telecommunications law. 2 update on wireless facilities siting issues national standards v. local...
Post on 17-Dec-2015
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1Telecommunications Law
2Telecommunications Law
Update on Wireless Facilities Siting IssuesNational Standards v. Local Control
SEATOA 2013 – Networking Communities for the New South Charlotte, NC – March 21, 2013
PRESENTED BY
Gail A KarishOf Counsel
3Telecommunications Law
Agenda
•Wireless industry growth•National Standards v. Local Control
1996: Telecommunications Act of 1996 2009: FCC Shot Clock Order 2010: National Broadband Plan 2011: FCC Rights of Way and Wireless Siting NOI 2012: Collocation Statute 2013: FCC Guidance Next…FCC Rulemaking and more
4Telecommunications Law
U.S. Wireless Industry Growth 1997 to 2012
Cell Sites Wireless Subscribers(in millions)
Source: CTIA Wireless Quick Facts ctia.org
38,650
131,350
210,360
285,561
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Jun-97 Jun-02 Jun-07 Jun-12
48.7
134.6
243.4
321.7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jun-97 Jun-02 Jun-07 Jun-12
5Telecommunications Law
Future Growth
•2012-2017 North America can expect 56% CAGR in mobile data traffic http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/
ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf (Cisco, Feb 2013)
•AT&T Wireless alone has plans to deploy over 1,000 Distributed Antenna Systems and over 40,000 small cells
Telecommunications Law
National Standards v.
Local Control of Wireless Siting
7Telecommunications Law
Round 1 – 1996 Act
47 U.S.C. §253 – Removal of Barriers to Entry Preempts local laws that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide telecommunications services; EXCEPT, e.g. nondiscriminatory requirements with respect to management of rights-of-way and compensation for right-of-way use; police power regulations.
47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7) – Preservation of Local Zoning Authority Localities maintain control over “the placement, construction and
modification” of any personal wireless service facility, but siting decisions must conform to certain federal due process limitations.
8Telecommunications Law
1996 Act
•Congress rejected FCC jurisdiction over zoning•Supreme Court agreed:
Congress “initially considered a single national solution, namely, a Federal Communications Commission wireless tower siting policy that would pre-empt state and local authority. But Congress ultimately rejected the national approach and substituted a system based on cooperative federalism. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 128 (2005) (Breyer J., concurring)
9Telecommunications Law
But Congress Did Establish Due Process Requirements
• Local regulation shall not: unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services; prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services• Must act on a request within a reasonable period.• Decision to deny must be in writing and supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record.• Court remedy: must exercise within 30 days of denial,
or failure to act on application.
10Telecommunications Law
1997 to 2009
• Section 332 case law developed• Telcos grow wireless business, mergers• Some wireless legislation at the state level, e.g.,
California wireless collocation statute• Federal deregulatory action on wireline side• Deregulation of telcos, cable, Internet• Rise and fall of CLECs• Consolidation in wireline and wireless industries
11Telecommunications Law
Round 2 – FCC Shot Clock Order (Nov 2009)
•Responds to a wireless industry petition•Defines “reasonable period”
150 days for new siting application 90 days for collocation request
•Defines an “effective prohibition” A denial solely because “one or more carriers serve
a given geographic market”
12Telecommunications Law
City of Arlington, et al v. FCC
•Does the FCC have jurisdiction to make national “shot clock” rules implementing Section 332(c)(7)?
•Argued in January 2013 at Supreme Court •Decision expected before end of June 2013
13Telecommunications Law
Round 3 – National Broadband Plan (2010)
•Congress mandated FCC develop plan•Seeks to foster wireline-wireless competition*
* But 2012 Verizon Wireless-Cable joint marketing venture approved
•Seeks to remove “barriers” to broadband deployment Pole attachment rates Access to public rights of way Expedite placement of wireless towers
14Telecommunications Law
Round 4 – Rights of Way and Wireless Siting NOI (2011)
•FCC initiated Notice of Inquiry to remove “barriers” to broadband deployment
•Modest response by wireline industry•Big response by wireless industry, including
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS)
15Telecommunications Law
Distributed Antenna Systems
16Telecommunications Law
17Telecommunications Law
Rights of Way and Wireless Siting NOI
•Met by big response by national associations representing local
governments individual local governments
•Outcome so far: No binding rules or further proceedings initiated DAS and Small Cell Workshop (Feb. 1, 2012)
18Telecommunications Law
Round 5 – 2012 Collocation Statute47 U.S.C. §1455(a) – Modification of Towers/Base Stations
(1) IN GENERAL ….a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.(2) “eligible facilities request” means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves— (A) collocation of new transmission equipment;(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
19Telecommunications Law
What is what?
