— A swathe of Western cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas and San Jose are suing to challenge the FCC over its September 5G wireless deployment order that, they argue, unfairly trampled on city governments’ rights, John reported Thursday . The wireless industry largely celebrated this FCC action and said its federal pre-emption is vital to ensure carriers can roll out 5G wireless infrastructure in a timely and affordable manner.
— Not all carriers are satisfied. Sprint, the fourth-largest carrier in the nation with a $26 billion T-Mobile merger pending before the commission, is taking the FCC to court to challenge the order . A Sprint spokeswoman says that while the carrier backs much of the order, “in one area, we believe the final order did not go far enough.” Its challenge argues that the FCC “declines to adopt a ‘deemed granted’ remedy when siting authorities fail to act on siting applications within the shot clock timeframes established by the Commission.” Local government advocates were pleased that the FCC order left out this so-called “deemed granted” provision, in which the federal government could have mandated city governments automatically approve a carrier’s infrastructure siting application if they had not acted on it by a certain time. In other words, Sprint wants the FCC to be more aggressive in granting wireless industry wishes.
Source: POLITICO Morning Tech
This is really important news! Governor Brown signed AB 1999 on 30 September 2018. Communities can now treat broadband as a critical infrastructure, just like water, wastewater management, trash collections, fire protection, and public transportation.
Community Networks has the details:
AB 1999 focuses on the responsibilities and authority of community service districts (CSDs), created to provide necessary services. CSDs are independent local governments usually formed by residents in unincorporated areas for the purpose of providing the kinds of services city-dwellers often take for granted: water and wastewater management, trash collection, fire protection, etc. In keeping with the ability to raise funds for these services, CSDs have the authority to create enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFDs). CSDs are allowed to use EIFDs to fund development of Internet access infrastructure in the same way they would sewer infrastructure, or convert overhead utilities to underground, or other projects that deal with infrastructure and are in the public interest.
Prior to the adoption of AB 1999, however, a CSD would first have to engage in a process to determine that no person or entity was willing to provide Internet access before the CSD could offer it to premises. Additionally, if a private sector entity came along after the infrastructure was deployed and expressed a willingness to do so, the CSD had no choice by law but to sell or lease the infrastructure they had developed rather than operate it themselves.
With the passage of AB 1999, CSDs no longer need to adhere to those strict requirements.
When the California State Legislature chose to pass the bill, lawmakers sent a message to big cable and telephone companies that they are no longer willing to bend over backwards to protect incumbent monopolies that ignore their rural constituents. Other states with restrictions championed by national ISPs and their lobbyists need to take note of California’s decision. Voters already believe that the federal government doesn’t do enough to bring high-quality Internet access to rural areas. State laws that further restrict options add to their frustration.
This a major step toward empowering local communities! Now the problem is getting local communities to exercise that power. Local communities can stop waiting for the 5G that will never come and start taking action to meet the broadband needs of their citizens.
Governor Brown vetoed SB 649 which would have cleared the path for 5G small cell installation. Counties, Cities, and Town administrators worried if SB 649 became law, it would cap how much they could charge the telcos for use of public infrastructure. Now it has become a Federal administrative dictate.
Of course, what is worth noting is the majority of local authorities are working effectively with the telcos and the federal government to remove administrative hurdles and smooth the road to deployment. These new rules, which limit the power and influence of the local governments, are only directed at the troublemakers who demonstrate short-sighted ambitions in laying out a troublesome path for the telcos.
This is from telecom.com news article HERE.
It raises a question. What is the Gold County Broadband Consortia doing to smooth 5G installation in its area of responsibility, including Sierra, Nevada, Placer and El Dorado County? Question asked, waiting for an answer.
Even larger question is what are all the 14 California Utilities Commission Broadband Consortia doing to smooth 5G implementation? It is going to an economic challenge for the telcos to bring 5G to rural communities. Short-sighted administrative or greedy obstacles in the path will reduce the probability that those communities will ever see 5G.
Links to rural broadband consortia are in the right-hand column, ask the 5G question of the administrator and local policymakers. Are they helping or hindering 5G implementation? You might be surprised by the answer.
Arlington, VA – The lack of broadband access for 6.3 million electric co-op households results in more than $68 billion in lost economic value, according to new research by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). The new report investigates the cost of the digital divide and the growing economic advantages to America’s rural communities.
