My personal thoughts on upcoming (2017) Challenges for Wireless (Small Cells, Wireline POTS abandonment) for California Cities & Counties - Presented to a League of CA Cities Committee - Wireless (Small Cell) challenges for California Cities & Counties

1. Upcoming Local, State & Federal
Challenges
• Small Cells and Not-So-Small Cells
• How Proposed Wireline abandonment affects Wireless
• Next Steps for California Cities & Counties
• Omar Masry, AICP

2. While some neighbors may not
“be in favor” of a single “macro”
wireless tower hidden in the roof of
a church in a residential
neighborhood.... (see next page)
Antennas hidden inside church steeple
(made of a type of fiberglass that allows radio waves to go through but
can be painted and textured to mimic wood/steel/concrete).

3. ……Wireless carriers are currently pushing at the Federal
level and State level for laws that would allow them to be
treated as any other “utility” and put up new cell towers, rent-
free, along City streets or sidewalks.
Referred to as “Small Cells” or “Outdoor Distributed Antenna Systems (oDAS)”
A previously
proposed “Not-So-
Small-Small-Cell”
with multiple
cabinets along a
nicely landscaped
street in South
Orange County
A fairly well-
designed, low-
power and quiet
(no noisy cooling
fans) conceptual
Small Cell design
(assuming
State/Federal laws
don’t override the
ability of the
City/County to
request a better
design…)
A bulky not-So-
Small-Cell on a
wooden utility
pole in Oakland
Some systems
have noisy
cooling fans

4. So instead of wireless carrier paying a lease 2k to 5K, a month, to put a single macro
cell site on a church, the carrier may pay nothing, or a few hundred a year for
Small Cells in front of your home/bedroom window
1 of these …or..4 to 12 of these 
Macro Site Not-So-Small-Cell 
Cost is not always an overriding factor
In urban areas Small Cells will augment
existing rooftop macro cell sites for more
data capacity at street level.
In suburban areas Small Cells may be used
where there aren’t many options for macro
sites (limited # of non-residential properties)

5. It appears one wireless carrier
(“Mobilitie” on behalf of Sprint) is
aggressively pushing a two-prong strategy
that may result in more
poles/equipment/antennas right in front of
your home or driveway
1. In some cities/counties Mobilitie has
been proposing 120 foot tall steel poles
along streets and sidewalks
(some in residential neighborhoods).
New nationwide proposal for really tall Not-So-Small Cells

6. It appears one wireless carrier
(“Mobilitie” on behalf of Sprint) is
aggressively pushing a two-prong strategy
that may result in more
poles/equipment/antennas right in front of
your home or driveway
1. In some cities/counties Mobilitie has
been proposing 120 foot tall steel poles
along streets and sidewalks
(some in residential neighborhoods).
2. In addition, Mobilitie has been proposing
brand new 20-40 foot tall wooden poles for
Small Cells, even on streets where all the
utilities, like electric wires/poles, are
underground; and without proposing
“attaching” antennas and equipment to
existing streetlights nearby 

7. Backhaul for Small Cells | Traditional Fiber-Optic
Cell phone signal reaches antenna
Signal travels to computers
(”RRUs”) on pole
Fiber-optic cables run from
computers on pole under City
streets through (PG&E) conduit and
back to data center
Extenet Systems for Verizon Wireless Small Cell

8. Cell phone signal reaches antenna
Signal travels to computers
(”RRUs”) on pole
Fiber-optic cables run from
computers on pole along utility
poles back to data center
Crown Castle Not-So-Small Cell on existing utility pole
(+ ground cabinets) in Palos Verdes (LA)
Backhaul for Small Cells | Traditional Fiber-Optic

9. Mobilitie’s push for widespread microwave backhaul for Sprint Small Cells
Cell phone signal reaches antenna
Signal travels to computer on pole
Signal is ”backhauled” from coffee
can sized “UE relay” (microwave)
to nearby 120 foot tall microwave
backhaul.
Carrier advantage: This eliminates
substantial costs of running fiber-
optic cables to each Small Cell
(whether on existing wooden
utility poles or under streets)

10. Larger Policy Concerns with Mobilitie’s attempt at widespread microwave
backhaul for Sprint Small Cells
• Considered an optional and very intrusive network deployment
model
• Mobilitie’s 120 foot poles would not LIKELY be collocatable for
other carriers meaning others may pursue additional poles nearby
• Would undermine years of largely successful efforts to combine
cell towers with multiple sets of antennas for competing carriers
on few number of towers in a given community. 
(four or more cell sites “screened” in one cell tower in New Mexico)

11. Larger Policy Concerns with Mobilitie’s attempt at widespread microwave
backhaul for Sprint Small Cells
• Would undermine smart land use siting that encourages use
of large cell sites on rooftops (hidden from view) 

12. Current Federal Lobbying
Mobilitie is currently asking in a recent proceeding for the FCC to override local control regarding access to the
public right-of-way.
This could hypothetically mean FCC decisions (whether this proceeding or subsequent):
Forcing cities/counties to allow carriers to put up brand new wood/steel poles along City sidewalks without any
limits on the number of new poles in a residential or historic neighborhood.
Forcing cities/counties to rent out space on City-owned light poles at rates far below what many cities/counties
charge or feel is appropriate to recoup costs and best represent taxpayers (e.g. $35 a month instead of $150 to $350 a
month)

13. Current Federal Lobbying
Mobilitie is currently asking in a recent proceeding for the FCC to override local control regarding access to the
public right-of-way.
This could hypothetically mean FCC decisions (whether this proceeding or subsequent):
Forcing cities/counties outside California to give up franchise fees (e.g. percentage of revenues). Cities/counties in
California cannot charge these fees due to State law (”7901” of Public Utilities Code). Though cities/counties can charge
rent to attach antennas/equipment to municipal assets (poles, bus shelters, advertising kiosks)
Forcing cities/counties to allow designs with no regard of best available technologies or common sense rules
Example: Requiring carrier to turn off unnecessary equipment indicator lights on equipment cabinets installed on a
pole located a few feet from a bedroom window.
Forcing cities/counties to allow carriers to put bulky cabinets (computers or backup batteries or generators) on the
ground with little to no regard for how it may block busy sidewalks (including proper handicapped access) or views of
historic / iconic buildings or small business storefronts

14. Current Federal Lobbying
These types of rules could also have the effect of forcing cities/counties to undo nearly 20 years of smart wireless
siting that sought to balance robust and competitive networks while working collaboratively with carriers to pursue
the least intrusive means of providing those services
Least intrusive could mean hiding antennas in fake vent pipes on office buildings instead of building brand new steel
towers.
In rural areas pushing wireless carriers to share space on a single tower, instead of each new carrier coming and
building a brand new tower down the road (“collocation”).
Or, disguising a tower as a water tank or windmill on private property instead.
Least intrusive could also mean a balanced approach for an urban area with rooftop cell sites for core coverage and
WELL-DESIGNED (small equipment and antennas with no noisy cooling fans) Small Cells attached to existing light poles
for robust data coverage at sidewalk user level.

15. Current Federal Lobbying
Mobilitie request of the FCC to override local control regarding access to the public right-of-way could also mean:
Forcing cities/counties to allow a wireless carrier to rip up a decorative or well-maintained concrete sidewalks (for
new trenching) and replace any broken sidewalks areas with (often bump) patches of asphalt.
Allowing carriers to pursue poles of any height, even if it means the placement requires new aircraft warning lights.
With no recourse for a City/County to suggest something like moving the pole a few hundred yards away from an
aircraft landing zone (to negate the need for the flashing lights).
The Senate may consider a revised version of the MobileNow Act which would gut local review of wireless siting as
well.
For example, the first version (withdrawn last year) would have said a City/County can’t require any review for a diesel
backup generator as long as it is for a wireless site. So even if the generator was proposed on the roof next to a
bedroom window, the City/County could not apply any noise or exhaust rules or even request the generator be moved
to the other side of the roof.

16. California (State) Lobbying
AT&T appears gearing up to continue pushing for a
shutdown of the existing copper telephone (wired
landline) AT&T network. Also known as
They’ve begun proposing (in some rural areas)
replacing the network with new cell towers
accompanied by new antennas on each home
(to talk to the nearby cell tower in lieu of copper
wires).

17. California (State) Lobbying
The bill that died last year (AB 2395 – Evan Low) will likely be revived in
2017.
The California Public Utilities Commission recommended denial over
concerns raised regarding reliability, consumer protection, compatibility of
hearing aids and home alarms and so on.
The bill was withdrawn in the face of opposition by many counties,
especially rural ones, as well as many labor unions (wireline crews are
unionized – while the wireless industry has a comparatively anti-union bent,
and an issue of poor safety issues related to poles falling over causing fires
in Malibu, and tower climber deaths).
Blog Link: http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/att-plan-to-scrap-copper-
networks-will-widen-digital-divide-say-rural-reps/
- Author, Steve Blum, has worked to put together a roadmap for more
responsible copper retirement rules

18. California (State) Lobbying
Verizon appears gearing up to revise a bill that failed (withdrawn) last year (AB 2788 by Mike Gatto) to override local
control and allow “Small Cells” along public streets/sidewalks with little to no control over siting/design/noise by a
City/County.

19. California Supreme Court
SF versus T-Mobile/Crown Castle/Extenet
Systems
• T-Mobile and two neutral host carriers (CC & Extenet) sued City of SF
over wireless ordinance specific to public right-of-way
• Lawsuit is NOT over micro/macro wireless sites on private property
(rooftops)
• Carriers lost twice, California Supreme Court will now take up review
• Issues hinge on whether carriers have automatic right to install
antennas/equipment/poles without discretion by California
cities/counties (aesthetics/design, noise, undergrounding rules)

20. What can cities/counties
do
Planners & Public Works
will have to work together more closely, because…
Small Cells & Not-So-Small Cells represent a shift of review
from mostly private property (Planning review) to the
Public Right-of-Way (Streets & Sidewalks), which generally falls under Public Works Review

21. What can cities/counties
do
Figure out if your current wireless rules also cover the public right-of-way?
If not adopt an ordinance soon (e.g. Palos Verdes, SD, or SF)
Avoid using outdated rules that may force worse designs/locations
(such as min. separation distances that push the next Small Cell in front of
homes)
Encourage well-designed Small Cells on Arterials/Collector Streets (instead of local)
Create noise, height, lighting (aircraft warning) limits
Create clear application forms
Talk to other agencies that may own assets (bus shelters, advertising kiosks, water
districts, Port districts and so on) about lease rates and collaborative review and
permitting. Those assets may provide more options for less intrusive wireless
siting

22. What can cities/counties
do
Keep close track of State and Federal Shot Clocks
New Sites - 150 Days
Collocations – 90 Days
”6409” eligible changes to existing & legal sites - 60 days

23. What can cities/counties
do
Work with the local electric utility to avoid the need for electrical
meters on the sidewalk, or on the pole.
PG&E has begun allowing wireless smart metering
(antenna the size of a grapefruit, instead of a large meter) in
some trials.
This also reduces “6409” *challenges associated with carriers
demanding ability to add more ground-mounted equipment as
soon as they install a facility that includes cabinets (or meter
pedestals) already.
*FCC’s 2014 Broadband Order overriding local government
discretion of certain changes to existing (and legally installed)
wireless facilities

24. What can cities/counties
do
Consider allowing microtrenching
Small cut in pavement or gutter to run fiber-optic cables
Can help with both “cellular” and in-building broadband
deployment
Allowed in many cities ranging from Calimesa to NYC

25. What can cities/counties
do
Work with City Real Estate on Rate Schedules
Encourage rates that vary based on footprint such as one rate
•For Macro Plus Sites (7-12 antennas & shipping container sized equipment area)
•Lower rate for Smaller Sites (3-6 antennas and equipment area the size of an office cubicle)

26. What can cities/counties
doWork with City Real Estate on Rate Schedules
•Even lower rates for small microwave dishes used by Wireless
Internet Service Providers (WISPS)
• Can be used as an economic/social development tool to
bring high speed in-building broadband to a
City funded non-profit office, or an older business park that
is not adequately served by phone/cable company
”Fixed” Wireless Signal serving another site with internet
access (wires from antenna into the building) a few miles
away

27. What can cities/counties
doWireless carriers CAN develop well-designed Small Cells, but it
requires:
A focus by the City/County (along with JPAs & Independent
Districts) to articulate smarter siting, design, and noise policies
early on:
A concerted effort by wireless carriers to use already available
technologies & options such as:
•Integrated poles (antennas/equipment in vault or inside pole)
•Passive cooling systems (no noise)
•Oversight on actual contractors to follow through on conditions
of approval (build safely & correctly)
•Radome antennas instead of hanging panel antennas with loose
bundles of cabling
•More conscientious siting
•Equipment cabinets that are slender instead of bulky
(e.g. TSI Power battery backup cabinets instead of Alpha)
•Forgoing unnecessary decals, logos, lighting and excessive visible
wiring
Small Cell

28. Thanks!
Article & Tips on Small Cells for California
Cities
www.tinyurl.com/10wirelesschallenges
- Omar.Masry@gmail.com