You, FCC, tell us again why cities are only allowed to charge rich telcos $270 to attach 5G tech to utility poles? The controversial decision by the FCC to impose a $270 limit on what cities are allowed to charge mobile operators for hosting a 5G cell on their utility poles finally came up for judicial review this week. The per-pole-per-year fee is only one part of a larger year-long battle between US states and the federal regulator over …
> The judge interrupted him: “So how did you get to $270?” We're still waiting for an answer.
Because if it costs a city more than $270 per cell "to run through the process to approve and install" they're a bloated bureaucracy? Also bear in mind that:
- It's an annual fee. If the city lose out initially, they'll make it up later.
- Economies of scale. It's likely to be 100+ sites/applications, that can be processed en masse.
- If the citizens want 5G, they're not going to be happy with the city pushing the costs up.
Unusually, the FCC seems to be doing its job here, lowering the barriers to tech rollout.
Of course I could be wrong. The FCC is notoriously business-friendly, maybe the flat-fee model stinks.
"Because if it costs a city more than $270 per cell "to run through the process to approve and install" they're a bloated bureaucracy? Also bear in mind that:"
That's about 3-4 hours of work, once you include all the costs of hiring someone. If you aren't just saying 'yes', and are actually looking at the application, going to the place to see if it's feasible and appropriate, looking at the other sites to see if it's duplication, etc., it should take more than four hours.
Fixed fees have a place if you can then ensure that the extra revenue they save from large cities is used to subsidize other locations. However it seems from the article that this is an assumption by the FCC and not a formal requirement. Meaning businesses can completely ignore it if they want.
Are there people out there that still think businesses will provide services just because they want to be good to society?
There is a cost doing business and if a business is unwilling or unable to pay that cost it is either a bad business decision to proceed, a broken business model, or the business, itself, is unable to compete.
People seem to forget that "for profit business" is a risk. Businesses can make huge profits, if they succeed. No "for profit business" should be given government subsides or have costs, to that business, fixed by the government or any its agencies.
> If the citizens want 5G, they're not going to be happy with the city pushing the costs up.
Correct, which means that the citizenry will force the city to levy smaller fees. If the citizens don't care (and, at least in my part of the country, most couldn't care less), then everything's good. I don't see the problem here.
> Unusually, the FCC seems to be doing its job here, lowering the barriers to tech rollout.
That isn't the FCC's job.
>Unusually, the FCC seems to be doing its job here, lowering the barriers to tech rollout.
Has the FCC also capped the ground rent land and building owners can charge for hosting 5G tech?
I suspect the idea of even having a price cap only occurs to people when they are considering the use of public land and other assets and how they might be used in the pursuit of profit by for-profit businesses.
Mind you I can see the Conservatives doing this here with the compulsory property purchase compensation - fastest way to lower the total cost of HS2 and other major infrastructure projects...
Unusually, the FCC seems to be doing its job here, lowering the barriers to tech rollout
No - the FCC is being its usualy regulatory-captured self and imposing rules on others when they don't have the right to, purely in order to allow the telcos to make more money. Remember - Agit Pai was (and will be again) a fully-paid up member of Verizon staff and, it could be argued, still works vigourously on their behalf rather than working to prevent them abusing US citizens.
The whole thing stinks worse than a haddock left out in the midday sun for weeks.
"small government is best".
Which is why Das Cheeto's administration not only fixes a market price without feeling the need to show the data used to establish such, they ALSO give themselves the power to veto higher fees in [supposedly free] markets that may support / justify it.
The Orange One's slight-of-hand at work again.
...as Das Cheeto seeks to influence the courts regarding his friend/thug/convicted criminal Roger Stone. But that's OK because we're supposed to be "adult" about it, and allow such things to roll off our backs.
Tammany Hall 2020 is OK, as long as it's *us* doing the dirty deeds, apparently.
Was "slight-of-hand" a clever reference to Trumps supposedly slight (small) hands, or did you mean "sleight"? sleight-vs-slight
... that the money “saved” by forcing cities to charge the minimum price will then be used by mobile operators to fund greater roll-out of 5G cells in the rest of the country ...
Bullshit FCCshit.
Just more crap the FCC pulled out of it's ass.
In the US, the FCC is in the telcos' pockets in the same way regulators in many other countries throughout the world are.
Communicacion, from wired telephone all the way trough to cable/dish TV, internet in it's various forms and 5G is a public service which has to be properly regulated, in the interest of the public, not in the interest of the telcos.
O.
Unless I am much mistaken FCC stands for Federal Communications Commission.
Why is it interfering in matters which its remit does not (or should not) cover? Surely the charges payable by telcos ought to be determined by the owners / operators of the utility poles. If I was the owner of a network of utility poles I would insist that I had the right to determine what charges should be paid by those wishing to rent space on them and that the regulator for the prospective renters should bugger off and mind his own business.
Perhaps the utility companies should retaliate by specifying the maxmum that they will pay for 'phone calls, i.e. much less than now.
The telco's wanted easy access to street furniture to install there kit. As you state, the owners of the poles expect fair payment for their use - it wouldn't surprise me if telco's expect to be able reclaim costs for equipment damage in the event of a problem with the poles.
So the telco's agreed on $270/location was fair, called in Pai to discuss the figure and inserted it into his "policy dispenser" while he bent over obligingly.
Perhaps the utilities should sell off their poles - yes you dear citizen can own your own utility pole, for which we will pay you a small consideration... Now the pole is no longer owned "by the city", so not subject to the FCC ruling.
The second thing is to start getting creative about unbundling the charges: the provision of a reliable power supply is not 5G tech, the exact place on the pole you wish to occupy isn't 5G tech, it is just the 'apartment' you are renting to put your 5G tech in...
Cost per pole varies widely. The hourly rate to process depends on the local cost of living and prevailing wages. Des Moines can afford a much lower fee than San Francisco because you have to pay people enough to live in the Bay area.,
And despite their protests about aesthetic issues, there are real concerns especially in historic districts. Slapping a fuggly bit of kit in the French Quarter or Savannah's old city is different than putting it on the side of a brutalist office slab.
Yes, and besides differences in wages, dense urban areas are likely to present more difficulties when working on utility poles. Busy streets may need traffic control around utility trucks, for example. And in dense urban areas there may be more equipment, on average, on poles - more pole-to-building lines, more pole transformers, and so on - which could complicate installing the 5G units and make installation take longer.
The FCC's cap is a complete and utter fantasy, simply another example of Pai and his minions openly abusing their power.
> Portland might not think its additional fees were too much but if every other city in Oregon were making similar demands or nationwide, this is prohibitive.
So what? If cities set the price so high that nobody is willing to install the system, then the system doesn't get installed. That seems like the sort of thing that cities should have the right to decide. The FCC is acting like rolling out 5G is some kind of national security thing that needs to be forced on everyone. It is not, and it shouldn't be.
No no, it's more important than 'national security'. The security of the telco's profits is at risk!
As everyone knows (and if you don't, you soon will citizen!), profits must come before people. It's written in the constitution, in that special section that you don't get to read because you're not rich enough.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
