SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
Verizon won't speed up 5G buildout despite FCC preempting local fees
Verizon Wireless says it will not move faster on building its 5G cellular network despite a Federal Communications Commission decision that erased $2 billion dollars' worth of fees for the purpose of spurring faster 5G deployment.
The FCC's controversial decision last month angered both large and small municipalities because it limits the amount they can charge carriers for deployment of wireless equipment such as small cells on public rights-of-way. The FCC decision also limits the kinds of aesthetic requirements cities and towns can impose on carrier deployments and forces cities and towns to act on carrier applications within 60 or 90 days.Ajit Pai slams cities and towns as FCC erases $2 billion in local fees
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai justified the decision by saying it would speed up 5G deployment, and he slammed local governments for "extracting as much money as possible in fees from the private sector and forcing companies to navigate a maze of regulatory hurdles in order to deploy wireless infrastructure."
But in an earnings call last week, Verizon CFO Matt Ellis told investors that the FCC decision won't have any effect on the speed of its 5G deployment. Verizon also said that it is reducing overall capital expenditures—despite a variety of FCC decisions, including the net neutrality repeal, that the FCC claimed would increase broadband network investment. (Verizon posted a transcript of the earnings call here.)
An analyst asked Ellis if the FCC order would "change the sort of internal targets you have for the rollout of the small cell and 5G infrastructure and possibly allow you to go a little faster as you look out to 2019 and 2020."
Ellis responded that the FCC decision "doesn't necessarily increase the velocity that we see." Verizon is "going as fast as we can" already, he said.
Also at ExtremeTech
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 05 2018, @08:37PM
You get a point, I suppose. But, let's be careful about confusing accusations with evidence. For the most part, the accusations seem to be along the lines of "We don't like how you're doing this!" rather than "This is clearly against the law." Case in point, that clown who purged a bunch of names in Florida. It appears that he went by the letter of the law. If we want to argue the justness of the law, fine - that is wide open. It looks pretty questionable to me. But, apparently, the law is being applied just as it has been for decades, with no real irregularities.
Maybe the R's are just more careful about crossing their T's and dotting their I's while they are busy disenfranchising people? Or, maybe the D's just want EVERYBODY to vote, anywhere they please, without any qualification?