5G and urban amenity: regulatory trends and local government responses around small cell deployment

Abstract

Purpose

As part of the 5G rollout, small cell base stations will be deployed across cities. This paper aims to identify an international effort to remove regulatory barriers around deployment and outline emerging strategies Australian local governments are developing to ensure urban amenity in a deregulatory context.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper analyses existing legislation, policy frameworks and grey literature and has conducted eight interviews with participants from the local government sector.

Findings

This paper identifies a global deregulatory trend around small cell deployment and that councils are trying to renegotiate their relationship with telecommunications carriers as 5G is rolled out. Three strategies are identified: the design and installation of smart poles, network sharing and partnerships.

Originality/value

This research contributes to scholarship focused on the 5G rollout and offers one of the first accounts of the emerging tensions between regulatory frameworks, commercial imperatives and municipal authorities, identifying urban amenity as a key area of concern.

Citation

Meese, J., Hegarty, K., Wilken, R., Yang, F. and Middleton, C. (2024), "5G and urban amenity: regulatory trends and local government responses around small cell deployment", Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 601-616. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-10-2023-0150

Introduction

5G, the fifth generation of wireless mobile telecommunications, is currently being deployed. Mobile generations are launched on a decadal timeline and reliably produce an increase in bandwidth and latency. Each generation allows networks to send and receive data at a faster pace, which leads to novel use-cases such as mobile video-calling. 5G continues this trend but also promises to significantly transform telecommunications, by introducing a constellation of new technologies and capacities (Boccardi et al., 2014). For example, 5G offers the ability to target data flows to specific devices (“beamforming”) and to simultaneously send and receive data (“full duplex”) (Curwen and Whalley, 2021). As a result, 5G may represent a step-change in wireless telecommunications for many industry observers, governments and policymakers, who see these technologies as directly responding to enterprise demands across a variety of sectors.

These technological advances rely on the use of high-frequency spectrum (also known as mmWave) to process large volumes of data, because it offers greater throughput. The central challenge with using these higher frequencies (>24GHz) is that they have a smaller geographic range and buildings (or other obstructions) can impede the network signal. As a result, the gradual improvement of 5G networks over the next five years is going to require a dense network of “small cells” – low-powered cellular radio access nodes about the size of a backpack – to be installed in coverage areas. This represents a significant transition for mobile telecommunications, which has traditionally seen companies own or lease towers where they can host transceivers (Cramer, 2021). Small cells are already being used as part of the 4G network, but the infrastructure required for 5G is greater by an order of magnitude. For instance, an existing 4G “macro cell” has a coverage of about 25 km², whereas 5G small cells have greatly reduced reach, with an area of 3 km² requiring up to 60 small cells.

This paper examines the impact of this move from cell towers to small cell base stations and assesses the impact of deployment across the urban environment from an Australian perspective. Cities have long been at the front lines of telecommunications deployment, as private companies tend to focus their resources on areas of commercial demand and high population density. An analysis of existing legislation, policy frameworks and associated grey literature, as well as expert interviews with participants from the local government sector reveal that as small cells become increasingly central to major telecommunications networks, the impact of deploying these technologies on the surrounding urban amenity becomes a critical issue. Urban amenity was the term used most regularly by our participants to refer to the aesthetics of the streetscape and urban environment. As such, the paper stands as one of the first accounts of the emerging tensions between regulatory frameworks, commercial imperatives and municipal authorities during the 5G rollout and identifies urban amenity as a key area of concern. We do not consider whether 5G has enabled other forms of urban amenity, such as the general well-being of residents or the use of urban space.

We begin with a review of the existing literature around telecommunications and the urban environment. We then outline our method, before providing an overview of the relevant legal and policy frameworks associated with telecommunications deployment in Australia and comparing them to select international jurisdictions. The paper then turns to our qualitative data and shows how councils understand the issue. We argue that councils are using the emergence of 5G as an opportunity to renegotiate their relationship with telecommunications carriers. We identify three key strategies: smart pole installation, network sharing and partnerships.

Telecommunications and the city

Telecommunications are central to any understanding of the contemporary urban environment. Cities have always been connected to communication (Gumpert and Drucker, 2008), and large cities were only possible once they became the “centre of a network of communications” (Mumford, 1979/1961, 80). However, from the mid-1980s onwards, there has been a distinct connection between large urban centres and telecommunications advances. Graham and Marvin (1996) suggest these changes are the result of improvements to four types of telecommunications infrastructure:

1. “wireless and mobile communications systems” that “link telephones and computers by radio signals to fixed telephone networks” (p. 20);

2. “broadband cable networks” (p. 21), including undersea networks;

3. “a new generation of satellite infrastructures” (p. 21); and

4. “microwave systems” (p. 23).

