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