distributed antenna systems/cell tower issues and other fcc developments

T elecom m unicationsL aw


2014 O utlookonCongressandtheFCC

© 2013 BestBest& KriegerL L P

The W heelerFed eralC ommu nicationsC ommission--W hatC an W e expect?


FC C Issu es

•W hen willwe have a5person C ommission?•Issu es W ireless N P RM

E Rate and helpforbroad band ad option

D emise ofTitle IIregu lation and the rise of netneu trality?

" B estP ractices" orFed eralP reemption and shotclocks forzoningand permitting?

FC C “P rocess Reform”proposals


Fu tu re Team?

JessicaRosenworcel M ignon C lybu rn M ike O ’Rielly A jitP ai

Thomas W heeler


T CCFU IFallS em inar

Houston,T X – O ctober18,2013

P R ES EN T ED BY

N icholasM illerP artner

JosephVanEatonP artner

DistributedAntennaS ystem s/CellT ow erIssuesandO therFCCDevelopm ents

© 2013 BestBest& KriegerL L P


FCC Has Commenced New Rulemaking onWireless

•R ulem akingissued T hursday,S ept.26;60-day initialcom m entperiod afterFed.R eg.publication.

•L ocalauthority isatrisk: Basicassum ptionsunderlyingm any localordinances,that

locality cangrantaperm itthatlim itsthesizeofw irelessfacilities,isatrisk. R ulem akingalsothreatensability topreventharm to

environm entally sensitiveareas,asw ellashistoricallysignificantareas. Industry w illm akeasignificantefforttolim itlocal

authority. L ocalitiesw illneedtoparticipatetoprotecttheirinterests.


Background: Underlying Federal Laws

•47 U .S .C.§ 332 (c)(7)(b)P reservesL ocalAuthority toR egulateP lacem entofP ersonalW irelessS erviceFacilitiesS oL ongAs: L ocality doesnotprohibitoreffectively prohibitprovision

ofservice; locality doesnotunreasonably discrim inateagainst

functionally equivalentservices; locality actsonanapplicationw ithinareasonableperiodof

tim e; m akesadecisioninw riting;and thedecisionissupportedby substantialevidence.

•L ocality cannotdeny basedonR Frisks.


Background (Cont’d)

•S uprem eCourtruled thatFCC hasauthority toim plem entprovisionsof47 U .S .C.§ 332 (c)(7)inArlington v. F.C.C., 133 S .Ct.1863 (2013).

•DecisionleavesinplaceFCC rulesthat: Establishedashotclockforlocalactiononacom plete

application(90/150 daysdependingonfacility); concludedthatabsentagreem entw ithapplicant,alocality

thatfailstoacthas“ presum ptively” actedunreasonably;and providedthatlocality cannotdeny anapplicationm erely

becauseanotherprovideralready offersservicew ithinanarea.


Background (Cont’d)

•47 U.S.C. §1455(a) –M odificationofT ow ers/BaseS tations “aS tateorlocalgovernm entm ay notdeny,andshall

approve,any eligiblefacilitiesrequestforam odificationofanexistingw irelesstow erorbasestationthatdoesnotsubstantially changethephysicaldim ensionsofsuchtow erorbasestation. “eligiblefacilitiesrequest”m eansany requestfor

m odification“ofanexistingw irelesstow erorbasestation”involvingcollocationofnew transm issionequipm ent;rem ovaloftransm issionequipm ent;orreplacem entoftransm issionequipm ent.

•FCC givenauthority toim plem entby 47U .S .C.§1403•R eferredtoinrulem akingasS ec.6409.


FCC Guidance (Jan 2013)

•GuidanceIssued by FCC ’sW irelessBureau. Defines“ substantially change” throughcriteriadeveloped

inadifferentcontext(historicpreservation).• Forexam ple,no“ substantialchange” ifanadditionextendsa

facility lessthan20 feetinany direction.

