Wireless Siting Professionals: A Vanishing Breed?

Posted on March 18, 2012 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’ve been talking with a number of my friends who are in the wireless siting business as contractors. These are the people, mostly independent contractors, who show up at the planning counter to file siting projects representing the wireless carriers. They perform important functions in the wireless permitting process. I have great respect for the work they do, and the way the do their work with the grace and skill that comes from experience and professionalism. Their work starts long before a wireless project ever hit the planning counter.

Some years ago…say 10…it was common for these siting professionals to have the opportunity to develop significant experience doing what they do. They had that chance because of what’s called “Pay Points.” In days gone by, these professionals were not paid on an hourly basis, but rather at the time some event along the process happened, hence the name.

Once the siting professional received the project package (generally the search ring, a blank lease, and other carrier parameters), they’d go out and spot potential properties, research land records, find willing owners, get lease options signed, attend the A&E meetings, and submit the project to the local government for approval. Then they’d stay with the project through the government planning phase, and attend the hearings representing the carrier client. Each major events was a pay point, and each pay point was the incentive to get the work done and stick with the project.

Because there was fairly significant money involved (I’ve been told $10,000 to $15,000 per project was not uncommon), the professionals could afford to stick with the projects that didn’t ultimately pan out because they got the earlier pay points, and had other projects generating different pay points.

But, alas, lots of people got into the siting business, and then the squeeze on pay point amounts came down from the carriers and their master contractors. Essentially, the siting professional were offered more work with fewer dollars. The result is that a core of professionals remain in the siting business today, but they are also looking for every way to cut costs. Some of these professionals have shut down their physical offices and main telephone numbers turning to become virtual firms (read: working from home with cell phones and computers).

One of the more undesirable results of the squeeze today is that lots of much less experienced people are entering the siting business. It shows.

My staff and I see and deal with the greenhorns when we’re negotiating leases on behalf of our wireless landlord clients, and when we’re dealing with project packages tendered for our review through our government planning agency clients. The quality of the work product coming in is declining, as is the fundamental understanding of the processes. All of this leads to longer negotiations and increased review times. It also leads to more of the real professionals leaving the business to find more profitable lines of work in other areas of project management.

Now comes Section 6409. Generally the siting professionals are very excited about the passage of Section 6409, but some (including yours truly) think there’s a fairly significant cloud surrounding a thin silver lining. I suspect Sec. 6409 is going to turn into a real cloud burst casting off even more rain on the quality people in the business of wireless siting.

As 6409 seems to grant broad collocation (really, Co-Siting) authority to the wireless firms, and the approvals appear to occur in some or many cases by right, I expect the large master contractors who work directly for the carriers (i.e., Bechtel, ALU, Ericsson, B&V, etc.) to look to shave their subcontractors costs even more to benefit their own bottom lines. My gut says the master contractors will assign the Sec. 6409 work to in-house employees for the engineering work, and low level permit runners who are paid a relatively modest hourly fee for their work to file the projects with the local governments.

In major markets like Southern California, this will be a huge and increasing amount of the main siting work. Since the Verizon and AT&T LTE projects and the Sprint Network Vision work will apparently fall under Sec. 6409, there goes that slice of the pie from the mouths of the core of professionals.

And since Sec. 6409 will drive carriers to less desirable sites (that term depends on who’s uttering it…but I digress) but with must faster expected approval times, I think that new siting will slow down for a while as carriers look to do their capacity upgrades at the new low hanging 6409 sites.

As I said at the top of this story, I have many friends who are truly professionals in the wireless siting business. Sadly, I expect that a significant number of them will not be in that line of work come a year from now. I hope I’m wrong, but money talks louder than respect for professionalism and experience.

As LightSquared Fades, What of Sprint?

Posted on February 17, 2012February 17, 2012 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

As you likely know, the NTIA’s Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Lawrence E. Strickling gave LightSquared a big, fat, wet Valentine’s day kiss when he wrote to FCC Chairman Genachowski saying, “…we conclude that LightSquared’s proposed mobile broadband network will impact GPS services and that there is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference at this time.”

You can read the full letter, which goes downhill from the quote above, by clicking on this link: NTIA Letter to FCC Regarding LightSquared: Feb. 14, 2012.

