Tag Archives: FCC

FCC Alert on Cybersecurity Risks

The FCC recently took the unusual step of warning telecom companies about an increased risk of ransomware attacks. The FCC is warning telecom companies to regularly patch their systems, enable multifactor authentication, and segment their networks to avoid falling victim to ransomware attacks. The alert cited data that shows a fourfold increase in attacks on telecom companies from 2022 to 2025.

In the alert, the FCC said it has become aware over the past year of increased ransomware incidents involving small-to-medium-sized communications companies. These attacks have disrupted service, exposed company and customer information, and have locked ISPs and carriers out of critical files.

The FCC alert talks about how ransomware works and offers advice on how to protect against the problem. The FCC also offers advice on how to respond to a ransomware scammer, including advice for contacting the FCC and the FBI.

The most interesting recommendation was to monitor the cybersecurity practices of your critical vendors, which I take to mean vendors who supply network electronics or software systems. The FCC warns that a significant number of telecom intrusions have come from weaknesses in systems supplied by vendors. I’m not really sure how a small ISP is supposed to monitor this, because every major vendor you work with is going to swear that they have safe practices.

The FCC alert includes all of the standard cybersecurity practices related to regularly backing up data and training employees to avoid phishing and other bad practices. They also say that every ISP ought to have an incident response plan of how to deal with cybersecurity problems and to test it regularly.

An appendix to the FCC alert lists some best practices that are being recommended by the FCC’s Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council. This is a group formed that includes the FCC,  large ISPs, and carriers. This list recommends taking additional steps like requiring validation of software patches before using them.

This Council also strongly recommends using the least-privilege principle (PoLP) for network access. This is a process that limits access to critical software systems only to those who need access. It also involves granting minimum access rights so that users can only access the parts of a system they need while blocking access elsewhere. It can mean granting people temporary access only for the duration of a needed task. Finally, this means granting access by job function, and not by user identity.

I’s obviously impossible to fully protect a company from external attacks, as was witnessed when the Salt Typhoon hackers gained access to a number of giant corporations and government agencies that supposedly have world-class cybersecurity. But it’s worth reviewing your practices and systems, because of the downside of being unlucky enough to be a victim of one of these attacks.

The FCC’s Spectrum Challenge

The FCC has been tasked by Congress to find and auction 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum. This was a key element of the One Big Beautiful Bill that planned to use the proceeds from spectrum auctions to offset other costs created by the bill. The bill specifically requires the FCC to auction 100 megahertz of spectrum in the upper C-Band, located at 3.98 – 4.2 GHz.

The new requirement to auction that spectrum has resulted in a strong response from the aviation industry and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This new controversy is a perfect example of the challenges the FCC is going to face as it tries to free up 800 megahertz of spectrum. Proposing to change any mid-range spectrum is going to rile up controversy and opposition from those who care about a given spectrum band.

In this case, the FAA’s concern is about interference. Apparently, they don’t want to take any chance of interference from cellular companies that would negatively affect airline altimeters. I think anybody who flies is on the FAA’s side – if they are concerned, I am concerned.

The FAA released new altimeter standards in 2023 that required changes to altimeters to be able to ignore any interference from the lower C-Band spectrum located at 3.7-3.98 GHz. Even though there is a gap between the lower C-band and the 4.2-4.4 GHz band that is used for altimeters, the FCC was worried about interference.

The FAA immediately reacted when Congress directed the FCC to auction off the 3.98 – 4.2 GHz band that sits directly adjacent to the altimeter spectrum. The FAA recognizes the reality that there are radios that don’t do a great job of fitting precisely in the spectrum band they are supposed to use.

The FAA warns that existing altimeters, including those that were retrofitted to meet the 2023 changes, are not going to be able to filter out interference from the upper C-Band spectrum. The FAA tracks reports of interference, and by the summer of 2025, it had received 659 reports of potential C-band interference. After analyzing the reports, the FAA identified 118 events that were directly attributable to lower C-band interference, and this was for spectrum that is not directly adjacent to the altimeter spectrum bands.

