collaboration in the installation of broadband facilities (conduit) whenever construction was planned along state highways. Both federal and state laws have mandating that local created “shot clocks” government process within a set period of time all applications to build wireless facilities in public rights-of-way, including on utility poles. As this OII/OIR has taken shape, we have seen a flurry of new legislative and regulatory proposals at both the state and federal levels, addressing municipalities’ processing of new permit applications by wireless companies and their surrogates, seeking to pave the way for faster deployment of communications technologies including 5G wireless (although final standards for this technology are not expected to be adopted until 2020). On December 26, 2016, the FCC responding to a petition filed by a wireless – carrier (Mobilitie LLC), asking that discretion in handling wireless siting municipalities’ permit applications be limited established a docket and asked for comment In re – Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities In setting a Comment schedule, the FCC explained the technological Siting Policies. advances driving interest in poles and conduit, and described past controversy and rulemaking about the extent of municipal discretion. The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) filed Comments in the FCC proceeding, asserting it had of wireless facilities on utility poles in “permitted hundreds an At the same over the expeditious manner.” time, CCSF noted, “[t]he City’s authority placement of wireless facilities on utility poles is limited by [CPUC] General Order … 95, which establishes statewide utility pole safety requirements to protect both utility workers and the Comments from other states and state groups in the Small Cells public.” docket urged the FCC not to limit state and local laws relating to safety. In California, the Mobilitie Petition was foreshadowed by the California Supreme a month earlier of review in T-Mobile v. City & County of San Francisco. Court’s grant In that case, T-Mobile argues that over cell siting and pole attachments “local control” should be CCSF argues that its discretion under Public Utilities “narrowly prescribed”;
collaboration in the installation of broadband facilities (conduit) whenever construction was planned along state highways. Both federal and state laws have created “shot clocks” mandating that local government process within a set period of time all applications to build wireless facilities in public rights-of-way, including on utility poles. As this OII/OIR has taken shape, we have seen a flurry of new legislative and regulatory proposals at both the state and federal levels, addressing municipalities’ processing of new permit applications by wireless companies and their surrogates, seeking to pave the way for faster deployment of communications technologies including 5G wireless (although final standards for this technology are not expected to be adopted until 2020). On December 26, 2016, the FCC – responding to a petition filed by a wireless carrier (Mobilitie LLC), asking that municipalities’ discretion in handling wireless siting permit applications be limited – established a docket and asked for comment In re Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies. In setting a Comment schedule, the FCC explained the technological advances driving interest in poles and conduit, and described past controversy and rulemaking about the extent of municipal discretion. The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) filed Comments in the FCC proceeding, asserting it had “permitted hundreds of wireless facilities on utility poles in an expeditious manner.” At the same time, CCSF noted, “[t]he City’s authority over the placement of wireless facilities on utility poles is limited by … [CPUC] General Order 95, which establishes statewide utility pole safety requirements to protect both utility workers and the public.” Comments from other states and state groups in the Small Cells docket urged the FCC not to limit state and local laws relating to safety. In California, the Mobilitie Petition was foreshadowed by the California Supreme Court’s grant a month earlier of review in T-Mobile v. City & County of San Francisco. In that case, T-Mobile argues that “local control” over cell siting and pole attachments should be “narrowly prescribed”; CCSF argues that its discretion under Public Utilities
191499332.docx