WASHINGTON-When President Clinton signed the telecommunications reform bill on Feb. 8, the wireless telecommunications industry thought it was home free.
A national antenna siting policy. Exclusion from local exchange carrier interconnection obligations and from long distance equal access requirements.
Removal of wide-area Bell wireless service limits. Bell joint marketing authority. And so on.
Antenna siting, though, was the big catch. The wireless industry had worked for months to find a sponsor. But it found two: Reps. Scott Klug (R-Wis.) and Thomas Manton (D-N.Y.).
Getting the right legislative language proved difficult. Wireless lobbyists fought long and hard with their counterparts from cities, counties and states.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association charged the Hill and the Federal Communications Commission, seeking federal pre-emption of local and state regulation of wireless towers.
The Personal Communications Industry Association took a more conciliatory approach, believing that trying to shove the legislation down the throats of local zoning boards would backfire.
Thus, even the industry wasn’t entirely unified. Yet each shared the same goal of bringing uniformity to the patchwork of local regulations threatening the buildout of new personal communications services systems.
The job entails erecting 100,000 new sites.
In the end, both trade groups cheered when the antenna provision was amended to the telecom bill at subcommittee markup and the big bill was passed and signed.
What made the legislative coup all the more spectacular was that it happened under the auspices of Republican leaders who preached the New Federalism-states rights and no unfunded mandates-after taking over Congress in 1995.
So it’s no wonder the wireless industry so cherishes the new antenna siting law today. It was a great Washington lobbying victory.
But inside and outside the Beltway, not all local officials roll over when wireless executives and consultants wave the telecom act in their faces.
What the wireless industry is finding, but too embarrassed to admit, is that Sec. 704 of the telecom act doesn’t have the teeth it thought.
Moratoriums on antenna siting are popping up in cities and towns around the nation. San Francisco used to be antenna siting friendly. Now it’s one of the most difficult places to do business. The same is true in Birmingham, Ala., Dallas, Chicago, Detroit and elsewhere.
And it’s not just local government either. The U.S. government is making life difficult for antenna siting, despite an executive order by President Clinton making federal property available for use.
As a result, construction of narrowband and broadband PCS systems will be delayed for months. That translates into higher costs for carriers, which collectively paid nearly $20 billion to the U.S. Treasury for licenses.
The delay also gives the two entrenched cellular operators in every market more time to develop marketing strategies to minimize the impact of new competition. For smaller PCS licensees, it could make survival iffy.
So, while the industry won the battle of Capitol Hill, it’s losing the war with the rank and file citizenry of America.
Antenna siting is in trouble. Big trouble. And it could get worse. Count on antenna siting as the No. 1 wireless issue of 1997. Interconnection is important. But it’s a moot point if next-generation digital pocket telephone systems are not built.
Who’s to blame? The wireless industry mostly.
PCS carriers breeze into communities without first educating local citizens and planning commissions about PCS. They’re floored when overcome with the crush of opposition from residents who don’t want antennas on or near their property and fear the structures pose a public health risk.
“What we are doing is reactive, not proactive,” said Gregory Sweet, an antenna siting consultant in San Francisco.
Sweet said he believes local officials, besieged with applications for siting from wireless carriers and other telecommunications service providers, panic and call for moratoriums. He said that if wireless carriers would spend time and effort meeting with zoning boards and residents, listening to their concerns and explaining economic and public safety benefits of wireless communications, they’d have more luck siting antennas.
It’s not just a one-shot deal either, said Sweet. Carriers may have to return to the same community to add or sector cells. The relationships carriers forge with local officials have to be genuine and long lasting, he explained.
The telecom act provision forbids state and local officials from regulating “the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commissions regulations concerning such emissions.”
Some localities, when faced with the congressional mandate, submit without a fight. Others, particularly those with money and some sophistication, call the carriers’ bluff. Like in San Francisco, where carriers must go through a two-step approval process that could last more than a year to ensure they do meet FCC RF guidelines.
But what happens when local zoning commissions hear the Environmental Protection Agency say the new hybrid RF standard does not protect against potential health risks from long-term exposure. That could cause City Hall to challenge siting applications on the grounds that the RF safety standard is, in fact, potentially unsafe. See you in court.
Environmentalists have latched onto the EPA declaration and believe they’ve found a loophole in the antenna siting provision. They argue the measure prevents local officials from denying construction of antennas if RF rules are met. But that does not keep locales from halting operation of sites.
Moreover, environmentalists have found a well-endowed ally in the labor union. Organized labor, which makes no secret of wanting to infiltrate wireless, has found in RF safety a nice avenue to pursue that goal. The Communications Workers of America have money, political power and legal expertise. If the two get a full head of steam, they could be hard to stop.
A human cry over antenna siting is about to be heard.