The FCC has a major dilemma since Congress specifically ordered the upper C-band spectrum to be auctioned. I’m not sure how the agency can resolve this other than by getting Congress to change the directive. The FCC could spend a lot of money to move altimeters to a different spectrum band, but there aren’t any convenient bands that meet the criteria. This would likely require the FCC to fund new altimeters.

Other wireless users are already starting to lobby to leave certain bands of spectrum alone as the FCC searches for 800 MHz of mid-range spectrum. Rural WISPs and others are already heavily lobbying for the FCC to leave CBRS spectrum alone, which is currently being used for rural broadband. The really big fight is going to come if the FCC wants to take any portion of the unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum that is being used for WiFi 7. The military had originally said it would go along with some changes in the mid-range spectrum bands, but already seems to be retracting from that commitment.

I don’t envy the FCC’s job of auctioning the spectrum as directed by Congress. I predict big lobbying battles and probably big lawsuits before much spectrum actually makes it to an auction.

Onshoring Customer Service

In one of the oddest actions I ever remember seeing at the FCC, the agency plans to vote on rules later this month that will curtail the use of overseas customer service by companies regulated by the FCC. I describe this as odd because it’s not clear to me that the FCC has the authority to tell ISPs, cellular carriers, and cable companies how to operate their day-to-day business. The FCC press release refers to  customer service, but I assume this also applies to overseas technical support.

The FCC is considering the following changes:

  • Onshoring Incentives. The FCC will encourage carriers to return call-center jobs to the U.S.
  • English Proficiency Standards. They are considering a requirement that foreign-based customer service agents must be proficient in American Standard English.
  • Location Disclosure. Companies must disclose to customers if an agent is located overseas.
  • Right to Transfer. Customers must be given an option to transfer to a U.S.-based agent.
  • Call Volume Caps. The FCC wants to limit the percentage of calls that can be handled by foreign agents.

The FCC says its proposed action is for security purposes since foreign call centers present a higher risk of not protecting customers’ personal data. The FCC insinuates that overseas call centers have been linked to the rise of robocalls and fraud, which may be true, but I’ve never heard of this before. The FCC says the changes are also intended to create U.S. job growth.

A quick review of the biggest carriers shows that Charter already uses 100% U.S.-based customer service agents. The FCC made the company agree to onshore customer service for its merger with Cox, but that was something the company had already promised when it first announced the Cox merger. Verizon mostly uses U.S. agents but has some limited overseas customer service. The big companies that will impacted the most are Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile, each of which uses a lot of overseas customer service agents. I’ll be curious to find out how smaller ISPs send this work overseas.

There is little doubt that this will be popular with many in the public. It’s not hard to find complaints on the web of customers who don’t like talking to somebody overseas. However, there are also a lot of online complaints about big companies like Charter, which uses U.S.-based customer service. I’ve always wondered how much people dislike overseas agents compared to the degree that they don’t like talking to any agents who use prepared scripts to answer questions.

One of the first things that came to mind when I read this is that it might provide an incentive for the big carriers that use overseas agents to transition to AI customer service. That would eliminate overseas workers, but it might also eliminate U.S. jobs. My gut feeling is that we are still not close to a day when a company can safely hand customer service completely to AI, but that doesn’t mean that some companies won’t try it. I suspect the public will hate talking to AI even more than talking to a live person, here or overseas.

The biggest question that will have to be answered is whether the FCC has the authority to order this. I can’t think of any section of the FCC code that would give the agency the authority to mandate the manner in which ISPs and carriers conduct day-to-day business. It will be interesting to see if anybody challenges them on this.

I also find it curious that this doesn’t feel like the light-touch regulation that was promised by the current FCC Chairman. This seems like new regulations that will add a lot to the cost of regulatory compliance. As I said at the beginning of the blog, it’s an odd idea on many fronts.

Unintended Consequences

The industry news is always full of big events like mergers, bankruptcies, new regulations, or regulations killed. I’ve written many blogs about these kinds of issues, but I have rarely written about the unintended consequences of big industry changes. Today’s blog looks at two examples of unintended consequences.