O ffersbroaddefinitionof“ basestation” thatcouldm akestatuteapply tom any facilities,includingutility poles. Isnotintendedtoreachsafety issues,proprietary property

(lightpoles)or“ non-zoning” rulesthataffectplacem ent. “ Interpretive” guidanceonly – notbindingoncourtsor

localzoningauthorities.


Historic Site – NowHistoric50’-highsilosw ithapprovedattachm entofsix panelantennaspaintedtom atchexteriorsurfacetom inim izevisual

im pact. L ocatedatDufiefM illR oadandM D R oute28 (Darnestow nR oad)inM ontgom ery County,M aryland.

P hotosby:R obertP .Hunnicutt,Colum biaT elecom m unicationsCorporation


Historic Site – Post Guidance?Illustrationshow ingpotentialim pactofco-locationofanadditionalapproxim ately 20’-highpolem ountedantennaarray.



Historic Site – Now

P hotoofS im eonT .T oby’sBankBuilding,Colum biaCity HistoricDistrict,KingCounty,W A. Blue

arrow spointtocurrentlocationofcelltow ers. Buildinglistedon

N ationalR egistry ofHistoricP laces


Historic Site – Post Guidance?Illustrationshow ing

potentialim pactofco-locationusingphotosof

actualrooftop installations


Brickyard Rd. DAS Site – Neighborhood



Brickyard Rd. DAS Site – NowP oletosupportDAS antennas(68’ high)now atBrickyardR oad inM ontgom ery County(partofam ulti-nodeinstallationthatextendsdow nBrickyardR oad)



Brickyard Rd. DAS Site – Post Guidance?Illustrationofanextensiontoexistingutilitypolew ithadditionalstructuralbracingandguy w irestosupporttheextension,w hichrisesapproxim ately 20’ aboveexistingDAS antennas. Blocksatbottom reflectrelatedtypicalpole-m ountedequipm entcabinets.



The FCC Rulemaking•P rovidesarealopportunity toaddressthe

deficienciesintheGuidance.•P resentsarealriskthatFCC w illexceed

authority andundom any stateandlocallaw sthatprotectneighborhoods,theenvironm entandhistoricalareas.

•Couldsubstantially delay in-processdecisions•Im portancecom poundedby industry pushto

w riteGuidanceintostatelaw.


Rulemaking Structure•In re Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by

Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies,W TDocketN o.13-238,FCC 13-122 (9/26/2013).

•Fourareasaddressed: S hould FCC expediteN ationalEnvironm entalP olicy

ActandN ationalHistoricalP reservationreviewprocessesforDAS andsm allcells,and categoricallyexcludethesedeploym entsfrom review ?


Rulemaking Structure•Fourareasaddressed(cont’d) S hould FCC exem pttem porary antennastructures

from fed.review ?

S hould FCC adoptrulesre:S ection6409? W hatrules?

S hould FCC alteritsshotclockrules,to,e.g.

•determ inew henanapplicationiscom pleteandaddressrem ediesifshotclocknotm et;

•addressDAS ;

•addressm oratoria,m unisitingpreferences.


Implementation of Sec. 6409•S houldtheFCC m akerulesinthisarea?

(alternatives:givelocalitiesfirstopportunity;orprovideforatransitionperiod).

•W hatservicesarereached? (tentativeconclusion,any licensedorunlicensedw irelessservice).

•W hatis“ transm issionequipm ent” (doesitincludepow ersupplies)?


Implementation of Sec. 6409•W hatisaw irelesstow erorbasestation? “ T ow ers” and basestationsasthoseterm sare

norm ally understood?

Buildings,w atertow ers,utility poles,etc.?

•W hatservicesarereached? (tentativeconclusion,any licensedorunlicensedw irelessservice).

•W hatisanexistingtow erorbasestation(m ustsom ethingactually beinuseforw ireless)?


Implementation of Sec. 6409•W hatarecollocation,rem ovalandreplacem ent

(only changestotheexistingfacility,oradditionsoffacilitiesandequipm entassociated w iththeexistingfacility)?

