population density doesn't support a 'high enough' profit margin for the large megacorps to bother with (other than to steal billions in public grants that was supposed to go to building out and upgrading in those areas).... and in places where it's tiny local or semi-regional companies or co-ops, they don't have the capital, or the customer base, to build out either.

  4. Re:Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, so now the FCC is attacked for not raking ISPs over the coals with fees. If Slashdot hadn't been purchased by an Arab entity to bash Trump/Pai, Miss Mash would be lauding Obama for lowering the barriers of entry for 5G deployment.

  5. Re:Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I want to smoke some of whatever you are smoking.

  6. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now neuter homeowner's associations. They are a means for developers to make a continual profit, a way for local governments to shirk their responsibilities (for dealing with noise violations, dilapidated properties, common area maintenance, etc) while collecting taxes, and the rules are overly strict and are not based on homeowner input, but instead based on historical complaints from hypercritical retired widowed grouches to appease their every gripe and whim.

  7. ORLY? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    "proposed recurring fee structure is an unreasonable overreach that will harm local policy innovation."

    You mean limit the extortion a local municipality can demand? That kind of "innovation"?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re: ORLY? by GrahamJ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wonâ(TM)t someone please think of the poor telecom companies?

      Pai sure does.

    2. Re:ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's called democracy and localized government vs big government and prescribed federal policies... isn't that what our Republican party once stood for?

    3. Re:ORLY? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Wireless networks are the domain of the FCC - hard to localize that. I'm all for 10th Amendment issues - but wireless/spectrum usage is clearly the domain of the Federal Government.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right-of-ways they are enacting these regulations against are not federal property however.

    5. Re:ORLY? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait, WTF?
      Now Trump-tards are in favor of the Federal Government telling local municipalities how much their right-of-way is worth?
      Does your brain ever just fucking hurt from your ideological cross-dressing?

    6. Re:ORLY? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      And if this were an attempt to head off municipalities attempting to charge carriers for their use of public airwaves, you'd have a point, and me as a supporter of your point.
      But that isn't what this is, and you know that.
      This is a handout from the FCC to the industry it regulates at the behest of the people who elect their local leaders to make decisions for their local municipalities.
      Gymnastics are a lot funner when they're physical. Give the mental ones a rest.

    7. Re:ORLY? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So how is it a handout? Municipalities will make $270 per cell per year. Put that on a telephone pole (rather, allow a 5G provider to pay for their own people to put it on a pole and maintain their equipment) and make $270 per year. Given that a telephone pole runs about $3000, that means the city is paid to replace each pole so used every 11 years if they like. Now, since poles tend to last a LOT longer than that, it means those people putting the 5G cells on the poles (at their own expense, mind you) will effectively pay for 5 pole replacements on average.

      And this also means that municipalities cannot keep 5G infrastructure out from their domain via insanely high rental prices. Or should we just say that wireless communications should be left at 2G/analog and screw anything else?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:ORLY? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So how is it a handout?

      Quite simple. It federally enforces local municipalities to sell use of public land for under fair-market value for that locale.
      Who do you *think* that benefits? The consumer? You think your service bill is going to go down?

      Municipalities will make $270 per cell per year.

      That's probably wonderful for some places. Certainly you recognize that there is a difference in fair market values in locations with median incomes of 32k/year/family vs. places with median incomes of 75k/year/family. You'd mandate the richest economies sell their public assets- with access to *millions* of people, for the price Harrison, Arkansas gets serving their few thousand?
      You'd support federally mandating that rich ass cities try to pay their bills like small shithole towns?

      Put that on a telephone pole (rather, allow a 5G provider to pay for their own people to put it on a pole and maintain their equipment) and make $270 per year.

      It's my pole, not yours. Why are you trying to tell me how much it's worth?

      Given that a telephone pole runs about $3000 [dailyherald.com]

      Good god, you can't think that price is uniform across the country... You can't. Right? Poles are erected under contract; contractors charge fair market value for an area; fair market value for an area is dependent upon many factors, including income and cost of living in the area.

      that means the city is paid to replace each pole so used every 11 years if they like.

      Perhaps that is even true for some magical "average" city in America (what is that... 10k people?)
      But even if it is, again, it's their fucking pole. They can replace it on whatever schedule the voters in that city deem important. Maybe the people of Harrison, AR love bent nasty poles. The people of Bellevue, WA probably want some fancy ass poles. They go better with their 10 million dollar houses. What gives you the fucking right?

