892
edits
Difference between revisions of "Mesh/Pole attachment"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
(Created page with "This document discusses rules and technical challenges around attaching telecommunications gear to city-owned poles. = New FCC rules = the FCC has implemented new rules in J...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Info on attaching telecommunications gear to city-owned poles. | |||
= New FCC rules = | = New FCC rules = | ||
| Line 55: | Line 56: | ||
* Get an encroachment permit - (no idea how slow) | * Get an encroachment permit - (no idea how slow) | ||
* Get electrical approval - (we may be able to skip this since we're not tying into any power. not sure. no idea of speed) | * Get electrical approval - (we may be able to skip this since we're not tying into any power. not sure. no idea of speed) | ||
juul has been given contact info for two people at the IT department which will be our point of entry into this process. | juul has been given contact info for two people at the IT department which will be our point of entry into this process. | ||
| Line 67: | Line 66: | ||
The human at the Department of Real Estate Services mentioned that fee reduction could be possible if there was some giveback to the city. | The human at the Department of Real Estate Services mentioned that fee reduction could be possible if there was some giveback to the city. | ||
=== Delays, FCC and "shot clocks" === | |||
The good news is that the new FCC rules set a 90 day limit for the city to make a decision on permit applications for "small wireless facilities" which currently include mounting new equipment to a pole and this has been affirmed by federal courts. They are trying to reclassify attachment of new equipment to a pole as "colocation" which would shorten that deadline to 60 days. | |||
Here's some info on what we could do if they miss the 90-day deadline from [https://tellusventure.com/downloads/fcc/2018/fcc_final_ruling_wireless_infrastructure_26sep2018.pdf the official FCC document]. They call these time windows for approval "shot clocks": | |||
<blockquote> | |||
In particular, we read Sections 253 and 332 as allowing 60 days for reviewing the application for attachment of a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure and 90 days for the review of an application for attachment of a small wireless facility using a new structure. Second, while we do not adopt a "deemed granted" remedy for violations of our new shot clocks, we clarify that failing to issue a decision up or down during this time period is not simply a "failure to act" within the meaning of applicable law. Rather, missing the deadline also constitutes a presumptive prohibition. We would thus expect any locality that misses the deadline to issue any necessary permits or authorizations without further delay. We also anticipate that a provider would have a strong case for quickly obtaining an injunction from a court that compels the issuance of all permits in these types of cases. Third, we clarify a number of issues that are relevant to all of the FCC’s shot clocks, including the types of authorizations subject to these time periods. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Here's some clarification on the FCC definition of what is and isn't part of the 90 day "shot clock": | |||
TL;DR: Yeah the 90 days is for _everything_. Including safety and encroachment. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Industry commenters contend that the shot clocks should apply to all authorizations a locality may require, and to all aspects of and steps in the siting process, including license or franchise agreements to access ROW, building permits, public notices and meetings, lease negotiations, electric permits, road closure permits, aesthetic approvals, and other authorizations needed for deployment. Local siting authorities, on the other hand, argue that a broad application of Section will harm public safety and welfare by not giving them enough time to evaluate whether a proposed deployment endangers the public. They assert that building and encroachment permits should not be subsumed within the shot clocks because these permits incorporate essential health and safety reviews. 383 After carefully considering these arguments, we find that "any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities" under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) means all authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. This interpretation finds support in the record and is consistent with the courts’ interpretation of this provision and the text and purpose of the Act. | |||
The starting point for statutory interpretation is the text of the statute, 384 and here, the statute is written broadly, applying to "any" request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities. The expansive modifier "any" typically has been interpreted to mean "one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind," unless Congress "add[ed] any language limiting the breadth of that word." The title of Section 332(c)(7) ("Preservation of local zoning authority") does not restrict the applicability of this section to zoning permits in light of the clear text of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The text encompasses not only requests for authorization to place personal wireless service facilities, e.g., zoning requests, but also requests for authorization to construct or modify personal wireless service facilities. These activities typically require more than just zoning permits. For example, in many instances, localities require building permits, road closure permits, and the like to make construction or modification possible. Accordingly, the fact that the title standing alone could be read to limit Section 332(c)(7) to zoning decisions does not overcome the specific language of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), which explicitly applies to a variety of authorizations. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
= Vertically mounted solar panels = | = Vertically mounted solar panels = | ||
A study called [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07805.pdf The Signpost Platform for City-Scale Sensing] collected data on how much power is received by vertically mounted solar panels on traffic. See figure 5 on page 7. | A study called [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07805.pdf The Signpost Platform for City-Scale Sensing] collected data on how much power is received by vertically mounted solar panels on traffic. See figure 5 on page 7. | ||