While everyone else is talking about LightSquared, I’m wondering about the impact of the likely LightSquared disappearance from the arena on Sprint. Just last June, Sprint and LightSquared announced that they had entered into a 15-year agreement for Sprint to promote LightSquared as its 4G solution (hey, does anyone remember a company called ClearWire who was promoted by Sprint to be its 4G solution? I’m just ask’n…).

Under the Sprint deal, LightSquared was to pay $9 billion dollars and give Sprint another $4.5 billion in credits for LTE and satellite services. Shortly thereafter, Sprint kicked the Network Vision project into high speed.

Side note 1: Network Vision, for those of you who have not yet seen the vision, ahem, is Sprint’s project to replace its BTS cabinets that do one thing on one band with shiny new BTS cabinets that can be easily adapted to provide multiple services on multiple bands at the same time. That’s actually a smart thing from an engineering perspective, but it sure looks like Sprint was betting on LightSquared’s payments to fund a good portion of Network Vision.

Side note 2: The Network Vision project is connected with Sprint’s recently-announced plan to shutter 30,000-ish of its current leases as the new multiband BTS cabinets go in. Shuttering that many site leases should save Sprint something on the order of $400 million per year, and make cell site landlords wary of entering into new leases that don’t have early termination fees (huh? Your lease doesn’t? Too bad; so sad.)

So, what’s next for Sprint? Certainly it has wisely given up on WiMax as a real, long term 4G solution. It looks like everyone agrees that LTE is the real answer, so the sinking of LightSquared’s ship is hardly likely to re-float ClearWire’s boat in Sprint’s eyes (or any other sets of eyes for that matter). Since Sprint recently missed out on the “Buy Your Next Band From The Cable TV Guys” deals, its even farther down the spectrum rabbit hole. Sprint needs frequencies, and it needs them last week.

This brings me full-circle back to an earlier blog post, from last September, when I mused on the idea that Sprint and T-Mobile would make a mighty fine look’n couple, and I even worked up a possible wedding announcement:

See: SprinT-Mobile?

T-Mobile has kept a nice dowry of cash (and better, spectrum) from when the DOJ forced AT&T to leave T-Mobile at the alter. So like Sprint, T-Mobile has a pressing need to get married. If not to each other, then to others, but marriages are on the horizon.

See you at the wedding(s). I’ll be at the bar.

Jonathan

Sprint to Clearwire: Sink or Swim

Posted on October 7, 2011October 7, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

From the relevant portions of a Sprint news release issued today:

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (Business Wire), October 07, 2011 – At its 4G Strategy/Network Vision Update event today in New York, Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S) updated the financial community on its plans to accelerate deployment of Network Vision and its plans to roll out 4G LTE on its licensed spectrum. Network Vision, originally announced in December 2010, is Sprint’s plan to consolidate multiple network technologies into one seamless network with the goal of increasing efficiency and enhancing network coverage, call quality and data speeds for customers across the United States.

Dan Hesse, Sprint CEO, said, “Our progress deploying Network Vision enables Sprint to extend and evolve our 4G leadership and to improve the experience for 3G customers. Our next-generation network and cutting-edge device lineup, combined with the industry’s best pricing plans, give Sprint customers the best experience in wireless.”

Sprint will begin a rapid national rollout of LTE on its 1900MHz spectrum. Sprint plans to launch 4G LTE on its 1900MHz spectrum by midyear 2012 and complete the network build-out by the end of 2013. By the conclusion of 2013, Sprint’s 4G coverage footprint is expected to cover more than 250 million people.

Sprint expects to launch CDMA-LTE devices by mid-2012, with approximately 15 devices coming throughout the year – including handsets, tablets and data cards. Additionally, CDMA-WiMAX 4G devices, like the award-winning HTC EVO^TM 4G, Samsung Epic^TM 4G Touch and Nexus S^TM 4G, will continue to be sold throughout 2012.

What was missing from the press release?

Any mention of Clearwire.

Clearwire was positioned for years to be Sprint’s 4G service provider. Sprint owns more than 50% of Clearwire, but only at arm’s-length.

Now it looks like Sprint has all but abandoned Clearwire to allow that firm to sink or swim on its own. Sprint has effectively turned into one of Clearwire’s biggest competitors.

