Carriers Still Face Hurdles in Building Out Their Networks, O'Rielly Tells CCA

O’Rielly cited the example of Destin, Florida, which backed away from an order it approved permitting a company to build two small-cell towers on a right of way, he said. “After some unnecessary delay and hand wringing, the city council met to consider the fate of the towers and ultimately ruled that the towers must be taken down,” he said. “Even worse, it was decided that no small cell towers can be placed on the city rights of way. In doing so, it also rejected the options of alternative sites or disguising the towers as palm trees.”

Decisions like the one in Destin can't be allowed to stand, O’Rielly said. Other local governments and relevant associations should get active in the case, he said. “Do these localities really want their communities to not have broadband?” he asked. “Do they understand the economic impact on their local businesses? For those localities that continue to stall or try to block tower siting, know that you will see the commission step in with appropriate authority to push things forward.”

The FCC should also do more to encourage the collocation of wireless facilities on cell towers, O’Rielly said. Macro sites on average have 2.5 tenants per tower, but can accommodate five to six tenants on average, he said. “It has also been estimated that 2,000 new physical tower structures will be built over the next three years, and this number does not include small cells and building locations, which could reach the tens of thousands,” he said.

O’Rielly warned CCA attendees that even if the FCC approves Phase II of the Mobility Fund, it will be a relatively small fund. Four years after the original mobility fund order, 98 percent of the U.S. is covered by a wireless carrier, he said. Phase II, if approved, is “unlikely to look like anything previously envisioned,” he said. “During the last few years, the commission has continued to make policy changes to its high-cost programs generally, and those would likely apply here as well,” O’Rielly said. “In particular, areas that are overlapped by an unsubsidized competitor are ineligible for support. Numerous census blocks in otherwise high-cost areas of price cap carriers’ territories were excluded when the commission offered support earlier this year. Even rate of return areas, “which had been seen as a harder case, are subject to the overlap rule,” he said. The FCC has also stressed deployment of networks that can deliver high speeds, with low latency.

Wireless has a big role to play in the USF, O’Rielly said. Parts of at least 20 states will be included in the Connect America Fund Phase II auction and wireless “may be the best option” in some areas, he said. O’Rielly asked CCA members to support his push for rules that are technologically neutral. The FCC appears biased toward supporting fiber-based deployments, but needs to take into account the kinds of speeds 5G could deliver, he said. “The commission should not tip the scales based on outdated information or assumptions,” he said. “I’d hate to see a situation where focus on Mobility Fund II comes at the cost of being able to participate in” the high-cost fund “altogether.”

O’Rielly also expressed concerns about the FCC’s inquiry into LTE-unlicensed. The standards process has been conducted “independently without any FCC input or interference,” he said. “Any coexistence concerns” between LTE-U and Wi-Fi need to be “worked out by stakeholders, through the standard-setting bodies,” he said. The FCC also shouldn't influence standards or pick a side in the fight over LTE-U, he said: “Doing so will only delay innovation and the deployment of future networks.”