Effects of PIM

Who’s in charge here?

A complex question when it comes to the role of cities and municipalities with the expansion of cellular services and the contrast in approaches to accomplishing this goal. Should cities have all the authority and right of way, or should it be the carriers? With recent developments that highlight the role of each, we’re starting to realize the only way for success, is to work together.

The first was from Kentucky where a city won a longstanding pole attachment dispute with AT&T. In this ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky has sided with a Kentucky municipality against AT&T in a case concerning access to utility poles. This related to a “one-touch make-ready” ordinance outlining procedures for installing infrastructure on utility poles in the city of Louisville, KY.

These One-touch make-ready policies seek to avoid delays by having all make-ready work done at the same time by the same crew which includes moving wires and equipment ostensibly owned by AT&T or other carriers. AT&T cried foul claiming Louisville had no right to touch their equipment.

While on the surface of it, the argument was primarily about access, it appears to be really about establishing control. The city wants to control its assets noting that it has the authority to manage its public rights-of-way and access to them, and the carriers (AT&T here) really want to have the right to place their equipment where they desire and serve their customers as they see fit.

At the heart of the matter though there is a shared goal in improving service in dense urban environments where access to light poles and other ‘street furniture’ is limited and rules and regulations for attachment abound.

Contrast this with the city of Donna, Texas where a unanimous decision from the City Council made it the first municipality in Texas to partner with a wireless carrier to install small cells through the city. In an interview, AT&T said they were pushing for the city to be the first to receive 5G deployments in the state.

While the new ordinance has yet to take effect, the city has apparently already placed several poles for AT&T’s equipment. AT&T’s Director of External Affairs J. D. Salinas said, “The city council and the city staff have been very, very, progressive in working with us and making sure to identify areas of service and also trying to track their growth in the city. So, we’re happy with what they’re doing and we invite others to follow their lead.”

Communications has been called the “4th Utility” and along with power, light and heat have become a necessary part of every community. Underpinning this is the long-term thinking and provisioning of cities and municipalities to ensure vital services are provided to their citizens. Cellular is a critical part of communications and mobile service access, an increasingly important part of the business ecosystem. No City can be competitive without excellent cellular service and with 4G and eventually 5G the performance bar continues to grow to new heights.

However, these new systems require dense small cell structures to deliver the data capacity and speeds that customers demand. The consequent problem is where to put all these new cell towers, poles, and attachments. Cities play a pivotal role in this process and much of the above shows the ongoing struggle for control and approval over historical access and rights of way.

In the long term, City Leaders should consider communications as an essential part of city planning and should contemplate locations for small cells and provision of fiber infrastructure which maps to the evolving business and demographics of their cities. Currently, deployment of cells is generally reactive rather than proactive, better serving areas with poor coverage or capacity. Cities have an opportunity to take the lead and work with carriers proactively by sharing long-term plans for deployment for new coMobile Workforcenstruction, business centers and to anticipate changes in population density. Rather than fight over control and access the cities should view carriers as partners much as they do with water and electricity utilities, ensuring service is available for their domestic and business inhabitants. In turn, Carriers need to work with Cities to outline their long-term needs and seek to influence City ordinances to better address these many shared priorities.

It is encouraging to see progressive Cities taking the lead in changing the paradigm. When City leaders see communications as a necessary service and a competitive business advantage, then there is much scope for collaboration rather than confrontation.