Report: Stretched Thin and Feeling the Squeeze: The Harmful Effects of Small Cell Preemption on Local Governments
MARCH 2021 by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
Press Release by NATOA: A new report released today from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), with assistance from Communication Workers of America (CWA), spotlights the widespread harms of small cell preemption to cities, local governments and millions of low-income Americans nationwide who continue to lack broadband connectivity. The report, “Stretched Thin and Feeling the Squeeze: The Harmful Effects of Small Cell Preemption on Local Governments,” comes as the Federal Communications Commission gains Democratic leadership under newly appointed Acting Chair Jessica Rosenworcel.
Drawing on a survey of 48 local governments, the report finds that small cell preemption is having a negative impact on cities’ finances, creating challenges for public safety and hampering efforts to close the digital divide. These localities range in population from under 5,000 to over 500,000 and represent regions from the middle of the country to the coasts.
KEY FINDINGS:
- 40% of all localities report that preemption has resulted in a loss in revenue, including 56% of large localities.
- 83% of mid-size localities and 63% of large localities report increased staffing expenses.
- 57% report that providers have failed to restore roads, sidewalks, or other infrastructure to its original condition following installation at least once, including 38% that report it has happened multiple times.
- 52% report that companies have damaged public property at least once, including 31% that report it has happened multiple times.
- 56% of large localities report that if it weren’t for preemption, they would be pursuing digital divide initiatives that they currently are not.
- 40% report that installations have created accessibility issues at least once, and 33% report that they have had installations that endanger the public.
- 44% report that broadband and small cell companies have installed equipment without a permit.
- 38% of all localities and 50% of large localities have dealt with contractors lacking the proper licenses.
- 71% of localities have received complaints from residents about radio frequency (RF) emissions.
- 38% report receiving complaints from residents about installation issues on multiple occasions.
More key findings can be found in the report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Effective deployment that protects the public interest must respect the role of local government as a partner. Policies should support local oversight and recognize that local governments are important stakeholders in achieving digital equity.
-
The FCC should abandon the approach of the Small Cell Order and support the role of local governments in facilitating safe deployment in the public interest. Federal overreach into inherently local concerns doesn’t benefit the public or facilitate safe and equitable deployment.
-
The FCC should abandon the Small Cell Order’s ill-conceived fee caps. Federal fee caps simply don’t make sense – they require local governments to navigate burdensome regulations to recoup costs, create needless litigation, and effectively shift deployment costs onto local governments and taxpayers.
-
The FCC should shift the burden of proof back to the provider
when a provider alleges local government actions violate federal
law. The Small Cell Order created a punishing litigation standard for
a local government facing an alleged shot clock or fee cap violation.
The standard places localities, particularly small municipalities, under substantial litigation pressure, creates needless litigation, and stacks the deck against local governments in court and at the FCC. The burden to show a violation should rest with the provider. -
The FCC should provide more resources to local governments on
RF emissions. Local governments are largely preempted with respect to RF emissions yet bear the brunt of local concerns about RF issues, including public and worker safety. The FCC should do more to educate the public and provide resources to localities to address residents’ questions and concerns.
Excerpts
Has small cell preemption resulted in increased staffing expenses?
For example, new staff, overtime expenses
Large localities: Yes 63%, No 31%, Unsure 6%
Mid-size localities: Yes 83%, No 6%, Unsure 11%
Small localities: Yes 29%, No 21%, Unsure 50%
All localities: Yes 54%, No 31%, Unsure 15%
Has small cell preemption resulted in increased costs paid to consultants?
All localities: Yes 50%, No 29%, Unsure 21%
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Have you had issues with companies submitting incomplete applications or failing to provide the information required to make a permitting decision?
Large localities:
6% Yes, on one occasion
81% Yes, on multiple occasions 6% No
6% Unsure
Mid-size localities:
50% Yes, on at least one occasion 39% Yes, on multiple occasions 6% No
6% Unsure
Small localities:
21% Yes, on at least one occasion 36% Yes, on multiple occasions 21% No
21% Unsure
All localities:
27% Yes, on at least one occasion 52% Yes, on multiple occasions 10% No
10% Unsure
44% of localities report that companies have installed equipment without a permit
52% of localities report that companies have damaged public property, for example, damage to sewer covers or sidewalks
57% of localities report that companies have failed to restore roads, sidewalks, or other infrastructure to its original condition following installation
36% of localities have had issues with companies failing to use underground service alert services properly
“Providers dump everything on a contractor and contractors are only there to make money, not to do the right thing with regards to the right of way.”
56% of large localities report that installations have created accessibility issues at least once.
44% of large localities report an installation issue that has endangered the public, including one in four reporting it has occurred multiple times.
Seventy-one percent of localities have received complaints from residents about RF emissions.
Thirty-five percent of localities report that if preemption were not an issue, they would be pursuing digital divide initiates they currently are not.
Report: Stretched Thin and Feeling the Squeeze: The Harmful Effects of Small Cell Preemption on Local Governments
MARCH 2021 by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
RECOMMENDATIONS
Effective deployment that protects the public interest must respect the role of local government as a partner. Policies should support local oversight and recognize that local governments are important stakeholders in achieving digital equity.
-
The FCC should abandon the approach of the Small Cell Order and support the role of local governments in facilitating safe deployment in the public interest. Federal overreach into inherently local concerns doesn’t benefit the public or facilitate safe and equitable deployment.
-
The FCC should abandon the Small Cell Order’s ill-conceived fee caps. Federal fee caps simply don’t make sense – they require local governments to navigate burdensome regulations to recoup costs, create needless litigation, and effectively shift deployment costs onto local governments and taxpayers.
-
The FCC should shift the burden of proof back to the provider
when a provider alleges local government actions violate federal
law. The Small Cell Order created a punishing litigation standard for
a local government facing an alleged shot clock or fee cap violation.
The standard places localities, particularly small municipalities, under substantial litigation pressure, creates needless litigation, and stacks the deck against local governments in court and at the FCC. The burden to show a violation should rest with the provider. -
The FCC should provide more resources to local governments on
RF emissions. Local governments are largely preempted with respect to RF emissions yet bear the brunt of local concerns about RF issues, including public and worker safety. The FCC should do more to educate the public and provide resources to localities to address residents’ questions and concerns.
Excerpts
Has small cell preemption resulted in increased staffing expenses?
For example, new staff, overtime expenses
Large localities: Yes 63%, No 31%, Unsure 6%
Mid-size localities: Yes 83%, No 6%, Unsure 11%
Small localities: Yes 29%, No 21%, Unsure 50%
All localities: Yes 54%, No 31%, Unsure 15%
Has small cell preemption resulted in increased costs paid to consultants?
All localities: Yes 50%, No 29%, Unsure 21%
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Have you had issues with companies submitting incomplete applications or failing to provide the information required to make a permitting decision?
Large localities:
6% Yes, on one occasion
81% Yes, on multiple occasions 6% No
6% Unsure
Mid-size localities:
50% Yes, on at least one occasion 39% Yes, on multiple occasions 6% No
6% Unsure
Small localities:
21% Yes, on at least one occasion 36% Yes, on multiple occasions 21% No
21% Unsure
All localities:
27% Yes, on at least one occasion 52% Yes, on multiple occasions 10% No
10% Unsure
44% of localities report that companies have installed equipment without a permit
52% of localities report that companies have damaged public property, for example, damage to sewer covers or sidewalks
57% of localities report that companies have failed to restore roads, sidewalks, or other infrastructure to its original condition following installation
36% of localities have had issues with companies failing to use underground service alert services properly
“Providers dump everything on a contractor and contractors are only there to make money, not to do the right thing with regards to the right of way.”
56% of large localities report that installations have created accessibility issues at least once.
44% of large localities report an installation issue that has endangered the public, including one in four reporting it has occurred multiple times.
Seventy-one percent of localities have received complaints from residents about RF emissions.
Thirty-five percent of localities report that if preemption were not an issue, they would be pursuing digital divide initiates they currently are not.
