Adelstein Supports Updating RF Rules but Warns NATOA Not to Scare Away 5G With ROW Demands

SEATTLE -- The wireless industry agreed with local telecom officials that the FCC should update RF safety rules. In Q&A following a Tuesday keynote speech at the NATOA conference, Wireless Infrastructure Association CEO Jonathan Adelstein supported resolving a proceeding that’s been pending since 2013. On the more contentious subject of wireless small cells, Adelstein warned communities not to discourage broadband deployment by asking for too much money from industry to use rights of way (ROWs). Localities should realize that the political winds are with industry, agreed NATOA Executive Director Steve Traylor in a Wednesday interview.

WIA won’t advocate a position on the RF rules; instead, it will let “the science dictate” the result, Adelstein said. “We would defer to the FCC on what the rules are, but just do it,” he said: “Make them as stringent as you want, make sure everbody’s safe and we will adhere to it. But get it done.” Updated FCC rules may comfort residents that they’re safe with small cells positioned close to their homes, said Mitsuko Herrera, cable communications administrator for Montgomery County, Maryland. “Residents’ concerns about radio-frequency emissions drives a significant amount of their anxiety about small-cells deployments,” she told Adelstein. Traylor told us it’s “fantastic” and an important development that Adelstein agrees the FCC should move forward with the long-pending RF proceeding.

Adelstein urged collaboration between industry and local governments on small-cells siting, as more states consider legislation next year (see 1709120001). He warned cities not to ask wireless companies to pay more than regulatory costs. Some local governments -- probably not NATOA members -- overcharge for access to ROWs to bring in more revenue, Adelstein said.

One conferee defended existing ROW charges, saying the revenue funds public safety and other worthwhile purposes. Adelstein replied that local governments should instead increase general taxes or tax products that are “less healthy” and may increase demand on public services like 911. Don’t tax broadband, which itself produces externalities supporting public welfare, he said. The wireless industry should have to serve the entire community in exchange for use of the ROW, Herrera replied from the audience. Industry wants to “selectively” serve communities, deploying 5G in urban but not rural areas, so paying more for ROW is a way for industry to additionally support the areas they don’t plan to serve, she said.

Adelstein said it’s “risky” to demand more money from wireless companies, squeezed by tough pricing competition and high consumer demand for data bandwidth. Adelstein said some communities didn’t get Verizon Fios because the jurisdictions asked for too much in cable franchise negotiations, though some audience members denied that. “How much leverage do you have?” said Adelstein. “It might not be as much as you think.”

Adelstein is “totally correct” that localities lack leverage, said Traylor. “Wireless deployment is not a partisan issue” and “the political winds” are with industry. Providers' “investment takes the path of least resistance,” he said. “If it’s tough, they’re not going to go,” though the sector won’t likely give up major markets like New York or Los Angeles, he said. Still, local governments want to maintain some ability to encourage buildout in low-income or rural parts of their communities, Traylor said. He agreed with Adelstein that communities must consider benefits of having wireless broadband. “It’s not just industry coming to the rights of way to make money,” he said. “It’s providing better services.”

Another conferee asked Adelstein how industry comes up with caps for application fees in state bills, sometimes proposed at $20. “They’re probably trying to start as cheaply as they can and then it ends up being a subject of negotiation on a state-by-state level,” Adelstein replied. Fee caps on small-cells applications are “fair game” for negotiation, he said, as companies want localities to have enough money to process applications.

Localities may argue for grandfathering existing local-industry agreements on small cells, Adelstein replied to a question by Best Best attorney Gerard Lederer. The local government attorney said his clients are uncertain whether they should negotiate individually with industry when there’s a prospect for pre-emptory state legislation or FCC action. Grandfathering “would be a fair issue for negotiation in the state legislature,” Adelstein said, adding WIA members might not agree to it. Local governments shouldn't pause individual negotiations to wait for state laws because it could delay deployment, he said.

NATOA Notebook

Rural broadband is “a huge issue all over the country,” said FCC Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force Chief of Staff Thom Parisi Tuesday on a digital-divide panel at the NATOA conference. The group oversees the Connect America Fund Phase II and Mobility Fund Phase II reverse auctions, which seek efficient ways to get broadband to rural areas and together will award about $6.5 billion, Parisi said. The next step is a public notice laying out exact procedures for the CAF II auction, he said. The FCC is open to a variety of providers and technology types, Parisi said. For example, the agency wants electric cooperatives to bid, he said. They don’t have to be eligible telecom carriers to show interest, but would have to certify as ETCs if successful in the auction, he said. Chris Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance director-community broadband networks, said the CAF II auction “is possibly the only good part of the Connect America Fund.” During the Obama administration, the FCC “horrifically misspent billions upon billions of dollars” through the CAF, he said. The FCC must get the rules right to properly target funds, Mitchell said. “We really need to focus on approaches that connect everyone,” and avoid conclusions that people in rural areas will be satisfied with slower speeds, he said. In the U.S., “there’s no protection for where you live,” said Cheryl DeBerry, natural resources business specialist with Garrett County, Maryland: Rural areas “were left behind with rural electrification, they were left behind with telephone service and now they’re being left behind with broadband.” In 2011, the county got money from the Appalachian Regional Commission to explore community broadband options in areas where industry saw no business case, she said. Today, the county owns the infrastructure and uses TV white spaces to provide wireless service to 180 customers. A company runs the service because “the county really does not want to be an internet service provider,” she said.

NATOA panelists voiced doubts about getting much new federal funding for broadband through President Donald Trump’s potential $1 trillion infrastructure package. The infrastructure package may include broadband but is unlikely to dedicate a portion of the funds for that purpose, CNX CEO Brian Mefford said on a Monday panel. That means broadband applicants will compete for money with applicants for roads and bridges, he said. Mitchell said on a Tuesday panel he’s not holding his breath for the infrastructure package. Congress has struggled to pass anything big this year, and without adviser Steve Bannon in the White House, “I’m not sure there’s a major voice” for broadband or infrastructure, he said.