There is an unseen ethical war being waged in the world of mobile networks; in fact, it has almost descended into a modern-day states-rights issue. The ethical war over 5G networks continues to be a topic to debate.
On September 19, 2018, a seemingly uneventful day in Washington, D.C. (aside from the usual politics!) the FCC approved an easing of restrictions in the rollout of 5G equipment.
Sounds pretty dry, doesn’t it? Not so fast. Local governments have been profiting from equipment deployment and the FCC has steam-rolled over those fees to allow wireless companies to fast-track the implementation of networks. Not surprisingly, the local governments feel that the FCC has taken away their authority.
5G is Large and Small
When 3G and then 4G were all the rage, we witnessed the landscape become populated with massive towers that soared into the sky. With 5G, the deployment of wireless cells will be much smaller – and that’s the good news. This time around, however, 5G will need more of those smaller cells. To inaugurate 5G nationwide, companies must ramp up production of cells and must produce many in order to increase the density to enable 5G.
Here is where the “Feds” meet up with the locals. When 3G and 4G towers were put up, getting permissions from local government was both costly and time-consuming. There were all kinds of fees and delays during the review process. In fact, many months of delays. With the September 19th ruling, the FCC is dictating that the local and state governments cannot charge exorbitant fees and they must approve applications in a timely manner, specifically, 60 days for applications to attach 5G equipment to existing towers and 90 days for constructing new ones.
The FCC’s streamlining of the process and they feel it will cut $2 billion in costs and stimulate the economy by $2.5 billion. The carriers like this arrangement. On the other hand, consumer advocacy groups like Common Cause state:
“The FCC’s actions also hurt state and local government abilities to negotiate any public interest obligations like buildout requirements or anti-redlining provisions. This gives wireless companies even more of an ability to only deploy 5G to the richest parts of a city, leaving low-income areas unserved.”
Corporate welfare?
Local government advocates claim that Wireless services promoting 5G often refuse to serve or upgrade those living in poor and rural areas. They feel the green-lighting and fast-tracking of the 5G installation basically means the wireless companies do not have to invest in improving the digital infrastructure in underserved areas.
September 27, 2018, the FCC chairman fired back at the critics of this approach:
“They [the local governments] would like to continue 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…They slow the construction of 5G networks and will delay if not prevent the benefits of 5G from reaching American consumers… I don’t want 5G to widen the digital divide; I want 5G to help close that divide.”
Of course, there are many political critics who feel as though the insistence on a 5G infrastructure will only benefit the carriers in light of tariffs and a lack of environmental and governmental safeguards. It is, in the eyes of many, just another example of corporate welfare, where the major carriers are reaping a windfall but there is no pass through. People who live on “the wrong side” of the digital tracks will be lost as the 5G networks dominate richer communities.
Here then, is the ethical argument. The FCC (the government) tells us that streamlining 5G across the nation is a good thing. They are cutting through the red-tape and lowering fees, circumventing state and local authorities.
Advocacy groups are saying that 5G benefits the rich and that those in rural or impoverished areas who have poor service now, will continue to have poor service. They will not benefit from the increased profits pouring into the wireless industry. The additional profits may be in the millions.
In a bid for expediency, is the government lessening its sense of compassion toward the most underserved in our country? Would the wireless providers pass a test of ethical decency, or are they ignoring the obvious, that 5G is really a tool intended for the wealthiest in our urban and suburban communities? The ethical war over 5G networks is one that will not be resolved right away.