The study analyzed the value that households place on broadband access. It noted that households in parts of America with broadband access receive, on average, a benefit of $1,950 annually. Applying this value to 6.3 million electric co-op households without broadband, the study finds a total lost value of $68.2 billion to cooperative members nationwide.
Importantly, the deployment of broadband would be expected to enable additional economic benefits such as expanded jobs, education and economic growth. None of these factors were examined in the NRECA study.
“Closing the digital divide is imperative for rural communities and will help improve the economic outlook for the entire country,” said NRECA CEO Jim Matheson. “Millions of Americans are locked out of the new digital economy simply by virtue of their zip code. Electric co-ops recognize the importance of expanded broadband access and are working to be part of the solution.”
Read More HERE.
Determining if a publicly owned network is right for your community is a multi-step, complex process. Many factors will influence whether or not the residents, business owners, and local leaders in your community will want to make an investment in Internet access infrastructure. ILSR’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative is now working with NEO Partners, LLC, to help local communities in the early phases as they consider investing in publicly owned infrastructure. For a limited time, a few select communities will receive special pricing to help spread the word about the Community Networks Quickstart Program. Apply by September 28th to be considered as one of the pilot communities.
Read More Here
This is an option more rural communities should be considering as the large Telcos are not going to bring broadband to rural communities unless the installation exceeds their ROI hurdles. The Telcos are consumed by 5G mania, a technology that is too expensive for rural communities with low population densities. This is a DIY world, make plans based on a real-world assessment. Check out the Quick Start Models.
— National organizations representing municipalities are rebelling against FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s plan to streamline the deployment of the 5G wireless infrastructure known as small cells. The proposal, set for a Sept. 26 vote, would preempt local government authority, a measure of run-around that wireless giants like AT&T and Verizon say may be necessary for 5G deployment given delays they face at the local level. That doesn’t sit right with the municipal groups, which say the plan amounts to federal overreach that could harm public safety and local governments’ ability to collect vital revenue. If Carr’s plan is enacted unchanged, the U.S. Conference of Mayors “and its members will seek relief in federal court to overturn this unprecedented overreach,” CEO Tom Cochran said in a statement. The National League of Cities is also opposed and “absolutely” expects litigation to follow, Angelina Panettieri, the league’s principal associate on telecom, told John.
— The National Association of Counties is objecting too, says spokesman Brian Namey: “By narrowing the window for evaluating 5G deployment applications, the FCC would effectively hinder local governments’ fulfillment of public health and safety responsibilities during the construction, modification or installation of broadcasting facilities.” The Conference of Mayors complained that the FCC itself estimated its proposed small cell streamlining “threatens future revenues to local (and state) governments by billions of dollars over the next decade” (Carr had touted estimates funded by Corning, a company with a financial interest in small-cell deployment). In the days leading up to the FCC’s Sept. 26 vote, “I do think you’re going to see a lot of response from municipalities, from utilities,” the NLC’s Panettieri said.
— Carr, for his part, has sought to talk with local officials and called several, including Panettieri, last week to talk through details. He maintains local leaders broadly back his plan. “I’m pleased that dozens of mayors, local officials, and other state leaders all support FCC action,” Carr said. “We’re building on the smart infrastructure policies championed by local leaders. I look forward to continuing the conversation about commonsense reforms with them and the national associations.” In unveiling his proposal Sept. 4, Carr noted rural elected leaders had pressed for FCC action because they worry “that the billions of dollars of investment needed to deploy next-gen networks will be consumed by high fees and long delays in big, ‘must serve’ cities.”
Source: POLITICO Morning Tech
Back in 1990s, I was Chamber of Commerce Board Member and attended a Planning Conference at CSU Chico with a fellow board member. At the first break, the instructor took Matt and me out into the hall and said he was uncomfortable with our presence in the front row and the questions we were asking. He explained the session was intended for government planners, not Chamber Members. The purpose was to school government employees on how to extract additional fees from contractors and developers, so “they were paying their fair share.” We refused to leave, we had paid our fees and it was a joy to watch the instructor squirm as he explained how to extract developers wealth for the public good. Too many governments view the Telcos as bottom cash resources “for the public good,” and a way to get their favorite projects and campaign promises funded. The FCC is trying to put a cap on this extortion and the locals are complaining.