Adding insult to injury, Sprint recently inked a deal with LightSquared to allow that firm to come on to Sprint’s Network Vision platform as yet another 4G LTE provider. LightSquared will also be a direct competitor to Clearwire via its retail outlets, which will in turn compete with Sprint. If you’re confused, don’t worry: some of these deals don’t make sense, but hey, it’s wireless…

It’s been a tough time for Clearwire, and the times are only getting tougher.

My own experiences with Clearwire, if any indication, do not bode well for the chances for that provider. Last May I signed up for its business class wireless service, which includes a static IP address (required to run web servers, mail servers, etc.). When the equipment arrived, I was told that Clearwire had run out of static IP addresses in the Los Angeles area. I ended up returning the equipment and cancelling the service. It’s really too bad since their over-the-air speeds were great, beating DSL hands down, and giving Time Warner’s cable modem a real run for the money (and Clearwire’s cost for business grade service is less than half the cost of TW’s Business grade service).

I’m hoping that Clearwire can keep swimming, but there are a lot of sharks in the water starting to circle.

Jonathan

When (Wireless) Worlds Collide…Will Site Landlords Get $quashed?

Posted on April 15, 2011April 15, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin carries a buried-lead story about Sprint’s deployment of new, flexible base stations that are multi-modal, multi-band, and potentially multi-user.

Faced with Data Surge, Carriers to ‘Feed the Beast’ with Base Station Innovation

Noting the importance of scale, spectrum and innovation, representatives of Sprint Nextel and Clearwire discussed how the growth of wireless data traffic must result in the complete modernization of cell site equipment on a panel on March 22 in Orlando, Fla. They spoke at the Raymond James Breakfast, which was moderated by Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James & Associates.

“We must keep feeding the beast, or we are just going to turn our customers away. We must innovate around the cost. Technology allows it,” said Iyad Tarazi, vice president, network development and engineering, Sprint Nextel. The carrier expects 10x growth every three years for the foreseeable future.

The challenge for Sprint Nextel is to keep up with the pace in a cost-effective manner. To do so the carrier has unveiled Network Vision, which is a blueprint for enhancing data speeds by consolidating multiple network technologies into one, seamless network.

Today, Sprint uses separate equipment to deploy services at 800 MHz, 1.9 GHz and, through Clearwire, 2.5 GHz. The Network Vision concept features the use of software to bring together multiple spectrum bands on a single, multimode base station.

“The technologies that we are deploying in the Network Vision project allow us to modernize our cell sites in a way that gives us a lot of flexibility with the types of technologies we put on it,” Tarazi said. “In the future, with the Network Vision project, we will build spectrum at 40 megahertz to 60 megahertz at a time, and we will build it once.”

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

In interview with AGL Bulletin, Ted Abrams, president, Abrams Wireless, reacted to statements made at the session, applauding the move toward network sharing saying network operators will be able to increase overall efficiency of bandwidth and infrastructure through the new technology.

“Multi-modal equipment connected to big backhaul pipes can transport payload from end users through the cloud across retail platforms branded differently,” Abrams said. “Most of the attributes of a wireless network are fungible, readily adapted to exchange on par. Antenna physics and other band-specific requirements continue to require consideration. As infrastructure providers are able to increase the density of sites supporting these new technologies, the rate of broadband deployment can be accelerated.”

As an attorney representing wireless site owners (landlords), the question that instantly comes to my mind is this: As Sprint deploys it’s wireless upgrade, how will ‘electronic collocations’ be accounted for in legacy wireless leases?

Huh?

Go back now and carefully reread the following excerpt from the AGL Bulletin report, above:

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

Okay, back to reality for landlords.

Historically, savvy landlords have received incremental income from collocations and their tenants sublease to other wireless providers.

In Sprint’s future world of electronic collocation, site landlords won’t know when Sprint has subleased a portion of the use of the site to another company. Legacy leases don’t usually specify that collocation must be ‘physical’ in nature, so those same savvy landlords (and I assure you, their attorneys, including yours truly) are likely to reasonably take the position that that if Sprint has subleased the electronic use of a wireless site to another, then that revenue should be shared with the site landlord pursuant to the existing lease agreement.

Landlords and their attorneys should be on the lookout for proposed lease amendments for legacy sites and sublease terms in new leases that might try to draft around this $$multimillion dollar issue$$.

Ajit Pai: Loc Govs Delay Small Cell Sites

Posted on September 2, 2019September 3, 2019 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

FCC Chair: Local Govs are Small Cell Problem

On August 28, 2019, FCC Chairman Pai spoke at the University of Mississippi Tech Summit, including about small cell installations.

Not so buried within his prepared comments was a window into the Chairman’s approach to perpetuating his role as chief wireless industry cheerleader, rather than the chief wireless industry regulator on behalf of the public.

Mr. Pai said:

Turning to our work on wireless infrastructure, the second part of the 5G FAST plan, we need to install hundreds of thousands of small cells for 5G—a huge increase in the number of antenna locations for our current networks. Unfortunately, it’s routinely taken more than two years to get the regulatory approval for small-cell installations, which can only take about two hours to actually complete. We’ve also seen excessive siting fees imposed by local governments. Some cities charge $5,000 for the same approval that might cost $50 elsewhere.

That’s why the FCC set a reasonable shot clock for cities to rule on small cell siting applications and reasonable limits on the siting fees cities can charge. There’s growing evidence that these reforms are working. In 2018, the number of wireless small cells deployed in the United States more than quadrupled, from 13,000 to more than 60,000.

Chairman Pai bare claim that “it’s routinely taken more than two years to get the regulatory approval for small cell installations” is pure fabrication from the wireless industry, which he (a former Verizon attorney) seems to have gladly swallowed without apparent care to independently verify that outrageous claim regarding small cells.

Yes, a percentage of applications can take years. A tiny percentage at best.

Chairman Pai’s statement that this is a routine time-frame is, to quote another member of the Administration, “fake news”.

From personal experience with thousands of wireless applications, a tiny percentage of those applications have taken more than FCC’s shot clock because of various reasons. Those reasons most often lay at the feet of the applicants.

The reasons include (but are not limited to) poorly crafted wireless industry applications that miss material requirements needed to process the application to completion. Some wireless site applications contain false or incorrect statement(s); some applications violate the sidewalk clearance requirements of the ADA; some applications would have the local government inversely condemn private property; some applications omit RF information needed to determine compliance with the FCC’s rules. That list goes on.

Let’s move on to the next misstatement by Mr. Pai. He claims that it “can only take about two hours to actually complete” a small cell review. Of course he omits the source or basis for his claim. It is outlandish and most certainly comes from the wireless industry; not from local government. I’m just guessing here, but I’ll wager that the Chairman has not processed even one wireless application on behalf of a local government. Again, the Chairman has taken us into the Administration’s land of fake news.

[Following paragraph added 9/3/19:] I’ve received some input suggesting that Mr. Pai’s comment about 2 hours meant that it only takes two hours to install a small wireless facility. Ha. That’s even more of a fantasy compared to the alternative claim that it takes two hours to process a SWF application. Even strand-mounted SWFs takes days or weeks to install because of the steps required. First, the installation of the power source, which may be local or remote; second, the installation of the back haul fiber (save for Sprint’s wireless back haul); third, the hanging of the radios and antennas; and fourth, the integration and optimization of the site into the network. (At one AT&T small cell installed on a light standard a block from my L.A. office, AT&T has yet to bother to replace the concrete section of sidewalk at the pole. It’s been nearly a year. AT&T, make the right choice and finish up your ground work.) Two weeks to two months is closer to the usual reality, and completely outside of any time frames set by a local government or the FCC on a local government. If installation time is Chairman Pai’s beef, his is a “where’s the beef” comment disconnected from reality. [End of paragraph added 9/3/19:]

As for the Chairman’s third statement, that “[s]ome cities charge $5,000 for the same approval [for a small cell] that might cost $50 elsewhere”, that omits any basis in reality. Even the Chairman seems to admit this when he says “might “cost”; not does cost. Our third visit to Pai Fake News Land in just two sentences.

Let’s be clear: The small cell rules the Chairman speaks about have already been partially invalidated by the DC Circuit based on a lack of factual foundation at the FCC. The various 9th Circuit suits by local governments to overturn the Small Wireless Facilities Order continue.

Verified facts trump fake news, and regulators should not see their primary role be industry enablers when their real job is to regulate those under its supervision.

Those are my opinions. What are yours?

Jonathan

City of Berkeley Wins (Again) in CTIA RF Warnings Law Suit

Posted on July 3, 2019July 3, 2019 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit ruled (again) in favor of the City of Berkeley in CTIA’s law suit regarding the City’s requirement that cell phone vendors alert purchasers to FCC-required RF warnings.