      Now, since poles tend to last a LOT longer than that, it means those people putting the 5G cells on the poles (at their own expense, mind you) will effectively pay for 5 pole replacements on average.

      All this math is based on some stupid average number you dredged from the internet, and beyond that still- it's fucking irrelevant. The federal government should not have a say in what my public right-of-way is worth. It doesn't make sense for it to.

      And this also means that municipalities cannot keep 5G infrastructure out from their domain via insanely high rental prices.

      Yes, because affluent cities are known for their limited new services. I'm looking at an LTE coverage map right now, and it's weird, but it appears at cursory glance to be really concentrated around rich ass big cities. Places with high prices of living and high incomes. Places with expensive fucking utility poles.

      Or should we just say that wireless communications should be left at 2G/analog and screw anything else?

      Don't know where you live, and frankly, I don't fucking care. Being fortunate to live in a big city, I've had every major new service as soon as it came out. I guess it's just one of the cool benefits I get from paying more in taxes. You're free to do it however you like in your area. But since I'm the one with LTE, and you're the one worried about 2G and analog, perhaps we should fairly evaluate who's ideas are working better.
      End of the day- a tower here serves vastly more people than the average city in the US. However we choose to charge corporations using public land to provide services for our people to support our high standard of living is our own business. Not yours. You're free to move here and vote otherwise, of course.

    9. Re:ORLY? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Who do you *think* that benefits? The consumer? You think your service bill is going to go down?

      I think you will find that the US mobile users experienced a 400-fold price-per-Internet-bps decline over the last 12 years.

    10. Re:ORLY? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I'll take irrelevant data points for 100, Alex.

      What do you think that has to do with pole costs?
      As a senior network engineer at an ISP, I can tell you our data costs have dropped through the floor too. That's simply due to the fact that the internet continues to become more connected. Companies that previously had monopolies on big-player transit no longer do. Where we once paid $10/mbps @ 95th percentile, we now pay $.02.

      As links have become faster, fiber multiplexing has become cheaper, one can push far more bits per time interval through a single static port cost. It isn't because the rent went down on their pole.

    11. Re: ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Teletubbies Pai and Laa-Laa were strolling down the rabbit hole of corporate sponsorship. What wonders will they find there? What long words can they spell on the way? Watch the next riveting episode of Teletubbies Does Philadelphia to find out!

    12. Re: ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part of the flat fee is that they will use it to put towers up in expensive land use areas, like big cities with high housing and land costs. And rural areas will get it... Along a highway that urban traffic drives and no where else.

  8. Personally by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    When I get a new job I leave the old one behind.

    1. Re:Personally by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      He's making sure he'll get fat bonuses when he goes back to his old job, Pai's gonna get a lot of shares.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re: Personally by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that he never left; he's doing two jobs at once.

  9. Best news in years by rojash · · Score: 0

    mofo landlubbing internets and their cities have become too crappy

  10. Hmm, torn on this by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    On the one hand I dislike overreaching government control.

    But the FCC is right here, unless rules are imposed some communities may impose unreasonable fees for putting up new gear. And I dislike overbearing taxes which this rule corrects for - since it's mostly government-on-government action, I'min favor for it as it benefits the consumer, not government.

    In the end I agree it is a massive public interest to have 5G roll out as quickly as possible - I especially hate the framing of it being a "gift" to the cell phone companies who simply will not have to spend AS MUCH as communities might like to put up new gear (they will still have to pay the communities something within reasonable limits, and it's also great communes can not drag feet on requests overly).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Hmm, torn on this by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      These 35 rural California counties are all Republican country. When you're pissing off your voting base don't expect to get away unscathed.

      There's also a huge swath between "unreasonable" fees and giving away access for free. If the 5G companies want to roll out quickly by piggy backing on city and country poles then they should pay for this, otherwise they can put up their own poles.

    2. Re:Hmm, torn on this by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      These 35 rural California counties are all Republican country. When you're pissing off your voting base don't expect to get away unscathed.

      Oh No Republicans might have 1% of power in California instead of 2! Disaster.

      There's also a huge swath between "unreasonable" fees and giving away access for free.

      Yes there is and you may want to read again because they ARE allowed to charge money, just up to a cap. It does not mean they have to "give anything away for free". Why should local governments be allowed to extort telcos at the expense of the people who live there? Makes no sense to me.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Hmm, torn on this by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      within reasonable limits

      Reasonable limit as decided by the FCC.
      Look at those prices. I couldn't rent a 2x2 spot on the roof of a building here for that *per month*.
      It's as if local economies don't exist. Or Federalism. The mental gymnastics of the Republicans trying to cope with the cognitive dissonance of their elected government being as bad as their scariest liberal boogyman government is fascinating to watch.

    4. Re:Hmm, torn on this by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Where I live, they do put up their own poles, and will also buy/rent (depending on arrangements) the right to place their equipment on already-existing sites. It's actually helping cover preserving a rather important old industrial chimney--it's not in use anymore, but it's a major nest site for one of the local bird species and it'd be an environmental problem if the money for maintaining it couldn't be found. (It's also rather common for watertowers here to get part of their upkeep costs covered this way.)

    5. Re:Hmm, torn on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the people are voting for it, and have paid for the poles and the maintenance of the poles.

      It is pretty damn sad how we get people defending the oligopolies nowadays.

      Or are you suggesting that the corporations should be forced to provide some service to whomever wants it based on some government mandated and capped price?

    6. Re:Hmm, torn on this by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      You think they have no influence? How the American system works is that we vote for more than the president. A large number of those staunchly Trump congress members are from those 35 counties, including Devin Nunes. And as well, it's a great area to go for Republican fundraising.

      Also, democracy should mean that the local voters get more say about local issues than some distant uncaring government that's being bribed by big telecom industries.

    7. Re:Hmm, torn on this by mentil · · Score: 1

      If the 5G companies want to roll out quickly by piggy backing on city and country poles then they should pay for this, otherwise they can put up their own poles.

      Maybe they can do a Kickstarter for this, and a survey beforehand to find out how much people want it. That would be Polls for 'Poles for Proles'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    8. Re:Hmm, torn on this by sarren1901 · · Score: 2

      Local municipalities should being negotiating the prices for their property. Not the federal government.

      What will 5g allow me to do that 4g won't? As it is, I don't have an unlimited data plan for my cell as it just isn't worth it. I suppose if 5g goes in and 4g unlimited becomes cheaper I will win, but I kind of don't see that happening.

      I don't need a faster link, I need a cheaper link at current speeds. That's more then enough for my household needs.

  11. Not a Terrible Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If FCC is allowing mobile carries easier entry barrier by capping fees for ushering in 5G deployment taking on landline broadband access, this is a good thing for promoting competition. My only complaint is allowing discriminatory deployment in areas under-served because businesses may not find that area profitable.

    1. Re:Not a Terrible Proposal by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Wireless carriers won't be taking on landline broadband access. These will be separate networks from internet networks, and most likely if it's anything like 3G or 4G, you won't use 5G unless you're a phone, and you're going to be paying so much monthly fee that no one will want it for internet anyway.

  12. Re:Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think you understand the principles of democracy and open markets. This is the FCC saying wireless companies don't have to serve everyone, and they don't have to take the local economy into consideration when paying. So basically now local taxes will be paying for these cell tower setups, and they won't serve everyone. It'll be.. wow, my phone works great in the rich part of town, but the local blue worker area has shitty cell service... yeah, no thanks.

  13. And this is bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as I hate most of the FCC's industry centric garbage this sounds like a good thing on the surface. A lot of municipalities have crazy levels of building/utility requirements, not too long ago NYC for example blew through $2 Million to build a bathroom facility the size of an average living room. And in only a few years they're claiming that was a "deal" with newer facilities biding at $3-5 Million. Just down the road from me they burnt almost a half million dollars on a bridge crossing a ditch where a $50k installed box culvert would have worked. While the businesses should definitely shoulder any of the install/repair costs they shouldn't have to shoulder the bureaucratic overhead that municipalities heap on to spread out amongst their friends.

  14. Publicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love how state's rights are important until they aint

    1. Re: Publicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Neither Republicans nor Democrats have cared about states rights for decades. You are living in fantasy land if you think there is any difference between these two corporate owed political parties.

  15. Re:Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahahah this site is full of right wing edgelords and anti-sjw/anti-PC gossip and general time/energy wasting

  16. Killing Nazi faggots is an American pastime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing punk-ass nazi bitches is an American pastime, even more fun than teasing inbred Republican beta males.

