Dear Editor:
I am not surprised as I witness the state of affairs in the wireless industry regarding tower siting. The industry did believe the provisions contained in the Telecommunications Act would prevent communities from disapproving antenna sites as long as they met environmental standards for RF emissions, and complied with generally applicable local zoning requirements. A cursory review of Sec. 704 leads one to that conclusion.
What the industry overlooked was how local elected officials would react when they discovered they could approve antenna sites but had very little authority to disapprove them. Historically, local officials do not react well to that set of circumstances. They will find ways to exercise influence. In the case of antenna siting, they are using moratoriums to avoid having to make the decision.
As a longtime veteran of the cable industry, I am all too familiar with how local officials can abuse whatever authority they are permitted to exercise. I also know the price an industry may have to pay before creating an environment where they can conduct business without undue government interference.
The 1992 Cable Act is an example of the influence local officials can have on the telecommunications industry. Prior to the 1992 act, cable companies were able to set their own rates for service. This was the result of the passage of the 1984 Cable Act, which lifted a number of regulatory burdens on the cable industry.
In order to gain passage of the 1984 act, the industry had to demonstrate to Congress that local officials were artificially holding down rates for political purposes. This was stymieing investments in the industry needed to improve customer service and programming. Between the ’84 and ’92 acts, the industry made great strides. However, local officials, who previously could influence rates, continued to hold public hearings each time a rate increase was announced. This generated headlines and sound bites about the need to control cable operators, bring in competition, and a call for financial disclosure on the part of cable companies.
The industry in large part responded that locals had no authority and that they didn’t need to provide financial information or justify rates. This created a public relations nightmare that the cable industry still lives today. Worse, it led to the inclusion of local rate controls in the 1992 Cable Act.
Even as the cable industry is becoming deregulated today with the advent of competition and the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the industry continues to pay a high price for neglecting to address local officials adequately between the 1984 and 1992 cable acts. The financial toll of local authority over cable rates slowed the investment in plant at a critical time in the industry. Cable stocks today are depressed related to concerns over debt levels and the ability to fund plant upgrades and rebuilds at a time when the industry faces competition and needs to introduce new products and services.
For the wireless industry, the delays being faced at the local level are occurring at the time investors need to be convinced networks will be built and aggressive cash flow projections will be met. Without towers it will be hard to keep Wall Street optimistic.
The wireless industry can benefit from the lessons learned in the regulatory history of the cable industry at the local level. As we enter into this new age of competition for all forms of telecommunications, local officials are lobbying diligently at all levels to keep and increase the authority they presently have. Local officials are a constituency group that the wireless industry will have to deal with long after antennas are placed. The time to excel at public affairs is now while you can be proactive. Once the wireless industry’s public affairs becomes reactive it may be too late.
Chad G. Hume
Owner, G Comm
Telecommunications