Over the past decade, the relationship between the urban environment and telecommunications has been strengthened through the concept of the “smart city” (Halegoua, 2020), a techno-solutionist vision of a highly networked metropolis that allows for more efficient governance. A substantial body of literature has explored the risks and opportunities associated with urban experiences shaped by data flows and connected devices (Kandt and Batty, 2021; Barns, 2018; Mattern, 2017). Within this work, focus has been placed on the dashboard as a primary interface (Leszczynski, 2020; Mattern, 2015) for assessing “decision-value” – that is, for selecting, arranging, comparing or disregarding data “according to their capacity to contribute to making decisions” (Tkacz, 2022, 29). However:

More recent chapters in the history of smart cities reflect, broadly, a move away from a centralised operating model for smart cities, encapsulated in an IBM style set of urban dashboards, towards much more embedded and distributed uses of urban technology by diverse technology players, incorporating ‘internet of things’ (IoT) technology. (Barns, 2020, 61).

The shift is significant because it draws renewed attention to the vital role played by the “patchwork quilt” (Bar and Galperin, 2004, 45) of existing telecommunications infrastructures spread throughout cities that facilitate connectivity and urban sensing (Graham and Marvin, 1996, 269–275). These (often overlapping) infrastructures include (more visible) telecommunication towers, digital devices and (less visible) optic fibre, copper cable, wireless, microwave and satellite communication networks.

Infrastructures do not always seamlessly integrate into the existing urban environment. Telecommunication rollouts have significant implications for those who are tasked with the management of public space, and so have long been a critical site of public debate and policy interest. While not addressing wireless telecommunications networks, Graham (1995) offers some early insight into the challenges associated with this area. He contrasts empowered local governments in France with a much more constrained experience in the UK. The UK Government was driving national telecommunications projects from London, resulting in initiatives being “pursued in an ad hoc and uncoordinated manner” (Graham, 1995, 367). From their work, we see how relationships between national and local governments can inform deployment, a thread we pick up in the following section. To date, these debates and discussions have centred around how best to manage rights of way while supporting the general provision of broadband internet (McShane et al., 2014; Middleton and Byrne, 2011; OECD, 2008). This is because mobile coverage across the 3G and 4G rollouts could be primarily delivered by cell towers, impact on amenity was not as dramatic.

In contrast, relationships between national governments, local governments and telecommunications providers immediately come under scrutiny in the context of 5G deployment. This is because of the increase in small cell density described above. Mitra et al. (2024) explain that these dense 5G networks ultimately require fibre backhaul, so in some cases earlier debates around broadband deployment will be revisited (OECD, 2008). However, as scholars have already started to note (Cave, 2018; Cramer, 2021), the widespread deployment of small cells is likely to present more immediate challenges to local planning. To date, only Mitra et al. (2024) have offered a substantive account of how the existing “rights of way” telecommunications companies use to deploy network technology, may translate to the 5G rollout. Their work analyses the “policy steps” the USA, Australia and the European Union have undertaken to ensure a “successful transition to 5G technology” and identify lessons for India (Mitra et al., 2024, p. 156). We extend this effort by first identifying a global deregulatory trend around small cell deployment as well as also focusing on the perspectives of local governments who have a much larger role to play with 5G when compared to previous mobile generations. As our analysis goes on to show, there are still ongoing tensions in countries like Australia, which are otherwise seen as successful adopters of 5G technology.

Methods and data

In this paper, we explore the impacts of deploying 5G technologies on surrounding urban amenity and seek to surface municipal government perspectives on and responses to these impacts. The value of interviewing one group of participants is that the approach allows detailed contextual knowledge (Silverman, 2014, 92) of participants “understanding and behaviour in particular situations” (Thomas, 2010, 578) to emerge. As a result, our study does not extend to considerations of telecommunications companies’ or infrastructure firms’ perspectives on current regulatory trends, or whether or not they agree with municipal responses to 5G deployments.

Our is supported by two different sources of data. First, we located and analysed relevant legislation and grey literature relating to small cell deployment. We supplemented this with analysis of Australian and international reports from various levels of governments that have sought to position jurisdictions competitively by seeking to remove impediments to small cell deployment. Second, we conducted expert interviews with eight urban policymakers across Australia. Most respondents worked for city councils, but some worked in adjacent consultancies or in state government roles with a strong local government focus. The council areas were significant, and either major metropolises for the relevant state or large regions.