The City of Berkeley requires in its current Municipal Code the following:

9.96.030 Required notice

A.    A Cell phone retailer shall provide to each customer who buys or leases a Cell phone a notice containing the following language:

The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:

To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.

B.    The notice required by this Section shall either be provided to each customer who buys or leases a Cell phone or shall be prominently displayed at any point of sale where Cell phones are purchased or leased. If provided to the customer, the notice shall include the City’s logo, shall be printed on paper that is no less than 5 inches by 8 inches in size, and shall be printed in no smaller than a 18-point font. The paper on which the notice is printed may contain other information in the discretion of the Cell phone retailer, as long as that information is distinct from the notice language required by subdivision (A) of this Section. If prominently displayed at a point of sale, the notice shall include the City’s logo, be printed on a poster no less than 8-1/2 by 11 inches in size, and shall be printed in no small than a 28-point font. The City shall make its logo available to be incorporated in such notices.

C.    A Cell phone retailer that believes the notice language required by subdivision (A) of this Section is not factually applicable to a Cell phone model that retailer offers for sale or lease may request permission to not provide the notice required by this Section in connection with sales or leases of that model of Cell phone. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. (Ord. 7443-NS § 1, 2015; Ord. 7404-NS § 1 (part), 2015)

The CTIA challenged the current law saying, essentially, that the City was forcing wireless providers to ‘speak’ thus violating their First Amendment rights. The District Court hearing the case denied CTIA’s request to bar the City from enforcing its RF disclosure rules. The CTIA appealed to the 9th Circuit.

In its original decision on CTIA’s appeal, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit disagreed with CTIA and allowed the ordinance to remain in force. The CTIA then asked the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit decision.

The Supreme Court took the case, vacated the 9th Circuit decision supporting the City, and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit directing that the Circuit Court reevaluate the decision in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 201 L. Ed. 2d 835 (2018) (“NIFLA”).

The NIFLA case challenged a California law requiring compelled speech by anti-abortion counseling centers that included references to abortion clinics. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the California law citing a violation of the First Amendment.

NIFLA connects to CTIA by way of the Supreme Court’s analysis in NIFLA that said that a lower level of First Amendment protection exists for noncontroversial professional speech. In NIFLA, the majority in the Supreme Court said,

[O]ur precedents have applied more deferential review to some laws that require professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial information in their “commercial speech.” See, e.g., Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985); Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States, 559 U. S. 229, 250 (2010); Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 455–456 (1978).

According, the Supreme Court’s remand to the 9th Circuit required that the Circuit Court evaluate whether the City’s RF notice was factual, noncontroversial information.

In the case re-decided yesterday in favor of Berkeley, the majority said:

Given the FCC’s requirement that cell phone manufacturers must inform consumers of “minimum test separation distance requirements,” and must “clearly disclose[ ]” accessory operating configurations “through conspicuous instructions in the user guide and user manual, to ensure unsupported operations are avoided,” we see little likelihood of success based on conflict preemption.

Berkeley’s compelled disclosure does no more than alert consumers to the safety disclosures that the FCC requires, and direct consumers to federally compelled instructions in their user manuals providing specific information about how to avoid excessive exposure. Far from conflicting with federal law and policy, the Berkeley ordinance complements and reinforces it.

Yesterday’s decision cited existing disclosures in the FCC Record, as well as cell phone manufacturer warnings.

On remand, the 9th Circuit found that Berkeley’s RF law as non-controversial under the Supreme Court’s holding in NIFLA. A dissent by Circuit Judge Friedland takes the opposite position.

The decision and dissent are provided in this link: CTIA v Berkeley. Case No. 16-15141

It seems likely that there will be another petition by the CTIA to review yesterday’s decision.

Jonathan

Sprint, T-Mobile, Cable TV, Mobilitie, and Removal Bonds

Posted on September 26, 2017 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Months ago I was pondering the society news pages talking about Sprint pursuing a marriage with the cable TV industry. Today the society pages say the off-again, on-again romance between Sprint and T-Mobile is back on-again, and may well lead to their marriage. If that marriage is consummated, I think it’s likely that T-Mobile will force Sprint to breakup with Mobilitie. (Think Diana, Charlie, and Camilla. One too many.)

