Less than a month after an appeals court ruled the FCC lacked authority to regulate Comcast’s network management practices, FCC Chair Julis Genachowski announced a new strategy to push for net neutrality and the National Broadband Plan (touching on many of the themes above in the video announcement).

The Comcast v. FCC case in question concerned a cable provider, but bandwidth hogs are actually a greater threat to wireless networks.

Will a net-neutrality policy inhibit or promote wireless broadband? Almost no one asks this question specifically, although AT&T and Verizon are warning that such regulations will reduce their investments.

Wireless networks are currently strained by smartphone demand. FCC rules forcing carriers to provide equal access at the same price, no matter how bandwidth intensive, will require a lot more towers and signal but will discourage investment. A lack of regulation would allow carriers to charge heavy users greater fees, discouraging egregious network use and possibly discouraging egregious buildout of ugly towers and cell sites everywhere. Tough choice, and all but ignored. The focus now is on corporate control v. government control of information channels.

Check out these links under the Sunroom Desk paperweight for views on the dilemmas facing the FCC, carriers, Congress, and U.S. citizens:

FCC says it has compromise on key broadband rules – AP, in MIT Technology Review, May 6, 2010

Key US lawmakers back FCC on broadband policy, Telecom Engine, Thursday, May 6, 2010

The FCC Makes Its Move on Net Neutrality – Reason, May 7, 2010

Net Neutrality War Heats Up – American Thinker, May 8, 2010

FCC to U.S. Court of Appeals: Drop Dead! – BigGovernment.com, May 10, 2010

Net Neutrality and the Third Way – HuffingtonPost.com, May 10, 2010

The National Broadband Plan’s #1 long-term goal, which will serve as “a compass over the next decade”, is to get at least 100 million U.S. homes affordable access to “actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.” Current cable and dsl services don’t even come close to providing such speed.

Google’s goal is to install a fiber-optic network offering those speeds, within a year’s time, in a few test cities around the country. Glendale’s businesses, households, schools, and civic communications could all enjoy ultra high-speed internet access and be at the leading edge of the information revolution!

Go to Google4Glendale.com to nominate Glendale as a test city. Glendale staff have already put together a solid list of reasons why Glendale is a great city for this network.

…Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today with 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We plan to offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people.

The company’s wireline initiative is a bold move just one month before Congress receives the FCC’s National Broadband Plan for the Future. The FCC is considering policies to expand wireless infrastructure, increase spectrum allocation to wireless carriers, and further quash local resistance to cell tower placements.

Just yesterday, citizens in Santa Fe, New Mexico succeeded in tabling an initiative that would have provided city-wide wi-fi service. The New Mexican reports:

Twenty-eight people spoke against the ordinance which, they said, would allow low-power antennas to be erected with little public scrutiny of health and environmental impacts.

“I don’t think we want to turn our city into a microwave,” said Azlan White of Santa Fe.

“This feels like an enormous experiment on our health and rights.”

Following that debate, Santa Fe City Council voted to join the list of cities (which includes Glendale) calling for repeal of federal law that prohibits consideration of microwave towers’ health and environmental effects.

Grass-roots groups like Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers (GOACT), or the citizens of Santa Fe, would likely have no problem with a fiber-to-the-home service strung along existing utility poles or undergrounded. Compared with wireless technology, high-speed fiber optic transmission is faster and more secure, and emits no radiation.

During the hearing on Glendale’s draft wireless ordinance last week, Planning Commission chair William Kane remarked that as a society, we were stuck with wireless technology until progress provides something better. Something better – the fiber-optic network Google is proposing – is currently available. It’s just a lot more expensive to install.

Google probably has the resources. Perhaps it has learned a lesson from its 2007 attempt to create a city-wide wireless network in San Francisco via Proposition J. Today’s Wall Street Journal says that effort was “abandoned amid political opposition and financing concerns.”