•How doesthelaw affectnon-conform inguses(andw hy arenon-conform ingusesneeded)?

•M ustagovernm entapproveam odificationthatdoesnotconform toanexistingperm itcondition?


Implementation of Sec. 6409•W hatisasubstantialchangeinphysical

dim ension?Justsizeorsom ethingm ore?

Isitanabsoluteorrelativestandard?

Doessam etestapply toallstructuresoraredifferenttestsappropriateforlightandutility poles,buildings,etc.? T ostealthfacilities?

Arechangesm easured from originalstructureorfromstructureasm odified?


Implementation of Sec. 6409•W hatdoes“ shallnotdeny andshallapprove”

m ean?Arethereany specialcircum stancesw herean

applicationm ay bedenied?

Doesitrequireapprovalw hereastructureviolatessafety codes,orotherw iseplacespersonsandproperty atrisk?

Canitbereadtoallow im positionofconditions?


Implementation of Sec. 6409•Doesthestatuteapply w heregov’tisactingasa

proprietorandnotasaregulator? (tentativeansw er:no).

•W hatapplicationprocessm ay berequiredifany,andbeforew hatentity? (tentative:anapplicationcanberequired).

•W hatrem edy isappropriateandconstitutional?(tentativeansw er:deem edgrantedw ithFCCreview ).


Revisions To Shot Clock (332(c)(7))•R ulem akingdoesnotinviteorproposew holesale

revisionofexistingrules.•S houldFCC changedefinitionofcollocation?•S houldFCC clarify w henanapplicationis

com plete?•Dom oratoriapausetheshotclock? (tentative

answ er,“ no” ).


Revisions To Shot Clock (332(c)(7))

•Doesshotclockapply toDAS andtosm allcells?(tentativeansw er,“ yes” ).note:thisisprobably notthem ostcriticalissue;issue

ishow onedeterm inesw hetheranordinanceisorisnotprohibitory.

•Arepreferencesforsitingonm unipropertyunreasonably discrim inatory?

•S houldFCC revisitrem edies(deem granted)?


Approaching the NPRM•N P R M islikely tosignificantly affectlocalities.•N P R M asks the right questions. Betterbalanceintoneandsubstance Very com plexanalysisandfacts

•M ay deterstateadoptionofFCC Guidance.•N eedanationaleffort,w ithlotsoflocaldetails S itingexam ples L ocalvariations Econom ic,Engineering,P ublicS afety Analysis Coordinatedvoices?

•T CCFU Irole?


Approaching the NPRM

•Industry w illattackm any com m unitiesdirectly.•Forindividualcity attorneys:Ifplacem entisanissue,yourcom m unity m ustactin

thisproceeding.

T hependingproceedingm ay affectpendingapplications.

W hateverhappens,you w illneedtoreviseyourzoningcodes.


TA X ES

W H A T IS TA X A B L EN .B .This is notonly afed eral

issu e!


C A N C O N GRESS H A RM O N IZEEL EC TRO N IC TA X A TIO N ?

P ossibleO n-L ineT axR eform

M arketplaceFairness

InternetT axFreedom

DigitalGoods

CellT axM orat’m


C A V EA TS/GIV EN S• C ommu nications tax “reform”atthe fed eralorstate levelis a

very d angerou s game forlocalgovernments who have themostto lose,the leastto gain.

• L ocalgovernments’fu tu re abilityto tax orimpose fees on anytype of commu nications service provid eris atseriou s risk.

• C ommu nications tax reform may be inevitable in 2013-14 atthe Fed erallevel.D on’tlose atthe state levelbefore then.

• Reform need notbe bad forlocalgovernments.• L ocals mu stbe farmore active participants if interests are to be

protected .

