Section 6409(b)(1): Mandatory Wireless Siting on Federal Property?

I’ve spent a lot of time and spilled a lot of ink writing about Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (H.R. 3630).  That’s the poorly conceived and equally poorly written section addressing wireless collocations at some existing wireless sites.

This posting is not about 6409(a).

Rather, in this post I turn my attention to Section 6409(b)(1) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.  That section sets out a new federal policy regarding wireless siting on federal property and federal buildings.  As we all know, there’s a lot of federal property, and a heck of a lot of federal buildings.

Let’s start with a quick review of 6409(b)(1), which is the meat of the section:

Sec. 6409
. . .

(1) GRANT.—If an executive agency, a State, a political subdivision or agency of a State, or a person, firm, or organization applies for the grant of an easement or right-of-way to, in, over, or on a building or other property owned by the Federal Government for the right to install, construct, and maintain wireless service antenna structures and equipment and backhaul transmission equipment, the executive agency having control of the building or other property may grant to the applicant, on behalf of the Federal Government, an easement or right-of-way to perform such installation, construction, and maintenance.

I’ve recently heard that some members of the public are looking at Section 6409(b) as some sort of Congressional mandate requiring the federal government property be made available for the installation of wireless sites.

Not so.

Section 6409(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act does not require that federal agencies lease their property, buildings, roads, waterways, etc. to anyone, much less to wireless entities.   Section 6409(b)(1) makes it clear via one very important word (“may”) that the approval is not mandatory; rather it is permissive and approval may be withheld.

The discretion the federal government reserves to itself is perfectly logical when you think about it.  Consider, for example, national security and operational reasons why Congress would not want 6409(b) to require wireless siting on federal property.

Look at who is permitted to apply for such an easement under 6409(b)(1), including any: “…executive agency, a State, a political subdivision or agency of a State, or a person, firm, or organization”.  Virtually anyone (and I mean anyone) can apply to access federal property to install a wireless site.

Yet, would anyone with a straight face suggest that a foreign government (an “organization” within the meaning of the Section) could compel the National Security Agency to allow it to put equipment and antennas on top of the NSA headquarters building at Fort Meade?

Similarly, would anyone reasonably suggest that a secured research facility operated by a federal agency must open access to its property to allow for the installation and operation of antennas that might cause facility security concerns, or interfere with sensitive experiments?

To torture this discussion just a bit more, would anyone actually believe that Section 6409(b) would compel the installation of wireless antennas within the National Radio Quiet Zone at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Green Bank, WV or at the radio receiving facilities for the United States Navy in Sugar Grove, WV?

(Huh? You didn’t know there was a place in the U.S. where the only public telephones are pay telephones, and where government agents will hunt you down for installing a Wi-Fi at your home or for using a cell phone? See:

To all of the above, the rational answer is an obvious, ‘Of course not.’

At the end of the day, the federal government has created a general policy…but absolutely no requirement…that wireless facilities be allowed on federal property and buildings on a fee-basis, and within reasonable limits to be determined by each agency and at each location.  Logically, this would also allow the federal government the right to exclude wireless facilities at any federal location for practically any valid reason.

Here’s an interesting question and wrinkle regarding wireless siting outside of the U.S. territorial limits.  Does Section 6409(b)(1) allow a wireless firm, whether foreign or domestic, to apply to siting on U.S. federal lands and buildings physically located  in other countries?  For example, would 6409(b)(1) open the door for Vodafone U.K. to apply put a cell tower on the grounds of the U.S. Embassy, located on prime real estate at 24 Grosvenor Square in  London?

Section 6409(a) is a mess.

Section 6409(b)(1) joins the ranks of 6409(a).



Time Warner Making a (Wireless) Ruckus

Ruckus Wireless ZoneFlex 7761-CM installed by Time Warner in Los Angeles, California.

In the midst of its deployment of WiFi (and likely more) in Southern California, Time Warner has started to install WiFi nodes manufactured by Ruckus Wireless, specifically the Ruckus ZoneFlex 7761-CM.

Previously, Time Warner has been widely deploying Belair Networks gear.

The Ruckus 7761-CM is an intriguing node, supporting “8 downstream and 4 upstream bonded channels with theoretical data rates of up to 340 Mbps (downstream) and 130 Mbps (upstream).”  Okay, those are theoretical data rates, but even if they can only achieve half that, this is still a box to be contended with by competitors, and enjoyed by users.

The Ruckus gear, like Belair’s equipment, is plant-powered and strand mounted.  This means that TW (or any cable operator using this configuration of equipment) can often deploy WiFi without going through the joint pole committee for permission, and likely permissibly…or not..bypassing the local cable franchising authority.

An interesting use for the 7761-CM is delivering broadband services from outdoors to extend managed wireless LANs (WLANs) locations and where Ethernet cabling is not feasible.  In English, this means that these boxes can be used to provide point-to-point Ethernet (10, 20, 100 Mbs etc) which would have typically required fiber extension.

In states like California, which restrict how non-cable services are provided via cable plant, this box continues TWs apparent encroachment outside the bounds of its state-issued cable TV franchise and its CPCN restricting deployment of business services to cable users.

For an interesting map of TW’s current deployment, check out Time Warner’s WiFi/3G/4G map here.

WiFi (and 3G/4G) node deployment is something that should be carefully evaluated by governments, and by the DAS industry.

For governments, the questions center around about who regulates what services, permitting, and proper compensation for the use of the public rights-of-way from local users, hourly users, and users from other cable systems and operators granting access on a reciprocal basis.  I’m working with several of my government clients crafting language in their new wireless ordinances to address these issues.

For the DAS industry, its single greatest threat is cable TV’s deployment of wireless nodes using the existing CATV plant for backhaul, and the overhead strand and pedestals for radio mounts.  The cable TV industry beats DAS hands down every time for deployment economics and time-to-market.  For more on this, see my article in the April 2102 edition of AGL Magazine.


PS: I snapped the photo for this article just 1/2 block south of my office here in Los Angeles. -jlk


Christy O’Berry, Esq., LL.M, PE

I’m very pleased to announce that Kramer Telecom Law Firm’s Associate Counsel, Christy O’Berry received word late yesterday that she has passed all of the required examinations, and is now officially licensed as a Professional Engineer in the State of California.

Passing the California P.E. exam is no mean feat, but also no surprise for this classic overachiever, who also:

(a) is licensed as an Attorney in California;
(b) is licensed as a Patent Attorney by the USPTO;
(c) is licensed as a Professional Engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia;
(d) was awarded an LL.M degree (Master of Laws) from U.C.L.A.;
(e) has a whole bunch of other achievements to her credit.

Yes, to be sure, I’m very happy for and proud of Christy and her latest achievement!