Tag Archives: small cell site

New Radio over Coax

Charter, Rogers Communications, and CableLabs have collaborated on a new technology they are calling new radio over coax (NRoC). The immediate goal of the new technology is to use a cable company’s coaxial network to transmit 5G signals. In Charter’s case, the company wants to use new bandwidth to take advantage of Charter’s CBRS spectrum.

The technology to make this happen relies on opening up new spectrum inside the HFC (Hybrid fiber coaxial) network at frequencies higher than 1.8 GHz, which is the current bandwidth needed to implement DOCSIS 4.0. Much in the same way that DSL transmits broadband at a higher frequency on telephone copper, NRoC will transmit at a higher frequency that won’t interfere with the current network transmissions of video and broadband.

There are numerous potential uses for a cable company by opening a new data path on an HFC network. Charter wants to turn neighborhood HFC nodes into small cell sites using CBRS spectrum. Charter purchased a substantial amount of CBRS spectrum in 2020 and has already deployed several hundred CBRS transmitters in neighborhoods in North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Charters wants to use its own CBRS spectrum to provide cellular relief in neighborhoods with high cellular demand and to reduce the MVNO cellular minutes it buys from Verizon.

Charter says that NRoC can transform the cost of small cell deployment. The company already has huge numbers of existing neighborhood nodes where the network transitions from fiber to coaxial cable. This technology would enable Charter to add a new small cell site at any node for a significantly lower cost than adding a traditional small cell site. Deploying NRoC radios takes advantage of existing networks and don’t require new backhaul or fiber construction.

Having a second data path across the whole network opens up a lot of other possibilities.

  • The extra bandwidth might be a good place to house AI software used to maximize the performance of the network.
  • The extra bandwidth could be used for new products, such as supporting communications with IoT sensors.
  • An intriguing possibility would be to use the extra bandwidth as a way to distribute earthbound traffic from direct-to-satellite cellular communications.

Charter hasn’t disclosed any details about the CableLabs development, but it’s not hard to envision dozens of market uses for a second data path for networks that are already routed into every neighborhood in urban and suburban markets.

Aesthetics and 5G

A recent news article by CBS4 in Denver shows a power supply unit for 5G that was recently installed in Aurora, CO. It’s roughly 5-foot tall and I venture to guess that most homeowners would not want this device at the front of their home.

The cellular companies have convinced the FCC that they need carte blanche authority to place small cell sites where they are needed, and the FCC gave them this authority in September 2018. The FCC order reversed the historic process where cell site placement was under local control. In asking for a national preemption of local rules the cellular carriers argued that they needed blanket authority to put cell sites anywhere in public rights-of-way if the US is to win the 5G war.

Communities all over the country have pushed back hard against the FCC ruling. Numerous cities and states have filed lawsuits against the FCC ruling. Courts have chipped away at that ruling and in August of this year, the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC couldn’t preempt local ordinances concerning environmental and historic preservation reviews of cell site placement. A few cities have passed ordinances that would stop deployment of small cells due to concerns about health, property values, or aesthetics.

When the wireless companies first started deploying pole-mounted small cell sites some of the deployments were major eyesores. Deployments included placing large boxes and antennas and power supplies in the air connected by a maze of live wires. The wireless carriers quickly cleaned up their act in terms of hideous deployments, but in looking at the deployment in Aurora they still have a way to go. One interesting thing about this deployment is that the device sits on the ground. When this order was issued the press covered this as an order about placing devices on poles and they missed that the FCC gave the big carriers the right to put devices anywhere in the public right-of-way.

Historically, carriers would seek homeowner permission to install cabinet-sized boxes. More often than not they would find a place in a neighborhood where the cabinets and boxes were somewhat hidden from sight. Even though the process required voluntary participation by homeowners, it worked well. Sometimes carriers had to go to the city when they were unable to find a location for a needed cabinet, but in most cases, the carriers and the public worked out a solution.

It seems unfair that the first time that a homeowner finds they are getting a large cabinet in their yard is during the installation process. Just because carriers have the right to place anything related to small cells in the right-of-way doesn’t mean they should callously do so without communicating with the public. In this case, the wireless carrier probably had alternatives like placing the needed electronics in an underground vault instead of the large cabinet. That solution would cost more but would eliminate animosity with residents.

That raises an interesting regulatory question. In the long-run regulations are driven by what the public finds acceptable or unacceptable. The public in Aurora is not likely to be upset by this one small cell deployment, but imagine if there are 200, or 500 or 1,000 identical cabinets placed around the city. When carriers deploy solutions that the public doesn’t like, a city is going to fight back against the unpopular practices. New ordinances for small cells are likely to end up in court, and at some point, a judge will decide if the Aurora small cell device somehow crosses the line.

The FCC 5G order is interesting in that it swings to the far extreme of the regulatory pendulum by ruling that the wireless carriers have blanket authority to place any device anywhere they want. Over time, whether done by a future FCC, by the courts, or by Congress, rulings at the extreme fringe of the regulatory pendulum inevitably swing back towards the center. It’s almost inevitable over time that cities will get back more say about the aesthetics of small cell placement.