California's Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications is scheduled to hear a bill on April 4 that would describe and define small cell technology and which jurisdictions control their placement.
SB 649, the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities bill, would define small cells according to a federal standard that describes the tech as a wireless object with antennas no larger than three cubic feet in area.
Small cells are boxes with antennas attached that bounce radio signals from a larger tower. They would make it possible for 5G, Wi-Fi and cell signals to reach farther without more large antenna towers.
All the antennas attached cannot add up to more than six cubic feet. Any other equipment paired with it must be less than an additional 35 cubic feet, the FCC definition continues, as applied to radio towers. Part of the definition places small cells in the same group as collocation facilities, the name used to describe all the extra pieces attached to existing media towers.
Governments and vendors both plan for small cell nodes to be used in 5G rollouts during the next few years. This means regulations put in place by legislation could make it easier or harder for tech companies to place infrastructure and equipment and enable the emerging technology.
However, definitions and measurements within SB 649 are not what most stakeholders seem to be most concerned about. Groups such as the League of California Cities appear to be focused on who is responsible for approving small cell placement.
“This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of ‘small cells,’” a letter from the League says about SB 649.
Currently, local governments are believed to have control over where small cells are placed, but this bill, if approved, could change that.
“In effect, this measure unconstitutionally gives control of public property to private telecommunications companies, while also precluding local governments from leasing or licensing publicly owned property,” the League's letter continues.
SB 649 in its current form is written to change control from local municipalities to a state decision. If the bill passes, the law would be “that both small cell and collocation facilities … have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern,” the bill reads.
The bill will also make charging fees for placement on locally owned land illegal. The current situation allows for denial of placement by local authorities as well as limitations on how long and where a small cell can be placed.
“Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria … but [it] is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit,” state Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego County, wrote in the bill introduction.
The bill would make deployment faster for small cells, stakeholder Above Ground Level Media Group (AGL) wrote in a press release about the bill. AGL provides articles about radio and telecommunications media.
“In short, the bill seeks to streamline small cell deployment by making it a permitted use, not subject a local discretionary permit,” AGL wrote.
Another stakeholder, Tellus Venture Associates, expressed concern the bill language may change over time.
“The bill that’s in the hopper now doesn’t actually say that small cells will not be 'subject to a city or county discretionary permit,' as collocation facilities are currently privileged to be. But it does set the table for adding that exemption as SB 649 moves through the legislative sausage machine — there would be little point to the bill otherwise,” wrote Stephen Blum in his blog on Tellus’ website.
As with most bills, the language within SB 649 likely will be changed as committee hearings continue to occur.
“We are in discussions with stakeholders to determine how the language can be amended to respond to some of the concerns the senator has heard,” Tanya Duggan, spokesperson for Hueso’s office, wrote in an email to Techwire.
Ohio passed a bill limiting local control in last year, but a lawsuit about the legislation will be heard on March 30. Over 70 local municipalities throughout Ohio will be involved in two lawsuits suing the state.
Similar bills reportedly have been proposed in Illinois, Washington and Florida.
