Judith Monroy looks up at a recently installed Verizon small cell signal booster (upper right) placed a few dozen feet from her front door. It was accompanied by a 5-foot high utility cabinet (lower left) containing backup batteries to power Verizon’s equipment for up to four hours in the event of a blackout. (Image courtesy: The Press Democrat)

A preview of the possible aesthetics battle of future 5G small cells that are expected to proliferate across America’s cities and towns in the coming years is taking place in Santa Rosa, Calif., where residents and some city officials reacted with surprise when Verizon began attaching “small cell” wireless repeater equipment on 72 city-owned light and utility-owned poles around the city. While not exactly the same at the 5G equipment Verizon is preparing to install in Sacramento to launch its forthcoming fixed wireless service, the similar-sized equipment turned out to look nothing like what was promised by Verizon officials. But city officials learned this only after the project was approved by a 7-0 City Council vote in 2017.

In January, one resident learned about the sudden arrival of Verizon Wireless’ equipment when she opened her front door one morning to confront a utility pole decorated with antenna equipment and a 5-foot high utility box about 30 feet away from her home.

“I’m planning to put this house on the market and the mechanisms on the telephone pole and in the ground are very aggressive and ominous-looking,” said Judith Monroy, 75. “You can’t miss them.”

Within days, someone vandalized the utility box, spray painting the word “no” and “stop this” for all to see.

In many areas, 5G small cells will be installed on utility or light poles in the front yards of residential homes. Wireless companies will want to place equipment on poles that are not obstructed by foliage or tall, nearby infrastructure, which can block signals. Requests for aggressive tree trimming to remove obstacles, within the limits permitted by local ordinances and the policies of the pole owner, are also likely. This is certain to create controversy if property owners find their trees or shrubbery removed or aggressively pruned. But for many others, the appearance of the new equipment is enough to provoke protests.

When some property owners discovered Verizon was also adorning electric utility poles with its cellular equipment, some started referring to them as “PG&E’s Godzilla Poles.”

‘PG&E Pole Godzilla’ (Image courtesy: The Press Democrat)

The utility poles hosting Verizon’s equipment have new “branches” attached several feet below pre-existing utility wiring, onto which small cell antennas are attached.

As more equipment gets installed, the more concerned citizens are phoning up city hall to complain.

Last week, city officials bowed to citizen pressure and temporarily suspended Verizon Wireless’ antenna upgrade program. While some residents cited health and safety fears from electromagnetic radiation — a fear repeatedly debunked — many more were upset by the aesthetics of the equipment and wondered if the city got a raw deal.

“I think it is time to push the pause button on this installation in our neighborhoods,” said John Cushman, a resident of Hidden Valley. “This project has been rushed and the only urgency I can see is financial.”

Verizon is paying the city $350 per pole, an amount some local residents consider absurdly low. As opposition mounted, some uncomfortable members of City Council that originally voted in favor of Verizon’s plan changed their minds, according to The Press Democrat:

Neighbors are not happy about Verizon’s new equipment. (Image courtesy: The Press Democrat)

“I am supportive of putting the brakes on this,” Councilman Tom Schwedhelm said. “I’m not convinced that we’ve done everything that we can so we can look anyone in the face and say ‘Yes it’s safe there. It’s safe to be in front of my house.’ ”

Councilman Jack Tibbetts said he viewed the rollout as a “commercial enterprise” that perhaps was better suited to commercial areas given the city’s stated goal of helping strengthen the city’s wireless infrastructure to foster entrepreneurialism.

“I’d like to see residential zones be carved out in our ordinance,” Tibbetts said to loud applause in a chamber full of people wearing bright yellow stickers reading “Caution: Cell tower microwave frequency hazard.”

But Verizon may have positioned itself to move forward regardless of what the city has in mind.

The company announced it would continue installation at 25 previously approved sites where it already has permits in-hand. Verizon has yet to obtain permits to place equipment at two other PG&E sites and 31 city light poles.

The city will not have much say over pole attachments on PG&E’s infrastructure, which is governed on the state level by the California Public Utilities Commission.

If the city denies Verizon’s request to install its equipment on city-owned light poles, the company could just move those antennas to other PG&E poles nearby instead.

Accenture’s six-page analysis.

