Category: General

California: Senate Bill 378 Proposes Bill to Allow for Fiber in Microtrenchs in the PROW

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Our telecom friends have caused a new Senate Bill to be in the hopper in Sacramento.  SB 378 would require local governments to permit the use of microtrenching (add that term to your spellcheck dictionary now) for the installation of new fiber optic cables.

A microtrench is defined in the Bill as being “…a narrow open excavation trench that is less than or equal to 4 inches in width and not less than 12 inches in depth and not more than 26 inches in depth and that is created for the purpose of installing a subsurface pipe or conduit” where “[t]he provider of fiber facilities shall determine the method of the installation of fiber.”

Public Works Directors and City/County Engineers around the state are likely to have real problems with the text of the bill because of their experiences with microtrenching, including without limitation to the difficulties in achieving safe and long-term reliability of these small width and limited depth trenches. Even more troubling is the proviso that “[t]he provider of fiber facilities shall determine the method of the installation of fiber.”

Here’s the current proposed text of the legislation (as of the date of introduction, February 10, 2021):

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill
No. 378

Introduced by Senator Gonzalez
(Coauthors: Senators Hertzberg and Wiener)

February 10, 2021

An act to add Sections 65964.5 and 65964.6 to the Government Code, relating to local government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 378, as introduced, Gonzalez. Local government: broadband infrastructure development project permit processing: microtrenching permit processing ordinance.

Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over public utilities, including electrical corporations. The commission’s existing Electric Tariff Rule 20 establishes policies for the undergrounding of electric facilities and includes, among other programs, the Rule 20A undergrounding program , which requires electrical corporations to convert overhead electric facilities to underground facilities when doing so is in the public interest for specified reasons.

This bill would authorize a provider of fiber facilities to determine the method of the installation of fiber. The bill would prohibit a local agency, as defined, from prohibiting, or unreasonably discriminating in favor of or against the use of, aerial installations, open trenching or boring, or microtrenching, but would authorize a local agency to prohibit aerial deployment of fiber where no aboveground utilities exist due to Electric Tariff Rule 20 or other existing underground requirements.

This bill would require a local agency to allow fiber to be installed in the same fashion as the existing aboveground utilities where aboveground utilities are present. The bill would provide that this provision controls over any undergrounding ordinance adopted by the local agency that requires all utilities to bury existing overhead facilities pursuant the Overhead Conversion Program established by the commission pursuant to Electric Tariff Rule 20. The bill would require a local agency to allow microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber. By imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to the installation of fiber, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, governs the approval process that a city or county is required to follow when approving, among other things, a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility and a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility.

This bill would authorize a city or county to impose on an applicant for a permit for a broadband infrastructure development project a reasonable fee for costs associated with the submission, and the expedited review, processing, and approval of an application, including, but not limited to, personnel costs as necessary, if the applicant elects for the expedited review and processing and agrees to pay that fee.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. This act shall be known as the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Best Practices Act of 2021.

SEC. 2. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Californians need improved access to high-speed internet now more than ever to meet a variety of demands including, but not limited to, remote work, distance learning, telehealth, emergency response and public safety, agriculture, innovation, and commerce.

(b) High-speed internet is delivered to Californians through wireline and wireless broadband infrastructure that is installed either aerially or underground. Wireless broadband service relies on wireline facilities, especially fiber backhaul lines.

(c) Deployment of fiber is critical to connect more Californians to high-speed internet.

(d) Quick and cost-effective ways to install fiber include trenching and boring, microtrenching, and aerially using existing utility poles or other vertical infrastructure along the intended fiber route.

(e) By allowing these different methods of fiber installation and expediting fiber permit applications, local agencies will help promote the deployment of fiber for high-speed internet access across California.

SEC. 3. Section 65964.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.5.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Fiber” means fiber optic cables, and related ancillary equipment such as conduit, ancillary cables, hand holes, vaults and terminals.

(2) “Local agency” means a city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or publicly owned utility.

(3) “Microtrench” means a narrow open excavation trench that is less than or equal to 4 inches in width and not less than 12 inches in depth and not more than 26 inches in depth and that is created for the purpose of installing a subsurface pipe or conduit.

(4) “Microtrenching” means excavation of a microtrench.

(b)

(1) The provider of fiber facilities shall determine the method of the installation of fiber.

(2) A local agency shall not prohibit, or unreasonably discriminate in favor of or against the use of, aerial installations, open trenching or boring, or microtrenching.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), a local agency may prohibit aerial deployment of fiber where no aboveground utilities exist due to Public Utilities Commission Electric Tariff Rule 20 or other existing underground requirements.

