Jump to content

Broadband Acceleration Initiative


MacinJosh
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/26/fcc-broadband-acceleration-initiative/

 

Apparently the FCC feels that carriers aren't getting approval fast enough to build out their wireless infrastructure and has tweaked the Broadband Acceleration Initiative so that upgrading existing equipment will be easier for carriers so they can build out LTE faster than they are now. This could be a boost for Sprint if they don't have to wait as long for building permits, or this may help most carriers bypass building permits all together.

 

We will know for sure in the coming months. If there is a sudden increase in tower numbers every week, then I guess we will know for sure.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/26/fcc-broadband-acceleration-initiative/

 

Apparently the FCC feels that carriers aren't getting approval fast enough to build out their wireless infrastructure and has tweaked the Broadband Acceleration Initiative so that upgrading existing equipment will be easier for carriers so they can build out LTE faster than they are now. This could be a boost for Sprint if they don't have to wait as long for building permits, or this may help most carriers bypass building permits all together.

 

We will know for sure in the coming months. If there is a sudden increase in tower numbers every week, then I guess we will know for sure.

 

This has no impact on local building permits and zoning processes. The FCC has no authority to subrogate local and state building laws, codes and ordinances. This is only related to FCC hurdles. Mostly related to small cells and pico cells and reclassifying them and not requiring the same as macro cells.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has no impact on local building permits and zoning processes. The FCC has no authority to subrogate local and state building laws, codes and ordinances. This is only related to FCC hurdles. Mostly related to small cells and pico cells and reclassifying them and not requiring the same as macro cells.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't too sure as to what I was reading. Sometimes the FCC makes things confusing. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has no impact on local building permits and zoning processes. The FCC has no authority to subrogate local and state building laws, codes and ordinances. This is only related to FCC hurdles. Mostly related to small cells and pico cells and reclassifying them and not requiring the same as macro cells.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

I hate to disagree Robert but the FCC can wield power and over ride some local codes and ordinaces when they need to. When your not so busy some time look up PRB-1 and how the FCC can over rule local restrictions on Ham Radio antenna's if they are overly burdensome. I think the rule is reasonable accommodations have to be made and I think its the FCC who decides what is reasonable. I know this isn't ham radio but maybe they are going to expand their power for broadband in a similar way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I hate to disagree Robert but the FCC can wield power and over ride some local codes and ordinaces when they need to. When your not so busy some time look up PRB-1 and how the FCC can over rule local restrictions on Ham Radio antenna's if they are overly burdensome. I think the rule is reasonable accommodations have to be made and I think its the FCC who decides what is reasonable. I know this isn't ham radio but maybe they are going to expand their power for broadband in a similar way.

 

I repeat...the FCC does not have the authority to overrule building codes and state laws regarding building. That authority has not been given to them. They regulate broadcasts, not structures.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect. A small clip from the ARRL.ORG web page.

 

"Amateurs faced with local government zoning restrictions have some relief. PRB-1, the limited federal preemption of municipal land use regulations for Amateur Radio installations, is a useful tool when applying for a building permit for a tower. According to the Commission's rules, zoning authorities can not preclude Amateur Service communications, but must reasonably accommodate amateur communications and enact the "minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate purpose" [97.15(B)]. Local governments can zone for height, safety and aesthetics concerns, but their restrictions can not be so prohibitive that they are overly restrictive."

 

Individual cases have reversed or repealed local rules agains hams.

An argument could be made that a cell phone company is not an individual tech class up to extra class. They do not operate on the ham net frequencies. So this would not work for any building permits for them. Most hams build their towers on their land unless its a club. Cell providers are for a profit while hams are not out for a profit. Last I knew when I was on a kick again to study to get my ham license, a ham operator can not use his/her station for a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the FCC's public notice, Congress did override state and local authority in this matter. Whether it's constitutional or not is a separate question, but the law seems pretty unambiguous about Congress' intent:

 

(1) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.