    1. Re: Killing Nazi faggots is an American pastime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to just bang your mother.

    2. Re: Killing Nazi faggots is an American pastime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot less gay than being a nazi, I salute you for knowing better than those ugly, inbred faggots. Plus, you have great taste in women. Wanna borrow the vista cruiser? Here's $20, get a quality bottle of wine you hack.

      Any and all of this is heads and shoulders better than bitch ass nazi punkass retardation problems. Americans have a duty to torture and kill nazis where we find them. Let's enjoy our work, America.

    3. Re: Killing Nazi faggots is an American pastime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound insecure, Jew.

  17. The LAND belongs to the locals by bussdriver · · Score: 3, Informative

    They can float their cell towers if they wish; but the LAND belongs to us and the wires going over OUR LAND is ours and they have to do anything we want to demand for use of it... or simply not use it... given how much profits there are to be had, it is unlikely that fees will not deter them except in extreme cases.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    1. Re:The LAND belongs to the locals by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, you think you own that publicly-owned Government land that holds the existing poles that these 5G cell antennas will mount to? Hah! Heck, you don't even own the land on which your house sits! Try not paying your property taxes for a few years and find out...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:The LAND belongs to the locals by ToTheStars · · Score: 1

      Replying to undo mis-mod, apologies.

    3. Re:The LAND belongs to the locals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, you don't even own the land on which your house sits! Try not paying your property taxes for a few years and find out...

      So you're claiming you don't own your computer, your car, the very clothes you're wearing, due to the fact you had to pay sales tax on all of those things?

      You're claiming you have zero dollars of income that is yours because you had to pay income tax on it?

      Seems to me the requirement of paying property tax is a sure sign you DO own that property.

      The only way you wouldn't be the one taxed for it is if you aren't the owner and someone else is.
      Which BTW would be perfectly OK with the government. I didn't own land for a very large number of years and never once got in trouble for not sending in a $0 check or for not paying property tax on property I don't own.

  18. They *can* charge more if reasonable by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I couldn't rent a 2x2 spot on the roof of a building here

    For $250 you could probably buy a whole house in some parts of the country.

    But for the areas where $250 truly is too cheap for a small area, they can charge more - from the summary:

    Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers and would have to prove that the fees are a reasonable approximation of all costs and "non-discriminatory."

    If a fee is a reasonable approximation of costs then they can charge extra for that location. It just prevents locales from jacking up prices 10x what they are worth if you were renting the space for anything else.

    How is that unreasonable? It seems to be you contorting your own understanding of what is actually occurring, not unusually for those driven purely by hate.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:They *can* charge more if reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The federal government is forcing localities to hand over valuable real estate for a fixed fee.
      If the government was forcing a private citizen to do that, what would you call it?

    2. Re:They *can* charge more if reasonable by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      For $250 you could probably buy a whole house in some parts of the country.

      I totally understand that. Which is just *another* argument for sub-federal governments exercising *their right* to govern *their* public land right-of-way.

      But for the areas where $250 truly is too cheap for a small area, they can charge more - from the summary:

      Yes... from the summary-

      Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers

      Allow me to paraphrase: "Charge us fair-market value for your locality, and be prepared to defend it in court. By the way, our legal budget is more than yours. By a fucking lot."

      If a fee is a reasonable approximation of costs then they can charge extra for that location. It just prevents locales from jacking up prices 10x what they are worth if you were renting the space for anything else.

      As determined by *who*?
      If a carrier pays 10x what you consider it to be worth, then you are in fact the one who is mistaken by virtue of the carrier paying the money, period, all stop.
      Federal law is being used to price-fix. There is no avoiding that reality, but there sure are a lot of people trying to dress it up as something else.

      How is that unreasonable?

      I'm pretty sure I explained how that was unreasonable. You can't fault me if you didn't read it.

      It seems to be you contorting your own understanding of what is actually occurring

      Your read comprehension problem is now me contorting my own understanding?

      not unusually for those driven purely by hate.

      In no way am I driven by hate.
      I'm pretty unsurprised however, given your complete lack of an argument, that you'd try to portray it as such.