The first is the decision  by EchoStar to abandon the facility-based cellular business. There were several factors that led to the company’s decision to abandon the business line, but the company says the primary reason was pressure from the FCC to use the spectrum it owned or return it to the FCC for auction. The FCC was also pressuring the company to build faster and to get more customers.

One of the unintended consequences of the FCC nudging EchoStar out of the cellular business is that the company decided in 2025 that its best option for maximizing value was to sell the spectrum it planned to use for cell towers. The company sold spectrum to Starlink that will support the company’s entry into the satellite cellular business. EchoStar also sold spectrum to AT&T, which was put to immediate use to boost bandwidth at 23,000 cell sites nationwide. Both of these consequences are positive for the industry and will benefit many millions of customers.

Another consequence of EchoStar abandoning cell towers is that the company walked away from a huge number of long-term leases for space on cell towers. A group of ten tower company executives met with the FCC recently and asked for help to recover the abandoned payments from EchoStar. The company says it had no choice but to walk away from the leases since it is no longer using towers, and they say this fits the “force majeure” clause in its contracts with tower owners that excuse payments in the case of an unforeseeable event. It’s going to be interesting to see if the FCC does anything, or even if they have any authority to intervene in a business contractual dispute. This same thing happens all of the time on a smaller scale when carriers and ISPs walk away from leases they no longer need, and the only real difference in the case is the magnitude of the issue. My bet is that the FCC will do nothing since this is now a commercial contract dispute, and it will probably tell tower owners to take their claims to court.

Another big piece of news is Verizon’s purchase of Frontier Communications. The purchase process started sixteen months before the deal finally closed, and much has changed in the industry since then. When the transaction was first announced, CEO Hans Vestberg touted the sale as moving Verizon forward in pursuing convergence. That’s the new industry phrase that replaces the old triple-play strategy and now refers to bundling broadband and cellphones.

Companies generally pursue mergers in an attempt to boost stock prices, and it will be interesting to see if that happens for Verizon. There are already industry analysts panning the merger, saying that it doesn’t really move the needle for Verizon. Pre-transaction, Verizon’s fiber covers 9.2% of the country, and Frontier brings another 4.3% coverage. This pales against the cable companies that lead in the convergence battle, with the biggest cable companies collectively passing 90% of households in the country.

There are also other consequences when companies merge. Verizon will claim it’s gaining efficiencies from the merger, but the real consequence is that a lot of folks at Frontier will lose jobs that would have been safe without the merger. Many of the vendors and suppliers that supported Frontier will suddenly find they have lost a giant customer. It’s likely that eventually the prices of the products at the two companies will be brought into synch, and since Verizon’s fiber prices are higher than Frontier’s, it probably means eventual price increases for Frontier customers.

The FCC 2024 Broadband Report

The FCC recently released its Internet Access Services report for December 31, 2024. The report is generated to provide a mandated update to Congress annually on the state of broadband. The data for the report mostly comes from broadband data that ISPs report to the FCC twice each year using the BDC reporting system, with some overlay with Census data.

I’ve always hoped this report would provide useful information, but it’s challenging to glean any truly valuable information from the report. There are a lot of reasons that combine to make most of the report unusable.

  • There is still a lot of inconsistency in the way the FCC broadband map defines serviceable locations. There are numerous examples where the FCC maps include locations that don’t exist while excluding valid locations. There is still no consensus on how to count vacant homes, vacation cabins, apartments built in basements and garages, etc. The FCC broadband map concentrates on ‘mass-market’ residential and business broadband locations. This leads to inconsistent counting of large businesses, while most anchor institutions are not included in the map.
  • ISPs report broadband coverage to the FCC, which is supposed to mean locations an ISP is connected to or that it can connect within 10 business days of a customer request for service. We’ve seen many cases where ISPs exaggerate claimed service areas.
  • The real issue with the claimed coverage is that ISPs also claim the maximum broadband speed available at each location. FCC rules allow ISPs to claim marketing speeds, which may be very different than actual speeds. For example, it’s very common for ISPs to claim 100/20 Mbps coverage but deliver something much slower for download or upload speeds. This means the FCC report is nothing more than a summary of the marketing speeds claimed by ISPs.
  • The FCC makes no attempt to layer on known changes to the data. For example, the FCC maintains maps of federal broadband grant awards that are supposed to be built in coming years. The report would be a lot more useful for measuring broadband improvements if there were tables summarizing these known changes.
  • Finally, I’m doubtful, in today’s dynamic market, of the usefulness of any data captured at a snap shot in time. The Fiber Broadband Association claims there were 11.1 million fiber passings constructed during 2025 that are not reflected in the report. There have also been a lot of technology upgrades from cable companies, WISPs, and FWA providers. These changes all mean that the broadband landscape is significantly different just one year after the date of this report.

