[Durham INC] FCC ruling on wireless

[Pat Carstensen]

I've been trying to understand the effect on Durham of the recent FCC ruling on communications towers (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1021/FCC-14-153A1.pdf).
The FCC isn't randomly making things up, but is responding to a clause in one of the stimulus acts:"On February 22, 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Tax Act)1 became law. Section 6409(a) of the Tax Act provides that a state or local government “may not deny, and shall approve” any request for collocation, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station, provided this action does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station." The FCC is also taking an opportunity to clarify how fast local governments should deal with applications for wireless facilities. 
What Congress and the FCC are trying to address are:Public safety issues that were revealed with Hurricane Sandy (the need for a broadband wireless network dedicated to first responders and the dangers of having no power at a transmission site)New wireless demand -- 41% of households have only cellphones so the network needs to be more reliable, and increasing data uses (expected to grow by a factor of 8 in the next 5 years) requires more capacity. AT&T told the FCC they wanted to add 10,000 additional towers from 2013 through 2015; another estimate is the the number of towers went up 26% in the last 5 years.New transmission technologies (pages 14-15 of the order) that go on buildings or utility poles or maybe small towers.  Small cells  are technically like the towers we know, but just covering a small area like an arena with lots of cell usage. DAS networks make it economical to have a bunch of little cells since there is one "hub" to "run" the little cells.  AT&T says it is going to deploy more than 40,000 additional small cells, 1,000 additional DAS networks from 2013 through 2015.  The FCC is particularly keen to make it easy to deploy this type of technology.  Not immediately, but sooner or later, we are likely to see these in denser parts of Durham.Clearly getting more gear on existing towers is the cheapest and least intrusive way to go, so the FCC is eager to encourage colocation.  The good news is that they clearly say that rules on how much can be added (which they specify) are based on the original structure or the structure in place in 2012.  Also I think the much discussed 60 day shot clock -- that is, how long we can take to act on an application -- only applies to colocations, removals and replacements.With respect to timeframes for approval of new facilities, the 2009 rules apply to small cells and DAS networks, but local government has to get back to the applicant within 30 days about any gaps in the application.  The FCC also essentially disallowed moratoria.  
What this means for Durham:Are we prepared to review an application for a DAS network, which would have a "flock" of short towers?Given the positive view regulators have of colocation, we need to constantly ask, "What is the possible evolution of this facility."Nothing precludes the Planning Director from asking the neighbors what they think of a proposed facility, even if the approval is administrative.  Of course folks will want to put the tower on the part of their property that works best for them -- the great compromises always come at the expense of the guy not at the table.  However, it makes sense to me that if 1/4 of the fall zone is on my property, I should have an opportunity to negotiate to get some of the rent. 
Regards, pat




 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20141124/9c312264/attachment.html>