[1st-mile-nm] FCC 5G Ruling

[Doug Orr]

And... 2 years old, but an article more or less what I've been saying:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/chickens-and-eggs-problem-5g-use-case

Filling a much needed gap...

I'll have to look up the reference but other analysts are showing up with
the surprising notion that this is all about challenging cable for consumer
video. (And, my personal twist, getting the public to pay for the buildout
via scary stories about China and global competitiveness.)

I agree that the morass of local regulations are a total impediment to
uniform buildouts. But the overreach isn't a great precedent and I don't
for a second believe that the carriers are going to keep the aesthetic or
safety or consumer needs of local communities as significant
considerations. Or the underserved.

On the other hand, living in a relatively well to do community, I'd be
pretty happy with $70/mo 300Mbps service.

  Doug

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:55 PM Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote:

>
> There are many articles and points of view on yesterday’s FCC ruling on
> next gen. 5G infrastructure.
> Below are links to the FCC ruling, and to a municipalities-oriented
> article from MuniNetworks.
>
> First, a very good page of 5G resources from Next Century Cities.
>
> https://nextcenturycities.org/next-century-cities-5g-resources/
>
> ---------
>
> FCC Facilitates Deployment Of Wireless Infrastructure For 5G
> Connectivity
>
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-streamlines-deployment-next-generation-wireless-infrastructure
>
> ---------
>
> FCC Stomps on Local Control in Latest Small Cell Decision
>
> Thu, September 27, 2018 | Posted by Lisa Gonzalez
>
> https://muninetworks.org/content/fcc-stomps-local-control-latest-small-cell-decision
>
> On September 26th, Republican FCC Commissioners adopted an Order that
> usurps local control and, in keeping with this administration’s prior
> policy decisions, strengthens the power of the largest companies,
> obtaining nothing in return.
>
> At issue are local governments’ ability to determine the amount of fees
> to charge mobile carriers that want to place 5G equipment in
> rights-of-way. In addition to establishing fees, the Order sets strict
> timelines in which cities and towns must respond to carrier
> applications. The FCC decision eliminates local communities’ ability to
> negotiate in order to protect their own rights-of-way and the poles,
> traffic lights, and other potential structures in them.
>
> To back up their decision to adopt the new policy, the Republican
> controlled FCC relied on the incorrect claims that application and
> attachment fees in larger communities are so excessive that they create
> a burden which prevents carriers from investing in rural communities.
>
> (snip)
>
> The FCC does not require mobile carriers to commit to expanded coverage
> in smaller communities within the Order.
>
> (snip)
>
> In addition to the limits on fees, the Order interferes in the public
> safety and aesthetic requirements communities can require for small
> cells, imposing a reasonableness requirement. The Order sheds little
> light on the “reasonable” standard. For towns that highly value
> aesthetic architectural qualities — as in the case of historic downtown
> districts — the FCC waves away the unique needs of individual
> communities.
>
> (snip)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director
> 1st-Mile Institute     505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200>
> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504,
> rl at 1st-mile.org     www.1st-mile.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/1st-mile-nm/attachments/20180927/efcf560d/attachment.html>