The main points of that ‘political opposition’ (summarized in this 2007 editorial) remain very relevant now, and points 4 and 5 are particularly salient as the FCC presents its work to Congress:

1. WiFi networks are less reliable than wired networks.

2. Serious privacy issues are not considered by Prop J. As written, Prop J only addresses the sharing of network user information with third parties.

3. Wireless networks are more difficult and expensive to secure than wired networks and are therefore vulnerable to identity theft and unauthorized surveillance of users.

4. WiFi raises serious health and environmental issues. Citywide WiFi would require at least 2,200 microwave transmitters to be placed on light and utility poles, in addition to the more than 2,500 antennas for cellular phones already installed throughout the City. Meanwhile, no scientific studies have been conducted to date specifically on the health effects of WiFi exposures. Studies have been done on exposures to low-intensity microwave radiation of people living near cellular phone base station antennas in Spain, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Egypt and Austria. All seven studies document significant adverse health effects. In the German and Israeli studies, these effects include increased rates of cancer. In September, the European Environment Agency issued a statement urging caution before proceeding with WiFi. Yet Mayor Newsom has placed Prop J on the ballot without informing the public of the potential health and environmental impacts of WiFi as required by the City’s Precautionary Principle ordinance.**

5. Prop J completely ignores a comprehensive study of the alternative of a fiber optic broadband network which the City commissioned and was published this past January (available on the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services website.)

Sunroom Desk advocated a high-speed fiber network for Glendale more than a year ago. This blog also quoted an earlier survey of broadband trends, concluding that The Future Isn’t Wireless. A hint to Glendale: send in an application!

**(Mayor Newsom has since come around, and is now sponsoring legislation that would require radiation warnings on cell phones, while the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is set to propose its own protective wireless ordinance in the near future.)

FCC Open Meeting, November 18, 2009 – Petition for declaratory ruling (below) was approved with industry-encouraging statements from each commissioner, followed by a panel discussion for the FCC on progress toward the 2010 National Broadband Plan.

Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance – adopted by the FCC, November 18, 2009 – sets time limits for municipal consideration of cell site applications but does not preempt local ordinances classifying wireless siting applications as requiring variances.

FCC discusses barriers to national broadband plan – CNET, November 18, 2009 – summarizes the commission’s open meeting panel discussion on universal broadband access costs and challenges.

Bigger U.S. Role in Broadband Is Likely – Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2009 – discusses broadband penetration in the U.S., lack of spectrum, and the increasing use of smartphones, along with the fact that more towers will be needed to send signals to all those mobile internet devices:

The agency took a step toward expanding wireless Web access by passing a new rule Wednesday to help wireless companies speed up local officials’ decisions on new cellphone towers. Wireless companies asked the FCC for help, because they have had problems in the past getting state and local land-use regulators to make decisions on siting new cellphone towers.

FCC Speeds Cell Tower Reviews – Information Week, November 19, 2009 – is one of the few articles (joining Sunroom Desk’s posts) to lead with the fact that municipalities are now under an FCC “shot clock” when they review cell tower applications, although it takes the industry view that this is a good thing. Cell providers have plans to start “blanketing” their markets with high-frequency signals:

The move comes as many major cellular operators are looking to deploy 4G networks at a rapid pace. Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S) and Clearwire are already delivering 6 Mbps to mobile users with their WiMax network, and Verizon (NYSE: VZ) Wireless plans to have up to 30 markets blanketed with its Long-Term Evolution network by the end of 2010.

That was the conclusion of Glendale, California’s Public Works Counsel Christina Sansone as she warned in June that the FCC might attempt to steamroll wireless siting permits. Her report to the city council covered the telecommunication industry’s efforts to override local zoning, the 2008 CTIA “Shot-Clock” petition to the FCC, the city’s comments on the National Broadband Plan, and a proposed petition to Congress to repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act.

Glendale has engaged outside counsel to defend its rights before the FCC, which last week announced plans to help the wireless industry.

