Industry Urges Quick Approval of Controversial Collocation Proposal

changes (see 2007220079). Comments were posted Thursday in docket 19-250. Consumers want 5G, Crown Castle said. “The ability to make minor increases to the physical footprint of existing tower sites is vital to keeping up with this demand and providing the back-up power that is increasingly required to ensure resilient services,” it said. “Failure to allow for such expansion in a manner consistent with industry and municipal practices will significantly hinder the use of existing infrastructure for collocation and continued growth, placing unnecessary barriers in the path to deployment.” The change would address an inconsistency between current rules implementing Section 6409 of the 2012 Spectrum Act and the 2004 nationwide programmatic agreement, American Tower said. The NPA permits “construction and excavation within 30 feet in any direction of the leased or owned property previously surrounding a tower… without the need for further Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act review,” the company said: “However, in collocation situations, which are less disruptive than tower replacements, an expansion of a tower compound is subject to more significant government scrutiny.” The record “demonstrates a widespread recognition by the wireless industry and infrastructure providers that the definition of ‘compound expansion’ used for determining whether a proposal is eligible for treatment under Section 6409(a) is inhibiting wireless deployment and is logically inconsistent with the treatment of replacement towers,” said the Wireless Infrastructure Association, which sought the change. Even basic customer equipment and backup power require some additional space at cellsites, CTIA said. “More than one generation of equipment may be located at a site as providers phase out older equipment.” 5G networks also use multi-access edge computing, which will be installed at current facilities, the group said. Reject the proposal as “inconsistent with Congressional intent, the Commission’s prior orders, and public policy,” said local governments. “There is no evidence that the proposed change is necessary, nor that any economic analysis has been conducted to justify the disruption the proposed rule will cause in the marketplace,” they said. “Failure to adopt the compound expansion proposal will not be fatal to the site expansions.” Signers included Boston; Portland, Oregon; Clarke County, Nevada; Rockville and Gaithersburg, Maryland; and municipal groups in Michigan and Texas.