The report is full of charts and tables that sound like they should be useful, until you look at each of them in light of the above issues. For example, every table that is based on broadband speed is highly questionable due to ISPs that self-report marketing speeds.

But even many of the tables and graphs that don’t refer to speeds are puzzling, or report nothing useful.

  • Figure 4 purports to show broadband customers at the end of 2024 by technology. It shows 57.3% on cable, 26.7% on fiber, 6.6% on DSL, 7.3 % on fixed wireless, and 2% on satellite. However, even this simple table is troublesome. The three big FWA cellular providers claimed 11.6 million customers at the end of 2024, and it looks like these customers are not included in any of the categories.
  • Figure 9 shows the locations in each state with various speeds. Are there really 9% of locations in West Virginia and 5% of locations in Mississippi that can’t get a broadband speed of at least 0.2 Mbps? There are a lot of tables that analyze speeds over and under 200 kbps (this really is kilobits, which is four times faster than dial-up), which must be an obsolete Congressional reporting category.
  • Figure 17 shows all fixed connections with speeds over 200 kbps. The table combines cellphones and broadband in the same table, which demonstrates that only 14% of broadband connections are from cable broadband.
  • Figures 20 through 31 show the trend over time of the number of connections at various speeds. Because of the use of marketing speeds, the quantities are likely far off, but the trends are interesting. These figures clearly ignore FWA cellular broadband.
  • There are a lot of charts and tables about cellular speeds, which are completely worthless since most cell companies report 5G speeds to the FCC maps of either 7/1 Mbps or 35/3 Mbps, in a world where actual speeds can be hundreds of Mbps.
  • Figure 41 is interesting and shows the number of ISPs that report the use of various technologies over time. The trends are interesting but have no context. For example, how much of the drop of the number of cable ISPs is due to companies that folded versus those that were absorbed into a larger cable provider?

FCC Robocall Filing Due for All Voice Providers

The FCC adopted new rules for voice providers that are part of the FCC’s effort to curtail robocalls. The new rules apply to every voice provider that sells a retail voice product to end-user customers, along with other categories of providers like voice wholesalers and international providers. The new rules were effective on February 5.  The key new rules include the following:

  • Every voice service provider (VSP) has to register in the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) by March 1. Any VSP that is already in that database must update its information by that date.
  • The FCC issued a stern warning to any VSP that doesn’t register as required. There are fines of as much as $10,000 for not registering or for submitting false or inaccurate information to the RMD. The FCC also established a $1,000 fine for any late registrations or updates.
  • VSPs will also now need to renew the registration annually.
  • Finally, VSPs must update the FCC within 10 business days any time they make a change that affects their information in the FCC’s CORES database.

The mechanics of the new rules are that every VSP must have a unique token that gets associated with the call records that identifies the VSP. In past filings, a lot of VSPs simply reported that they rely on the tokens from another upstream provider. The new rules make it clear that every company that sells voice needs to have its own token.

These new rules are going to catch a lot of ISPs and CLECs off guard. It’s likely that most companies that still operate a voice switch knew about these rules in the past – and if they didn’t, the FCC plans to hunt down non-compliant carriers through the databases.

But the big change is that this applies to ISPs that buy wholesale VoIP and repackage it to their customers. These VSPs must comply with the new rules.