(c) Fiber installations subject to this section shall be subject to both of the following:

(1) Where existing aboveground utilities are present, the local agency shall allow fiber to be installed in the same fashion as the existing aboveground utilities. This paragraph shall control over any undergrounding ordinance adopted by the local agency that requires all utilities to bury existing overhead facilities pursuant to the Overhead Conversion Program established by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Electric Tariff Rule 20, except that the provider of fiber facilities shall underground its fiber at the time other utilities remove their aerial facilities pursuant to any undergrounding ordinance of the local agency.

(2)

(A) The local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations shall allow microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber.

(B) Upon mutual agreement, a microtrench may be placed shallower than 12 inches in depth in areas that are not beneath a paved roadway.

(d) For purposes of this section, the time periods established by the applicable Federal Communication Commission rules contained in Subpart U (commencing with Section 1.6001) of Part 1 of Subchapter A of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations for a small wireless telecommunications facility using an existing structure shall apply to an application for a fiber installation.

(e) An application for a permit to install fiber shall include payment of a reasonable fee set by the local agency to cover the cost of processing the application.

(f) This section does not preclude an applicant and the local agency from mutually agreeing to an extension of any time limit provided by this section.

(g) The Legislature finds and declares that installation of fiber is critical to the deployment of broadband services and other utility services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 4. Section 65964.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.6.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Applicant” means a person or entity who submits an application.
(2) “Application” means an application for a permit to install fiber.
(3) “Local Agency” means a city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or publicly owned utility.
(4) “Personnel costs” includes the costs of hiring or employing temporary or permanent local agency employees, consultants, or contractors.

(b) A local agency may impose on an applicant a reasonable fee for costs associated with the submission of, and the expedited review, processing, and approval of, an application, including, but not limited to, personnel costs as necessary, if the applicant elects for the expedited review and processing and agrees to pay that fee.

(c) This section does not amend or alter the civil service laws of this state or any local agency.SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

Public Works Directors and City/County Engineers should start discussing the bill text with each other with an eye to addressing key issues.

I expect that the LCC will get involved.  There’s a lot to talk about, and to talk about very soon.

Jonathan

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

April Fools is NOT April Fools

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Today two big events (so far) have occurred.

First, the FCC published its new RF emissions safety standards in the Federal Register.  The new rules become effective on June 1, 2020.  In May I’ll be leading a webinar for our clients and friends on the new rules, and how to implement them.

Second, the T-Mobile Sprint merger closed today.  Who will be the fool has yet to be seen, but Sprint AND T-Mobile cell site landlords (and especially cell site landlords with both Sprint and T-Mobile leases) must be very careful over the coming months.  When they get any papers from anyone representing Sprint, T-Mobile, or the New T-Mobile, they should take the time to carefully consider what’s before them before signing on ANY dotted (or undotted) line.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Wireless Industry Trying to Add Small Cell Rules to Covid-19 Recovery Legislation

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Word from Capitol Hill is that wireless industry lobbyists are pushing hard for inclusion of the text of the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act in Covid-19 stimulus legislation.

The STREAMLINE Act (which is better called the Steamroller Act), has been sharply opposed by local governments and our national organizations.  That act would codify in federal law the Federal Communications Commission’s small cell preemption regulations.  It would include adding into federal law a “deemed granted” penalty for shot clock overruns essentially regardless of the reason for the delay.  This ‘Christmas Tree Ornament’ inclusion of the Steamroller Act into vital legislation to get the economy going again would permanently constrain local governments’ decision making authority over small cell infrastructure, and the ability of local governments to charge appropriate compensation for the use of the public’s local rights of way.

It is vital that citizens and local governments reach out to their congressional delegations in both chambers to oppose its inclusion.

The National League of cities has a template opposition letter that can be used: See www.nlc.org/takeaction.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Dr Kramer to speak at AGL Summit in Seattle on 1/30/20

Dr Kramer to speak at AGL Summit in Seattle on 1/30/20

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Dr. Jonathan Kramer will be the sole local government panelist at the “Muni Ordinances, Small Cell Designs and the Complexities of Density” panel this week at AGL’s Summit in Seattle.  Four industry reps against Jonathan…seems evenly balanced 😉

The day-long event will take place on Thursday, January 30, 2020.

The full introduction to Jonathan’s panel topic is:

“Wireless siting has long been a controversial topic.  With small cells, the wireless industry and municipalities have seen even more conflict.  Learn about the FCC’s rule changes, municipalities’ concerns about small cells, the public’s fear of 5G RF, and the industry’s’ response with aesthetically pleasing small cells.”    

Here’s a link to the information and registration page:

https://www.aglmediagroup.com/event/agl-local-summit-2020-seattle/

The AGL Summits are always interesting, and I recommend interested parties attend. I enjoy attending and speaking as a perceived enemy of deployment under this theory:

See you in Seattle (actually, Newcastle, Washington)…

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

FCC Amends Small Cell Rules per DC Circuit Court

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Some commenters have described the DC Circuit’s decision in United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. FCC, No. 18–1129, 2019 WL 3756373 (D.C. Cir Aug. 9, 2019) as being some sort of a magic bullet 5G/small cell killer.  They also claim that the decision nullifies much of the FCC’s small cell rules, citing primarily to the personal observations of a FCC Commissioner.

