Hi Brett,
If anyone has run into a specific issue with a city/county deploying
what they think would fit the definition of a small cell, then one
possibility is take that story to their local legislator. In the
capital, there's a fairly well established correlation between economic
development and the availability of broadband. (There's a bill in the
works trying to fund ~$300M in broadband deployments for specifically
that purpose, but that's a different topic). If you can make the case
that the city/county is hindering the deployment of broadband (and thus
its availability to their constituents), then you can possibly get their
support in helping to pass this bill. Beyond that, it's not unheard of
for a local legislator to take up your case with the local government to
help to reach some kind of compromise.
A show of support from small businesses doesn't hurt, but a practical
example with real people and real businesses can make all the difference.
Thanks,
-Kristian
On 05/05/2017 11:55 AM, Brett Woollum wrote:
Hi Kristian,
Nice meeting you at the Winters meet-up! Thanks for the continued
sharing of the regulatory front via the list as well. It helps me (and
I'm sure others) keep up to date.
I think this is useful for any utility/wireless provider who wishes to
use poles, either now or in the future. We certainly support this!
What can/should we be doing?
*Brett Woollum*
/CEO & Founder/
[email protected]
(510) 266-5800, ext 6200
*Tekify Fiber & Wireless*
http://www.tekify.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Kristian Hoffmann" <[email protected]>
*To: *[email protected]
*Sent: *Friday, May 5, 2017 11:27:01 AM
*Subject: *Re: [California] SB-649 Wireless telecommunications facilities
Hi,
A couple of updates on this front. It looks like Verizon is the main
force behind this, but they have support from Google and all of the
other major mobile carriers. The PDFs summarize this as "a small cell
isn't the same thing as a 150ft tower" and shouldn't be treated the
same from a permitting standpoint. I would encourage all of you to
look through this.
I received a question about this bill pertaining to whether this
applied to just government-owned buildings, or all properties withing
a city/county's jurisdiction. I think the answer is that this
addresses both placement of small cells on public assets (buildings,
light poles, etc.) as well as permitting restrictions on all structures.
If you're interested in being added to the list of supporters, let me
know. Also, as one would expect, it looks like cities and counties
are generally opposed to this, as it restricts their control. If you
think the passage of this would help with a permitting issue you faced
or are facing, and would like to help, let me know and I'll see if
there's a local legislator you can engage to help the process.
If you think this is stupid, well, let me know that too.
Thanks,
-Kristian
On 05/03/2017 05:50 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
Apparently this bill is gaining some traction. If you're
interested at all in being able to deploy small cells, or more
likely something that looks like a small cell, please read the
draft linked here and give me your feedback...
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649&cversion=20170SB64998AMD
For the purpose of this bill, a "small cell" is an antenna
deployment that is smaller than a certain size...
(1) (A) “Small cell” means a wireless telecommunications
facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, using licensed or
unlicensed spectrum that meets the following qualifications:
(i) Any individual antenna, /All antennas on the structure,
/ excluding the associated equipment, is individually no more
than three cubic feet in volume, and all antennas on the
structure total no more than six cubic feet in volume,
whether in a single array or separate.
(ii) (I) The associated equipment on pole structures does not
exceed 21 cubic feet for poles that can support fewer than
three providers or 28 cubic feet for pole collocations that
can support at least three providers, or the associated
equipment on nonpole structures does not exceed 28 cubic feet
for collocations that can support fewer than three providers
or 35 cubic feet for collocations that can support at least
three providers. /provided that any individual piece of
associated equipment or pole structures do not exceed nine
cubic feet./
Regards,
--
Kristian Hoffmann
Fire2Wire
[email protected]
http://www.fire2wire.com
Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE
_______________________________________________
California mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california
_______________________________________________
California mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california
_______________________________________________
California mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california
_______________________________________________
California mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/california
