[ad_1]
FCC lobbies for a rapid deployment of 5G networks nationwide with an order adopted today that streamlines what he perceives as a mosaic of obstacles, unnecessary costs and contradictory regulations at the level of States. But local governments say the federal agency is going too far.
5G networks will include thousands of wireless installations, smaller and more numerous than cell towers. This means that wireless companies can not use existing facilities, at least for all, and will have to request access to many new buildings, electricity poles, etc. It's a lot of paperwork, which obviously hampers deployment.
To remedy this, the agency voted this morning 3 to 1 to follow the order (PDF) entitled "Accelerate the deployment of wireline broadband services by removing barriers to investment in infrastructure." them to a set of new rules replacing theirs.
First, the order is intended to literally accelerate deployment by standardizing new shorter "clocks" for local governments to respond to applications. They have 90 days for new sites and 60 days for existing sites, which corresponds to many existing municipal deadlines, but now needs to be applied as a broader standard. This could be good because the longer lead times have been designed to accommodate larger and more expensive equipment.
On the other hand, some cities claim that there is not enough time, especially considering the increased volume they are supposed to handle.
Cathy Murillo, Mayor of Santa Barbara, writes in a commentary submitted:
The proposed "firing clocks" would unfairly and unreasonably reduce the time required for an appropriate examination of the application with respect to safety, aesthetics and other considerations. By shortening the review period required, the proposals effectively transfer the oversight authority of the community and our elected representatives to for-profit companies for wireless equipment installations that may have occurred. important repercussions on health, safety and aesthetics. interest in respecting these concerns.
Then, and even less popular, is the FCC take fees for applications and right of way documents. These fees are currently very variable, because, as you can guess, it is much more complicated and expensive – often an order of magnitude or more – to approve and process an antenna request (not to mention install and to maintain). than in the outer queens. These are, to a certain extent, natural cost differences.
The ordinance limits these costs to "a reasonable approximation of their processing costs," which the FCC estimated at about $ 500 for a request for up to five facilities or facilities, $ 100 for additional facilities, and $ 270 per facility. per year.
For some places, of course, it can be perfectly reasonable. But as Catherine Pugh, Mayor of Baltimore, put it in a letter to the FCC protesting the proposed rules, it is not for her city.
An annual fee of $ 270 per attachment, as established in the above document, is inadmissible where the institution may earn profits, in some cases, several times as much during one year. given month. The public has invested and installed these assets [i.e. utility poles and other public infrastructure], not the industry. The industry does not own these assets; the public does. In these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for the public to be able to charge what it considers to be a fair price.
There is no doubt that excessive fees can hinder deployment and it would be commendable for the FCC to address this. But the governments they prevent do not seem to like being told what is reasonable and what is not.
"It comes down to this: Three unelected officials on this canopy tell state and local leaders across the country what they can and can not do in their own backyard," said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. "This is an extraordinary overtaking of federal power."
The Information Technology Commissioner of New York City told Bloomberg that his office was "shocked" by the order, calling it "a useless and unauthorized gift to the telecommunications sector and its lobbyists."
The new rules can compromise deployment agreements that already exist or are under development. After all, if you were a wireless carrier, would you still commit to paying $ 2,000 per establishment when the federal government simply offered you an 80% discount? And if you were a city facing a multi-million budget deficit because of that, would not you look for a way around the problem?
In a statement, President Ajit Pai said, "When you increase the cost of deploying wireless infrastructure, it is the most marginalized areas – rural areas or low-income urban areas – that are most at risk of losing. . "
But the basic market economy of this system does not seem to work. Big cities are more expensive and more profitable. rural areas are cheaper and less profitable. Under the new rules, big cities and rural areas will cost the same price, but the former will be even more profitable. Where would you to focus your investments?
The FCC also unwisely attempts to take into account the aesthetic considerations of the facilities. Cities have their own requirements for wireless infrastructure, such as how they are painted, where they can be located, how big they can be in a particular location. But the FCC seems (as is often the case today) to want to meet the needs of wireless service providers rather than the public.
Wireless companies complain that the rules are too restrictive or subjective and differ too much from one place to another. The municipalities say that the restrictions are justified and, in any case, their prerogative of design and implementation.
"Given these different perspectives and the significant impact of aesthetic requirements on the ability to deploy infrastructure and provide services, we provide guidance on whether and under what circumstances aesthetic requirements violate." [Communications] Act "reads the FCC order. In other words, the claims of the wireless industry to have to paint their antennas or not to hang their giant antennae in the parks are subject to federal codification.
"We conclude that the aesthetic requirements are not pre-empted if they are (1) reasonable, (2) not heavier than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) published in the "Advance," continues the order. Does this seem a little vague? The aesthetic requirement of a city is "reasonable" and is not the responsibility of a communications regulator.
For example, Jane Howington, director of the Town of Hudson, Ohio, writes in a comment about the city's 40-foot limit on pole heights, which the industry has already subscribed to. rule. Why should a federal authority be involved in something so clearly under local jurisdiction and expertise?
It's not just an embarrassment. As in the case of the Net Neutrality Decision, legal threats from States can lead to delays and significant costs.
"Every major state and municipal organization is concerned about how Washington seeks to exercise national control over local infrastructure choices and to strip local elected officials and the citizens they represent with one voice," said Rosenworcel. . "I do not believe that the law allows Washington to bypass state and local authorities like this, and I fear that the litigation that follows will only slow down our future."
She also points out that the expected $ 2 billion in cost savings – by telecoms and not the public – could be theorized to boost wireless deployment, but companies are not obliged to use it for this, and in fact, no company has said.
In other words, there is every reason to believe that this order will sow discord among state and federal regulators, leaving wireless phone companies saving money and enforcing the law through cities . It is certainly necessary to harmonize regulations and encourage wireless investment (especially outside urban centers), but this does not seem to be the solution.
Source link