I wish all that were true.

In fact, however, those commenters are only expressing their wishful, non-lawyer’s reading of the limited scope of the United Keetoowah decision.  That’s why the ten local government cases now being litigated in the 9th Circuit remain the most important fights citizens have to truly set aside the FCC’s misguided, unjustified, industry-loving rules.

Lets take a look at what the FCC actually did to respond to the D.C. Circuit’s United Keetoowah decision:

First, the FCC amended 47 C.R.R. § 1.1312 to reduce the scope of the rule.  Here’s a before and after comparison of the existing rule followed by the replacement rule that becomes effective on 12/5/2019:

Original
Text		 Text Effective
12/5/2019		 Text
Difference
§ 1.1312 Facilities for which no preconstruction authorization is required. § 1.1312 Facilities for which no preconstruction authorization is required. None
(a) In the case of facilities for which no Commission authorization prior to construction is required by the Commission‘s rules and regulations the licensee or applicant shall initially ascertain whether the proposed facility may have a significant environmental impact as defined in § 1.1307 of this part or is categorically excluded from environmental processing under § 1.1306 of this part. (a) In the case of facilities for which no Commission authorization prior to construction is required by the Commission‘s rules and regulations the licensee or applicant shall initially ascertain whether the proposed facility may have a significant environmental impact as defined in § 1.1307 of this part or is categorically excluded from environmental processing under § 1.1306 of this part. None
(b) If a facility covered by paragraph (a) of this section may have a significant environmental impact, the information required by § 1.1311 of this part shall be submitted by the licensee or applicant and ruled on by the Commission, and environmental processing (if invoked) shall be completed, see § 1.1308 of this part, prior to the initiation of construction of the facility. (b) If a facility covered by paragraph (a) of this section may have a significant environmental impact, the information required by § 1.1311 of this part shall be submitted by the licensee or applicant and ruled on by the Commission, and environmental processing (if invoked) shall be completed, see § 1.1308 of this part, prior to the initiation of construction of the facility. None
(c) If a facility covered by paragraph (a) of this section is categorically excluded from environmental processing, the licensee or applicant may proceed with construction and operation of the facility in accordance with the applicable licensing rules and procedures. (c) If a facility covered by paragraph (a) of this section is categorically excluded from environmental processing, the licensee or applicant may proceed with construction and operation of the facility in accordance with the applicable licensing rules and procedures. None
(d) If, following the initiation of construction under this section, the licensee or applicant discovers that the proposed facility may have a significant environmental effect, it shall immediately cease construction which may have that effect, and submit the information required by § 1.1311 of this part. The Commission shall rule on that submission and complete further environmental processing (if invoked), see § 1.1308 of this part, before such construction is resumed. (d) If, following the initiation of construction under this section, the licensee or applicant discovers that the proposed facility may have a significant environmental effect, it shall immediately cease construction which may have that effect, and submit the information required by § 1.1311 of this part. The Commission shall rule on that submission and complete further environmental processing (if invoked), see § 1.1308 of this part, before such construction is resumed. None
(e) Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section shall not apply: e) Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section shall not apply to the construction of mobile stations. Rule changed to limit the scope of (a) through (d) to not apply to the construction of mobile stations.
(1) To the construction of mobile stations; or

(2) Where the deployment of facilities meets the following conditions:

(i) The facilities are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in § 1.1320(d), or the facilities are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or the facilities do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;

(ii) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding the associated equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in § 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

(iii) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and

(iv) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter; and

(v) The facilities are not located on tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

(vi) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in § 1.1307(b).

 Text deleted

Then the Commission changed one small element of 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002 to delete the cross reference back to § 1.1312(e)(2).  Here’s a before and after comparison of the existing rule followed by the replacement rule that becomes effective on 12/5/2019:

Original
Text

Text Effective
12/5/2019

Text
Difference
(l) Small wireless facilities, consistent with § 1.1312(e)(2), are facilities that meet each of the following conditions: (l) Small wireless facilities are facilities that meet each of the following conditions: Deleted: “, consistent with § 1.1312(e)(2),”
(1) The facilities –

(i) Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in § 1.1320(d); or

 (1) The facilities –

(i) Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in § 1.1320(d); or

 None
(ii) Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or

 

 (ii) Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or

 

 None

 
(iii) Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;

 

 (iii) Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;

 

 None

 
(2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of “antenna” in § 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

 

 (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in § 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

 

 None

 
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;

 

 (3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;

 

 None

 
(4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter;

 

 (4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter;

 

 None

 
(5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

 

 (5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

 

 None

 
(6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in § 1.1307(b).