Here is an extended portion of her comments, which you can also hear and watch on the city’s video archives:

“Among the approximately 109 separate requests for comments, the FCC is seeking comments as to how the FCC could develop a plan for the build-out of high speed broadband infrastructure, access to poles, public rights-of-way, and tower siting. As you are aware, those are issues of great concern to the city of Glendale and to the residents of Glendale.

We believe that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to change the law in that respect. But given the increasing pressure, we recommend that the city submit comments to the FCC, essentially to remind the FCC that during the development of the National Broadband Plan, that it has limited jurisdiction in the area of antennae siting and regulation of public rights-of-way. We should also seek assurances that nothing in the National Broadband Plan should be used to undercut local governments’ authority with respect to zoning. This plan should not become a vehicle whereby the local jurisdictions are restricted from exercising the rights granted by Congress.”

A brief submitted in favor of Sprint’s petition to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s Sprint v. County of San Diego decision (which the Supreme Court declined to review), by PCIA (the wireless infrastructure association), California Wireless Association, and Newpath Networks, devotes two long paragraphs to Glendale’s 2009 wireless moratorium, its staff report, and its reliance on the Ninth Circuit Sprint decision, and says:

In its report to the Council, city staff made the following assertion about the effects of Sprint II in that it “…create[s]…an opportunity to review and analyze existing ordinances and the current state of the law so that…the City may safeguard Residential Areas from the intrusion of incompatible and potentially disruptive uses through the development of a new ordinance relating to…Wireless Facilities.”…The Glendale Report notes that “many cities have become engaged in comprehensive reviews of their zoning and right-of-way ordinances in order to consider stricter requirements for placements of wireless antennas.“

The subtitle and arguments that precede this passage make it obvious the wireless industry believes this is a bad thing.

PCIA’s comments to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan dwell on community tower siting delays, and also deplore the Ninth Circuit Sprint v. County of San Diego and other court rulings, arguing that

Since this time, numerous communities have taken the opportunity to enact moratoria and more burdensome regulations…For example a local newspaper report of a recent Glendale, CA, moratorium states that the Supreme Court’s decision “could make it harder for companies to challenge Glendale’s upcoming ordinance,” and notes that “[o]n June 8, the City Council extended a moratorium on new cellular antennas in residential areas for an additional year while a new ordinance regulating the equipment is drafted.”

1. Is it in the best interest of the public to spend federal stimulus dollars to fund an infrastructure that has limited capacity, major security flaws, and serious public health risks and is angering citizens nationwide when there are options available, i.e., fiber optic broadband, that will best serve the public in the long term, not just the wireless industry in the short term?

2. Didn’t the consumers and public already pay for fiber optic infrastructure? What happened to the $200 billion the industry received in rate hikes and tax cuts and are the consumers really benefitting from the “competition?” See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/comments/61BF.pdf

3. National security: Do we want the bulk of our communications technology deployed via wireless infrastructure when securing wireless transmissions is far more difficult and costly than securing information transmitted via fiber optic and traditional wireline networks?

4. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996, did it anticipate that wireless companies would be using this federal law to preempt local control to deliver new wireless services, e.g., broadband internet, video, “home phone,” etc., that in most cases are delivered more reliably and effectively via fiber optic, cable, DSL and traditional phone lines?

5. Is it wise to promote redundant services with each company required to build out their own networks? How many antennas are too many and why is there no regulation to monitor the cumulative effect of so many wireless facilities to accommodate a number of competing companies? Residents resent that companies have been allowed to turn our neighborhoods into corporate battlegrounds at the expense of our property values, views and risk to our health.

6. Should for-profit companies control our communications infrastructure or is this something, like roads, best managed by the public for the benefit of the public? Many residents deeply resent that these for-profit companies enjoy privileges as “public utilities” and want to know why this is allowed.