CTIA, America’s largest wireless industry trade group and lobbyist, commissioned a research consultant to produce a six-page analysis that unsurprisingly concludes stripping some oversight responsibilities regarding cell tower placement would reduce the cost to deploy 5G wireless small cells by as much as $1.6 billion over the next nine years.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering industry-friendly proposals that would “streamline” and “modernize” the historic and environmental regulatory requirements for wireless deployments, exclude small cells from certain federal regulatory reviews, and put a strict limit on completing environmental impact reviews on new tower and antenna installations or else they will be automatically approved.

The Accenture analysis, produced at the request of CTIA, claims that it will cost an average of $9,730 for each 5G small cell regulatory review. But the report also states only 28-29% of installations will face this type of review. The CTIA implies it is much worse than that in its new 30-second ad complaining about regulatory burdens. That ad suggests 5G small cell “approval can take a couple of years.”

As the FCC ponders further deregulation of cell tower and antenna placement, wireless industry players are sharing their horror stories with the FCC to strengthen the agency’s likely  view that installation rules and oversight should be relaxed.

In January, Sprint complained it faced a demand to pay a $90,000 “tribal review fee” for six tower upgrades in the Chicago area. The company claims the towers were located in historic preservation areas, but not in areas of tribal significance. Sprint added in its letter to the FCC it only planned to install additional antenna equipment at those tower sites to increase capacity, not erect new towers.

The wireless industry is also lobbying to get cut-rate access to public infrastructure like street lights, on which it eventually plans to place 5G network equipment.

In states like California, AT&T has pushed hard for new legislation that would mandate cities and counties to give the company open access to public infrastructure in public rights-of-way or utility easements. In a 2017 bill before the California Senate, companies like AT&T would face a fee limit of $100-850 per small cell per year, indexed for inflation,

With multiple wireless companies prepared to enter the 5G marketplace, utility poles could get crowded.

Cities and counties may also find their right to object to what eventually ends up on their poles curtailed as a result of the deregulation effort.

CTIA’s new 30-second advertisement claims 5G small cells can be installed in about 90 minutes, but only after waiting years for a sluggish review process. (30 seconds)

Broadband growth is slowing in the United States as internet service providers have an increasingly hard time finding new subscribers who do not already have internet service in their homes and businesses.

In 2017, telecom companies attracted 2.1 million new customers, in contrast to 2.7 million in 2016.

Leichtman Research Group reports that among 14 ISPs which control 95% of the U.S. market, cable companies are about the only ones still growing, mostly at the expense of their phone company competitors. Cable companies now provide access for 61.2 million customers, representing almost two-thirds of the market. Phone companies continue to lose market share but still have 33.9 million internet customers.

Some statistics:

Cable Companies

• Charter Communications was the marketplace leader in broadband net additions, picking up 1.3 million new internet access customers in 2017. Spectrum is the second largest broadband provider in the country, with 23.9 million customers.
• Comcast retained its position as the country’s largest provider, picking up an additional 1.2 million internet access customers in 2017. It now serves 25.9 million broadband customers.
• Altice, which operates as Cablevision/Optimum and Suddenlink, saw particularly weak growth in 2017, adding only 83,700 customers.
• Mediacom added 47,000 new internet customers to its roster of 1.2 million current customers and WOW picked up 11,100 new broadband subscribers last year.

Phone Companies

• Only AT&T added net new customers in 2017, picking up 114,000 new subscribers to add to its 15,719,000 current internet customers.
• Verizon lost 79,000 customers and is down to just short of seven million subscribers.
• CenturyLink lost 283,000 customers and is now down to 5,662,000 customers.
• Frontier dropped 333,000 customers from its roster of 3.9 million current internet customers.
• Windstream ended 2017 with 44,500 fewer internet customers, retaining just over one million subscribers.

Cable One, the Phoenix-based mid-sized cable operator serving some of the poorest communities in the country is charging some of the nation’s highest prices for broadband service, raking in an unprecedented 47% margin in the fourth quarter of 2017, the highest in the cable industry.

That growth has come courtesy of CEO Julie Laulis, who has doubled down on data caps — automatically enrolling customers in higher priced plans if they exceed data caps three times in any 12-month period, raised prices, and ended most new customer and customer retention promotions in favor of ‘take it or leave it‘ pricing, especially on broadband service. Laulis has also decided to devote most of Cable One’s marketing efforts on selling broadband service, while de-emphasizing cable television. As a result, customers dissatisfied with Cable One’s lineup are encouraged to leave quietly.

