6.3 ERMUSR 03-13-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1111111117111,8 torirtirlaredv interpreting the "fair and reasonable compensation" November 2017 the FCC issued a partial response provision of the federal Communications Act, to the Mobilitie case by excluding certain capital Section 253. This section provides the FCC costs from pole attachment rates, establishing"shot with some authority to preempt enforcement clock" deadlines to respond to pole attachment of any state or local government action that complaints, and excluding certain poles from may inhibit the ability of an entity to compete historic preservation rules. It did not, however, effectively in providing telecommunications expressly address the municipal exemption nor the services. In its request for comments, the FCC restriction on the FCC 's jurisdiction over public expanded the inquiry to include Section 332 of power utility poles. the Communications Act, which addresses the expansion of wireless facilities. The FCC sought The Minnesota legislature also considered input on several items, including local government legislation in 2017 that would have preempted practices that may have an effect on prohibiting local control on a number of issues related to the providing wireless service, whether the "reasonable expansion of.5G service and what is known as period of time" for small cell siting should differ small cell wireless, but in the end the legislature from macro cell siting, and what qualifies as a exempted municipal utilities from the new small cell. regulations regarding the siting of small cell antennae and the fees which can be charged. MMUA and the League of Minnesota Cities jointly submitted comments to the FCC to emphasize the MMUA Position need for maintaining local control of siting wireless We urge Congress to oppose any repeal or facilities. Municipalities have zoning, land use, weakening of the current municipal exemptions and technical considerations (including National from FCC regulations over pole attachments and Electric Safety Code requirements) that justify applicable rate charges. This includes opposing any local authority over the use of its infrastructure. effort to grant the FCC regulatory authority over public power utility poles and the fees which can be Despite not being able to show a single example of charged. where local control and the existing exemption from FCC rate control over pole attachments has proven to be an impediment to broadband deployment, in Safety and aesthetics are legitimate local government t ,«r.,..�,_. ...... concerns. Pole 11 « attachments can a be particularly - troublesome in cities li . �` - _ " where much of the T ��4 ,,, .. <r�; *' �V�� V "` utility infrastructure F sTOP has already been i 4' ` . placed underground. lit,'"'"'es 4,!:...„&-T"'-..— , 1 a .., . r ' _« " - ' Pictured here is - _� Barnesville. . o,gs a' 2018 Federal Position Statements/7 239