*Ricochet node hanging below a street light arm*.

I’m sure that many–especially Mobilitie–hoped that the Sprint/Mobilitie relationship would blossom into a love that could survive the test of time. Alas, I don’t think that is in the cards, or the stars. Cable TV and T-Mobile both seem to prefer fiber backhaul over wireless backhaul because, well, it just makes more speed and capacity sense over the long term.

From a local government perspective, this sad evolving ‘left-after-the-alter’ story (that might involve Mobilitie) strongly suggests that we must more carefully consider requiring small cell/DAS providers to post removal bonds as a condition of approval of new right-of-way installations. It seems likely that some providers of small cell services and backhaul will survive, while some with less robust and less saleable networks will not.

What we in local government service must avoid is a repeat of the Metricom (Ricochet) fiasco in 2001. That radio backhaul internet firm went belly-up, bankrupt, and abandoned thousands of their wireless nodes on street lights in major cities across the U.S. For years many of those nodes sucked street light power until the local power entity manually disconnected the ballast/photocell tap above the cobra head. Many of those abandoned nodes can still be seen on street lights today.

It is not the bonds of wireless matrimony that count anymore; it is indemnification provisions and the performance bonds (or even the irrevocable letters of credit) to ensure removal of otherwise abandoned equipment that count.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

Jonathan

SprintCasTrum?

Posted on June 26, 2017June 26, 2017 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Published reports late today have Sprint putting aside its merger talks with T-Mobile to focus on a potentially MUCH MORE IMPORTANT deal–one with Charter and Comcast (or is it Comcast and Charter). I’ve predicted a deal like this for years.

Why is a Sprint-MSOs deal more important than a deal with T-Mobile?

As I’ve said before, cable TV MSOs are like Visa: “Everywhere you want to be.”

Sprint needs to strike a deal with the biggest MSOs to gain access to the fat backhaul offered by MSOs, the quick deployment and provisioning of small cells on cable TV strand (and inside cable TV pedestals), and to the back or front yards of millions of homes passed by the cable operators.

Who are the real losers? Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Mobilitie. As to the first three, they are likely to be blocked for Cable TV strand-mounting of small cells in the major markets controlled by Comcast and Spectrum. As for Mobilitie, I believe it stands to lose the most from any Sprint-MSO deal that will invariably drive a silver stake into the heart of what I can only call a very troubling and disjointed ‘5G-but-not-really-5G’ piecemeal deployment of small cells that aren’t really all that small.

Oh, yes, Crown Castle and Extenet, as well as other fiber/builder providers will suffer from a deal like this which would cut into the heart of their fiber and node businesses in a really big way.

Not too long after Sprint inks a deal with the MSOs it can expect to cease to operate as a separate entity as the cable operators swallow Sprint whole to bring the wireless services under the sole control of the MSOs. For the MSOs it gives them the existing Sprint network, such as it is, outside of the MSO’s footprints to offer streaming video services over Sprint’s wireless network. This would likely follow AT&T’s deployment of offering streaming video services via wireless outside of the existing wireline U-Verse and Giga-whatever footprint.

T-Mobile should now expect to receive merger-partnering overtures from other first tier and second tier cable operators. Moreover, it can expect to slide to a solid last place with a Sprint-MSO deal.

Those of you old enough will recall that Sprint largely came out of Cox Communications’ pioneer FCC licenses. What’s old is new again, and we live in interesting times.

–Jonathan

California SB649: The Next Wireless Industry Bill

Posted on February 18, 2017February 18, 2017 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Yesterday, the expected (first?) wireless industry Bill, SB649 was dropped into the California Senate hopper on Friday, February 17, 2017. This Bill appears to be a small change to existing law to define small cells and include them in existing state law provisions. Of course, it would come as no surprise to find the Bill amended late in the process to add far more concerning provisions.

I encourage the California wireless industry to reach out to the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, as well as SCAN NATOA, to discuss these proposed changes, and any still planned to be amended in.

The changes to existing law are shown in BOLD BLUE.

Introduced by Senator Hueso
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Quirk)
(Coauthor: Senator Dodd)

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 649, as introduced, Hueso. Wireless telecommunications facilities.

Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes.

This bill would define the term “small cell” as a particular type of telecommunications facility for these purposes.

Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified.

