File “reply comments” by Monday, June 17 on FCC WT Docket 19-71
In 19-71, the FCC proposes to preempt more local and state authority by exempting certain wireless antennas on private property from permitting and regulation. The FCC wants to expand the current OTARD exemption – Over-the-Air Reception Devices – as a Plan B suggested by Comm. Rosenworcel in case the court overturns last fall’s rules deregulating small cell towers in the public right of way. The FCC says this is to facilitate 5G, smart cities, and broadband deployment.
At the present time, OTARD devices, such as DishTV on private property for the use of people on the private property, are exempt from state and local regulation if they are a certain size. The FCC wants to expand the OTARD definition to include hub and relay 2-way antennas for satellites and other wireless systems for wide public use as long as they are installed on private property. Cities, counties, and the state would no longer be able to regulate these antennas or require permits. These wireless facilities would be exempt.
The deadline for Reply Comments is June 17.
You can send in Reply Comments even if you didn’t file Comments.
Instructions on how to file comments – below.
Specify Proceeding: 19-71, hit Return, then go to the bottom and hit Search.
The proposed rulemaking is short -- 8 pages plus an appendix and FCC commissioner statements.
Proposed Changes (note: final rules could have further changes, eg. eliminating size or height restrictions):
“1. Amend Section 1.4000(a)(1)(i)(A) to read as follows:
(a)(1)(i)(A) An antenna that is used to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including directto-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite, including a hub or relay antenna, and”
“2. Amend Section 1.4000(a)(1)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
(a)(1)(ii)(A) An antenna that is used to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite, including a hub or relay antenna, and”
- - - - - - -
If these new rules are adopted, a network antenna located on private property would be exempt from local and state regulation (subject to size restrictions). This would include network systems for utility companies, broadband, wireless companies, and satellite, including SpaceX, OneWeb, etc.
The facilities would be exempt from permitting, public notice, public hearings, RF reports, discretionary permits, design guidelines, and all land use regulations, and they could be installed anywhere.
Unregulated and unpermitted co-location of multiple antennas on private property would also be possible.
Antennas would suddenly appear. Because they would be exempt, cities and counties would generally have no information about them – company name, specs, output, equipment, etc.
Property owners would be offered monthly income or free services to host these microwave facilities on their properties. Neighbor would be pitted against neighbor, as people signed contracts without regard for their neighbors. This would be open season.
This commandeering proposal by the FCC prohibits state and local governments from regulating the land within their jurisdiction and seems to violate the U.S. 10th amendment.
Interestingly, p. 16 of the FCC proposed rulemaking says:
“F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
23. None.”
In addition to conflicting with U.S. Constitution protections for due process, privacy, and the rights of citizens, and protecting against search and seizure, the rules also conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act for those disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity.
More information on the rulemaking is below.
By filing comments and/or reply comments, you will have “standing” in the proceeding, which gives you certain rights.
Filing comments for WT Docket No. 19-71
This is the direct link to express filings --
This is the direct link to standard comments (allows you to upload documents)
Use either one to submit comments and reply comments.
You can submit more than one comment, and you can submit documents by filing standard comments.
How to get there from the main webpage:
Proceedings and actions
Proceedings and actions overview
File a comment in a proceeding, learn more
Standard filing or express comment
Express comment –
Proceeding: 19-71, press enter
Name of filer: you
Primary contact email: your email address (not required)
Address:(required)
Brief comments: State that this is a reply comment. Either type in your comments or paste your comments into the screen-- there may be limits to how many words.
(If you make a mistake, you can hit Reset)
Press, Continue to review screen
If okay, submit your comments
Print out confirmation page for your records
Standard filing – fill in these blanks --
Proceeding: 19-71, press enter
Name of filer: you
Primary contact email: your email address (not required)
Type of comment: Reply Comment
Address (required)
Upload your comments – as a doc, pdf, or other listed file type; you can attach more than one document, too.
(If you make a mistake, you can hit Reset)
Press, Continue to review screen
If okay, submit your comments (you may have to wait a bit for it to go through)
Print out confirmation page for your records
---------------------------------------------
If you are disabled by electromagnetic sensitivities, include information such as
“I am disabled by electromagnetic sensitivities. EMF emissions from wireless devices cause me disabling health effects. The proposed rules would allow the proliferation of EMF-emitting wireless antennas without regulation, blocking the assertion of my disabled rights and my due process.”
and this:
“As a disabled accommodation, I request that the FCC publicly post any final proposed rules 30 days in advance of the Sunshine Period before the scheduled voting meeting to permit me to study the rules and to make ex parte comments to the Commission at that time, and I request that the FCC notify me when they have posted those final proposed rules.”
From the proposed rulemaking:
p. 2-3
“#5. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) has asked the Commission to update the OTARD rule to apply to 'all fixed wireless transmitters and receivers, regardless of whether the equipment is used for reception, transmission or both, so long as the equipment meets the existing size restrictions for customer-end equipment.'”
#6...WISPA states that with advances in fixed wireless technology that use millimeter wave technology [5G], going forward, 'the areas covered by base stations will continue to shrink to overcome significant propagation losses in these higher bands.' Because of these changes in technology and network design, WIPA contends, 'fixed wireless providers have much less choice in where they can locate hub sites.
#7...The wireless technology landscape has since shifted toward the development of 5G networks and technologies that require dense deployment of smaller antennas across provider networks in locations closer to customers.”
p. 16:
“#22 The proposed rule changes contemplated by the Commission in this proceeding would relieve small as well as large companies from private and governmental restrictions on the placement of devices integral to the deployment of modern fixed wireless infrastructure."
Chairman Pai: "If adopted, this proposal would jumpstart the deployment of antennas that could be part of mesh networks, -- essentially, webs of wireless network nodes,"
Comm. O'Rielly: "We simply cannot accept unnecessary and indefensible barriers to infrastructure deployment...Now we are considering on extending these rules to all fixed wireless transmitters and receivers, if they fit certain size limitations."
Comm. Rosenworcel: "OTARD rules provide users with the right to install communications equipment on property they control. By updating our OTARD rules, we could create more siting options for antennas."
Comm. Carr: "Two weeks ago in Ohio, I joined a WISP (wireless internet service provider) on top of a grain elevator that they're using to beam broadband for miles around."
Rosenworcel also says: "It seems increasingly likely that the courts will return some part of our small cell infrastructure decision back to this agency with a remand. This could send us right back to the starting line of the 5G race with respect to infrastructure reform-- and should that happen, we will need new ideas that are ready to go. ...We're going to need new ideas to ensure it reaches everywhere."
This is what BBK had to say in May
Current rule on preempted restrictions
47 CFR § 1.4000 - Restrictions impairing reception of television broadcast signals, direct broadcast satellite services or multichannel multipoint distribution services.
Current OTARD size limits:
(1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) – satellite
(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement – non-satellite
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals.
In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.
Q: Whose antenna restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule applies to restrictions imposed by local governments, including zoning, land-use or building regulations; by homeowner, townhome, condominium or cooperative association rules, including deed restrictions, covenants, by-laws and similar restrictions; and by manufactured housing (mobile home) park owners and landlords, including lease restrictions. The rule only applies to restrictions on property where the viewer has an ownership or leasehold interest and exclusive use or control.
Federal Register notice by FCC
Comments of the United States Conference of Mayors; the Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; the City of Dallas, Texas; the City of Boston, Massachusetts; the City of Los Angeles,California; the City of Fountain Valley, California; the City of Piedmont, California and Montgomery County, Maryland
No comments:
Post a Comment