Tag Archives: NATOA

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.

 

Urban Digital Divide Efforts

NATOA, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) recently made Community Broadband and Digital Equity Awards to three communities and recognized the strides the cities have made in tackling the digital divide.

The City and County of San Francisco got an award for connecting public housing and other vulnerable neighborhoods to the City’s fiber network. The City’s program is seeking to bring free wired gigabit broadband to low-income residents who have been on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Silicon Harlem got an award for bringing affordable broadband and resiliency to small businesses in Harlem.  In partnership with the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Silicon Harlem launched RISE, a program that is bringing innovative technologies to small businesses. The RISE effort provides a disaster-resistant wireless mesh network to businesses at no cost. The BetterB program is bringing symmetrical 100 Mbps broadband to small businesses for $30 per month.

An award also went to SA Digital Connects, which is a collaboration between San Antonio and Bexar County. This collaboration has the goal of making sure that every household has safe and secure access to the Internet. SA Digital Connect has created a collaboration across government, public, and private partners and has secured funding for access, infrastructure, affordability, adoption, digital skills, and devices.

I’m highlighting these three awards as a way to talk about the work that is remaining to solve the digital divide. BEAD grants are going to solve a lot of the rural digital divide – although I’m predicting millions of homes will be missed by BEAD.  But the biggest remaining digital divide issue is to find solutions for urban broadband adoption.

These three efforts are in giant cities, but the issues recognized by these cities is present across the whole range of smaller cities. A lot of cities were excited when they heard about BEAD grants because they assumed some of this money would come their way – but BEAD is going to be used almost entirely in rural areas.

Solving the urban digital divide is a much more complex issue than tackling the rural broadband gap. I’ve been looking at various urban neighborhoods lately, and every neighborhood is different. It’s easier to attack the rural availability divide when you can easily identify areas with no fast landline broadband. It’s a lot harder to pinpoint areas within cities that the incumbent providers have ignored and where broadband is not as good as what is delivered in surrounding neighborhoods.

It’s hard to bring an immediate broadband solution to a neighborhood where residents don’t have computers or tablets and don’t know how to effectively use them. Everybody trying to solve the urban digital divide is wrestling with what to do first – because it does no good to give devices to homes without good broadband, but you can’t succeed in building a network when folks aren’t ready and able to use it.

One of the best tools to help solve the urban digital divide was ACP since an urban ISP could count on having a revenue of at least $30 per month from every low-income household. It’s a lot harder to justify building a network in neighborhoods where few people can afford a normally-priced broadband connection. Killing ACP increased the difficulty of tackling the urban digital divide. There is a significant amount of funding available for cities and neighborhoods to explore ways to solve their broadband shortfalls, but such efforts will be of no avail if ISPs can’t find a sustainable business model to support new networks.

But it’s still really good news that efforts like the ones described above are finding ways to tackle urban broadband issues. But for every City or neighborhood with one of these laudable efforts, there are dozens more where nobody is seeking a solution.

When BEAD was first announced, I remember folks being excited that there would be grant funding available to bring better broadband to ten million or more rural homes. Even then, my first reaction was that this effort was ignoring the much larger number of urban homes that are also on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Urban broadband issues are going to have to be solved one neighborhood at a time, and it’s awesome to see folks dedicated to making this happen. Here’s to hoping for the success of these specific projects, and I hope their efforts inspire others to tackle their own local problems.