Connect with us

Infrastructure

The FCC’s Approach to Small Cells Strips Municipalities of Rights, Claim NATOA Panelists

Published

on

Photo of small cell by Rohanmkth used with permission

June 29, 2020 — Wireless infrastructure deployment, particularly for small cell or distributed antenna systems, promise smart city innovation abilities. But this rollout is likely to be stymied until resolution of disputes between industry and municipalities.

Local officials are upset that federal intervention – by Congress and by the Federal Communications Commission – is hampering their ability to govern their own rights-of-way.

Panelists of a webinar hosted by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors on Monday argued that local governments must take proactive steps to maintain their influence in negotiations with industry over small cell deployment.

Although the FCC would prefer to ignore them, municipalities do have rights concerning the deployment of wireless infrastructure facilities. In particular, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which preserves local zoning authority over the “placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities.”

“While current policy gives local governments rights, there are limitations to these rights,” said Michael Roberts, an attorney with the Cohen Law Group.

Localities feel they are being squeezed by federal preemption from Washington

Localities rights were severely restricted in 2018, when the Federal Communications Commission adopted a ruling defining small cells and placing a number of restrictions on how state and local governments can manage the deployment of small cells.

The 2018 order built upon prior rules, and which also raised serious concerns from local governments.

In particular, the most recent order has been critiqued by municipalities as a blatant effort by the agency to strengthen the hand of carriers in negotiations with local governments over small cell deployment.

It was further labeled an attempt to limit the ability of local government to negotiate in the public interest around small cells.

Many local governments and national municipal associations, including NATOA, responded by appealing the order, denouncing its preemption of local power.

The FCC justified the order by stating that it was intended to remove regulatory hurdles impeding the implementation of 5G systems.

Limitations established by the order constrain municipalities’ vis-à-vis wireless infrastructure companies

Among a number of things, the order establishes a working definition for small wireless facilities, or small cells.

Robust DAS and small cell networks require at least one small cell to be deployed every few meters, and the order preempts local governments from establishing certain aesthetic requirements.

It rules all aesthetic requirements for small wireless facilities must be reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments and published in advance.

Roberts advised panelists about the importance of utilizing clear language when writing aesthetic requirements, as providers may be able to use vague language to avoid unclear aesthetic requirements.

The order further defines the size of small cells, stating all antenna equipment can be no more than a cumulative 28 cubic feet in volume.

“That could be up to the size of a refrigerator,” Roberts warned. While the cells are termed “small,” that often is not the case.

The wireless industry often refers to small cells as the size of “pizza box,” but Roberts’ point about 28 cubic feet shows that federal rules allow for the size of a refrigerator that presumably could hold many, many pizza boxes.

The order also puts limitations on the fees that local governments can charge, which Roberts regarded as the biggest impact that it will have on local governments.

The order finds that fees localities charge operators must, again, be “reasonable”.

“Local governments may exceed these approximate cost ceilings by conducting a defensible cost study,” said Tripp May, shareholder at Telecom Law Firm.

Further, the agency’s order creates new shot clocks to control the length of the review process for applications for small wireless facilities.

Shot clocks govern how quickly localities have to review industry applications for installing small cell sites, as all approvals, permits, and agreements must be completed within shot clock time frames.

The industry is lobbying for more legislation that would allow them to immediately begin small cell construction if a locality does not review their application before the shot clock expires, panelists said.

Takeaway messages for municipalities and for the wireless infrastructure industry

As to the FCC’s order, however, petitions filed against it allege that it exceeded the agency’s authority, arguing it largely preempts local governments from regulating their small cell equipment.

Oral arguments in opposition of the order were held on February 20, but the court’s decision has yet to be announced.

“There is a great deal of control at the local level,” Roberts said. “Impose regulations and understand the rights and abilities of your community.”

Contributing Reporter Jericho Casper graduated from the University of Virginia studying media policy. She grew up in Newport News in an area heavily impacted by the digital divide and has a passion for universal access and a vendetta against anyone who stands in the way of her getting better broadband.

