Cities Are Saying No to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying

Cities and towns throughout Northern California are issuing ordinances that would exclude new 5G cell sites from residential areas, citing supposed health concerns. Whatever the basis for residents’ objections to new cell towers, countless mayors, governors, and council members across the country—have little or no power under current rules to act on their constituents’ wishes. Nor do they have the leeway they once did to set pricing for cell sites, a lucrative source of funding for civic initiatives. Those who do take action are creating ordinances that put their cities at risk of being sued by the telecoms, as happened in Aug in Rochester (NY). 

Billed as the key to the future—of telecommunications, of global competition, of innovation and even of municipal infrastructure—5G has instead become a bone of contention. In addition to upgrading existing towers, it will require an estimated half-million new towers and small-cell sites on utility poles, lampposts, and buildings. Experts also anticipate a long rollout period, potentially of a decade or more. Most cities want 5G, but they don’t want to be told how, when and at what cost. Rules the Federal Communications Commission has already passed, meant to expedite 5G’s rollout, might well be creating acrimony that serves to do the exact opposite.