20Telecommunications Law
What is what?
21Telecommunications Law
What is covered?
Only freestanding towers? Or DAS too?
22Telecommunications Law
Round 6 – FCC Guidance (Jan 2013)• 47 U.S.C. §1403(a) FCC shall implement and enforce
this chapter • Guidance Issued by FCC’s Wireless Bureau
Defines “substantially change” through criteria developed in a different context (historic preservation)• For example, no “substantial change” if an addition extends a facility
less than 20 feet in any direction Offers broad definition of “base station” that could make
statute apply to many facilities, including utility poles Does not discuss safety, aesthetic, or related issues NON-BINDING BUT WILL BE USED BY INDUSTRY TO SAY THIS
IS WHAT YOU SHALL APPROVE
23Telecommunications Law
February 2013 Ex Parte
•Local jurisdictions explain facts/implications of Guidance
The following slides are based on position taken by some in industry that under the FCC Guidance, an installation must be permitted if it involves a change in size less than that specified in the Guidance. We do not agree with that reading of the Guidance.
24Telecommunications Law
Historic Site - NowHistoric 50’-high silos with approved attachment of six panel antennas painted to match exterior surface to minimize visual
impact. Located at Dufief Mill Road and MD Route 28 (Darnestown Road) in Montgomery County, Maryland.
25Telecommunications Law
Historic Site – Post Guidance?Illustration showing potential impact of co-location of an additional approximately 20’-high pole mounted antenna array.
26Telecommunications Law
Stealth Site – Now
100’ monopole disguised as a flagpole constructed to conceal six panel antennas within its exterior. Located
on Brightseat Road alongside I-95 in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
27Telecommunications Law
Stealth Site – Post Guidance?
Illustration shows the potential impact of an approximately 20’-high extension to support a co-
location of antennas in a typical triangular platform array (partially shown at top of frame) and smaller co-
location in a flush-mount attachment configuration atop the existing monopole.
28Telecommunications Law
Rooftop Stealth Site – NowTwo-story office building located on Layhill Road at Bonifant Road in Montgomery County with antennas from
three carriers permitted by Special Exception and either concealed within the faux screening atop the penthouse on the roof or painted to match the exterior of the screening or brick walls.
29Telecommunications Law
Rooftop Stealth Site – Post Guidance? Illustration of a tower-like structure constructed to support co-location antennas approximately 20’ above
existing antennas.
30Telecommunications Law
Brickyard Rd. DAS Site – Neighborhood
31Telecommunications Law
Brickyard Rd. DAS Site – NowPole to support DAS antennas (68’ high) now at Brickyard Road in Montgomery County (part of a multi-node
installation that extends down Brickyard Road)
32Telecommunications Law
Brickyard Rd. DAS Site – Post Guidance?Illustration of an extension to existing utility pole with additional structural bracing and guy wires to support the extension, which rises approximately 20’ above existing DAS antennas. Blocks at bottom reflect related typical pole-mounted equipment cabinets.
33Telecommunications Law
Safety Impacts Under Guidance?Photo of children on approach to a FiOS fiber optic cable enclosure mounted on a utility pole on a sidewalk in
Montgomery County, Maryland. A similar or more intrusive structure could be placed at the same location by a DAS provider.
34Telecommunications Law
Safety Impacts Under Guidance?This type of installation would also block a handicapped ramp to access the sidewalk. DAS system operators have
installed obstructing facilities in cities like Lafayette, CA: http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/special-report-new-cell-towers-improved-reception/vF3Mq/, showing DAS
expansion.
35Telecommunications Law
Next Rounds – FCC Rulemaking?• Genachowski on Collocation Statute: “This provision will
accelerate deployment and delivery of high-speed mobile broadband to communities across the nation.”
• Genachowski on what’s next: actions in the coming months to further streamline DAS and
small cell deployment examine whether current application of the tower siting
shot clock offers sufficient clarity to industry and municipalities; and
begin developing model facility siting rules for localities
36Telecommunications Law
Take Aways• Absence of competition will affect prices local
governments pay for communications services• Expect continued efforts at
national wireless siting standards preemption of local control over access to and pricing of local
government property state regulatory restrictions that prevent a third way (self-provisioning)
• Be prepared to respond quickly to these efforts and early in the decision-making process to provide solid facts and arguments
• Need to pool resources to engage effectively in defensive efforts at state and federal levels
37Telecommunications Law
Thank you for attending
Gail A. Karish 2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400
Ontario, California 91761 2000 Pennsylvania NW, Suite
4300 Washington, DC 20006 Direct (909) 466-4916 Mobile (213) 605-1603 Email gail.karish@bbklaw.com Full bio available at:
www.bbklaw.com/gail-karish
top related