33


The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act(S 31/H R 434)or(S.1431)

Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act (“ITFFA”)

ITFA has been in effectsince 1998 ,cu rrentlysched u led toexpire in N ovember,2014

Expectactivityin nextC ongress (2013)as 2014 d ead lineapproaches

ITFA “walls off”from state and localtaxation the largest,and fastestgrowing,form of commu nications — broad band

ITFA mu stbe repealed orallowed to expire as acond ition ofreform orthis is simply an ind u stry tax red u ction exercise,nottru e tax reform

34


ITFA

•A s whatwas formerly telecom is su pplanted bybroad band ,states and locals are leftwithashrinkingcommu nications service tax base.

•L eftin place,the ITFA willeventu ally “taxexempt”all,oralmostall,of the entiretelecommu nications ind u stry’s services.

•Unless telecom tax “reform”is cou pled withITFArepeal,ind u stry willhave no incentive to everletITFA expire.


Wireless Tax Fairness ActH .R.2309,S.1235

•L astC ongress (H R-1002)passed theH ou se,wentnowhere in the Senate• W ou ld impose a5-yearmoratoriu m on any new

“d iscriminatory”,orany increase in existing,state orlocaltaxes on wireless services;wou ldgrand fatherexistingtaxes and exclu d e taxesimposed by vote of commu nity

•W illretu rn in 2013

36


The Digital Goods and Services TaxFairness Act of 2013 -- S.1364

• L egislation creates anationwid e “tax preference”foronline good s and services overcompetingbrick-and -mortarsales by limitingstate and localtaxes on“d igitalgood s and services.”

•D ownload ed mu sic and vid eos;

•P ay-per-V iew (P P V )and vid eo-on-d emand (V oD )revenu e from the cable franchise fee revenu e base

37


Main Street Fairness Act

(S.7 43and H .R.68 4)• P assed Senate on astrongbi-partisan basis

• P end ingin H ou se Ju d iciary

• A llows states and localgovernments to collectsalesand u se taxes on remote (typically online)sales totheirresid ents

• A ims to eliminate the cu rrentd isad vantage su fferedby brick-and -mortarretailers vis-à-vis onlineretailers

• Generate fu nd s

38


D O N ’T FO RGET TH E TH REA TA TTH E STA TE L EV EL :

State C ommu nications Tax Reform


C ommu nications Tax “Reform”

• B asic approach

• C ollapse allcommu nications-related taxes and fees (cablefranchise fees,perhaps P EG fees,D B S,land line telecom &wireless)into asingle tax

• M ove responsibilityforimposition,collection and au d itingof the tax to the state level

• Examples inclu d e V A ,FL ,KY,O H ,and N C

• D O W N SID E:Eliminate commu nications-related RO W fees

40


C ommu nications Tax “Reform”(cont’d )

•B enefits forind u stry:• L owertax ad ministration costs• L owertaxes,exceptperhaps forD B S• Greaterprotection againstfu tu re tax increases

•Risks to localgovernments:• L oss of abilityto controllocaltax stru ctu re and policy,and

thu s controloverlocalbu d getrevenu es• L oss of au d itingau thorityto ensu re correctamou nts are paid

41


Nicholas MillerB estB est& Krieger2000 P ennsylvaniaA venu e N WSu ite 4300W ashington,D C 20006P hone:(202)37 0-5309Fax:(202)7 8 5-1234C ell:(202)256-0163N icholas.M iller@ bbklaw.comW ebsite:www.bbklaw.com

Contact Information

PHOTO


About BB&K

B estB est& KriegerL L P is afu ll-service law firmwithmore than 200 attorneys in C aliforniaand

W ashington,D .C .d eliveringeffective,timely andservice-oriented solu tions to complex legalissu esfacingpu blic agencies,bu sinesses and ind ivid u als.

B B & K lawyers serve as city attorneyto 30 C aliforniacities and as generaland specialcou nselto speciald istricts,schoold istricts,cities,cou nties and other

pu blic agencies.The firm has been helpingbu sinesses,from localto international,achieve their

goals formore than 100 years.

distributed antenna systems/cell tower issues and other fcc developments

Documents