I Am Going to be Arrested by the IRS!

Yesterday, March 2, I received a voicemail of a robocall from the “IRS” demanding I call them back about my “fraud and misconduct” on my tax returns.  Gasp!  I was just shocked…shocked, I tell you!

Well, being the good, law-abiding citizen of these here United States, I immediately called-back the phone number left for me on the voicemail.  I reached IRS Agent David Smith, who oddly sounded like he was in a call center in Bangalore, or somewhere else off-shore.  (Wow!  Mr. President, I think you should bring IRS agents back from overseas to do collection calls from  here in the U.S., but that’s a different story.)

Anyway, Officer Smith told me that I had engaged in tax fraud, which they detected, and that they issued and an arrest warrant for me to be served on me in 30 minutes (perhaps by pizza delivery?).  To say that I was flummoxed was an overstatement!  I may have even broken a very small sweat, perhaps due to the heat inside my car.

In any event, I spent the better part of the next 15 minutes on the phone in my car with Agent Smith while driving back to my office from a meeting at a law firm in El Segundo.

If you listen carefully, you will hear that I did announce to him at the beginning of the call that I was calling from a recorded line.  Actually, I have a front-facing video recorder in my car which also records ambient audio, so using the speakerphone on the call allowed me to capture this funny exchange.

Be sure to listen to the last few minutes very closely.

Enjoy…

https://soundcloud.com/jonathan-kramer-4/fraud-irs-officer-david-smith-20170302/s-lJdnc

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Birds on Blue: A Public Art Cell Site

I am a sucker for the marriage of cell sites and public art, as brought to life in “Birds on Blue” in San Diego.

Birds on Blue: A public art cell site in San Diego.
Birds on Blue: A public art cell site in San Diego.

This cell site, the product of a collaboration of artists Ron Pekar and Sandy McDaniel, was brought to life by Esteban DuPont’s CellTech Wireless. The site was funded by Crown Castle, and permitted by the City of San Diego.

3D birds soar in Birds on Blue
Birds on Blue uses a total of 75 three-dimensional bird sculptures to bring this site to life.

Located at CA905 and Beyer Blvd in San Diego, I was honored to play a very small role in making this site come to life.

Here’s a link to a local NBC story on the creation of Birds on Blue: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Birds-on-Blue-Art-Piece-First-to-Conceal-Cell-Phone-Tower-in-South-Bay-399074271.html

What will Ron, Sandy, and Esteban bring to life at the next public art cell site?

To sell all 27 photos I took of this site on February 18, 2017, visit http://celltowerphotos.com/thumbnails.php?album=50.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

How a Key Mobilitie Graphic Spins a Not-so-Tall Tale

This post is part of my contribution to the ongoing public policy debate and discussions regarding the current Mobilitie build for Sprint.  Mobilitie has developed the illustration shown in Figure 1, below, apparently as a way to show local governments and the public Mobilitie’s various pole configurations in at least block form.  Most recently, a week ago, Mobilitie presented this very illustration to a group of local government telecom officials in Southern California at the SCAN NATOA meeting. I attended that meeting.

Take a close look at Figure 1 and then please continue to read on.Mobilitie's unscaled graphic misrepresents the relative heights of their various poles.Figure 1.  Illustration created by Mobilitie. This illustration is presumably copyright by Mobilitie.  Used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.

The problem with Mobilitie’s illustration in Figure 1 is that it grossly misrepresents and under-represents the scale and impact of their proposed facilities.  Mobilitie’s illustration has no indicated scale, and the pole elements are not scaled to each other.  Mobilitie’s illustration is, in my opinion, deceptive and misleading.

I have taken Mobilitie’s illustration and through the magic of Photoshop scaled the poles to each other.  I started with the reasonable assumption that the light standard and equipment/antenna configuration topped out at about 34 feet above ground level. In Figure 2, below, that’s the pole on the left.  Then, knowing that Mobilitie has been promoting 75 foot tall wood utility poles in various communities around the country, I scaled the middle pole in Figure 2 to be approximately 75 feet above ground level.  Finally, I scaled the transmission pole on the right hand side of the illustration to be about 120 feet tall, which is the height that Mobilitie promotes around the country for theses tallest poles.  Here is Figure 2:

Mobilitie's graphic scales to show the relative heights of their various poles.Figure 2.  Illustration created by Mobilitie, which has been annotated and scaled by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer. This illustration is a derivative of an illustration presumably copyright by Mobilitie.  Created and used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.

