Wireless Carriers Say Tower Siting Delays a Major Issue
The nation’s major wireless carriers told the FCC that siting cell towers and other wireless facilities can take years. They filed in support of a CTIA petition asking the commission to clarify federal authority over cell towers and wireless facility siting. The petition also asks the agency to set deadlines for local governments to make decisions in siting cases. FCC officials said Tuesday action on the petition appears unlikely during the remainder of Kevin Martin’s term as chairman.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
“I find it hard to believe he'll give that [the petition] legs,” an agency official said of Martin. A second FCC official said CTIA appears willing to discuss the shot clock and other aspects of the petition. But the official noted that the FCC already has a full agenda ahead in coming months.
Municipal and other local government groups have strongly opposed the CTIA petition, which would set deadlines for local governments to act on siting requests. Carriers fired back in a series of filings, most of which were posted by the FCC late Monday.
Verizon Wireless said delays appear to be getting worse. For example, the carrier said, average time for a new tower approval in the Washington, D.C., region was 6-9 months in 2003, compared with more than a year today. In San Diego, new tower approvals used to take about six months and now take more than two years, the carrier said. Verizon Wireless also said 30 percent of the more than 400 collocation requests it has before local zoning authorities have been pending for more than six months.
Sprint Nextel cited an unnamed county where it filed a zoning application to build a tower in May 2005, but still awaits a decision. Sprint said it surveyed its staff in charge of siting. “The site development managers reported facing zoning difficulties in a number of jurisdictions, especially in California and the Northeast regions,” it said. “In a few California communities, Sprint Nextel has experienced typical processing times for approval of wireless siting applications ranging between 28 to 36 months.”
MetroPCS said it has obtained zoning approvals in some jurisdictions in a matter of weeks, demonstrating that the timetables proposed by CTIA are reasonable. Other cases show the need for the deadlines proposed by CTIA, the company said. “For example, one county has delayed approval for over 2 years in a ‘rope-a-dope’ strategy that illustrates the need for the relief sought in the Petition.” MetroPCS described a long series of negotiations with the county stretching over two years. In the end, “MetroPCS was informed by the county that no planning approval was required.”
T-Mobile and AT&T told the FCC in separate filings that carriers need certainty. “Wireless carriers have invested billions of dollars in spectrum, including on the recent 700 MHz spectrum auction,” AT&T said. “But even the billions of dollars of investment are dwarfed by the additional costs that are related to deployment. Carriers need certainty and predictability in wireless facility siting to plan and deploy network expansions and improvements and provide customers with advanced services.”
The National Emergency Number Association said the petition has public safety implications. “We encourage the Commission to consider CTIA’s proposed process to the extent that it will facilitate the deployment of both commercial wireless and public safety networks and improve wireless Enhanced 911 location accuracy,” NENA said. PCIA said long approval periods make the least sense for collocation applications, where a carrier installs equipment on an existing tower.