7. Does the market model work for our communications infrastructure? Or is this spawning “dumb” growth, based on “dumb” competition and putting the public at risk and with inferior technology? We drive cars (which are true market commodities) on public roads. Shouldn’t we use our communication devices to plug into our public broadband?

8. The cell phone market is already near saturation; why are so many permits approved for cell towers and other wireless facilities where good cell phone coverage already exists?

9. What are the true public safety benefits? For example, residents have discovered that wireless 911 is not an issue because even cell phones without an existing contract will reach 911 when dialed, yet cell phone companies continue to cite it as a justification for permit approvals. How does commercial wireless 911 compare to landline 911 or pay phones and which is most consistent and reliable during emergencies and disasters?

10. Is it wise to market wireless to children?

11. Will Congress reexamine current FCC regulations and standards and update them based on the latest studies and independent research with the most merit? Will Congress call on the industry to release the studies that they have or will we have to wait 30 years to find out the risks, as we did with the tobacco industry and so many other things that we have since learned have caused great harm?

12. Is it constitutional to limit the rights of citizens in favor of corporate profits? Like second-hand smoke, we have no individual control over our exposure to wireless infrastructure.

13. Should the Congress conduct a public study session and poll to find out what citizens want once they have ALL the information and understand ALL the risks, tradeoffs and alternatives to wireless technology?

As more communities come face to face with the ugly realities of wireless infrastructure, the large majority of fully informed citizens find they prefer responsible deployment of fiber optic broadband technology, which is superior to wireless technology in speed, reliability, security, durability, energy efficiency, and protections it affords people and the environment from potential hazards of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.

1. I think there are more important things to spend 2 to 4 billion dollars on right now then a broadband comedy of errors.

2. I think the telcos should be at the back of the line on this one. They have already shown us what they do with money given them to build us an ‘information super highway’.

3. Fiber should be the requirement. No copper, no wireless stuff, just all fiber.

4. No one that is involved in building it should be involved in running it.

5. Don’t depend on state/county/local governments to pick up the ball and run with it once it gets dumped in their back yard. If you do then every telco and ISP will have their hands in it trying to make a buck off it and you will end up with a more confused and difficult “last mile” type of problem for the end user ranging in everything from franchises to fees to increased property/other taxes to kick backs to bribes to unfair competition – to make a buck off a tax dollar paid for project.

The Federal Communications Commission has a lot of issues to address in its draft of A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, set for release in February 2010…

The FCC didn’t name citizens as stakeholders; instead, it asked for input from American consumers. Why, in so many cases, are we consumers instead of citizens? Does the FCC define our interest solely on the basis of our monthly ISP bill and what’s included on it? Shouldn’t civic interests in a “national broadband plan” override consumer interests? Is this a semantic gesture to advocates of the free enterprise system? Here’s the last part of the call –

We seek comment in this Notice from all interested parties on the elements that should go into a national broadband plan. Our plan must reflect an understanding of the problem, clear goals for the future, a route to those goals, and benchmarks along the way. Our plan must also allow for modification as we learn from our experience. And our plan must reflect the input of all stakeholders—industry, American consumers; large and small businesses; federal, state, local, and tribal governments; nonprofits; and disabilities communities. With this Notice, we begin to make our plan.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is widely acknowledged to have been heavily influenced by the telecom industry. Further, as the Free Press notes in its May 2009 book Changing Media, those provisions of the 1996 act that were intended to keep markets open for competition and provide more choices to citizens were subsequently quashed by telecom companies who sought changes in definitions, appeals, and changes in how the law was applied.

This time around, citizens should insist on getting the best technology and the best service, along with a range of choices at reasonable prices. The telecom companies should not be allowed to shut out competition, to receive egregious subsidies, to set tiered pricing or other restricted access schemes, or to change definitions and applications, without citizens’ approval, once a plan is instituted.

Citizens: Check out the Notice of Inquiry, and send in your comments by June 8, 2009 (the end of the document has instructions for submitting comments).