Link here: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...with-2-billion-giveaway-to-wireless-carriers/
Basically, the Pugs via their Verizon puppet at the FCC are giving away another corporate boondoggle. They want to set (low) federal limits for what municipalities can charge for the space in public right of ways to locate and maintain 5G cell systems. Their claim is that by saving (giving) them about 1% of the deployment costs that they'll magically turn around and invest this technology in under and non-served rural areas. Bull. More trickle down nonsense theory that says if you magically inject into the supply they'll invest despite lack of concentrated demand.
Basically, the Pugs via their Verizon puppet at the FCC are giving away another corporate boondoggle. They want to set (low) federal limits for what municipalities can charge for the space in public right of ways to locate and maintain 5G cell systems. Their claim is that by saving (giving) them about 1% of the deployment costs that they'll magically turn around and invest this technology in under and non-served rural areas. Bull. More trickle down nonsense theory that says if you magically inject into the supply they'll invest despite lack of concentrated demand.
"That is why many local governments have worked to negotiate fair agreements with wireless providers, which may exceed that number or provide additional benefits to the community," the RCRC wrote. "The FCC's decision to prohibit municipalities' ability to require 'in-kind' conditions on installation agreements is in direct conflict with the FCC's stated intent of this Order and further constrains local governments in deploying wireless services to historically underserved areas."
"[T]e FCC's draft order is based on a fallacy that no credible investor would adopt and no credible economist endorse: that reducing or eliminating costs for small cell mounting on public property in lucrative areas of the country (thus reducing carriers' operating costs), will lead to increased capital expenditures in less-lucrative areas—thus supposedly making investment more attractive in rural areas," Levin wrote.
"[W]hile the FCC may ignore reality, the carriers and Wall Street understand that increasing profitability in Market A will not make Market B more attractive for investment," Levin wrote. "Market B will still be an area that is unprofitable or otherwise unattractive for investment, and the new requirement that Market A subsidize carriers by reducing fees will not benefit Market B under these circumstances."
Last edited: