Cities Seek 5G Without ‘Parental Oversight,’ NATOA Told; Localities Post Model Code

Cities must have 5G to be smart, but they don’t need “parental oversight” from states or the FCC, former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D) told NATOA. If customers want something, it’s the public sector’s responsibility to try to provide it, said Nutter, now a consultant. Having a 5G wireless network may be prerequisite to being termed a smart city, he said. “Either you have it, or you don’t.” But state or federal pre-emption is “completely inappropriate and is detrimental to the idea … of local government and local control,” Nutter said. “Each of these communities is different. Almost all of them are reasonable and rational. They got elected to run their local governments and this is a part of their duty and responsibility.”

Industry goes to the statehouse when local governments don’t engage in 5G talks, said Mobilitie Senior Vice President-Network Strategy Jason Caliento on a later panel. CTC Technology and Energy President Joanne Hovis replied that industry started vilifying local governments before encountering any barriers.

By releasing the municipal guide and model code, NLC wants federal policymakers to know “cities shouldn’t have their hands tied behind their back,” NLC Principal Associate-Technology and Communications Angelina Panettieri said in a phone interview. “They should be given resources and time to do it appropriately.” NLC produced the guide to increase local knowledge about small cells particularly among smaller cities that may be less aware of the issue than large cities, Panettieri said.

“Local governments want to have deployment, and the narrative that we’re standing in the way … is wrong,” said NATOA General Counsel Nancy Werner in an interview at the conference. “We felt like the lack of municipal voice on the BDAC … was reflected in the final product.” Like BDAC’s local code, the NLC/NATOA model aims to make it easier for local governments to write rules supporting small-cells deployment but frames provisions more as guidelines than hard requirements, she said. Localities didn’t share its model with industry before release, but it’s based on the BDAC framework and includes things industry wants, she said.

NLC and NATOA’s model code acknowledges the BDAC's work, but adds, “we believe local governments could benefit from an alternative model code that reflects the range of legal and policy options open to municipalities.” No single model would work for every jurisdiction, and the NATOA/NLC model doesn’t reflect any laws that might limit local actions, it said. The code recommends various installation requirements, but much of its language is open-ended. It allows each locality to determine its own height limits and rates for applications and right-of-way (ROW) use, and to decide whether to include a shot clock for reviewing applications.

BDAC Chair Elizabeth Bowles hasn’t read the alternative model code but hopes industry was consulted. “In light of the very vocal criticism by some that municipalities were insufficiently represented on one of the BDAC working groups, it would be ironic if this new proposed code suffers because NLC and NATOA failed to consult industry in developing their proposal,” she emailed. BDAC’s local code was approved by unanimous vote, she noted. “After two years of work by dedicated industry and municipal representatives, infrastructure owners, and academics, among others, I will be interested to see what, if anything, NLC and NATOA, feel was not adequately addressed.”

The wireless industry looks forward to “reviewing the new small-cell model ordinance and municipal action guide and continuing to work with NLC and NATOA,” said Wireless Infrastructure Association CEO Jonathan Adelstein. “We appreciate NLC and NATOA’s work to educate cities and communities on this technology.” CTIA declined comment.

Cities should educate themselves on small-cells technology and safety considerations, said the guide. It said they should articulate priorities for accommodating small cells, create clear policies for permit review for city staff and industry applicants, develop template agreements for ROW access and pole attachments, consider beneficial items that may be negotiated with industry in exchange for ROW use, and carefully consider fee structures.

Small cells can increase mobile broadband network capacity in cities but with risks, the guide said. “There may be several requests to locate such facilities in the same general areas,” which “can result in clusters of small cells that are visually unappealing and detract from the aesthetic of the community.” It said that deployment “can potentially interfere with existing technology, such as wireless traffic signals and other municipal technology in close proximity.”

Recent state and federal governments' efforts on small cells focus on pre-empting local authority to “review and control” deployments and “collect fair rents for the use of public property,” warned the NLC guide. Cities should be “cautious” about passing moratoriums on new wireless applications because they’re not legal in some states and the FCC prohibits them, it said: “Moratoria may invite legal challenges from wireless providers eager to start construction.”

Cities must raise a sense of urgency about small-cell deployments, said Seattle Director-Digital Engagement Jim Loter on another panel. Seattle was ready to move on a small-cells plan last year, but a sudden change in mayors due to scandal “blew the plan out of the water” and stalled progress, he said. Philadelphia is most accommodating to industry when it shows interest in social justice and other city priorities, such as Comcast’s work on the city’s digital literacy effort, said Ellen Hwang, the city’s assistant director-strategic initiatives. It should be "a two-way conversation" about what's beneficial for the full community, she said.