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."
Spend less than X
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
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.
Wonâ(TM)t someone please think of the poor telecom companies?
Pai sure does.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Slash always had a more libertarian bent, and they have been baited into fascism.
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.
Did you want good 5G service, ...
What makes you think we'll actually get that?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
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.
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.