This bill would apply these prohibitions to the approval of small cell facilities as defined by this bill.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced wireless communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:

(a) Reaffirms local governments’ historic role and authority with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.

(b) Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.

(c) Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review.

(d) Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.

(e) Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.

(f) Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public right-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.

(g) Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.

(h) Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.

(i) Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.

SEC. 2. Section 65850.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:

65850.6. (a) A collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following requirements:

(1) The collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility pursuant to subdivision (b) on which the collocation facility is proposed.

(2) The wireless telecommunications collocation facility on which the collocation facility is proposed was subject to a discretionary permit by the city or county and an environmental impact report was certified, or a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration was adopted for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the requirements of Section 21166 do not apply, and the collocation facility incorporates required mitigation measures specified in that environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.

(b) A wireless telecommunications collocation facility, where a subsequent collocation facility is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit pursuant to subdivision (a), shall be subject to a city or county discretionary permit issued on or after January 1, 2007, and shall comply with all of the following:

(1) City or county requirements for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility that specifies types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include a collocation facility, or types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include certain types of collocation facilities; height, location, bulk, and size of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility; percentage of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility that may be occupied by collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

(2) City or county requirements for a proposed collocation facility, including any types of collocation facilities that may be allowed on a wireless telecommunications collocation facility; height, location, bulk, and size of allowed collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for a collocation facility.

(3) State and local requirements, including the general plan, any applicable community plan or specific plan, and zoning ordinance.

(4) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) through certification of an environmental impact report, or adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.

(c) The city or county shall hold at least one public hearing on the discretionary permit required pursuant to subdivision (b) and notice shall be given pursuant to Section 65091, unless otherwise required by this division.

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

(1) “Collocation facility” means the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility.

(2) “Small cell” means a wireless telecommunications facility within the volume limits established by the Federal Communications Commission for small wireless antennas and associated equipment in the First Amendment to Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (47 C.F.R. Part 1 Appendix B).

(3) “Wireless telecommunications facility” means equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services.

(4) “Wireless telecommunications collocation facility” means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes collocation facilities.

(e) The Legislature finds and declares that both small cell and collocation facilities, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is are a matter of statewide concern.

(f) With respect to the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, the review by the city or county shall be limited to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, or as that section may be hereafter amended.

SEC. 3. Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended to read:

65964. As a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility or small cell, as defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of the following:

(a) Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost of removal.

(b) Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may establish a build-out period for a site.

(c) Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county.

Verizon Buying Comcast? Good idea, sort of.

Posted on January 22, 2017January 22, 2017 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Rumors are circulating that Verizon is considering buying Comcast. Largely ignoring the horrible public policy and anti-competitive issues, the deal would make sense from various technology standpoints.

Consider:

Comcast runs one of the largest Wi-Fi networks in the U.S. Verizon needs Wi-Fi as a critical element of offloading traffic from its cellular/PCS/AWS networks. Cellular nodes, like Wi-Fi nodes can be installed and provisioned in less than an hour.
Comcast has significant cable passings in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Colorado, California, and Washington State, with smaller footprints in New Mexico, Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, and the Twin Cities. Comcast is already where Verizon wants to be for 5G+…150 feet from the customer.
Comcast has largely been able to deploy Wi-Fi nodes without local governments applying their various wireless ordinances to those installations. Verizon will argue that installing Wi-Fi/5G+ nodes should be exempt from local wireless ordinances.
Comcast’s backhaul and inter-city fiber network is national and dynamic. Verizon can utilize that network to increase its own inter-city transport capacity keeping much more of its wireless traffic on its own end-to-end network.
Verizon can (and should) do what Comcast has not: Get rid of coaxial subscriber drops in favor of wireless drops, which would tremendously reduce the cable network in-home maintenance and labor force costs for Verizon.

There are other reasons why a Verizon purchase of Comcast would make sense, not the least of which would be to battle back against AT&T’s purchase of DirecTV and the Time Warner programming assets.

Will Dish Network be next to fall? How about SiriusXM?

In this new Tumpian era, what would have been unthinkable a week ago might need some rethinking.

Jonathan

PS… Attention Verizon and Comcast legal departments: The combination logo at the top of this page is a parody to illustrate my opinion piece for commenting and criticizing purposes only. Really. Don’t get bunched up over it.