The FCC plans to implement an annual $100 filing fee to accompany the annual certification. However, that hasn’t been implemented yet, and VSPs can file for free right now.

The CCG team can help with any aspect of these filings, so contact me at blackbean2@ccgcomm.com if you need help.

Winning the 6G Race

In December, the White House issued a short Presidential Memorandum titled “Winning the 6G Race”. The document states that 6G technology will be “foundational to the national security, foreign policy, and economic prosperity of the United States. 6G will play a “pivotal role in the development and adoption of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics, and implantable technologies. 6G will also provide faster, more resilient, and more secure communication networks that can be utilized for national security and public safety purposes.”

The report begins with an interesting statement, “It is the policy of the United States to lead the world in 6G development.” This memorandum suggests that the path for the U.S. to achieve this goal is to play a significant role in the development of international standards and to identify a significant volume of spectrum that can be harmonized for 6G networks internationally.

The memorandum goes on to direct several federal agencies to make sure the U.S. gets involved in the development of standards. This is something that U.S. scientists and engineers routinely participate in. Congress already ordered the FCC to begin looking for 800 MHz of midrange spectrum to put to auction. This is the sweet spot for cellular traffic, and it seems likely that cellular companies will buy most of any such spectrum that hits an auction.

What I find most interesting about the memorandum is the use of the phrase ‘6G Race’. This brings back memories of the same rhetoric being used to tout the introduction of 5G. In looking back, I see that the term 5G race entered the vernacular in 2018. It was a phrase introduced by the big cellular carriers as part of a massive lobbying campaign to get the FCC to hold auctions for cellular spectrum. The 5G race was supposedly between the U.S. and China to become the leader in 5G technology.

The lobbying effort was intense, and you couldn’t go to any sizable industry event without being bombarded by discussions about the U.S. winning the 5G race. I wrote several blogs on the topic at the time, and there were articles in the industry press about the 5G race on a weekly basis. This reached such a fever pitch that by 2020, there was talk of the U.S. government buying either Nokia or Ericsson so that the U.S. would own a 5G company.

What’s funny is that there was no 5G race then, and there is no 6G race now. That’s not how technology advances. For both 5G and 6G, scientists and engineers from around the world first create the standards for a new technology. Once those standards are published, vendors begin seriously developing marketable technologies to sell.

Every vendor strives to make technology that meets the standards so that it can be used worldwide. Vendors like Huawei from China and Nokia from Finland want the cellular technology they develop to be able to communicate with cellphones manufactured around the world. While there are differences between vendors, the differences are fairly minor, and over time, any development touted by any one vendor will be picked up by the other vendors. The whole purpose of standards is to make sure that a new technology is compatible around the world.

What’s particularly funny is that the U.S. is a minor player in the development of cellular technologies. The vendors ultimately decide which features of a new technology get stressed and developed first. If there were a 5G or 6G race, it would be between China and Europe – but I’ve never seen competition between the vendors referred to as a race.

I think the term 6G race is just more rhetoric from the marketing folks at the big U.S. cellular carriers. While they already won half of the battle by getting Congress to require that the FCC find more cellular spectrum, the lobbying effort is to make sure that happens in a timely manner before Congress or the FCC has a change of heart.

So, in case you are late to the game, welcome to the 6G race. It’s a drama-free race, and there is no finish line. But if the cellular companies get what they are asking for, the phrase will disappear as quickly as it appeared.

The Challenge of Adding Fiber to Poles

On February 5, the FCC issued a Memorandum and Order related to a pole attachment dispute between Comcast and Appalachian Power Company (APCO). The Order was issued under the authority of section 224 of the Telecommunications Act, which gives the FCC the authority to “regulate the rate, terms, and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such rates, terms , and conditions are just and reasonable”. This order highlights the nuances of regulations that can make it a challenge to build new fiber. This particular case provides a cautionary tale that shows why it can be so hard to get on poles when working with an uncooperative pole owner.

Before discussing the FCC decision, let me review existing FCC pole attachment rules and processes that an ISP must follow to get onto a pole. Just starting the process of getting on a pole requires a well-defined step-by-step paperwork-heavy process that obligates both the pole owner and the attacher to take steps within specified time frames.

  • The ISP must formally request access to a pole. Every pole owner has a unique set of forms needed to make such a request. The request must be detailed and specifically describe the changes that are wanted, and the attacher often includes drawings showing the desired connection.
  • The pole owner then conducts a survey to determine if there are any issues involved in meeting the request. Some pole owners invite the attacher to participate in a physical survey.
  • If the pole owner accepts the request, it must provide an estimate of the ‘make-ready’ costs needed to accommodate the request.
  • If the attacher accepts the estimate, it must pay the make-ready costs upfront, and the make-ready work proceeds.
  • Finally, if the pole owner finds that the actual cost was higher than the estimate, the attacher can request a detailed invoice showing all of the costs.

The dispute in this Order arose over poles that APCO said needed to be replaced in order to accommodate Comcast. Comcast claims that many of the poles had preexisting violations of safety and engineering standards, and because of that, Comcast wanted to pay nothing for APCO to replace the poles. APCO wanted Comcast to pay the full cost of replacing the poles, which would mean that Comcast would be paying to fix problems caused in the past by other attachers.  As an aside, Comcast would be required to pay the full cost to replace a pole that didn’t have any safety violations, as long as the only reason for having to replace a pole is that there isn’t enough room to add the new fiber.

Comcast filed a formal complaint with the West Virginia Public Service Commission in May 2025. The Commission ruled in favor of Comcast and said that APCO unlawfully assigned costs to Comcast and also delayed the pole attachment process. Rather than comply with that decision, APCO appealed the case in July to the FCC’s new Rapid Broadband Assessment Team (RBAT). This was the first FCC case processed under the new RBAT appeal system. The parties entered into mediation, but failed to reach an agreement.

In September, APCO issued new rules across its pole network that require any attacher to pay 100% of the cost for a poles replacement, even when a pole has preexisting violations.  At the end of November, Comcast filed a complaint with the FCC that resulted in this Order. The FCC sided with Comcast and said that its rules had been clear for twenty years that an attacher is only responsible for the incremental cost of moving to a new pole when an existing pole is in violation of safety or engineering standards.

You might read this and view it as a victory for Comcast, but it’s really not. This process delayed Comcast by nine months, and this is one of the faster regulatory resolutions of a pole dispute I can remember. This case shows the challenge that any attacher faces when a pole owner elects not to follow existing pole attachment regulations. In this case, APCO wanted to charge Comcast incorrectly at the time of the application. APCO then ignored an order from the State PUC and took the issue to FCC arbitration, where it failed to come to a mediated agreement. Finally, Comcast had to appeal to the FCC for a resolution.

Most ISPs don’t have the budget or the legal resources to fight an issue like this through this maze of steps. A smaller attacher with a similar situation would likely either have to agree to meet the conditions of the pole owner, and pay far too much for the attachment, or it might instead elect to bury fiber to bypass the poles, also at an increased cost.

Most attachers also worry about getting into formal disputes with pole owners who can retaliate by making it more difficult or costly for other desired attachments. The FCC and States can pass as many rules and regulations as they want, but the pole owner still has the ultimate power to make life costly and miserable for an attacher. I don’t know if any amount of regulations can fix that.

2026 Urban Rate Study

One of the more curious undertakings done by the FCC every year is the Urban Rate Study. This is an exercise undertaken every year to determine the highest monthly broadband rates that can be charged by ETCs (Eligible Telecommunications Carriers). This basically means regulated telcos and other ISPs that participate in some grant or subsidy programs. At a minimum, these rate caps apply to incumbent rate-of-return telephone companies, and ISPs that participated in the Rural Broadband Experiment, CAF II Phase II Auction, RDOF (Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction 904), and Enhanced A-CAM. These rate caps will apply to any BEAD winners that are certified as an ETC. These rate caps also apply to any ISP that voluntarily became an ETC in order to participate in any other subsidy program, such as the Universal Service Fund.

The FCC publishes this rate near the end of each year, and by July 1 of the following year, every ETC must certify to the FCC that it doesn’t charge a rate higher than the benchmarks.

