75 / 136
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Master Plan - Town of Morrisville, NC – Adopted July 23, 2013
C-2
Robert F. Roche of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) stated in The
Unpredictable Certainty: White Papers (1997)
“…the wireless paradigm has resulted in more than 200,000 new jobs, and almost
$19 billion in private-sector investment…and in spite of these gains and the
promise of another $50 billion in investment over the next 10 years, there are
impediments to this success…Some local jurisdictions are preventing the
deployment of antennas, either through outright bans, extensive delays, or
application of unscientific “local technical standards” to radio frequency
emissions…”
Roche further suggests the CTIA should:
“…1) urge President Clinton to direct federal agencies to make available federal
land and sites for telecommunications infrastructure; 2) urge the FCC to develop
national standards on radio frequency emissions over local standards; and 3) urge
the FCC to advocate the primacy of national telecommunications policy over
local policies that are hostile to competition…”
This perplexing situation
prompted the adoption of Section 704 of
the Federal Telecommunication
Act of 1996.
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policies impacting deployment of wireless
facilities are, with certain exceptions, unchanged since the enactment of the 1996
Telecommunications Act. The overall concept as passed by Congress was to facilitate the
creation of a wireless infrastructure to parallel the wired infrastructure that existed in the United
States. The FCC’s mandate has been to work towards accomplishing that goal, and the current
Commission in particular has paid great attention to moving that task forward.
Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 retains local governments’ zoning
authority over the deployment of wireless telecommunication facilities subject to several specific
requirements.
First, zoning regulations and decisions may not unreasonably discriminate among the wireless
providers, and may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the deployment of wireless
infrastructure. For example, some communities adopted development standards restricting the
distance between towers to three miles. In some geographic locations with sparse populations
this may have been adequate for 1G deployment; however the Laws of Physics make it
impossible for 2G wireless deployments to meet this spacing requirement. Unknowingly some
communities inadvertently prohibited the deployment of 2G.
Second, local governments must act on applications for new wireless infrastructure within a
“reasonable” amount of time
Third, the local government must provide in writing a reason for any denials and the decision
must be supported by substantial evidence.