Participants were recruited through the snowball sampling method. We identified a select number of industry experts to interview first, then we asked them at the end of the interview to recommend other people who have similar domain knowledge. Interviews were stopped when recommendations for further interviews were no longer forthcoming. While this sampling method means that findings are not generalisable, these approaches are “valuable during exploratory or formative studies with unresearched populations” (Raifman et al., 2022, p. 39) as is the case in this study. Desk research was conducted in August and September 2022. Interview data was collected from February 2022 to September 2022.

As noted above, many local governments in Australia are not focused on emerging technology explaining the small pool of respondents. The primary role of councils is to manage planning, service delivery, waste and environment issues and other local matters. It is also important to provide local context for these respondents. As one participant noted that “most of us only do the direct servicing and the physical maintenance of the city” (Municipal professional, Council 4 – Metro), in comparison to international counterparts who may also control transport or emergency services.

Our participant numbers are also consistent with accepted research practice for expert interviews (Van Audenhove and Donders, 2019), which sees interviewees selected for the knowledge that they hold (Crouch and McKenzie, 2006, 483). This contrasts with the goal of achieving representativeness or of securing saturation around thematic areas. We also draw on consensus theory (Romney et al., 1986), which “is based on the principle that experts tend to agree more with each other (with respect to their particular domain of expertise)” and ultimately, produce “extremely accurate information with a high confidence level” (Guest et al., 2006, 74–75). As a result, we were able to draw on the interview data to identify several common themes (Table 1).

Small cells and the 5G arms race

The discussion around small cell installation and regulation precedes 5G, with many countries providing favourable regulatory conditions for the installation of small cells to support 4G coverage (see Appendix). For example, in 2018 Japan already had the highest density of base stations in the world, both in terms of population and geography, with 15.2 sites per square miles (Littmann et al., 2018). South Korea also quickly established an expansive network of small cells as part of an ambitious rollout of infrastructure to support 4G/long-term evolution (LTE) (DeGrasse, 2012). In both cases, each country required telecommunications companies to develop a plan detailing the installation of base stations to support the use of the spectrum, a process that encouraged rapid deployment. The major difference with 5G is that this regulatory trajectory has intensified and sparked a deployment arms race between countries. One driving factor is that governments are motivated by the potential economic and strategic gains associated with the next generation of mobile broadband. The best examples of this trend can be seen in countries across the Asia-Pacific, many of whom are moving to position themselves as frontrunners in 5G deployment.

Japan has reduced barriers to the deployment of base stations, cutting the amount of documentation required for installation (European Commission et al., 2019b). South Korea has also incentivised the early deployment of 5G base stations by offering generous tax concessions (Blackman and Forge, 2019). Singapore’s regulator, the Info-Communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) has taken steps to create favourable conditions for the development and use of 5G in targeted industries by waiving licence fees, expediating licence agreements and making targeted sites available for base station deployment (Blackman and Forge, 2019). China collaborates directly with municipalities to plan network coverage, which sees the nation’s cellular network integrated with energy, housing and transport strategies (Forge et al., 2019).This allows China to densify coverage “at an unprecedented rate”, with China Tower installing approximately 460 5G sites per day in 2017 (Littmann et al., 2018, 4).

The USA has responded to China’s installation speed by establishing “a comprehensive strategy to Facilitate America’s Superiority in 5G Technology” (the 5G FAST Plan). As part of this plan, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has sought to remove deployment barriers. According to the FCC, the increasing importance of small cells for 5G means that existing procedures – developed with tall, high-powered, standalone towers in mind – need to be streamlined and harmonised and barriers to speedy installation removed (Littmann et al., 2018). In a 2018 ruling, the FCC placed limits on what state and local governments could charge for the use of public facilities and implemented time limits on applications. Changes include limiting municipalities from imposing an application fee of more than US$100 and annual fees of more than US$270 per small cell. Maximum time limits for municipal authorities to respond to applications were also introduced under the ruling. These limits are 60 days for approving applications for co-location on existing facilities (down from 90 days) and 90 days for approving new builds (down from 150 days) (Reardon, 2018).

