Who knows how much OKC stands to lose here? If we charge the $2400 a year, which is the average, then we will lose a lot......


Will be interesting to see if Holt says anything here. Cornett was VERY friendly to big telecom, and as most of us know Holt doesn't
really like a lot of things about Cornett, and sometimes acts in ways to prove it. Hopefully he will continue this trend and speak out
against this measure... this brief excerpt from this piece says it all:

"The Trump administration, which proposed tripling housing costs for low-income renters, is slashing by 90% or more the utility pole rents paid to local governments by Verizon, AT&T and other cell phone providers. The rent cut for these corporations is worth about $3 billion annually, the National League of Cities estimates.
Utility pole rents will be capped at $270 per pole each year by new Federal Communications Commission rules.
Rents per utility pole are typically $2,400 a year, nine times the FCC cap, said Tony Batalla, IT manager for the city of San Leandro, Calif., a city of 89,000 people across the bay from San Francisco. “These are negotiated rates the companies agreed to,” he noted."




FCC To Give Telecom Companies $3 Billion-A-Year For 5G Phone Rollout (https://www.dcreport.org/2018/09/25/fcc-to-give-telecom-companies-3-billion-a-year-for-5g-phone-rollout/)

Who knows how much OKC stands to lose here? If we charge the $2400 a year, which is the average, then we will lose a lot......


Will be interesting to see if Holt says anything here. Cornett was VERY friendly to big telecom, and as most of us know Holt doesn't
really like a lot of things about Cornett, and sometimes acts in ways to prove it. Hopefully he will continue this trend and speak out
against this measure... this brief excerpt from this piece says it all:

"The Trump administration, which proposed tripling housing costs for low-income renters, is slashing by 90% or more the utility pole rents paid to local governments by Verizon, AT&T and other cell phone providers. The rent cut for these corporations is worth about $3 billion annually, the National League of Cities estimates.
Utility pole rents will be capped at $270 per pole each year by new Federal Communications Commission rules.
Rents per utility pole are typically $2,400 a year, nine times the FCC cap, said Tony Batalla, IT manager for the city of San Leandro, Calif., a city of 89,000 people across the bay from San Francisco. “These are negotiated rates the companies agreed to,” he noted."




FCC To Give Telecom Companies $3 Billion-A-Year For 5G Phone Rollout (https://www.dcreport.org/2018/09/25/fcc-to-give-telecom-companies-3-billion-a-year-for-5g-phone-rollout/)

well not entirely accurate... first of all... not by 90% or more... it's 88.75%... but lets not let math get in the way of good reporting, DCReport...

secondly... it specifically states that unless there is a local reason, that meets three criteria, then it can be higher


77. By presuming that fees at or below the levels above comply with Section 253, we assume
that there would be almost no litigation by providers over fees set at or below these levels. Likewise, our
review of the record, including the many state small cell bills passed to date, indicate that there should be
only very limited circumstances in which localities can charge higher fees consistent with the
requirements of Section 253. In those limited circumstances, a locality could prevail in charging fees that
are above this level by showing that such fees nonetheless comply with the limits imposed by Section
253—that is, that they are (1) a reasonable approximation of costs, (2) those costs themselves are
reasonable, and (3) are non-discriminatory. Allowing localities to charge fees above these levels upon
this showing recognizes local variances in costs.

while i agree that this is probably a bad move... and will result in a decrease in revenue for local governments, and i am opposed to it... i would like to actually have a link to an article that is properly written and explains the facts

jesus. No one else is reporting it. Go easy, Johnston does great work.

jesus. No one else is reporting it. Go easy, Johnston does great work.

well... no sources you follow... most of my tech blogs that cover 5G expansion talked about it back in early August when it was announced that changes were coming to speed up and reduce the cost of 5G implementation, and then there were updates early september after the new rules were first published...

I guess I mean sources that most of the general public follow.. .. "Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment;"
what a joke. These big Telecoms are loaded, and municipalities are typically held together by scotch tape. I think we're a few inches away from a point of absolutely no
return.... oh well

well... on another note related to this

https://www.fastcompany.com/90242183/trumps-china-tariffs-could-sabotage-americas-5g-lead

funnier than a comic strip.



well... on another note related to this

https://www.fastcompany.com/90242183/trumps-china-tariffs-could-sabotage-americas-5g-lead

I think the thought is 5G has a ton of promise and more importantly, economic and security advantages for not just the companies but country that can roll it out first. The country that can bring it to market and secure patents first will stay ahead of the curve and stands to benefit financially. Without reading this article, I assume this is trying to cut red tape and delays from municipalities and help speed up the development of 5G.

You should read the article! Not about cutting red tape but about corporate profits. over people.

You should read the article! Not about cutting red tape but about corporate profits. over people.

you are correct... that is what the article you have linked to is about. it doesn't seem to cover the fact that a large majority of the changes are dealing with about cutting red tape, and an attempt by the FCC to meet the mandate given to them to get 5G out as quickly as possible. yes, corporations are making out much better than private individuals due to these changes and i think they make it to easy for the corporations and not enough power to the local governments...

but getting back to not letting facts get in the way of a good story, and my issues i brought up in the second post on this... it's poor journalism in an attempt to only point to one particular piece of the puzzle and attempting to take it out of context as much as possible.

is what the FCC doing wreck less? absolutely.. but if we are going to talk about the political implications of the changes... lets talk about all of them, not just the ones we want to cherry pick our discussion on.

I'm working on Johnston coming back to OKC soon so I'll ask him about why he left it out.... probably will have a good answer. Smart dude, no wonder Trump
has tried to sue him 5 times.

"it's poor journalism in an attempt to only point to one particular piece of the puzzle and attempting to take it out of context as much as possible. "

also worth noting is that a majority of Johnston's work over the years has been corporate welfare...and he's writing about this here so
most of his readers should understand that he isn't leaving things out for any reason other than to continue the focus on pointing out
new scenarios where this crap occurs...

So how much money is OKC going to miss out on because of this?

I'll see if I can find out...

So how much money is OKC going to miss out on because of this?

very little and maybe none and still receive a huge benefit (5g antenna rollout hadn't really been negotiated)

very little and maybe none and still receive a huge benefit (5g antenna rollout hadn't really been negotiated)

can you provide some data for this claim? Not doubting you, would just like some... thanks.

It’s not like he made a post with a headline claiming anything in particular...