Because video programming is costly to provide and broadband is relatively cheap to offer, the more the company can extract from its internet customers, the higher the profits earned. In 2011, cable television represented 49.1% of Cable One’s $779 million in revenue, with residential and commercial broadband comprising 34%. Today, 57% of Cable One’s $960 million in revenue comes from selling internet service. Cable One not only de-emphasized its video business, it also raised prices on internet service to further enhance earnings.

New customers coming to Cable One can subscribe to an entry-level broadband plan of 100 Mbps with a 300 GB monthly data cap for $55 a month. There are no discounts or promotions on this plan. But Cable One also requires customers to lease ($10.50/mo.) or buy an added-cost cable modem, raising the price higher. To prevent customers from taking advantage of promotions on higher speed products, Cable One requires customers to disconnect from service for a full year before being considered a new customer once again.

Laulis

Cable One has been able to raise prices and attach stingy usage caps to customers primarily because there are no good alternatives in the rural markets it prefers. One analyst said 77% of Cable One’s customers are in largely rural areas of Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana and Oklahoma. But prices are clearly getting too high for some, because the company lost more video and phone customers that it gained in new broadband subscriptions during the fourth quarter of 2017.

The fact Cable One broadband is now considered by many subscribers to be “too expensive” is also reflected by the extremely anemic broadband growth at Cable One. In 2017, the company added just 1.5% to its residential broadband customer base, despite very limited competition from phone companies.

MoffettNathanson’s Craig Moffett has complained all winter that Cable One is sacrificing broadband subscriber growth in favor of profits from price increases.

“[Cable One has] the most limited broadband competition of any publicly traded operator, and they have the lowest starting penetration,” Moffett told his investors. “Should they not be growing broadband the fastest of anyone? If price elasticity is greater than anyone thinks, how long is the runway, not just for Cable One, but for any operator choosing a strategy of price increases rather than unit growth?”

Cable One is also squeezing its newest customers at its latest acquisition – NewWave, which now features pricing very similar to Cable One. It recently started to turn over past due NewWave customers to collections after going 40 days past due. Previously, it was 90 days before account holders were threatened with cancellation and collections.

For now, NewWave’s introductory offer remains: 100 Mbps High-Speed Internet is $39 for the first three months before these rates kick in:

The controversial Church of Scientology is going direct-to-home with its message to the masses with the launch of its new television network, Scientology TV, which begins regular programming tonight at 8pm EDT.

Although the Church was allegedly negotiating with Charter Communications to pick up the new network for its Spectrum TV subscribers, for now, it is confirmed the new network will launch on the DirecTV platform (channel 320), and for those owning Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast, and Roku devices. An app version of the network is also available for iOS and Android.

A countdown timer is currently running on the network with its tag, “Curious?,” which is a question/theme regularly seen in Scientology advertisements.

Over the weekend, Scientology leader David Miscavige appeared at Flag Land Base, the Church of Scientology’s spiritual headquarters in Clearwater, Fla., to announce the imminent launch of the network. In Los Angeles, L. Ron Hubbard Way has been blocked off at the southern end for a celebration when the network goes live.

The launch of the new network was a surprise for many, despite the fact the Church acquired the multimillion dollar production studios of public TV station KCET in Los Angeles in 2011. The Church said it intended to use the studios for programming production and satellite distribution of HD content.

Although the network has promoted “full episodes of your favorite shows,” the initial schedule is limited to in-house produced Scientology programs that promote the Church’s agenda. “The Truth About Drugs” is a documentary complaining about psychiatric medications, something the Church opposes. Other shows include, “Inside Scientology,” “The Way to Happiness,” and the teachings of Church founder L. Ron Hubbard.

Whether the network also intends to air mainstream television programming to attract viewers to its Scientology message is unclear at press time.

Church critics contend Scientology TV is the Church’s response to a devastating series of exposé documentaries and ex-Church member Leah Remini’s popular A&E series “Scientology and the Aftermath.”

“Scientology TV will be little more than ‘mystery sandwich’ propaganda which we’re already quite used to from the church and its YouTube channel, the kind of stuff it’s been airing during Super Bowls the past five years, for example,” wrote Tony Ortega, who writes The Underground Bunker, an authoritative blog about the Church and its dissident ex-members. “Those slick ads are designed to make viewers curious about Scientology without actually telling them anything concrete about it. And we have grave doubts that Scientology TV, the cable channel, will itself go anywhere near explaining what really happens in the Church of Scientology.”

Ironically, at the same time Scientology TV is launching, the ID network will be airing a Vanity Fair Confidential special about the “strange disappearance” of Shelly Miscavige, the wife of the current head of Scientology.