Advanced Energy

Debt Ceiling Law Doesn’t Change Administration Priorities on Semiconductors, Advanced Energy and Broadband

With government action, America can reindustrialize itself, bolster national security, revive left-behind places and reduce carbon emissions.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, June 2, 2023 — Perhaps the greatest surprise of the debt ceiling deal passed Thursday night by the Senate (and on Wednesday by the House) is that it leaves unscathed the Biden administration’s three top domestic priorities: the Inflation Reduction Act (August 2022), semiconductor promotion in the CHIPS and Science Act (July 2022), and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (November 2021).

Together, these measures will invest more than $2 trillion of federal funds into American manufacturing, infrastructure (including broadband) and advanced energy.

REGISTER FOR THE MADE IN AMERICA SUMMIT

As Broadband Breakfast’s Made in America Summit takes shape, we encourage you to register now to attend this important event on Tuesday, June 27, in Washington. The summit’s four sessions will explore the intersection of these vital big-picture topics:

  • (R)e-building Energy and Internet Infrastructure
  • Semiconductor Manufacturing and U.S.-Chinese Tech Race
  • Challenges to Reorienting America’s Supply Chain
  • Making Cleaner Energy and Enhancing Green Industry

The Inflation Reduction Act invests billions of dollars in clean energy projects that work to limit carbon emissions and other pollutants, including solar, wind, nuclear, clean hydrogen and more. But will its investments in clean energy founder on the lack of infrastructure deployment, or by delays in federal, state and local permitting? This session will also consider the intersection of “smart grid” infrastructure, long-haul and local, and the synchronicities between the broadband and energy economies.

• Lori Bird, U.S. Energy Program Director and Polsky Chair for Renewable Energy, World Resources Institute
• Xan Fishman, Director of Energy Policy and Carbon Management, Bipartisan Policy Center
• Quindi Franco, Assistant Director, Government Accountability Office
• Robert Glicksman, Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University Law School
Other panelists have been invited

The CHIPS and Science Act provides $280 billion in funding to spur semiconductor research and manufacturing in the United States. Semiconductors are key components of consumer electronics, military systems and countless other applications, making a domestic supply chain critically important — particularly amid an increasingly hostile technological race with China. How successful will efforts be to bring semiconductor manufacturing to America?

• Gene Irisari, Head of Semiconductor Policy, Samsung
• Shawn Muma, Director of Supply Chain Innovation & Emerging Technologies, Digital Supply Chain Institute
• Maryam Rofougaran, CEO and Co-Founder, Movandi Corporation
• Rishi Iyengar (moderator), Global Technology Reporter, Foreign Policy
Other panelists have been invited

The Build America Buy America Act, part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, established a domestic content procurement preference for all federally subsidized infrastructure projects. Although waivers of Buy America requirements have been proposed for certain projects — such as Middle Mile Grant Program recipients — it appears unlikely that these will be extended to initiatives such as the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, despite requests and warnings from industry leaders. Although fiber-optic cable production is on the rise, significant issues remain in America’s semiconductor and electronic equipment supply. How will these issues be addressed in broadband and other infrastructure projects?

 Panelists to be announced

The Inflation Reduction Act establishes requirements for the use of American-made equipment in clean energy production. How will those requirements impact green energy development? How will the resulting projects interact with other ongoing infrastructure initiatives? What will it take for America to establish itself as a clean energy superpower?

 Panelists to be announced

Early-bird registration of $199 until Friday, June 9 + government and Broadband Breakfast Club rate.

Check back frequently to see updates on the Made in America Summit event page.

REGISTER FOR THE MADE IN AMERICA SUMMIT

Continue Reading

Community Broadband

Sean Gonsalves: After Years of Talk, Cambridge is Now Taking Serious Look at Municipal Broadband

Cambridge aims to construct a citywide fiber network that passes all 52,300 residences and businesses in the city.

