Wireless Infrastructure Order Appears Headed to 5-0 Vote
A draft FCC order on changes to rules for wireless infrastructure, slated for a vote by commissioners Thursday (see 1710260038), appears headed to a 5-0 vote, though parts were still in flux Wednesday, officials said. The biggest likely change is the elimination of the “same hole” requirement, which would have mandated that to get relief from historic preservation review requirements, a new utility pole had to be placed in the same hole as a pole it was replacing, officials said. Wireless facilities are commonly attached to utility poles.
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 order is the first of several expected to be teed up by Chairman Ajit Pai designed to speed deployment of small cells and other wireless infrastructure as industry moves toward deployment of 5G (see 1711080049). “There is no potential effect on historic properties when utility poles are replaced with substantially identical poles that can be used to support antennas or other wireless communications equipment,” said a fact sheet. “Individualized historic preservation review is unnecessary in such circumstances.” Also at Thursday's meeting, orders on Lifeline (see 1711140020), wireline infrastructure, ATSC 3.0 (see 1711140053) and media ownership (see 1711150054) are expected to get split votes or have Democratic members' raise concerns.
Electric utilities, represented by the Edison Electric Institute, complained the rules proposed by Pai weren't in keeping with standard practices. The draft rules are “problematic” because they don’t “reflect common utility practice in a number of ways,” EEI said. “A replacement pole does not usually go in the same hole as the original because typical operating procedures are to place new poles next to the existing pole, transfer the lines and attachments, and then remove the original pole,” said a filing in docket 17-79. “A replacement pole will likely require new ground disturbance because of the need to set the new pole next to the existing pole.” EEI also complained about a requirement that the new pole not be more than 10 percent higher than the old one. “A replacement pole will typically require a height increase greater than 10 percent because pole heights are standardized in 5 foot increments and because of clearance requirements,” the group said.
Crown Castle also sought tweaks to the draft rules. “Because most replacement poles must be constructed adjacent to existing poles to allow providers to relocate their equipment without disruption before the existing pole is removed, an exemption that only applies to poles placed in the exact same hole as the existing pole would be of limited utility,” said the cell tower owner. “A 10 percent increase in height is insufficient to provide the separation that many utilities require between the power space and an antenna located at the top of the pole (which is where most utilities require small cell antennas to be installed).” The Utilities Technology Council raised similar concerns.
The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers also has concerns. NATHPO asked the FCC to provide data backing an assertion in the draft order that replacement poles will have no implications for historic properties. “Without such data, we find that FCC’s assertions are arbitrary,” the group said. Even putting a pole in the same hole can raise issues “because the hole will always be deeper and wider for a replacement pole and can be up to 10 percent taller, thereby allowing it to carry additional weight (antennas and cabin, for example),” NAPTHO said.