(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘eligible facilities request’’ means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves —

(A.) collocation of new transmission equipment;

(B.) removal of transmission equipment; or

(C.) replacement of transmission equipment.

(3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly my point. Local jurisdictions cannot control broadcasts. They must allow them. But they still control the building permits and zoning for the structures themselves. And the FCC does not have the authority to take that away. It would require a change in law.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

 

I see what your saying. I just know one town said ham radio antennas cant be over 13 feet tall and the FCC said it was too restrictive and it was changed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the FCC's public notice, Congress did override state and local authority in this matter. Whether it's constitutional or not is a separate question, but the law seems pretty unambiguous about Congress' intent:

 

And none of this removes local bureaucratic planning and permitting. It just means the local jurisdiction cannot deny the permit if it is an existing facility. But they still need to file for local building permits and obtain them and they still have to pass plan review and meet code.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems a bit dumb to me that building permits are required for adding or replacing equipment on a tower. I can see it necessary for building a tower, or the little brick buildings that verizon and at&t like to house the cabinets in around here, or when extensive electrical work needs to be done. Alas, I guess it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems a bit dumb to me that building permits are required for adding or replacing equipment on a tower. I can see it necessary for building a tower, or the little brick buildings that verizon and at&t like to house the cabinets in around here, or when extensive electrical work needs to be done. Alas, I guess it is what it is.

 

In Vegas, some towers have needed reinforcing to help keep the tower stable in order to support more equipment on the tower, and that goes for all carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In Vegas, some towers have needed reinforcing to help keep the tower stable in order to support more equipment on the tower, and that goes for all carriers.

at least they are actually reinforcing the towers! Here in nm it seems our engineer just decided against it for a lot of towers and ordered gmo.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what your saying. I just know one town said ham radio antennas cant be over 13 feet tall and the FCC said it was too restrictive and it was changed.

 

I think what you are talking about is the OTARD. Had to use that a couple of times with the yuppies in HOA neighborhoods a few times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Mine is still working fine here in Raleigh.   There were some outages related to the snow storm.    I have seen it take a couple of days to recover from storms.   It is not among the highest priority services.  
    • Looks like my MB gold at my office was finally decommissioned sometime last week. It was working the previous week and I was out of town last week. I came in today and it was powered down. I unplugged it and plugged it back in but it just keeps looping through trying to establish a connection. Looks like it's time to add it to our ewaste pile.
    • I did spot some NRCA in Crown Heights last weekend. Sadly because I'm using an iPhone I can't see the exact carrier combo but it did report that it was seeing 2 NR carriers. At first I thought it was a glitch or some weird stale data because my phone was still reporting NSA 5G and the primary NR carrier was the 80MHz n41 carrier but reading Sascha's article it's quite possible that my phone was using B2+B66 +n41+n41.  — — — — — On another note, it looks like someone found n5+n77+B2+B66 on Verizon:   
    • This entire FAA argument is stupid with no evidence at all that there is an issue with C-band.  You may be right that there is some conspiracy nut involved. The guard-band between what aircraft altimeters use and cellular C-band is 220MHz.  If any safety critical aircraft altimeter is reading signals from 220MHz away from the frequencies it is designed to use, that is a very broken safety critical device and should have been replaced it long ago.  Everything in an aircraft is designed and certified for precision and is checked regularly.  The aircraft is not designated as airworthy for instrument flight if the systems in it are not certified to be precise and in good working order.  If an altimeter is so broken that it is off by more than 220MHz from the frequencies it is designed to use, it could just as easily be off by 1GHz or more which would likely cause it to fall into other frequencies that are also already in use. 
    • https://www.pcmag.com/news/exclusive-we-found-t-mobiles-secret-weapon-against-c-band Seems like he's seeing: B2+B66 +n41+n41 n71+n41 Not that it really matters, I suppose:  
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...