Wireless Industry Hopes FCC Will Move Forward on Streamlined Siting Rules
Wireless groups and carriers called on the FCC to push forward on streamlined rules for wireless infrastructure deployment, according to comments filed in docket 25-276. While cutting regulation is a priority under the current administration, other commenters argued that local authorities must retain oversight of permitting in their communities (see 2601020017). Hundreds of fillings also raised RF safety and other concerns. Comments were due last week, and more than 3,500 were posted as of Monday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The Wireless Infrastructure Association said industry needs “a consistent, nationwide permitting framework that is predictable, proportionate and transparent.” Getting wireless networks in place to meet growing data demands requires “the right mix of spectrum and infrastructure, with the Commission carefully balancing respect for local zoning authority with our nationwide imperative to deploy wireless service.” The group noted that this is an especially important time, with federal funds supporting broadband deployment in unserved parts of the country.
WIA also emphasized the role that wireless networks must play for the U.S. to lead the world in AI. “As was seen through the app revolution that 4G networks enabled, generational changes in technology are built on top of wireless networks -- and the AI revolution will be no different.”
T-Mobile said that from 2021 to 2024, it expanded 5G coverage by more than 500,000 square miles and upgraded more than 61,000 sites “to provide faster, more reliable service.” Industry needs greater certainty on concealment elements to minimize the visual impact of towers and other wireless infrastructure, it said. “In one particularly egregious case, a community in California determined that an extension of a screen intended to conceal taller antennas somehow ‘defeated’ the concealment even though the antennas remained fully concealed behind the screen.”
The carrier also urged the FCC to codify determinations in the controversial 2020 declaratory ruling on siting approval conditions to provide greater clarity and minimize disputes. Commissioners approved that ruling 3-2, with the Democrats dissenting on the grounds that the agency was largely ignoring state and local government concerns (see 2006090060).
Crown Castle said it works with thousands of jurisdictions every day on eligible facilities requests and other permitting issues. “Where federal rules are clear and uniformly applied, projects are more likely to proceed efficiently, capital is deployed at scale, and communities quickly benefit from improved service, resilience, and innovation,” the tower company said. “Ambiguity or misapplication of rules results in unnecessary delay, litigation risk, and costs that materially impede deployment and modernization.”
The commission’s work on streamlining deployment isn’t done, AT&T said, urging the FCC to broaden the application of 2018 rules for small cells to all wireless facilities. Macro towers and other wireless facilities are “crucial to providers’ efforts to densify their networks to meet the continued escalation in wireless service use that shows no signs of abating.” State and local requirements are often “layered, presenting multiple hurdles for macro towers” that “can be more extensive than for small wireless facilities,” the carrier added.
Incompas argued that wireless rules are critical to the deployment of AI. State or local regulations “that restrict, condition, or prohibit the use of AI … whether directly or indirectly, can materially inhibit wireless deployment, increase costs, delay network upgrades, and undermine national communications policy objectives.”
Most comments also urged caution.
For example, the National Association of Towns and Townships noted that small government entities have limited staff and need time to process siting requests. “A township with a planning board that meets once per month cannot realistically comply with a 60-day shot clock if an application is submitted the day after a meeting,” the group said. “Proceed cautiously and … ground any reforms in evidence of actual barriers, not anecdote or presumption.”
The city and county of San Francisco said proposals to restrict local oversight of wireless siting would be contrary to Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act and Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act. The commission’s actions in the small-cell order “were specifically tied to the unique characteristics of Small Wireless Facilities, such as the need to deploy these small facilities in large quantities,” San Francisco said. Taking rules based on a “factual record particular to one type of facility” and applying them “to different facilities with different characteristics is a bait-and-switch incompatible with rational decision-making.”