There was pushback against the ruling from local governments and some cities sued the FCC (for a full list, see FCC, 2021), claiming federal overreach and arguing that the FCC was cowering to the demands of big business (Brodkin, 2018). Conversely, carriers argued that the ruling did not go far enough and suggested that if localities fail to act on their application to install facilities within the allocated timeframes, the requests should automatically be granted. In their ruling, the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court fell largely on the side of upholding the “FCC Fast Plan” rules, writing that “limiting fees will lead to additional, faster deployment of 5G technology throughout the country” (Brodkin, 2020). The ruling also upheld the FCC’s proposed changes to time limits imposed on local governments to respond to applications from carriers. The only concession to the cities was upholding the aesthetic requirements that cities and towns impose on cellular installations (Axelrod, 2019; Brodkin, 2020).

Similar regulatory trends can also be identified in Europe. For most of its history, the rules and regulations governing the installation of telecommunications facilities varied across EU member states. While some countries had 5G deployment strategies aimed at removing regulatory barriers to rapid and widespread small cell installation, in many states “the experience of the network operators, installers and site developers has been that the process of getting permits is complex, arduous and slow” (European Commission et al., 2019a, p. 34). This changed in 2018, with the introduction of the 2018 European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), which sought to harmonise regulations throughout the Union. Article 57 of the Directive establishing the EECC called on member states to “not unduly restrict the deployment of small-area wireless access points”, and for small cells, local governments and states are only able to require permits for “buildings or sites of architectural, historical or natural value protected in accordance with national law or where necessary for public safety reasons” [Directive (EU) 2018/1972, 2018]. In Ireland, for instance, one discussion document has concluded that “cooperation and engagement between local authorities and stakeholders such as mobile operators will be critically important” (5G and future connectivity, 2021). The report suggests that “ease of access to local authority assets will be key to enable pervasive 5G connectivity” (5G and future connectivity, 2021).

One international outlier is Canada, where the same rules exist for both large cell towers and small cells. This is perhaps because of Canada’s approach to the installation of telecommunications facilities, which stipulates that carriers can only access public places with the consent of the municipality. While municipalities cannot refuse access to carriers, they can dictate “reasonable terms of access” through the conditions of their consent (Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2020). Their approach – which promotes notification and consultation – is perhaps closest in style to Australia’s rules, which we will now go on to describe.

Telecommunications deployment in Australia

Two historical developments shape the laws and codes that presently govern the construction of telecommunications infrastructure in Australia: the introduction of the Telecommunications Act in the early 1990s, and the steady deregulation of the telecommunications industry from 1997 onwards (Madsen and de Percy, 2020; Nicholls, 2016). The Act marked the transition of Australia’s telecommunication market from a monopoly national provider (Telstra, formerly known as Telecom), to open competition, privatisation and deregulation (Alston, 2000). Across the 1990s, other companies were allowed to enter the market and Telstra was gradually privatised, a process that was completed in 2006. Currently, Australia’s telecommunication market consists of three major carriers: Telstra, Optus (owned by Singtel) and TPG. There are also a number of mobile virtual network operators, who purchase network services from the above companies wholesale and resell them to customers. National wholesale fixed-line infrastructure provider the National Broadband Network Co. is owned by the Government of Australia and is deploying 5G to deliver fixed wireless services.

The Act requires the installation of telecommunications infrastructure (for example, a free-standing telecommunications tower) to comply with state and local planning laws. However, to “encourage the efficient and timely deployment of mobile network infrastructure in Australia”, facilities classed as “low-impact” are exempt from these requirements. These are defined in the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 2018. According to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (2022) website, low-impact facilities are regarded as “less conspicuous”. These include:

[…] small antennae or dishes; underground and above ground structures that protect equipment; above ground and underground cables […] equipment in buildings [and] equipment on structures that already exist such as buildings, poles or towers. (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2022).

Small cells are generally classed as low-impact facilities (Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, 2019). Carriers no longer receive an exemption if the installation site is heritage-listed or subject to environmental protections.

While approvals are not required for these installations, an industry code, called the Mobile Phone Base Station Deployment Code (hereafter “the Deployment Code”) obliges carriers to inform and consult with local councils and local communities. The telecommunications company must first notify local council, as well as managers, owners and occupiers of the property where the facilities are being installed, and a sign about the proposed facilities must be placed at the site.

Consultation between telcos and affected parties must also be possible for at least ten business days after the date on which the notice is given (Communications Alliance, 2020, 17). If it is an installation at a new site, carriers must consult with council and prepare, in dialogue with the council, a consultation plan based on its assessment of possible interested and affected parties. If the local council and the carrier disagree on whether the facility is “low-impact”, a complaints process is available.

While the Deployment Code seems to provide a reasonable process to manage the needs of telecommunications companies and local councils, as our data goes on to show, there are concerns that these arrangements are not suitable for the rates of deployment required by 5G. Indeed, Millar (2015) notes a general trend among carriers to “choose” to install low-impact facilities to save costs and avoid formal council approval processes and adverse feedback from the community.

Small cells, big concerns

Australia is now well underway with its 5G rollout, and small cells have already played a role in deployment. As of 2021, mmWave small cells are providing coverage in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Gold Coast and a regional town, Goulburn (Taylor, 2021). While up-to-date rollout information is difficult to obtain, it is likely that the number of sites employing mmWave small cells has expanded as the rollout continues. Even though the widespread deployment of small cells is still on the horizon, interviewees expressed concern about how the existing regulatory frameworks will be able to manage deployment. As one municipal professional explained, they have viewed the major impact of 5G as “that concern about what’s going to be installed where, and is it going to be installed in a regulated planned way, or not?” (Amelia, metropolitan municipal professional). A leading consultant who works with a range of councils outlines why local governments are so worried:

[The] Telecommunications Act is a federal government level Act, which overrides, apart from a few provisions, the approval power of both state and local government. So this mismatch between what the councils would like to see and the state government would like to see in terms of trying to improve visual amenity and avoid the potential for clutter in the street environment, in the streetscape is a challenge, because basically the power of approval is not vested, and never has been with any telecommunication network, at the state and local government network, unless it triggers a development application under the Telecommunications Act, which most infrastructure doesn’t by the telcos. The only ones that do are towers. Towers do. (Colin, consultant).

The above description highlights the growing “deregulation” of telecommunications deployment, simply because of the changing nature of how network coverage is provided. The notice and consultation provisions associated with the industry code can be viewed as quite generous, especially as they are not required by law. However, as another interviewee explains, another way of viewing these interactions is seeing a “carrier issuing a Schedule 3B Land Access Notice, which is effectively ‘Do you have an asset there? I’m going to use it. Ten business days to respond, thanks very much’” (Patrick, regional council professional).

Interviewees carefully framed their concerns and referred to the previous history of telecommunications deployment in their localities, to further contextualise their statements. One interviewee argued that telecommunication carriers had “generally ridden roughshod over some local governments in the past, in terms of rolling out the network” (Grace, metropolitan municipal professional). Their colleague who was also present at the same interview, provided additional detail, explaining that “there’s a lot of abandoned 2G, 3G, 4G infrastructure in the city, that we asked […] to be removed and it’s not removed” (Nathan, metropolitan municipal professional). While they were mindful that their worries could be framed as fearmongering, particularly by governments and telecommunications companies, they noted that “it is a fear, but it’s based [on] past, previous experience” (Nathan, metropolitan municipal professional).

Summing up these issues, one state-level policymaker explains that tensions often arise because of different perceptions around time. While mobile generations can seem to take forever to become established, the ten-year cycle between upgrades to mobile standards is nothing compared to the longer view adopted by councils. While the telecommunications sector “has had somewhat of a shorter timeframe than it typically plans to. […] When you’re talking about our high streets or public spaces, our towns and stuff, there have been plans with views of 20 / 30 plus [year] timeframes” (Liam, state policymaker). However, our participants were not interested in being purely oppositional. They went on to explain that these emerging challenges had forced them to establish new strategies to prepare for 5G. These include the introduction of smart poles (which provide a variety of network-connected functions), encouraging network sharing and, perhaps most ambitiously, reshaping the role of the council in the deployment process, which we go on to discuss below. This represents a significant change from previous years. As one informant notes, “ten years ago, local government had no real reason to have anything to do with telecommunications” (Patrick, regional council professional).

Findings: municipal council responses to the amenity challenge

Network sharing

Participants were conscious of the significant technical developments associated with 5G and many noted that the ability to network share would be of real benefit to urban environments. Network sharing refers to the ability of mobile network operators to share network resources. This sharing can be passive and simply involve the sharing of physical assets, or active and involve sharing of the actual radio access network, backhaul and other features (citation anonymised). Telecommunications companies have had the ability to share networks for some time. Canada’s Bell and TELUS stand as one example of a network-sharing arrangement established around 3G and 4G. However, policymakers and other stakeholders anticipate that more network sharing will occur with 5G due to the high capital and operational expenditure costs associated with setting up and running dense networks of small cells (citation anonymised for review).

