Cities Will Sue FCC To Stop $2 Billion Giveaway To Wireless Carriers (arstechnica.com) 71
Cities are planning to sue the Federal Communications Commission over its decision to preempt local rules on deployment of 5G wireless equipment. From a report: Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and City Attorney Pete Holmes yesterday said their city intends to appeal the FCC order in federal court. Seattle will be coordinating with other cities on a lawsuit, they said. "In coordination with the overwhelming majority of local jurisdictions that oppose this unprecedented federal intrusion by the FCC, we will be appealing this order, challenging the FCC's authority and its misguided interpretations of federal law," they said in a press release.
The FCC says its order will save carriers $2 billion, less than one percent of the estimated $275 billion it will take to deploy 5G across the country. In Oregon, the Portland City Council voted Tuesday to approve a lawsuit against the FCC, The Oregonian reported, saying the move "added Portland to a growing list of cities, primarily on the West Coast, that are preparing to fight" the FCC order. East Coast cities including New York City and Boston have also objected to the FCC decision. As we've previously reported, the FCC order drew opposition from rural municipalities as well.
The FCC says its order will save carriers $2 billion, less than one percent of the estimated $275 billion it will take to deploy 5G across the country. In Oregon, the Portland City Council voted Tuesday to approve a lawsuit against the FCC, The Oregonian reported, saying the move "added Portland to a growing list of cities, primarily on the West Coast, that are preparing to fight" the FCC order. East Coast cities including New York City and Boston have also objected to the FCC decision. As we've previously reported, the FCC order drew opposition from rural municipalities as well.
Seattle: we fight and Win! (Score:2)
Release the Kraken!
(that's our new NHL team)
Giveaway is actually a shakedown (Score:1)
Cities are shaking down carriers that put equipment on their streetlights, poles, etc. The FCC put a stop to this to make it a reasonable amount and now cities are crying that it's a "giveaway". The FCC wants it to be $100 for applications and $270 per year. Some cities in Oregon charge $3,000.
Re: (Score:3)
Around here the telcos rent space on poles erected by municipal-owned electric utilities, but where I used to live those poles were in fact paid for and installed by the private monopoly utilities. They 'leased' rights fo way on otherwise public land, or came to agreements on private land.
This is first an overreach by the FCC to try and drive costs down for providers, in a way that actually need not be done.
Secondly, though local governments are not going to let revenue be denied to them.
Great stuff, let's
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but I'd MUCH rather have my local government get that revenue instead of some giant corporation.
I might actually benefit from the town getting some money to spend here.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather my local government have its revenue per cell transmitter dropped from ~3000 downto $270....... and then my G5 cellular bill will be lower in price too. (Also I can dump the overpriced Comcast monopoly for G5 instead.)
Re: (Score:2)
> Some cities in Oregon charge $3,000.
Wow. I wonder what Seattle charges since fast Internet access is so spotty here. An apartment building I lived in fought for over a decade to get just TV cable installed. The service was underground, so of course that takes a lot longer than just renting space on a pole, but that's still ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
What's more important, you having internet or the executives and investors of these companies having hookers and blow on tap without feeling out of pocket?
Stop being so demanding!!
Jeez, kids these days.
GOMDL.
Re: (Score:2)
http://imgur.com/WgSvnA5 [imgur.com]
Saved a link to that screenshot a while ago. Shows 1.5 Mbps to that address in the city limits of Seattle in the U District. I have several coworkers still on dial-up since they can't get even slow DSL that's reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
No free ride for you!
Tough cookies, Comrade!
Re:Giveaway is actually a shakedown (Score:5, Insightful)
If the city owns the poles why should the federal government be allowed to dictate the rental price?
Re: (Score:1)
Be.....cauuuuuuse..
they have more guns and therefore 'authority ?'
Re: (Score:3)
The 1930s Supreme Court already ruled Congress can set the prices on good that "affect interstate commerce" such as the price of wheat, eggs, milk. Eventually that was expanded to include Broadcast Radio, Cable TV, and now internet cellular transmitters.
Welcome to the world of centralized government.
Re: (Score:2)
If the city owns the poles why should the federal government be allowed to dictate the rental price?
Well, let's look at that.
What are on the poles besides power? Cable carrying data.
What's in this data? All sorts of communications, both private and commercial, including financial transactions.
Is all this commerce, commercial transactions, and private personal communications limited to within city limits or even State borders? No, it spans all States and even international borders.
What part of government regulates interstate and international trade, communications, monetary transactions, and commerce?
The F
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC set the lease prices RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) could charge competitors to lease their DSLAM ports and other network elements, in fact it required them to make this hardware available to their competitors - they had no choice.
I suspect this falls under the same legal authority.
Re: (Score:3)
Cities are shaking down carriers that put equipment on their streetlights, poles, etc. The FCC ....
The point is that the control of these poles is the right of local government the FCC's role is to regulate radio, carriers, and telecom services: No authority to force local governments to make land, poles, and other facilities available for use by carriers at cheap economical rates. The FCC has absolutely zero authority to require a city to sign a lease or a contract or limit what can be negotiated
Re: (Score:2)
Yet everyone wants faster cheaper internet.
In what fantasy world do you live in where cellular Internet access is ever faster or cheaper?
