Tower Rules Approved by Congress Could Mean Big Costs for Industry, O'Rielly Says

on small- to medium-sized towers -- those between 50 and 200 feet tall, ORielly said. “If implemented literally, the provision will force expensive retrofits to potentially 50,000 existing towers, such as wireless communications and certain broadcast towers, all new towers that meet the broad definition, and raise tower prices for the next generation of wireless services -- all with little gain to air safety,” O’Rielly said in a blog post. “A few helpful tweaks to the text could be in order.” The provision's original intent may have been narrow, but “the language on its face is fairly broad, and therein lies the problem,” he said. “In essence, those structures that are not specifically carved out are captured. That means that existing and future mid-sized communications towers throughout rural America are included.” O’Rielly said he's most worried about smaller providers, including wireless ISPs. “Added cost of this new mandate could impact their ability to grow or even survive,” he said. “There are new responsibilities to map the applicable areas to which section 2110 applies, requirements to participate in and potentially fund a database of existing towers in these areas, and overall compliance costs that add to the burdens for small providers.” O’Rielly stressed he avoids critiquing or criticizing legislation but wanted to offer suggestions to highlight potential unintended consequences. “CTIA and our members share Commissioner O’Rielly’s deep concerns about the overly broad regulatory impact of the legislation,” said Brad Gillen, CTIA executive vice president. “We encourage Congress to remedy this problem to avoid imposing onerous and unnecessary burdens on the companies that build and maintain our nation’s wireless network infrastructure.” Jonathan Adelstein, president of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, said O'Rielly is right. "We deeply appreciate Commissioner O’Rielly’s attention to the importance of addressing this inadvertent provision that could end up costing the industry hundreds of millions of dollars with no discernable benefit -- all dollars that are better spent on needed broadband infrastructure like 5G deployment," he said. "There is growing recognition on Capitol Hill about the need to clarify this overbroad language."