This FCC has a way of doing the opposite of what it claims. It criticizes the
FCC under Wheeler as "overreaching," but the truth is, this FCC is the one that
consistently tries to bulldoze its decisions over local authorities (and
Congress, and the people).
I've been wondering just how readily people and local governments would accept
this Chairman's headlong dash, to allow 5G small cells to be locate everywhere
and anywhere, seemingly without a second thought. I haven't seen any mention of
RF power density limits, although I assume these continue to exist, and never
mind esthetic considerations. Turns out, Commissioner Rosenworcel also wonders.
Chairman Pai's comment:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354283A2.pdf
He likes to pretend it's all about local government wanting to extract fees:
"To be sure, there are some local governments that don't like this Order. They
would like to continue extracting as much money as possible in fees from the
private sector and forcing companies to navigate a maze of regulatory hurdles
in order to deploy wireless infrastructure. But these actions are not only
unlawful, they're also short-sighted. They slow the construction of 5G
networks and will delay if not prevent the benefits of 5G from reaching
American consumers. And let's also be clear about one thing: When you raise
the cost of deploying wireless infrastructure, it is those who live in areas
where the investment case is the most marginal-rural areas or lower-income
urban areas-who are most at risk of losing out. And I don't want 5G to widen
the digital divide; I want 5G to help close that divide."
Say what you want, but you, FCC Chairman, are not an elected official. The
people in these localities might have other considerations, especially when it
comes to the dense cell requirements of 5G. Libertarian yahoos, such as those
running the FCC today, ought to understand at least that much. They ought to
think twice before bulldozing over local decisions.
Commissioner Rosenworcel:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354283A5.pdf
"I do not believe the law permits Washington to run roughshod over state and
local authority like this and I worry the litigation that follows will only
slow our 5G future. For starters, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the
states that are not expressly granted to the federal government. In other
words, the constitution sets up a system of dual sovereignty that informs all
of our laws. To this end, Section 253 balances the interests of state and
local authorities with this agency's responsibility to expand the reach of
communications service. While Section 253(a) is concerned with state and local
requirements that may prohibit or effectively prohibit service, Section 253(d)
permits preemption only on a case-by-case basis after notice and comment. We
do not do that here. Moreover, the assertion that fees above cost or local
aesthetic requirements in a single city are tantamount to a service prohibition
elsewhere stretches the statute beyond what Congress intended and legal
precedent affords.
"In addition, this decision irresponsibly interferes with existing agreements
and ongoing deployment across the country. There are thousands of cities and
towns with agreements for infrastructure deployment-including 5G wireless
facilities-that were negotiated in good faith. So many of them could be torn
apart by our actions here. If we want to encourage investment, upending
commitments made in binding contracts is a curious way to go."
Thing is, under normal circumstances, one would expect there's no real problem.
But this corrupt Chairman has demonstrated just how he ignores everyone,
whenever it suits him. He spouts these disigenuous banalities:
"And I don't want 5G to widen the digital divide ..."
What crap. It has nothing to do with "digital divide." If it had anything to do
with actual service availability, he wouldn't keep trying to find shortcuts in
what he claims is acceptable for broadband service. Such as, pretending that
existing 4G wireless access should count as broadband service availability. As
always, this only has to do with special favors to a tiny handful of special
interests only, all the rest be damned.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.