    3. Re:They *can* charge more if reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shrill. I dont see homeless people camping up the side of a telegraph pole or a side of a building. Nothing is being handed over.
      The fee is NOT fixed, but at an at cost basis for social benefit. One assumes someone is pissed off because some secret exclusivity clause is being torn up.
      Which raises a point. Will the social contract be extended to airport drop off fees of an extortionate level. If its alright for communications, why not for other just causes where monopoly rent can be extracted.

    4. Re:They *can* charge more if reasonable by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      Monopoly rent? The people of that municipality paid for those fucking poles. They own them. They get to set the price for use of them, for services that serve fucking *them*.
      How fucking stupid are you?

  19. Illegal property grab by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

    The FCC has no right to mass appropriate property for the telecom companies. They seem to be trying it without even going through an eminent domain process. Since when did all local government owned property become the federal government's? Perhaps the feds would like to pay for all of its maintenance too.

    A lot of the communities around me have sparse 3G/4G coverage because tall structures aren't allowed. These things are a community's right to determine. If the local citizens feel that the appearance of their community is more important than cellular access, so be it.

    The degree to which the feds are pushing 5G seems off. It must have a massive backdoor or something.

    Perhaps they are aiming to claim they have massively increased broadband availability for rural locations or something. If so, they need to change the definitions. The caps on cellular data price it well out of reach cost-wise for average Americans and it often doesn't allow tethering to support a home internet. I'm doing good to afford the $50/month for my cable internet. Thankfully, having that supply the WiFi at home keeps the cellular data used by our phones under 2GB per month so basic plans are good.

    A definition like "broadband is defined as a 24/7 internet connection that delivers at least 25MB with no data caps no more than $50 per month and can provide for the full IoT environment in the home (connections that ban tethering wouldn't count)" would be good for judging whether an individual has coverage that allows them to have a basic home internet experience at a cost that most could handle.

    1. Re:Illegal property grab by TheSync · · Score: 1

      These things are a community's right to determine.

      The Federal Government has the power to regulate things related to interstate commerce, so no. Down with NIBYism destroying our infrastructure!

    2. Re:Illegal property grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The degree to which the feds are pushing 5G seems off. It must have a massive backdoor or something.

      5G was part of the net neutrality debate. It justifies ISPs in the US as having competition. It doesn't matter that mobile carriers don't want to be primary ISPs. People that make the rules and don't understand tech like to see a competitive market. 5G is perfect for that illusion.

  20. Looks like rural areas gets the shaft again by breeze95 · · Score: 1

    The coastal elites will enjoy 5g while rural areas will be denied but such is the nature when you vote against your economic interests. Its great to be a coastal elite.

    1. Re:Looks like rural areas gets the shaft again by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      Nope. Both sides get the shaft.
      The FCC ruling makes it so the coastal elites can't actually charge the telecoms fair market value for use of their poles, which they will pay whatever the fuck we want to charge them, since we're offering them a customer base measured with 8 figures.
      And it's fucking over the rural people, because it doesn't force the wireless carriers, as a concession for that awesome handout they get at the expense of the coasties, to provide service to the rural people.
      This literally fucks everyone except for the carriers. This should make it quite clear where the allegiances lie.

    2. Re:Looks like rural areas gets the shaft again by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with poles, government owned or not. This is taxes on private cellphone towers. Most local governments impose taxes on privately owned (but public benefit, from cellular to railroads) infrastructure. They shouldn't, it's absurd public policy because it discourages businesses from improving their services, but they do because few local governments want to force the citizens and businesses that benefit from their services fair taxes.

      (This has been going on for a long time and was one of the factors behind the collapse of passenger rail in the US. One local government in NJ managed to force a railroad to pay almost its entire education budget, simply from taxes on the rail lines. Meanwhile the same local governments spent tax revenues on roads and airports, because of course they would.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re: Looks like rural areas gets the shaft again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes on railways... You mean property taxes? Ah, so you oppose all meaningful taxation and think we can have a fee based government. Get rid of public schools, fire police, etc. No market failures, negative externalities or downsides there. Free market blah blah.

      How about we privatize Medicare and Social Security too? We could have put it all in Bitcoin at $20keach and other ICOs and been rich!

  21. Re:Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay more than $270 for a parking spot in San Francisco, and that takes more room than a tower.

    Favoritism much?