Hell, even SpaceX's Starlink should be a completely nonviable service. You can not violate the laws of physics. There's only so much spectrum, but vast amounts of fiber can be buried. If US ISPs weren't such an utter shitshow, Starlink would have no market. And I mean none, not even in rural areas, which could have fiber to the premises the same way they have electricity to the premises, except the ISPs managed
Had to dig to find this (Score:1)
The FCC order suggests up-front application fees of $100 for each small cell and annual fees of up to $270 per small cell. Cities that charge more than that would likely face litigation from carriers and would have to prove that the fees are a reasonable approximation of all costs and "non-discriminatory." Portland typically charges $3,000 per year, The Oregonian report said.
Some cities charge different rates in different areas to encourage deployment. New York City, for example, charges as little as $148 per month in underserved areas and $5,100 in parts of Manhattan, a Bloomberg story said.
So, if they charge more than a token fee, the city has to show that they charge that to everyone. I don't see how the NYC example is relevant. I suppose some people are arguing that geographic pricing models can be argued as discriminatory with respect to the companies trying to install infrastructure because reasons.(?)
It's not a "giveaway". It's a tax/fee limit. (Score:1)
The idea is that it will prevent local governments from abusing their power by gouging the deployment of 5G. (A.K.A. The "leaving town tax" from The Simpsons.)
Are the fees/taxes that bad? I have no clue. Will the existence of them raise/lower subscriber prices? Probably not.
But I don't know if it's not unprecedented. The FCC already has rules that apartment complex/HOAs (and probably local governments) can't block satellite use. This may be in their wheelhouse.
" F.C.C. " (Score:1)
Federal Cunts and Cocksuckers?
This is proof that itâ(TM)s good for the peop (Score:2)
$275 billion (Score:1)
WTF? That's about $1000 per customer. How much are people paying for their mobile plans? Wireless carriers will have barely made this money back and it will be time to roll out 6G.
$275 billion divided by 40 thousand cellphone towers = $6.875 million per cellphone tower.
And this is just an upgrade right???
Re: $275 billion (Score:1)
The range of 5g is ridiculously short. They are going to need to add new micro towers at least every quarter of a mile. 5g is fast because of the spectrum but the range is very short.
Love the misrepresentation... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Consider the source. They have their agenda and they will achieve it. Facts be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think the carriers are going to put a cell tower at the end of every driveway in rural America, even if access to the poles was free?
5G has a range of not much more then a thousand feet, at least at the frequencies (24-86 Ghz) needed to do much better then 4G.
can we stop editorilaizing the headline, please? (Score:3, Informative)
Does the FCC call it a "giveaway to wireless carriers?" If not, why are you injecting your bias into the headline instead of reporting the facts?
Re: (Score:2)
So, what if a company puts out a PR piece, do we have to use their language when discussing the company, because they're calling it that?
No. The summary is using a paraphrased version of the Article's title (which you would know if you RTFA)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Misrepresenting someone's argument in order to attack it is called the "Straw-man" fallacy.
I also know that the /. headline is simply parroting the ars one. However, just because ars is a hopelessly biased opinion source, doesn't mean that slashdot needs to be also.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you seem to believe that we should portray things as the organization doing it does. The FCC is not doing this in an attempt to help bring the internet to more people, they're doing this because Pai is an industry insider. The FCC is fully captured as a regulatory agency by the industry it's supposed to regulate.
Re:can we stop editorilaizing the headline, please (Score:4)
A proper non-biased headline would be: Cities Will Sue FCC to Protect $2 Billion in Lost Cellular Taxes
because that's what is ACTUALLY happening. Nobody is "giving" money to the corporations, like handing money to a bum on the street. Instead the FCC is reducing the Local Tax downto $270 per cell transmitter..... the end.
Read the Article, Not a $2 billion giveaway... (Score:3, Informative)
This has nothing to do with a giveaway to any telecom. Stupid title. It's fixing the price of new cell deployments. Oh I get it. Since some cities have been milking this for fat coin, of course they will sue. Wonder why you don't have so many towers? Annual license fees $3k in Portland per small cell? And the FCC wants to limit that to $270?
Sounds like a win for who? The consumer. Thanks for the lawsuit, Seattle. Again, more tax money wasted.
Also, 60 to 90 days to act to a new application? Let me guess, it take longer than 90 days, say a lot longer. Cities, how about you speed things up a bit.
Just a look from the other side.
Re:Read the Article, Not a $2 billion giveaway... (Score:4)
Liberals always use the word "giveaway" even if it's applied to Citizens, and even if it means "you pay less taxes or fees". Being allowed to keep more of your money is NOT a giveaway. It's letting you keep the money you labored to earn.
Re: (Score:3)
When a tree falls in the woods, does anyone hear it? When Anonymous Cowards speak, does anybody hear them?
Re: (Score:3)
P.S.
And of course the "technical people" at Ars Technica are completely in favor of letting cities charge upto $3000 per small cell.
Re:Read the Article, Not a $2 billion giveaway... (Score:4)
From Ars Technica: "We don't need spotty 5g in the world's most densly populated urban areas that use the same hard lines as their 4g predecessor. We need better 4g coverage overall, and better support for the 4g lines in place."
Ugh. A so-called technical person who is actually a Luddite.