One respondent discussed network sharing with reference to the infrastructure problem, which we have canvassed above. They noted that four telecommunications companies had spectrum in their boundaries, and “if you think of the small cells every 50 metres down a street and we’ve got four of them, plus the 4G to 5G cells, we’ve got a lot of infrastructure” (Grace, metropolitan municipal professional). It was hoped that network sharing would disrupt this potential future. Another interviewee (Colin, consultant) provided more detail on why this would be the case. He remarked that there was potential for one small cell to “host Telstra’s, Optus’ and potentially TPG’s 5G service […] through their own separate core networks” (as noted earlier, these are the three major telecommunications companies in Australia). He went on to explain that “there’s definitely an appetite for that to happen from the government side because obviously that eliminates the amount of network that does get rolled out in the street environment” (Colin, consultant).

Grant (regional municipal professional) also noted a major network-sharing trial, which is occurring in the state of New South Wales. The AUD$50m trial is primarily focused on encouraging telecommunications companies to engage in active network sharing to boost regional coverage (Chirgwin, 2022). The first round of the grant program has closed, and several successful bidders have committed to produce “new or overlapping 4G and 5G mobile voice and data services to eligible regional NSW locations […] ready for service by December 2025” (NSW Government, 2022). For Patrick, the above grant program stood as evidence that “these things [network sharing]” were “already occurring” (Patrick, regional council professional). Telecommunications companies Telstra and TPG also proposed a network-sharing agreement to boost regional coverage, but they were blocked on competition grounds (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 2022). Adjacent activity saw Optus collaborate with a smaller telecommunications company to build a shared network (Crozier, 2021).

The above trends show that Australian telecommunications companies and governments are increasingly interested in network sharing, but the focus is largely on ensuring regional and rural coverage. As part of this process, initiatives are also oriented around towers, which remain essential in these areas because of their range. As a result, it is unclear whether telecommunications companies would be willing to sacrifice their competitive edge to share networks in densely populated areas like cities. However, it stands out as a critical issue for local governments when it comes to 5G. As one respondent explained, the “sharing of infrastructure is massive, right? So, the ability to do passive and active sharing and having that mandated and imbedded would be a massive win for – from the state and local government side of things” (Colin, consultant).

Smart poles

Some councils are installing multi-functional smart poles across targeted areas. They feature charging stations for electric vehicles and wireless devices, sensors to collect relevant data, free public Wi-Fi and space for networks to install small cells. As one of our participants explains:

So, you’ve got your cameras hanging off the side […] and then it just runs cabling up through it to connect up the different services like your cameras and your different things. And then that little beacon at the top there, that lights up. And inside of that, it houses the antennas, which you can’t even see. So, it’s really discreet (Grant, regional municipal professional).

As is evident from the above descriptions, smart poles have an array of uses and form part of broader strategies focused on collecting and analysing data to better understand and manage urban environments (Kandt and Batty, 2021). However, telecommunication deployment does influence installation to some extent. The goal is to present these sites as an attractive location for telecommunications companies to consider when planning small cell deployment. The benefit for councils is that small cells can be hidden discreetly, in a reasonably well-maintained piece of street infrastructure.

The consultant we spoke to said that the placement of smart poles was “one of the biggest questions we’ve got” (Colin, consultant). Even though councils were not sure where telecommunication companies were going to put small cells, they explained that their clients were still considering where to “put smart poles to potentially host 5G small cells” (Colin, consultant). The regional council professional who described these poles in the quote above stressed that 5G was not the primary driver of smart pole installation, but he did note that the 5G rollout informed their thinking. He explained that the poles were designed with “a very clear spot” for 5G small cells, and the goal was to “hide them basically within that smart node” (Grant, Regional council/municipal professional).

Australia’s current regulatory framework does not give councils the power to direct telecommunication companies to install small cells in smart poles. As a result, this sort of anticipatory infrastructure planning may not make much sense. Also, these interviewees are the exception as opposed to the norm. One participant explained the significant variance between the hundreds of Australian councils when it comes to 5G smart poles. One set of local governments is “comfortable and understands multifunction poles”, there is another “that’s considering it but doesn’t yet know what to do; and there’s this set of councils where it’s just fundamentally not on the radar for them” (Liam, state policymaker). However, our participants who were familiar with the issue clearly viewed smart pole installation as a way for councils to “be proactive” about 5G deployment (Patrick, regional municipal professional), rather than waiting for telecommunications companies to install small cells at will.

Council as facilitator

We also identified a wider attempt to redefine the relationship between councils and telecommunications companies. The major finding from our interviews was that councils were attempting to move away from the oppositional position that they had been traditionally placed in with respect to telecommunications deployment. In place of this, our interviewees constantly talked about the role that councils could play as a facilitator of deployment. Our respondents chose to do so in a positive way, with many planning to assist telecommunications companies with the complexities of deployment and, in so doing, ensure the council could influence the deployment of 5G small cells “in the absence of […] a big approval stick” (Colin, consultant).

It might seem that telecommunications companies do not need much help from councils. As we have shown, there has been a global effort to gradually loosen the requirements around deployment, and telecommunications companies can effectively place equipment where they please. However, these liberal regulations and even the initial concerns of our interviewees do not accurately account for the challenges associated with deployment. As noted earlier, councils in Australia do not always own a lot of the infrastructure in their local government areas. For example, a municipal professional explains that, in their local government area, “we’ve got about 24,000 lights and electricity distributor Ausgrid owns about 18,000 of them and we own about six [thousand]” (Amelia, metropolitan municipal professional).

As a result, telecommunications companies have to deal with various stakeholders throughout their deployment process, and may have to also engage with specific challenges around heritage buildings or locations with environmental protections. In the latter two cases, exemptions around low-impact deployment in Australia are removed. One of our respondents argued that the numerous stakeholders that may seek to be involved in engaging with a potential telecommunications deployment can result in “a painful experience for everyone” (Grace, metropolitan municipal professional). Indeed, as another participant explained, the management of light poles was a complex task involving “very complicated contractual arrangements for who owns them, who services them, [and] what’s the cost of lighting” (Amelia, metropolitan municipal professional).

In such a context, councils are working to devise a new role for themselves as a facilitator of the urban rollout who can help telecommunications companies navigate this complex territory. In addition to having to find different owners to notify about a potential small cell installation, telecommunication companies can also face challenges around ongoing maintenance. In the case of one council, these companies must submit a Land Access Agreement Notice “every time they want to fix a cord or do a battery change or take out a screw” (Nathan, metropolitan municipal professional). In response, some councils are proposing shared agreements, that will help establish the council as a key player in deployment. At a broad level, this looks like telecommunications companies and councils understanding “the assets that can be utilised, that have the right power and communications, connectivity and doing that in a way where it’s a collaboration for the rollout of 5G as an example across a particular city or region” (Colin, consultant). More specifically, councils have been working on new agreements for telecommunications companies that will simplify access to infrastructure and mean that, for a fee, telecommunications companies will not need to notify the council when they need to fix things.

Discussion and conclusion

Our research identifies, and goes on to connect, two major trends associated with the deployment of 5G small cells, one at the regulatory level and one at the municipal (or council) level, which we will discuss in turn. Firstly, our analysis of available legislation and supporting material has identified a clear move towards deregulation around telecommunications deployment, with numerous countries working to enable to rapid deployment of 5G technology. While the telecommunications sector has been deregulated for some time, this has not impacted deployment because networks relied on major infrastructural installations like towers. However, as small cell transmitters are becoming increasingly necessary, they can avoid regulatory scrutiny to a greater extent. Furthermore, various jurisdictions are actively working to further weaken regulatory barriers because 5G is viewed as strategically and economically important. These recent moves signal yet another development in the wider deregulation of telecommunications, which has occurred from the 1990s onwards (see Alston, 2000).

Secondly, these trends have had a subsequent impact on councils, and our qualitative data reveals significant amounts of anticipatory discussions and planning around 5G small cells. This ranges from speculative plans that seem to position councils as a central facilitator of the deployment process, to the fully realised installation of smart poles and network-sharing trials. While at different stages of maturity, all the examples represent efforts to retain some level of control over urban amenity as the 5G rollout progresses. These ideas also clearly emerge in response to the growing amount of autonomy that has been granted to telecommunications companies with respect to deployment. Of course, these efforts are at an early stage; for this reason, we can only detail these emerging plans and interventions and cannot provide close analysis of their effectiveness.

That being said, it is worthwhile reflecting on the long-term potential of these ideas. While our participants shared a range of plans to manage the expected influx of small cell installations; none of these ideas directly addressed the specific regulatory challenges that continue to class small cells as low-impact facilities in Australia. As such, while officials may be keen to encourage the installation of small cells in multifunction smart poles, or function as facilitators of deployment, there is no policy mandate or specific mechanism that requires carriers to participate in these schemes. Respondents were experienced officials and professionals, many of whom had engaged with telecommunications deployment as part of previous generational rollouts. As a result, they would be expected to have a reasonable working understanding of the potential challenges facing telecommunications companies as they intensify their 5G rollouts. In some cases, there was evidence of a possible value proposition, such as the NSW Government network sharing trial, which offered clear financial incentives. However, other attempts to situate local government in the 5G rollout could be ignored by telecommunications companies.

Of course, participants from councils also have a particular view about possible concerns around small cell deployment and the benefits of proposed solutions. Most notable here is the strong presence of the multifunction smart pole across our findings, with this piece of digital infrastructure operating as both a potential home for 5G small cells, as well as a critical plank of a digitally enabled urban landscape. While our participants familiar with this technology were broadly supportive, there is a significant body of scholarly work that takes a more critical view of these installations, with concerns raised about the capacity of urban governments to collect, process and safely store personal data, the surveillance of everyday life and the privatisation of citizen data [see Barns (2017) for an overview of these debates]. Framing local governments and telecommunications companies as in opposition to each other ignores these shared commitments to “platformed urbanism” (Barns, 2020).

Our article has analysed regulatory developments across the world and drawn from expert interviews with consultants and with metropolitan and regional councils in Australia, to explore issues relating to 5G small cell deployment and urban amenity. Our central contribution to telecommunications policy research is to offer an initial account of emerging tensions between broad deregulatory trends that encourage the deployment of small cells, and the concerns of local councils. As part of this process, we detail emerging strategies and areas of interest that local councils are focusing on to best manage the increasing densification of radio transmitters. The study examines anticipatory planning, and further work is needed to track the ongoing impact of small cell rollouts on municipal areas. Indeed, we suggest that greater attention must be paid to private wireless networks and small cell deployment and that the field must look beyond a focus on local broadband provision and public Wi-Fi (McShane et al., 2014; Middleton and Byrne, 2011). The views of telecommunications companies and consumers are clearly of relevance here and these areas are productive spaces for the field to consider additional research. We suggest that there is likely value in seeking out the views of professionals who have a longstanding interest in maintaining and protecting urban amenity because they engage with the immediate impacts of infrastructure deployment. However, the actual effectiveness of the municipal strategies identified above will only become clear as part of this wider research effort.

Table 1

List of interviewees

Pseudonym	Job
Liam	State urban policymaker
Grace	Municipal professional (Council 1 – Metro)
Nathan	Municipal professional (Council 1 – Metro)
Claire	Municipal professional (Council 1 – Metro)
Grant	Municipal professional (Council 2 – Regional)
Patrick	Municipal professional (Council 3 – Regional)
Amelia	Municipal professional (Council 4 – Metro)
Colin	Consultant for councils

Table A1

Comparative analysis of small cell deployment regulations for 5G networks across global jurisdictions

Country/Region	Regulatory approach and incentives	Outcomes
Japan	Reduced barriers to deployment by cutting documentation Encouraged detailed installation plans for rapid deployment	High density of base stations managed effectively
South Korea	Generous tax concessions for early 5G deployment Required detailed installation plans for rapid deployment	Established an expansive network for 4G/LTE, facilitating 5G transition
Singapore	IMDA waived licence fees, expedited licence agreements and provided targeted sites Focused on development in specific sectors	Favourable conditions created for 5G use in targeted sectors
China	Collaborated with municipalities for network planning integrated with urban strategies Installed ∼460 5G sites per day in 2017	Densified coverage at a high rate Cellular networks integrated with energy, housing and transport strategies
United States	FCC’s 5G FAST Plan to streamline procedures and remove barriers Limited fees (US$100 application fee limit and US$270 annual fee limit) Introduced response time limits (60 days for co-location and 90 days for new builds)	Pushback from local governments; some cities sued the FCC FCC prioritised federal directives over local autonomy
European Union	Permits only required for protected buildings/sites or for public safety reasons	Harmonized regulations to support small cell deployments
Canada	Equal rules for large and small cells, requiring municipal consent	Approach promotes notification and consultation over regulation
Australia	“Low-impact” facilities exempt from state and local laws Mobile phone base station deployment code requires notification and consultation with local councils and communities	Trend towards installing “low-impact” facilities to avoid formal approval processes

Source:

Created by authors