  22. Sure, only possible by putting up no antennae. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it costs A to set up the process and B per unit to keep it running and to install all of them costs X, then you cannot spend less than X. Tell me, and this is a rhetorical question, we ALL know the answer, do you ever say to something being claimed "overpriced" defended with "it costs X to make" with "spend less than X"?

    No.

    The only way to ensure that you spend less than X is to spend nothing and not put them up.

  23. Fuck off granpa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just are terrified of things being more complicated than you can handle, and your limited intellect can only handle a binary choice. Ain't reality, shithead.

    Moreover how many times have you and your ilk when insulted by kids have bemoaned how lack of respect and insults is what you get and this PROVES that the world is getting worse, yet here you are insulting people who don't accept your blinkered assertions?

    OF COURSE "That's different!" because YOU say you're calling a spade a spade.

    Nope, same thing, moron.

    1. Re:Fuck off granpa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, AM absolutely terrified. I'll admit it. Because I've seen what happens when your types "complicate" things (to use your own word), and "progressify" things. In 20 years we'll be fighting over rats in the street for food if you fucks get your way. Yes, that terrifies me.

      If it doesn't also terrify you, it just confirms the mental illness we all know you have.

  24. Charge the companies land rent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is local government land and easements from local government, so therefore the use of this land and easement is a landlord agreement. So charge the wireless companies rent for using it.

  25. It got 1000+ times faster, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for the same material price. So it's gone up in price. It still costs one unit of work to put up a cable, put up a box, charge a bill, etc. So why would it cost more to put up a box when it is 5000 times faster than an older one? Why is laying fibre 10,000 times more expensive than laying old copper? It isn't. So the price has gone up.

    Funny how assholes who LOATHE the "per capita CO2" figures, because "it's not relevant" when it 100% is, yet demand per bit or per capita averages when it 100% is not.

  26. Re:Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay more than $270 for a parking spot in San Francisco, and that takes more room than a tower.

    Favoritism much?

    This isn't the fee to put in a tower. This is the fee for adding a cell antenna to an existing tower.

  27. Quoting the summary for you by raymorris · · Score: 1

    TFS explains:
    "placing 5G equipment such as small cells on poles, traffic lights"

    Parking spots are 9 to 11 feet wide and 18 to 22 long, plus you need access to the spot. So it takes about 320 square feet per parking spot.

    How many square feet does an antenna bolted to an existing pole take up?

  28. Re:Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Philadelphia would rather give the $2-B to migrant voters and baby-momaz ... but Y-not both ConFast and wettbakkk ? Double yo money Trayvon and the kraks fo' free !

  29. Re: Philadelphia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish the FCC served the people the way they serve the big telecom companies. It is as if votes don't matter as much as corruption money. If I didn't know better, I'd think this is a banana republic.

  30. Parent: poor reading comprehension by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I wrote OUR land multiple times; it's our decision and no matter how the FCC tries to extend it's communications management outside it's domain, ultimately it's boundaries will fall short of the local domain over public land management rights. Local governments can invent an infinite number of ways to leverage their power.

    "Property rights" aka LAW is completely a government thing. It's what governments exist for; it is part of being civilized and we all pay a price to be civilized; some resent it more than others... usually when ever you do something uncivilized and get corrected... it is the government going too far; just about everybody stepping out of line thinks that. Every selfish ignorant git wants or expects it all for free, taking for granted the ONLY reason you have land/house/property is because of government.

    We're fleas fighting over their spot on the back of the dog. Organized, we're just a colony claiming ownership of our dog.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
  31. They all wanted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A slice of the Pai!

  32. Legal budget is not a lot more, per city... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    be prepared to defend it in court. By the way, our legal budget is more than yours. By a fucking lot.

    That is not true if you are suing 4000 cities across the U.S. The fact there are so many separate areas means lawsuits would only be fore the most egregious overcharging. My point remains - places CAN charge more for more valuable locations.

    You didn't seem to understand anything at all well so I'll just let the rest of your post stand as a monument to mistaken understanding. You may have the last word, I can only help you so much and it seems you don't want to understand more than you already "know".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. Free Market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we're talking about consumer protections, the Republicans shout "free market" and "small government" from the roof tops.

    When we're talking about corporate profit protections, suddenly the government has to step in.

  34. Don't use 5g by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Reading all kinds of stuff about how 5g is bad for life. Tends to kill things. Trees, plants, etc. Probably not safe for Humans.