Published

on

Photo of Harvard Square used with permission

In Cambridge, Massachusetts, digital equity advocates and city leaders have been debating the idea of building a citywide municipal fiber network for years now, mostly over whether the estimated $150 to $200 million it would cost to build the network would be worth it.

In a tech-savvy city, home to Harvard and MIT, the former city manager was resistant to a serious inquiry into municipal broadband. He retired last summer. But before he left, he relented on the broadband question – under pressure from city councilors and a local citizen group advocating for municipal broadband, Upgrade Cambridge.

With many residents weary of being held hostage to the whims and high cost of service from the monopoly provider in town (Comcast), which currently controls 80 percent of the city’s market, in 2021 the city hired the well-regarded Maryland-based consulting firm CTC Technology & Energy to conduct a thorough feasibility study. Now, with a new supportive city manager in office, city leaders have agreed to continue to investigate the options laid out in the recently published study.

‘Significant public support’ even if it requires tax money

The study found that for Cambridge to construct a “financially sustainable” citywide fiber network that passes all 52,300 residences and businesses in the city, “a significant public contribution would be required.”

“In a base-case scenario that applies conservative construction cost assumptions and reasonable revenue projections,” the study says, “the network could require an upfront public capital contribution of $150 million.”

While some city leaders initially balked at the price tag, a market survey conducted by CTC, found “significant public support for the City taking steps to bring about a new FTTP service, even if a public contribution is required.”

“Eighty-seven percent of respondents agreed that Cambridge needs an additional Internet service provider. When asked if they support City facilitation even if it required a contribution, two-thirds of respondents strongly agreed (40 percent) or agreed (26 percent) the City should facilitate building a fiber broadband network that allows for high-speed service and competition, even if this requires a tax subsidy.”

And when asked if they would be willing to purchase services from a new provider, 58 percent of survey respondents who now get service from Comcast said they would be “very or extremely likely” to subscribe to new Internet service.

Early on, the study seeks to disabuse councilors of the notion that municipal broadband means the city must go it alone and “be the only entity that builds, operates, maintains, and directly markets and offers retail services.”

The city has options, which may involve public-private partnerships. In fact, the study says, “there exists a strong likelihood of private interest in a partnership with the City on a broadband network.”

From there, the study lays out four models the city could pursue and includes a detailed analysis of the risks and trade-offs associated with each: a network fully owned and operated by the city; one where the city builds and owns the infrastructure and then contracts with a private ISP to offer retail service; an open access network in which the city builds and owns the infrastructure and then leases the network to multiple private providers; or one that is largely funded and operated by a private provider.

Cambridge fiber backbone rendering

Cost assumptions and architecture

The construction cost estimates were based on several assumptions, namely that the network would consist of “62 percent aerial construction using existing utility poles and 38 percent underground construction” with an estimated construction timeline of about five years.

Additionally, the cost estimate assumes a 40 percent take-rate that would generate $70 per month, per user “with prices increasing by 3 percent per year.”

As for network architecture, the study advises the city seek to build a network “based on a Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) architecture, which is the most commonly provisioned fiber-to-the-premises service” – the same kind of architecture used by the AT&T, Verizon Fios and Google Fiber, which could be “easily leveraged by triple-play carriers for voice, video, and data services.”

All told, the study envisions deploying 130 miles of fiber both aerially and underground that “will vary between 12- and 288-count based on the projected need in the area,” with a backbone that ranges from 144- to 288-count cables.

City councilors debate familiar questions, skepticism recedes

When CTC presented the results of the feasibility study in March, it proved to be a real eye-opener for one skeptical City Councilor.

As reported by Cambridge DayCouncilor Burhan Azeem said, “it doesn’t sound like it would be as big of a construction project as I was initially worried about.”

“I was a little bit skeptical of municipal broadband because of the cost of $200 million and all this time and energy and effort. And the benefits weren’t clear to me. This conversation has been really helpful in convincing me otherwise.”

