Slashdot Mirror
Cities Will Sue FCC To Stop $2 Billion Giveaway To Wireless Carriers (arstechnica.com)
Cities are planning to sue the Federal Communications Commission over its decision to preempt local rules on deployment of 5G wireless equipment. From a report: Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and City Attorney Pete Holmes yesterday said their city intends to appeal the FCC order in federal court. Seattle will be coordinating with other cities on a lawsuit, they said. "In coordination with the overwhelming majority of local jurisdictions that oppose this unprecedented federal intrusion by the FCC, we will be appealing this order, challenging the FCC's authority and its misguided interpretations of federal law," they said in a press release.
The FCC says its order will save carriers $2 billion, less than one percent of the estimated $275 billion it will take to deploy 5G across the country. In Oregon, the Portland City Council voted Tuesday to approve a lawsuit against the FCC, The Oregonian reported, saying the move "added Portland to a growing list of cities, primarily on the West Coast, that are preparing to fight" the FCC order. East Coast cities including New York City and Boston have also objected to the FCC decision. As we've previously reported, the FCC order drew opposition from rural municipalities as well.
The FCC says its order will save carriers $2 billion, less than one percent of the estimated $275 billion it will take to deploy 5G across the country. In Oregon, the Portland City Council voted Tuesday to approve a lawsuit against the FCC, The Oregonian reported, saying the move "added Portland to a growing list of cities, primarily on the West Coast, that are preparing to fight" the FCC order. East Coast cities including New York City and Boston have also objected to the FCC decision. As we've previously reported, the FCC order drew opposition from rural municipalities as well.
Release the Kraken!
(that's our new NHL team)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Cities are shaking down carriers that put equipment on their streetlights, poles, etc. The FCC put a stop to this to make it a reasonable amount and now cities are crying that it's a "giveaway". The FCC wants it to be $100 for applications and $270 per year. Some cities in Oregon charge $3,000.
The FCC order suggests up-front application fees of $100 for each small cell and annual fees of up to $270 per small cell. 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." Portland typically charges $3,000 per year, The Oregonian report said.
Some cities charge different rates in different areas to encourage deployment. New York City, for example, charges as little as $148 per month in underserved areas and $5,100 in parts of Manhattan, a Bloomberg story said.
So, if they charge more than a token fee, the city has to show that they charge that to everyone. I don't see how the NYC example is relevant. I suppose some people are arguing that geographic pricing models can be argued as discriminatory with respect to the companies trying to install infrastructure because reasons.(?)
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
The idea is that it will prevent local governments from abusing their power by gouging the deployment of 5G. (A.K.A. The "leaving town tax" from The Simpsons.)
Are the fees/taxes that bad? I have no clue. Will the existence of them raise/lower subscriber prices? Probably not.
But I don't know if it's not unprecedented. The FCC already has rules that apartment complex/HOAs (and probably local governments) can't block satellite use. This may be in their wheelhouse.
The article points out that some cities use them to incentivize carriers to deploy in underserved poor areas. Further, the FCC is also limiting the ability of cities to set aesthetic requirements.
Federal Cunts and Cocksuckers?
If politicians donâ(TM)t like it, then you know itâ(TM)s good for the people.
WTF? That's about $1000 per customer. How much are people paying for their mobile plans? Wireless carriers will have barely made this money back and it will be time to roll out 6G.
$275 billion divided by 40 thousand cellphone towers = $6.875 million per cellphone tower.
And this is just an upgrade right???
It's funny how blocking $2 billion in extortive fees from local legislatures in favor of technological progress is reworded to be a "$2 billion giveaway". This is nothing but protecting technology from being disrupted by a cash grab from local legislatures. Pretty sure folks in rural areas without access to high speed internet would much rather have that access than see their representatives line their pockets.
Does the FCC call it a "giveaway to wireless carriers?" If not, why are you injecting your bias into the headline instead of reporting the facts?
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
This has nothing to do with a giveaway to any telecom. Stupid title. It's fixing the price of new cell deployments. Oh I get it. Since some cities have been milking this for fat coin, of course they will sue. Wonder why you don't have so many towers? Annual license fees $3k in Portland per small cell? And the FCC wants to limit that to $270?
Sounds like a win for who? The consumer. Thanks for the lawsuit, Seattle. Again, more tax money wasted.
Also, 60 to 90 days to act to a new application? Let me guess, it take longer than 90 days, say a lot longer. Cities, how about you speed things up a bit.
Just a look from the other side.
Does the FCC call it a "giveaway to wireless carriers?" If not, why are you injecting your bias into the headline instead of reporting the facts?
This is Slashdot - WTF were you expecting?!?
So, what if a company puts out a PR piece, do we have to use their language when discussing the company, because they're calling it that?
No. The summary is using a paraphrased version of the Article's title (which you would know if you RTFA)
Yes. Misrepresenting someone's argument in order to attack it is called the "Straw-man" fallacy.
I also know that the /. headline is simply parroting the ars one. However, just because ars is a hopelessly biased opinion source, doesn't mean that slashdot needs to be also.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Well, you seem to believe that we should portray things as the organization doing it does. The FCC is not doing this in an attempt to help bring the internet to more people, they're doing this because Pai is an industry insider. The FCC is fully captured as a regulatory agency by the industry it's supposed to regulate.
It's a rounding error. Meaningless. The only reason to forbid that 2billion is if it is a significant figure in at least some places.
Of course, it DOES look like this is a method to "get back at" the states that didn't vote for trump. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence...
The federal only has the army and federal agencies that are armed.The states have all the people who have guns that aren't in those jobs.
States win.
A proper non-biased headline would be: Cities Will Sue FCC to Protect $2 Billion in Lost Cellular Taxes
because that's what is ACTUALLY happening. Nobody is "giving" money to the corporations, like handing money to a bum on the street. Instead the FCC is reducing the Local Tax downto $270 per cell transmitter..... the end.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Together in solidarity we are irreplaceable. Hate filled fake-progressive corporate tools may rape our projects and pillage our work. But you do not have our consent.
We are already walking away.