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."
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.
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.
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
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?
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.