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.
Around here the telcos rent space on poles erected by municipal-owned electric utilities, but where I used to live those poles were in fact paid for and installed by the private monopoly utilities. They 'leased' rights fo way on otherwise public land, or came to agreements on private land.
This is first an overreach by the FCC to try and drive costs down for providers, in a way that actually need not be done.
Secondly, though local governments are not going to let revenue be denied to them.
Great stuff, let's all grab the popcorn and watch who gets the power to screw us. Again. 'Cause we are getting screwed here, somehow, by someone, no matter how this goes.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If politicians donâ(TM)t like it, then you know itâ(TM)s good for the people.
If the city owns the poles why should the federal government be allowed to dictate the rental price?
Cities are shaking down carriers that put equipment on their streetlights, poles, etc. The FCC ....
The point is that the control of these poles is the right of local government the FCC's role is to regulate radio, carriers, and telecom services: No authority to force local governments to make land, poles, and other facilities available for use by carriers at cheap economical rates. The FCC has absolutely zero authority to require a city to sign a lease or a contract or limit what can be negotiated and paid on a lease/contract to allow the use of some of their land or fixtures for small cells --- frankly, waiting until multiple carriers want to do small cells and auctioning choice locations to the highest bidder seems like it should benefit the cities most.
The FCC makes an extreme overreach trying to interfere with cities' property rights and the rights to charge whatever fees and taxes need to cover the related expenses, raise revenue, discourage waste of scarce public rights of way, and promote the aesthetics they want for their cities.
The FCC wants it to be $100 for applications and $270 per year. Some cities in Oregon charge $3,000.
Those applications will likely require more than $100 a piece just to review. That's what you call ridiculously one-sided against the public interest in favor of the carriers.
How about $270/Year + 25% of the revenue generated by every subscriber connecting to that device.
$3000 to use a fixture in a crowded area is a reasonable price to pay in many cases; considering they are multi-billion$$$ carriers and will generate that much or more in revenue for using the location for a single month, just from the data plan fees cellular companies charge.
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.
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.
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
I'd rather my local government have its revenue per cell transmitter dropped from ~3000 downto $270....... and then my G5 cellular bill will be lower in price too. (Also I can dump the overpriced Comcast monopoly for G5 instead.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The 1930s Supreme Court already ruled Congress can set the prices on good that "affect interstate commerce" such as the price of wheat, eggs, milk. Eventually that was expanded to include Broadcast Radio, Cable TV, and now internet cellular transmitters.
Welcome to the world of centralized government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall