FCC의 'AI 지원' 그리드 구축 전쟁

While the world fixates on the latest Nvidia GPU shortage or the capabilities of GPT-5, a much grittier battle is being fought on the sidewalks of American cities. It is a war over utility poles, trenching permits, and the definition of a “reasonable fee.”

And according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it is a war we are losing.

In a sweeping new inquiry (WC Docket No. 25-253), the FCC has signaled its intent to aggressively preempt state and local regulations that slow down the deployment of next-generation broadband. But this isn’t just about faster Netflix. For the first time, the agency is explicitly linking regulatory friction to the country’s ability to support an “AI-Ready” infrastructure—a physical network capable of the massive data throughput and millisecond latency required by the AI economy.

The central question is explosive: Do local zoning laws and “AI governance” ordinances amount to an illegal prohibition of commerce?

The Hook: The Physical Limits of AI

We tend to think of AI as software that lives in “the cloud.” But the cloud is just someone else’s computer, and reaching it requires physical wires.

For the last decade, broadband deployment was about coverage—getting basic access to everyone. The AI era changes the metric to performance. Training a trillion-parameter model is a centralized task, but inference—the actual using of the AI—is moving to the edge.

When your self-driving car needs to identify a pedestrian, or your AR glasses need to render a persistent digital object, they cannot wait 50ms for a packet to travel to a data center in Virginia and back. They need compute power sitting on a pole down the street.

This shift transforms the network requirements:

1. Massive Densification: We move from macro towers (miles apart) to small cells (hundreds of feet apart).
2. Fiber Deepening: Every one of those small cells needs a 100Gbps+ fiber backhaul.
3. Edge Compute: Utility cabinets are no longer just passive boxes; they are becoming mini-data centers generating heat and noise.

This is what the FCC means by “AI-Ready.” And it is exactly what local governments are hesitant to approve.

Technical Deep Dive: What is an “AI-Ready” Network?

To understand the regulatory fight, we must first understand the physics. An AI-ready network is defined by three strict parameters that legacy networks fail to meet.

1. Latency < 10ms

Real-time AI interaction (voice agents, autonomous systems) allows for very little “jitter.”

• Legacy Network: A 4G packet travels from the phone -> tower -> core network -> internet -> server. Total round trip: 40-100ms.
• AI Network: The goal is to process the request at the “Edge Cloud”—a server rack located at the base of the cell tower or in a neighborhood aggregation point.
• The Barrier: This requires physically installing servers in public rights-of-way (ROW), which triggers zoning reviews for “industrial equipment in residential areas.”

2. Symmetric Throughput

Most consumer broadband is asynchronous (fast download, slow upload). AI changes this.

• The Need: An AI vision system (like a smart city camera or an autonomous fleet) generates massive upstream data.
• The Spec: AI-ready networks require symmetric multi-gigabit speeds.
• The Barrier: Achieving this over legacy copper is impossible. It requires Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP), necessitating massive street trenching campaigns.

3. Compute-Aware Networking

This is the new frontier. In an AI network, the router doesn’t just send packets; it intelligently routes tasks to available compute resources.

• Mechanism: The network must be aware of the GPU load at the nearest edge node.
• The Barrier: This requires advanced, active equipment to be deployed deeper in the field, often replacing smaller, passive boxes with larger, power-hungry cabinets.

4. The Power Problem: The Invisible Constraint

There is a fourth, often overlooked dimension to “AI-Ready” networks: Energy Density.

• The Reality: An edge compute node running inference on a high-res video stream consumes significantly more power than a standard 5G radio.
• The Grid Implication: We aren’t just asking cities for permission to hang a box on a pole; we are asking to draw significant amperage from the local grid.
• The Regulatory Snag: This triggers a secondary layer of permitting involving local electric utilities, which often have their own separate, slower approval processes. The FCC’s inquiry is also probing whether utility pole owners (often municipalities) are using power hookup delays as a “backdoor” way to block deployment.

Regulatory Analysis: The Attack on “Shot Clocks”

The FCC’s inquiry (WC Docket 25-253) is targeting the friction points that stop this infrastructure from being built. The industry, led by groups like ACA Connects, is arguing that local delays have become “effective prohibitions” of service, a violation of Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act.

The battlegrounds are specific and technical:

The “Shot Clock”

Federal rules already give cities a time limit (e.g., 60 or 90 days) to approve permit applications.

• The Problem: Providers claim cities “stop the clock” by declaring applications incomplete or simply ignoring the deadlines because there is no automatic penalty.
• The Proposal: The FCC is considering a “Deemed Granted” remedy. If a city doesn’t say “No” within 60 days, the answer is automatically “Yes.” Industry groups argue this is the only way to clear the backlog of hundreds of thousands of small cell permits.
  • The Industry Case: Providers cite examples where cities have delayed “routine” pole attachment applications for 18+ months, effectively stranding capital and stalling network upgrades. They argue that without a “hard” shot clock, local staffing shortages become a veto on national infrastructure.
  • The Local Rebuttal: Cities argue that “Deemed Granted” forces them to rubber-stamp complex engineering diagrams they haven’t had time to review, creating potential safety hazards (e.g., a heavy cabinet falling on a pedestrian) just to meet an arbitrary federal deadline.

The “AI Governance” Loophole

This is the most novel and contentious part of the inquiry. Some cities have passed ordinances restricting the deployment of surveillance technology or “automated decision-making systems” in public spaces.

• The Conflict: If an ISP wants to install a camera-equipped smart node to optimize traffic flow (using AI), a local “Surveillance Ordinance” might ban it.
• FCC Stance: The Commission is asking if these local AI rules—when applied to network infrastructure—are effectively banning the deployment of the network itself. If so, they could be preempted by federal law.

Rate Regulation Preemption

ACA Connects has explicitly asked the FCC to declare that state laws regulating broadband rates are illegal barriers.

• The Argument: If a state caps the price of internet, they reduce the ROI for deploying expensive fiber. Therefore, the rate cap is a “barrier to entry.”
• The Implications: If the FCC agrees, it could wipe out low-income affordability mandates in states like New York and California, arguing that “AI-ready” networks remain too expensive to build under price controls.

Contextual History: The Ghost of 2018

We have been here before. In 2018, the FCC under Ajit Pai issued a “Small Cell Order” that capped the fees cities could charge for 5G attachments.

• The Result: Cities sued. The case went effectively to the Supreme Court (cert denied), and the FCC largely won.
• The Difference Now: The 2018 order was narrowly focused on fees. The 2025 inquiry is much broader, targeting processes and substantive rules (like AI governance and environmental reviews).

The National Association of Counties (NACo) has fired back, arguing that this is a federal overreach that strips communities of their ability to control their own rights-of-way. They warn that “Deemed Granted” rules could lead to dangerous installations that ignore local safety or historic preservation codes.

Forward-Looking Analysis: The Sovereignty Trade-Off

The United States represents a fractured regulatory landscape—30,000+ local jurisdictions, each with different forms, fees, and timelines. In a vacuum, this is local democracy at work.

But in a global AI race, it is a massive liability. China, by contrast, can mandate infrastructure deployment by fiat. “AI-Ready” networks in Shanghai are deployed at the speed of concrete, not the speed of city council meetings.

The FCC appears to have made its calculation: The strategic necessity of AI dominance outweighs the tradition of local home rule.

For ISPs, 2026 may be the year the floodgates open. If the FCC moves forward with strict preemption:

1. Permitting costs will plummet, unlocking marginal markets.
2. Deployment speed will double, as “deemed granted” forces cities to move fast.
3. Local friction will move to the courts, as cities sue to protect their control.

For the AI industry, this is the unglamorous “hardware update” they have been waiting for. The chips are fast enough. The models are smart enough. Now, the government is trying to make sure the pipes are big enough.