Forest Service Fee Called Threat to Broadcasters but Boon for Wireless

The Forest Service proposal would “charge wireless uses” -- which includes TV, radio and cellular -- an annual$1,400 fee to authorize each facility, and fiber cable $400 per authorization. That fee is lower because the cables run underground and require less oversight. The December proposal stems from the 2018 Farm Bill, which requires the agency to charge a fee to fund the authorization of communications uses on Forest Service land. "The programmatic administrative fee is required by federal statute," said a Forest Service spokesperson. "A more efficient and effective Forest Service communications use program would enhance the deployment of wireless and fiber optic cable communications services, including broadband services to unserved and underserved rural communities."

The Forest Service manages 193 million acres in the U.S. Most federal lands, 92% according to government statistics, are located in 12 Western states. Nevada, at nearly 85%, has the highest percentage of federal lands. There are 1,367 communications sites on NFS lands, the agency said. The proposal’s language couches it as a response to the national push for better broadband connectivity: “Additional Agency personnel, improved efficiencies, and current technology are critical for meeting this increased demand for communications uses on NFS lands, as well as the Administration's goal of enhancing access to high-speed broadband on Federal lands.”

An additional $1,400 fee could make hundreds of translators and broadcast facilities no longer worth it for many smaller broadcasters, said Wayne Johnson, an administrator technician for Southwest Colorado Television Translator Association who oversees translators for local governments in Colorado and Utah. Broadcast facilities on Forest Service land are generally used to provide a broadcast signal to remote, less-populated areas, he said. “We’re in a remote county in Colorado,” said Johnson, who's also NTA vice president. “We have five different sites on mountain tops to be able to serve the population.” Unlike wireless providers, broadcasters would have to absorb the increased costs because they don’t charge individual users, said Pillsbury broadcast attorney Scott Flick. NAB, NTA and numerous state broadcast associations are expected to oppose the proposal.

Wireless carriers, seeking quick deployment of 5G, say they likely won’t oppose higher fees. Industry officials said the fees will likely mostly affect smaller carriers, who serve rural markets, in areas that have had the slowest 5G buildout. Industry officials expect more focus on these underserved and unserved areas as the government doles out the $65 billion allocated for broadband in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

“Processing time frames and unnecessarily long reviews have historically posed significant challenges for CCA members, particularly surrounding the urgency for broadband deployment and limited construction windows” on NFS lands, said Competitive Carriers Association President Steve Berry. “Any increase in fees must come with a commitment to improve processing times, which remain a real problem, especially for smaller carriers.”

The Forest Service already charges fees to broadcast facilities, but stations owned by localities are often exempt. That wouldn’t be the case for the new fee, Johnson said. The fees are also tied to the consumer price index, and thus would rise incrementally, said Mills. That could mean smaller broadcasters, including municipalities and tribal governments, would find it more cost-effective to shut their facilities down and provide less coverage. For government-owned stations, the fees would come from local government budgets, Johnston said. “You’ve got to look at sites that were maybe already operating on the margins,” Flick said. “I think we can weather it, but not everybody else can,” Johnson said.

​​​​​​​The proposal could affect the communications of emergency services and ham radio, Johnston said. The ARRL “vigorously” opposes it, and many comments appear to come from ham radio operators or entities concerned about the proposal’s effect on that service. “When outages happen, sometimes the only way to get local news or communicate outside our immediate area is via ham radio,” wrote Lew Chichester, of the Round Valley Area Municipal Advisory Council in Covelo, California.

Fees would cover the costs of authorizing communications uses, the Forest Service proposal said. That includes on-site reviews of communications sites, preparation of site management plans, and program oversight and management, plus paying staff to perform those tasks. “To meet the demand for these critical services, the Agency must be prepared to do its part by ensuring it has the necessary staff and expertise to administer its communications use program.”

The Forest Service’s proposal “can be another important step towards closing the digital divide if these funds are used to expedite applications on covered lands,” said Jonathan Adelstein, president of the Wireless Infrastructure Association. “Applications to utilize Forest Service lands for communications sites have historically fallen on too few, hardworking civil servants,” he said. The number of applications is “only going to increase as states take advantage of historic federal funding for broadband expansion from the infrastructure bill,” he said.

The fee “should allow the Forest Service to expand its workforce and modernize its processes, which will reduce the time it takes to approve applications,” Adelstein said. WIA encourages the Forest Service “to clearly detail the costs incurred in operating their application review program and disclose how the new proposed fees will be put to work,” he said: “Broadband connectivity, especially in rural areas, is of the utmost importance. The Forest Service must be cognizant of how new fees may stifle telecommunications deployments. Considering the significant cost to deploy on these lands, the Forest Service should use these fees to increase efficiencies within the program and pass any reductions in cost on to the applicants.”

“Expanding broadband availability is a top priority, and CTIA supports the efforts of the U.S. Forest Service to promote wireless deployment on Federal lands to help connect rural communities,” emailed CTIA Senior Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Scott Bergmann.