In his Brooking paper 5G in five (not so) easy pieces, Tom Wheeler former FCC Chairman identified several hidden issues. One of those issues was antenna siting.
There is an inherent tension between the right of localities to make zoning decisions and the impact of those rights on a national infrastructure like 5G. There has always been a stress between wireless network infrastructure and not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) concerns.
[ . . .]
The issue of antenna siting has been further complicated as some states have sued to overturn the FCC’s order. While states like Texas and Florida have passed legislation embracing the concepts, 25 others, including California and New York, have rejected the idea. The impasse has prompted two U.S. senators, John Thune (R-S.D.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to introduce federal legislation establishing standards for public review of antenna siting. It is an issue that must be resolved, but in order to be resolved must rise above winner-take-all outcomes.
The number of antenna or small cells will be determined by the frequency spectrum used. Where mmWave (24 GHz to 38 GHz) will require a small cell on every city block or at 24 GHz about ever 224 meters.
Mid-band, often referred to as Sub 6GHz spectrum is typical 3.1GHz to 4.2 GHz, needs to have a small cell about every 1000 meters.
To help visualize what that means geographically, I developed a grid map with a radius of about 224 meters and about 1000 meters and overlaid them on the Grass Valley and Nevada City Spheres of Influence.
Low-band (600-700 MHz) can use existing towers with coverage measured in miles. Sprint is using portions of its assigned 4G spectrum 2.5-2.7 GHz for 5G service using existing large towers.
Which would you refer in your neighborhood, high-band mmWave at awesome speeds [20-30 Gbps] or mid-band at reasonable speeds [100 Mbps]?