 The FCC determines rate caps for an interesting mix of speeds that match the minimum speed goals set over the years for different subsidy programs. The FCC samples actual rates in the market and sets the target rates by applying two standard deviations. The FCC also sets the minimum size of any rate cap, and for 2026 has raised any monthly rate caps to provide at least 800 megabytes of data as of July 2026.

Below is a table that compares the 2026 rates to the rates from the Urban Rate Study in 2019.

It’s interesting that the maximum rates allowed for slow speeds have increased significantly between 2019 and 2026. The FCC rate caps for speeds of 100 Mbps or greater have decreased since 2019. I think this is because gigabit rates were somewhat rare in 2019, and some ISPs that offered gigabit then charged a premium rate.

It’s commonly believed that the FCC is not in the ratemaking business, and for broadband, I think this is the agency’s only ratemaking role.

I’ve seen ISPs with rates higher than these benchmarks, but those ISPs are not regulated ETCs. I doubt that consumers are comforted by these rates, and luckily, market competition has pushed rates lower than everything in the table for most ISPs.

Cell Tower Regulation Changes?

Cellular carriers seem to be on a winning streak with federal regulators. In the Big Beautiful Bill last year, cellular carriers were able to insert language in the bill that mandates the FCC to auction 800 MHz of mid-range spectrum. That’s going to force the FCC to carve the spectrum from other uses, and it seems likely that most spectrum that goes to auction will be won by the big cell carriers.

Late last fall, the FCC opened a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments. In the NOI, the FCC asked the following questions.

  • Should the FCC establish a new set of shot clocks that cover permitting and construction of wireless towers and other wireless infrastructure?
  • Should the FCC consider a “deemed approved” rule that would mean that any proposed new tower project would be considered as approved if a local government doesn’t approve the project within a specified time frame?
  • Should the FCC preempt local governments from setting fees related to permits, rights-of-way, and construction processes, and should the FCC set national fees for these efforts?

As someone who has read a lot of FCC documents, the tone of this NOI suggests to me that the FCC has already largely determined what it is going to order related to the shot clock and fees. It looks likely that the cell carriers will likely achieve another big win on their regulatory wish list.

The NOI also seeks comments on a wide range of other questions:

  • Can localities reject a tower request for a carrier that will be providing interstate services?
  • The FCC is thinking about relaxing the rules for concealment elements, which is the process of hiding towers or disguising them to look like trees of other objects.
  • The FCC wants to make it harder for localities to disallow modifications to existing towers.
  • The NOI explores the definition of a macro cell site in relation to existing rules related to small cell sites.
  • The FCC asks if it can limit the ability of a locality to reject a tower application based on aesthetics.
  • The NOI asks if local franchise agreements that involve in-kind contributions are a violation of Section 253 rules.

The NOI saw over 4,000 public comments. AT&T, T-Mobile, and CTIA, the lobbying group for the cellular carriers, were in favor of what the FCC is proposing, while almost all of the other comments were against some or all of the FCC proposals.

A lot of the comments involved those that want local communities to have some say in the placement of towers for health reasons. Traditionally, these folks have an uphill battle since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other FCC rulings have made it hard for the FCC to consider “environmental issues’ related to cell site placement. But I read last week that HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. supports the idea that there are health risks from cell towers, so perhaps this now has some chance.

There were also comments from local governments and groups like the National Conference of Counties NACo), the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National League of Cities (NLC), and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) have all filed comments that disagree with allowing the FCC to override local authority. The comments from these groups asked the FCC to:

  • Preserve local aesthetic and placement authority.
  • Recognize that local governments are entitled to compensation which reflects the full costs of wireless deployment, not an arbitrary national assessment of what costs “should” be.
  • Reject the creation of a “rocket docket”.
  • Reject premature preemption of state and local AI regulations.
  • Facilitate industry and local cooperation rather than heavy-handed federal mandates.

I do fine it curious that an agency that is working feverishly to eliminate regulatory requirements won’t hesitate to create new rules it likes.