When councilors asked about whether it was worth the investment in light of other challenges the city faced such as housing, CTC President Joanne Hovis laid out the variety of community benefits such networks provide in terms of improving economic vitality and quality-of-life – including the ability “to deliver services that we can’t imagine right now.”

It led Councilor Quinton Zondervan to observe that robust high-speed Internet infrastructure is as vital as roads, further noting: “If we went back in time 100 years, we would be debating whether to pave the roads in Cambridge. In the case of broadband, it’s creating potential new business opportunities, learning opportunities and economic opportunities for our residents.”

What’s next?

Should City Councilors decide to move forward, the study provides a “roadmap” for next steps, which includes meeting with and researching potential partners; selecting a business model; issuing an RFI; preparing and launching a procurement process; evaluating bids and selecting partner(s); conducting final negotiations; and awarding a contract.

Cambridge Next Steps timeline

As for CTC’s recommendation on which business model to pursue, the study says that should the city decide to move forward, CTC recommended the city pursue either building an open-access dark fiber network and lease it to multiple private providers, or enter into a public-private partnership where the private provider shoulders most of the financial risks while allowing the city to retain “long-term ownership” of the network.

Roy Russell, founding member of Upgrade Cambridge, told ILSR he was pleased with the study and the progress city leaders seem to be making to explore how they can bring more reliable and affordable competition to the market.

“One reason municipal broadband runs into trouble, in the few that have had problems, is because they either underestimated the costs or overestimated the revenue,” Russell said. “That’s why I think this study is great because it’s a conservative analysis with plenty of contingencies built in.”

Should the city be successful in building a citywide fiber network, “even for the people who wouldn’t switch (to a new provider), they still benefit greatly from competitive pressure – better service, cheaper rates. Now, there’s no way for the city to monetize that. But, it benefits everyone. So the city should see that, and not look at this as a business proposition in terms of: how are we going to make money off of this,” Russell said.

“The city should see this as infrastructure investment the same way we invest in schools, roads, and sewers. It’s about providing services. I mean, we’ve spent somewhere around $500 million renovating our schools. And the schools are great. So I see this (construction cost) as the price to get competition in the city. The phrase ‘Feasibility Study’ implies: can we do this? There isn’t any question about the technical feasibility. That’s well known. It’s entirely feasible. So the question is: what is the cost and how much value does it brings the city?”

Now that the study has been completed, Russell says his group has a simple ask – that city leaders “proceed in an open and deliberate manner to better understand the alternatives and the decisions that need to be made. We believe if they look at the value it brings, the answer will be to definitely move ahead.”

This article originally appeared on the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Networks project on May 30, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Continue Reading

Funding

National League of Cities Announces Bootcamps to Support Applicants to Federal Infrastructure Programs

The program instructs applicants on best practices to write winning grant applications.

Published

on

Image by PeopleReady

WASHINGTON, June 1, 2023 – Advocacy group National League of Cities is sponsoring a nationwide program designed to advise cities and towns on how to access federal infrastructure funding. 

The Local Infrastructure Hub program is hosting a grant application bootcamp aimed at assisting small- and mid-sized cities and towns in their grant applications. The bootcamp series will begin in June and will focus on the programs funded through the $65 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.  

The camp comes ahead of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s allocation by June 30 of the $42.5 billion from its Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program.

The broadband opportunities bootcamp will introduce cities to the entire ecosystem of federal broadband opportunities and educate them on ways they can engage with the private sector, the NLC said. It will guide them through the process of applying to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, it added. 

Participants will be guided through the process of creating an asset map for their community, executing a community engagement strategy, utilizing data to understand problems, aligning applications with broader federal priorities, and writing winning applications through provided templates.  

Mayors and municipal staff across a wide range of specialties are eligible to participate. Participants will have access to subject-matter experts and individualized coaching sessions. The program will connect applicants with their peers applying to the same programs, the NLC said. 

The free bootcamps will last 3 to 4 months and will require several hours of participation each week per team member. Many city leaders tout the program as being highly successful and influential in their grant application process.  

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast News



Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending