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

[Doug Orr]

Oh, and I don't think I forwarded this recent one from Ars where Verizon
admits it is intending to use 5g to compete against existing cable companies
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/10/hate-your-comcast-broadband-verizon-might-sell-you-5g-home-internet/>.
No autonomous vehicles, no IOT, no telemedicine. Video entertainment. For
those already served by cable.

Here's a fun article on 5g
<https://www.marketplace.org/2018/10/11/tech/local-national-and-global-fight-over-5g-infrastructure>
from Marketplace with the money quote:* "But all this raises the question:
If 5G is such a big deal, economically and in terms of security, should the
federal government pay for it?" *Great question, Marketplace! I smell
bonuses all around for the Verizon marketing department! Wag the Dog,
wireless operator edition.

  Doug

p.s. Of course Comcast also doesn't like net neutrality (Ars yesterday
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/10/comcast-complains-it-will-make-less-money-under-calif-net-neutrality-law/>),
it will make less money! This whole charade boils down to two things: (a)
saturated cable market, and (b) saturated mobile market. Oh, plus cord
cutting and the inability of mobile operators to serve video at scale.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:31 PM Doug Orr <doug.orr at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20181017/5cc259e7/attachment.html>