 

 (6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in § 1.1307(b).

 

 None

 

don’t believe me? Take a look at a PDF copy of the official FCC rule changes published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2019, and effective on December 5, 2019: Small Cell Rules Changes Effective 12-5-2019 – FCC2019-24071.

Are the new rule changes a small cell killer? Sorry…No.

…a 5G killer? Not even close.

…wishful thinking? Yup.

Let’s keep our eyes on the right Small Cell rules fight, being fought in the right venue…the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If you’re a member of the public really interested in changing fundamental concepts of wireless rules to be set and/or enforced by the FCC, then you should also fight your fight in the right venue, which is not before a local government that is obligated to follow state and federal laws, regardless of how little some may think about following the laws that exist.  Consider visiting your Member of Congress and your U.S. Senators. Only they have the power to accomplish the fundamental changes that some members of the public wish to see happen.

Jonathan

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Coalition of Concerned Utilities Reply Comments in 6409(a) Petition

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Here’s a choice quote from the Coalition of Concerned Utilities who oppose the wireless industry’s attempt to get the FCC to change the 6409(a) rules:

Careless requests by Crown Castle and others to relax utility construction and design standards and to experiment downward is like asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to order bumpers, airbags, head restraints and other safety gear to be removed to see whether cars can be built for less money without an increase in injuries.

If you’d like to read the entire reply comments from the CCU, please  CLICK HERE.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Western Communities Coalition 6409(a) Reply Comments

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Last night the Western Communities Coalition, represented by Telecom Law Firm PC (San Diego and Los Angeles) and Kissinger and Fellman (Denver), filed lengthy and detailed Reply Comments with the FCC in the current Section 6409(a) proceedings.

The Coalition’s Reply Comments site widespread wireless industry misrepresentations and abuses of the current process, and how those misrepresentations and abuse has can only become worse if the Commission grants the industry’s petitions.

Unfortunately, the Commission’s reply period was far less than sought by local governments and others maligned by the wireless industry. We will be traveling to Washington DC to meet with the Commission armed with many, many more very specific and damming examples about wireless industry exaggerations and outright misrepresentations perpetrated against local governments, and now the Commission.

Linked below is a copy of the WCC Reply Comments.

Jonathan

JOINT REPLY COMMENTS (19-250)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Interesting Cell Siting RF Discussion in Thousand Oaks, California

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Last night, the City of Thousand Oaks, California Planning Commission heard and acted on a citizen’s  appeal of a camouflaged Verizon macrocell cell site that was previously approved by the City’s Hearing Officer.  The Appellant opposing the approval was Prof. Trevor G. Marshall.  Applicant Verizon Wireless was represented by Kevin P. Sullivan, Esq.

The design of the proposed camouflaged cell site is as shown below (from Verizon’s design plans).

(Click on the image to enlarge it; photo simulations of the project may be viewed in the meeting video, linked below.)

Nearly 100% of the public testimony focused on RF emission issues and concerns.  The Commission, public, and staff discussions are informative.  They span health concerns, administrative process, duty of loyalty, and the federal government/local government relationship regarding RF emissions.

After nearly 3 hours of staff presentations, quite thoughtful public testimony, and post-public hearing discussions, the City’s Planning Commissioners voted to uphold the Hearing Officer’s approval of the cell site project on a 4-0 vote (one absence).

To watch the hearing, visit Planning Commission 11-18-19 Meeting and click below the screen on Item 7A.
To view the staff report, with links to all of the exhibits, look at this PDF: Item 7A Staff Report.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Dr. Kramer elevated to SCTE Senior Member Emeritus

Dr. Kramer elevated to SCTE Senior Member Emeritus

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’m extremely pleased to announce that the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineer–the SCTE–has elevated my membership status to Senior Member-Emeritus. Of the roughly 20,000 SCTE members throughout the world today, I’m one of only 41 SCTE members to achieve both distinctions.

Since joining the SCTE in 1979, I’ve been privileged to serve and advise the organization in various ways, including being a committee chair (WG7), and a multi-area subject matter expert.  I have lectured to the members at SCTE national conferences over the decades, and I’ve watched the technology…and the organization…advance from the ‘full dial’ days to what cable TV has become today: an integrated information platform for broadband, including video, data, telephony, and internet services.

My role in the SCTE has been unique, to say the least.  For those of you on the other side of my local government inspections, you’ll know what that means, but also what that has done to improve hundreds of thousand of miles of outside plant, as well as federal transmission standards impacting every cable system in the U.S., and beyond.

It’s been a fun 40 years with the SCTE, and I hope to annoy the organization for many more years to come.

Dr. JLK

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail