![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Screen-Shot-2019-08-24-at-3.30.17-PM.png\")
<\/a>PETER OUMANSKI<\/p><\/div>\n
By Christopher Mims
\nThe Wall Street Journal<\/p>\n
Jack Tibbetts, a member of the Santa Rosa, Calif., city council, knew he had a problem. It was early 2018, and he\u2019d started getting calls from constituents at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The common thread: cellular antennas going up next to their homes, causing concerns over property values and health.<\/p>\n
The weight of evidence suggests that if radio-frequency emissions have any effect on humans at all, it is,\u00a0according to the World Health Organization<\/a>, about on par with other\u00a0\u201cpossibly carcinogenic\u201d substances<\/a>, including coffee and pickles. The Federal Communications Commission, citing input from the Food and Drug Administration,\u00a0recently declared<\/a>\u00a0that existing limits on the amount of radio-frequency energy these antennas put out make them safe. A senior FCC official said there is nothing unique to 5G networks that poses additional health risks.<\/p>\n None of this has stopped the social-media-fueled conspiracy whirligig that allows health scares to thrive on the internet.<\/p>\n Cities and towns throughout Northern California are issuing ordinances that would exclude new 5G cell sites from residential areas,\u00a0citing supposed health concerns<\/a>. Residents of Portland, Ore., and Whitefish, Mont., have also cited these beliefs while lobbying for restrictions. Legislators in four states\u00a0including New Hampshire<\/a>\u00a0have proposed bills that would mandate further study of health effects or else urge Congress to do so, and Congressman Thomas Suozzi (D., N.Y.) wrote to the FCC\u00a0echoing these concerns<\/a>.<\/p>\n For Mr. Tibbetts, it didn\u2019t matter whether or not these new \u201csmall cell\u201d antennas\u2014which are used for 4G networks but can be upgraded for 5G\u2014going up in Santa Rosa were actually dangerous. Some were attached to utility poles a mere 20 feet from people\u2019s bedroom windows, and residents complained Verizon had put them up without notifying them. What mattered was that his constituents didn\u2019t want these ungainly chunks of public infrastructure anywhere near them.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t like the idea of someone being in their home and it\u2019s supposed to be a place of security, and they are having that feeling of insecurity,\u201d Mr. Tibbetts says. \u201cI won\u2019t be surprised if in 10 years there\u2019s no evidence of cancer from these towers, but my job is not to protect Verizon, it\u2019s to protect people in their houses.\u201d<\/p>\n Whatever the basis for residents\u2019 objections to new cell towers, Mr. Tibbetts\u2014as well as countless mayors, governors and council members across the country\u2014have little or no power under current rules to act on their constituents\u2019 wishes. Nor do they have the leeway they once did to set pricing for cell sites, a lucrative source of funding for civic initiatives. Those who do take action are creating ordinances that put their cities at risk of being sued by the telecoms, as happened this month\u00a0in Rochester, N.Y.<\/a><\/p>\n Billed as the key to the future\u2014of telecommunications, of global competition, of innovation and even of municipal infrastructure\u20145G has instead become a bone of contention. In addition to upgrading existing towers, it will require an estimated half-million new towers and small-cell sites on utility poles, lampposts and buildings. Experts also anticipate a long rollout period, potentially of a decade or more.<\/p>\n Most cities want 5G, but they don\u2019t want to be told how, when and at what cost. Rules the FCC has already passed, meant to expedite 5G\u2019s rollout, might well be creating acrimony that serves to do the exact opposite.<\/p>\n \u201cMy personal reason for doing this is I believe that humanity is threatened,\u201d says Sandi Maurer, a member of the activist group EMF Safety Network, which lobbies to reduce people\u2019s exposure to electromagnetic fields.<\/p>\n Partly as a result of such activism, many towns in Marin County, Calif., have passed ordinances or resolutions that limit 5G cell sites in residential areas. Towns like Mill Valley specify zones where towers aren\u2019t permitted, and may also require them to be a certain distance from each other. In 2018, Verizon withdrew its application to install two small cells in Sebastopol, Calif., rather than sue the city or refer the matter to the FCC.<\/p>\n But since then, the FCC has rolled out its\u00a05G Fast<\/a>\u00a0plan requiring cities and states to approve new 5G antennas within 60 or 90 days. It also limits what government leaders can charge carriers for the real estate on which the new infrastructure will hang\u2014be it a utility pole, streetlight or even building facade.<\/p>\n Carriers love this plan. A spokesman for AT&T\u00a0referred to a statement<\/a>\u00a0lauding the FCC\u2019s new rules, saying they \u201cwill help ensure that, through tried and true free-market incentives, all Americans no matter where they live will enjoy the benefits of jobs, investment, and economic growth this new technology will foster.\u201d A Verizon spokesman said, \u201cWe\u2019re looking for reasonable access and reasonable prices so that we can deploy 5G effectively and promptly to communities and the people who live and work in them.\u201d<\/p>\n FCC chairman Ajit Pai and President Trump\u00a0have both said<\/a>\u00a0that widespread deployment of next-generation 5G wireless networks is critical to winning the race with China. A spokesman for the FCC referred to\u00a0previous statements\u00a0<\/a>by the agency: \u201cTo enable broadband providers to enter new markets and deploy high-speed networks, access to poles must be swift, predictable, safe and affordable.\u201d<\/p>\n City leaders say their power to zone and regulate infrastructure is being abridged. More than 90 cities and counties have joined together in a lawsuit, currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the FCC has overstepped its authority. A decision could happen as early as in the spring, but it could also take much longer.<\/p>\n San Jose, Calif., has already permitted 596 small-cell sites, all of which can be upgraded to 5G, says Shireen Santosham, the city\u2019s chief innovation officer. When that rollout began, San Jose signed agreements with telecoms for between $750 a pole and $2,500 a pole for the new small-cell sites. If the cities lose their suit against the FCC, San Jose might be forced to charge less than the lowest amount it had previously charged per pole.<\/p>\n The city very much wants a 5G rollout, says Mayor Sam Liccardo. But like other cities, San Jose wants to be able to charge higher prices for use of its infrastructure, not only to fund staffing to expedite permits for new sites but also to supply the $1 million to $2 million needed to support a program to deliver broadband access to poor households.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we lose the money, the program pretty much grinds to a halt,\u201d says Ms. Santosham. \u201cDeployment will slow down, and the money to close the digital divide goes away.\u201d<\/p>\n This sort of thing could happen in other cities, despite FCC rules that say permits are automatically approved after 60 or 90 days, says Mr. Liccardo. \u201cThere are lots of ways for local bureaucracies to make it difficult even when the federal government says they must,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n Blair Levin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chief of staff for FCC chairman Reed Hundt, said, \u201cWhat the wireless guys are asking is for cities to treat them totally different than every other entity asking for construction permits. I think it will backfire because, in the fullness of time, instead of a cooperative relationship you\u2019ll get a hostile relationship.\u201d<\/p>\n The prime example is Rochester, which was on the receiving end of a\u00a0lawsuit filed by Verizon on Aug. 8<\/a>. Verizon claims the city\u2019s code violates FCC rules by \u201cimposing upon wireless providers non-cost-based fees on the deployment and maintenance of small wireless facilities.\u201d Translation: Verizon thinks the city is charging too much rent for space on its utility poles where 5G antennas would be installed. A city spokesman says the fees are in line with what other providers pay and calls the suit frivolous.<\/p>\n \u201cThe federal framework calls for nondiscriminatory access at cost-based rates, and that is what we are seeking,\u201d said a Verizon spokesman. \u201cThat means the federal rules prohibit special treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n The health argument is hard to take to court because the FCC has sole discretion over whether the emissions of an electronic device are safe, a right unquestioned by any current court cases or pending federal legislation. A different\u2014and so far more successful\u2014tack has been to challenge carriers on the size and shape of the 5G cells.<\/p>\n In a legal challenge to the FCC\u2019s current rules undertaken by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, the D.C. Circuit Court recently\u00a0ruled against the FCC<\/a>, asserting, among other things, that 5G \u201csmall cells\u201d aren\u2019t nearly as small as advertised.<\/p>\n In its brief, the industry has said these new antennas are only as big as a pizza box, and that in other respects they are comparable to home Wi-Fi routers. But the court said that, especially when they sit atop newly installed towers, they are in fact big and obtrusive enough that they require a review of their environmental impact, and that they are subject to historic-preservation rules.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if only 20% of small cells required new construction, as one wireless company estimates and the FCC highlights in its brief\u2026that could entail as many as 160,000 densely spaced 50-foot towers,\u201d writes the court.<\/p>\n Despite all this conflict, most cities remain eager for telecoms to bring 5G to their streets, says Craig Moffett, founder and senior analyst at MoffettNathanson, a communications research firm. The industry is promising a veritable cornucopia of fantastical technologies will flow from ubiquitous, ultrafast wireless\u2014a smarter city where your autonomous car, your augmented-reality headset and your self-emptying trash bin are always in constant contact.<\/p>\n \u201cIt may be in retrospect we look back and laugh at how silly we all were at wondering what applications this will be used for,\u201d Mr. Moffett said.<\/p>\n \u2014For more WSJ Technology analysis, reviews, advice and headlines,\u00a0sign up for our weekly newsletter<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\nFast and Furious<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nAn AT&T 5G small-cell setup hangs on a pole in Atlanta. Some cities have challenged carriers on the size and shape of 5G cells.<\/span>\u00a0PHOTO:\u00a0<\/span>MELISSA GOLDEN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/div>\n
Big and Ugly<\/h3>\n