The growing demand for increasing the coverage, data capacity and durability of wireless infrastructure is of high interest to the city, considering that cellphones are now many residents’ main, if not sole, avenue for communication. This fact was brought to the fore by the recent storm that debilitated city wireless accessibility for days in some cases. On August 22, the Greenbelt City Council met with representatives of CTC Technology and Energy, represented by Public Safety Subject Matter Expert James Crane and Vice President for Analytics Shawn Thompson to discuss the details and progress around the expansion of small cell deployment in Greenbelt. Also present was Attorney Gerard Lederer from Best, Best and Krieger, a law firm that had done work for the city.
CTC has been contracted to review any incoming applications and franchise agreements from interested carriers who want to provide small cell infrastructure in the city’s public right of way (documents now available on the city’s website at greenbeltmd.gov).
What Is Small Cell?
Crane defined small cell as “an umbrella term for operator-controlled, low-powered radio access nodes, including those that operate in licensed spectrum and unlicensed carrier-grade Wi-Fi.” Their range varies from 10 to several hundred meters. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) term for these is Small Wireless Facility (SWF). Other defining features are: a structure of 50 feet or less, and not more than 10 percent taller than adjacent structures; an antenna no more than 3 cubic feet in volume; and a radiofrequency radiation output not in excess of federal standards as relates to human exposure.
Regarding this latter issue, CTC said that a radiation study is done at the time of construction. In response to council interest in ongoing checks for radiation, Crane, Thompson, Lederer and Director of Planning and Community Development Terri Hruby said that the city ordinance could be amended to make that a condition, as some neighboring jurisdictions have done.
CTC representatives stressed that the focus of the meeting would be on small towers and antennas, as opposed to macro-sites, which provide low frequency coverage for miles and can accommodate a number of carriers at once.
FCC Requirements
Hruby began the meeting by commenting on the 2018 FCC ruling “requiring local government to allow the installation of small cell antennas in rights-of-way and set some conditions on how we regulate them and set what I thought was a reasonable fee for municipalities to charge.” The 2018 FCC ruling states that carriers have the right to deploy SWFs in a jurisdiction’s right-of-way and that a jurisdiction cannot ban them in their right-of-way.
Hruby explained that the city then adopted ordinances in 2018 “regulating small cell antennas as permitted by the FCC, as well as ordinances that provide for some safety and aesthetic requirements. The ordinances also require a franchise agreement be executed.” She concluded by saying, “To date we have not received any applications or executed any franchise agreements.” Crane said that the city can also exercise some power over deployment through preferences for commercial versus residential sites.
Application Process
Carriers must first file an annual plan listing potential sites for deployment in order to then submit an application for the site, but the plan does not require them to do so. A jurisdiction has 60 days to approve a qualified application, but that process can be delayed if a Request for Information regarding any concerns is submitted.
Crane laid out the application review process. Following a submission, the carrier must demonstrate the need for the antenna, and the necessity of its place in the carrier’s goal for the site as a whole. The structure on which it will be placed, like a light or utility pole, must be appropriate. Engineering assessments, county zoning compliance and its impact on the community, including the visual impact, are further taken into account.
Likely Applicants
The major carriers that the city would potentially deal with are: AT&T, Crown Castle (which is an acquisition company that services a number of carriers), Dish Wireless, T-Mobile and Verizon. These carriers have their own public safety communication divisions to respond to emergencies and outages with mobile units. Pepco, BGE and WSSC often partner with carriers to allow SWFs on their poles and infrastructure.
Considerations
In a separate interview, Hruby said that any small cell installation requires “a recommendation as part the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement preliminary review process,” specifically from the county’s Tower Committee, which oversees this area.
Thompson explained that if the city were to install all 5G SWFs, those with 4G phones would be unable to access the service. He added that some jurisdictions have decided to install a combination of both 4G and 5G to address that. Hruby said that the city ordinance currently has no language related to that subject.
Said Lederer, “The city is only able to recover the expenses incurred from the installation of new SWFs, with there being no avenue for financial profit.”
Crane said that this entire process relies only on carriers reaching out to jurisdictions first, with solicitation by communities not being the rule. Some communities with significant service deficiencies have been known to fast-track the application process.
All parties present at the meeting said that the city’s small cell ordinance is amendable as this effort continues to enfold.