Rosenworcel Says San Jose 5G Pacts Show Cities as 'Important Partners,' Cheering Localities

Local governments cheered Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel for sharing San Jose's 5G agreements as a model code while the FCC weighs rules to lower perceived local barriers. But carriers and others said San Jose's pact with industry is no model. The commissioner Wednesday released model agreements for small-cell 5G deployment negotiated by San Jose with wireless companies (see 1806150033), amid local government complaints that model codes developed by the FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee favor industry.

Deploying 5G “means acknowledging that we have a legal tradition of local control in this country but also recognizing that more streamlined and uniform practices can help speed deployment,” said Rosenworcel, praising the San Jose agreements. “Our cities are important partners in this effort.” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D), who resigned in protest from the BDAC (see 1801250049), thanked Rosenworcel for sharing, tweeting: “We hope our lease agreements … can serve as a model for other U.S. cities.” Thursday, the FCC didn't comment.

The San Jose model "should be considered for review by others," said Larry Hanson, a BDAC member and executive director of the Georgia Municipal Association. "This agreement sets the standard for meeting the needs of all populations and by virtue of its implementation by the city and national providers, it is one that is fair, balanced and visionary."

Richard Bennett, on the BDAC city working group, said San Jose’s announced agreements with the larger carriers largely reflect that city’s unique circumstances and shouldn't be a model. “The capitol of Silicon Valley is a great showcase for 5G that gives it bargaining power, but San Jose’s financial circumstances are not typical,” Bennett said. “A longer term view [of] the benefits that follow from advanced technology is preferable to Mayor Liccardo’s short-term, cash flow-oriented approach.”

Rosenworcel did “highlight the obvious to the industry and to some of her FCC colleagues -- that it is wrong to say that wireless broadband infrastructure cannot be effectively deployed unless the Commission imposes limits to what can be addressed,” emailed Ken Fellman, a telecom attorney for local governments. “She has demonstrated that local governments are in fact, working out problems with the industry, and that there is no national wide-spread problem that the Commission needs to fix." Strict FCC rules probably would disrupt deployments in communities like San Jose, he said. Agreements adopted in San Jose and other municipalities “can serve as models for other communities to develop their own agreements that address local issues, concerns and oftentimes, state laws,” he said.

“While some localities and jurisdictions may recognize the economic advantage of siting new wireless services, this remains a challenge,” said a spokesperson for the Competitive Carriers Association. “Just because some localities are working toward helpful siting legislation or mutually beneficial arrangements, there are still plenty of jurisdictions that are charging too much and delaying next-generation deployments, which is why we need FCC intervention.”

“The model demonstrates that cities and carriers, as they did earlier this decade in establishing new policies for fiber network builds, can work together to accelerate network deployment,” said Blair Levin of Brookings and NewStreet. “The one-sided, one-size-fits-all approach to these challenges advocated by some on the FCC and in the BDAC process is both unwise and unnecessary.”

“I'm sure some relatively wealthy, must-serve cities like San Jose will be able to secure individually negotiated small-cell deployments, and there is room for tailored approaches that address unique concerns, but I don't think this model scales well,” said Doug Brake, who also was on a BDAC working group. The San Jose model “would unduly slow deployment -- consider that some metropolitan areas have dozens of authorities overseeing rights-of-way,” he said. “We want 5G to be a competitive market. We don't necessarily need three or more smart city solutions or Wi-Fi kiosk providers for every city, but we do want competitive mass market wireless. This bespoke model only works when you want to attract one network, like Google Fiber tried.”

The agreements “confirm Mayor Liccardo’s reasoning in leaving the BDAC,” emailed Spiegel McDiarmid's Tillman Lay, a local government attorney. “Unlike the industry-dominated BDAC, Mayor Liccardo believes that, in return for use of the public’s property, industry must adequately compensate and serve the public.”

“Mayor Liccardo refused to allow the BDAC experience to reduce his commitment to meeting the digital needs of his community,” said Gerard Lederer, another local government attorney. The agreements will inform other communities’ efforts, he said. San Jose including a digital inclusion fund and adding money for its permitting department to meet industry demand “are areas that should be part of any community-wide deployment,” Lederer said.

NATOA said it's right to highlight partnerships between cities and industry. “These agreements show the range of what providers have agreed to, which demonstrates that one size does not fit all” and “carriers are willing and able to pay fair compensation for use of public assets,” emailed General Counsel Nancy Werner. “FCC interference could disrupt deployments that have been approved under these agreements, further inhibiting deployment.”

It’s good “when municipalities and carriers can get together and negotiate an agreement that both sides believe is fair,” emailed Government Wireless Technology and Communications Association Counsel Alan Tilles. “The future of smart cities is dependent upon wide-spread implementation of wireless infrastructure, and these types of agreements, beneficial to both parties, is preferable to federally imposed requirements.”