As you can see from Figure 2, which is now scaled against the street light pole, the height impacts of the utility and transmission poles are substantially greater than one would expect simply relying on Mobilitie’s illustration.   Also, it is my opinion, based on Mobilitie plans I have seen and reports I have reviewed that the widths of all three poles is misrepresented in Mobilitie’s illustrations.  I have not tried to account for those width errors in this analysis, and leave that task for the reader.

Finally, in Figure 3 below, I have prepared an animated graphic that will help to better frame Mobilitie’s illustration against the reality of Mobilitie’s plans.  You may want to download this to better see it on your screen.

Animated graphic showing Mobilitie's unscaled illustration of its pole configurations and a vertically-scaled graphic.Figure 3. Illustration created by Mobilitie, which has been annotated, scaled, and animated by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer. This illustration is a derivative of an illustration presumably copyright by Mobilitie.  Created and used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.

What is the point of all of this? In my mind, the key point is that local governments and their constituents have a fair right to demand a reasonable level of accuracy when asked to consider projects that will impact their communities.  I believe that Mobilitie’s graphic in Figure 1, regardless whatever their intent in presenting it, ends up being quite deceptive by its lack of internal and external scales both for height and width.

If you would like to download Mobilitie’s entire PowerPoint presented last week, click here.

Finally, given the national importance of the ongoing public discussion regarding Mobilitie’s nationwide project for Sprint (and maybe others in the future), I encourage you to share this posting.

Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

LPTV/Translators/NAB v. FCC/Microsoft/Google

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle features an interesting story about the tension between LPTV broadcasters and TV translator operators verus an FCC push to clear some TV channels for a new national WiFi-type of service.  On one side are the NAB, LPTV braocasters, and TV translators.  On the other side are an odd alliance of Microsoft and Google.  I have a couple of quotes in the article that was written by Dominic Fracassa.  Mr. Fracassa is the Chronicle’s business reporter covering technology matters.

Here’s the story link:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Low-power-TV-stations-serving-niches-could-cede-10857083.php

jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Congratulations to CALWA, the California Wireless Association on 10 Years

The California Wireless Association (CALWA) is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I am delighted.

As a ‘government guy’ you might ask why I care about the state’s wireless industry association.  Well, as it happens, I was one of its very first members, believing then, and now, that bridges are better than gulfs.  CALWA reached out to welcome local government officials into its ranks, and over the years, I have encouraged local government officials to join CALWA.  I continue to do so today.

CALWA runs annual education seminars worth attending, especially when they ask Tripp or yours truly to speak.*  They also throw some great holiday parties.  Although I lack the golf gene, I’m told their golfing events are pretty cool.

If you are a local government official in California and want to have access to an important (if a wee-bit biased) wireless information resource, go ahead and join CALWA.

Jonathan

 

* Hey, CALWA, it’s been a while since you invited me.  Just ask!  🙂

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Indoor iDAS and Wireless Site Permitting…Ducks are Ducks.

Do in-building distributed antenna systems (commonly called “iDAS”) fall in to the scope of a local government’s wireless regulatory process? As is often the case, the short answer is, ‘it depends.’

Depends? On what?!

Here are some things to consider:

  1. Does the local government wireless regulation exclude wireless facilities build solely within a building?  If the answer is ‘yes’ (which would be a surprise in most cases) then you’re done and most likely all that will be required are standard local government issued building and electrical permits.
  2. If the local government wireless regulation does not exclude wireless facilities built solely within a building, which in my experience is the most common answer, then follow the provisions of the wireless regulation.  This will commonly involve filing of an application, payment of fees, and demonstration of compliance with the provision of the wireless regulation.

Okay, 1 and 2 above are obvious, and the analysis is not terribly difficult, so, why even talk about this?

We’ll, I’m starting to see claims from iDAS providers telling local governments that somehow a wireless facility constructed inside a building is exempt of the local government’s generally-applicable wireless regulation. One argument used is that an iDAS constructed inside (even though it might require a rooftop backhaul antenna or other structural modifications) is not really a wireless site subject to local wireless regulation.  That’s merely a unfounded conclusion, rather than a legally adequate argument, at best.

If not excluded by the wireless regulation of the local government, or some other local code exception applicable to wireless sites, the wishes and dreams of iDAS providers seeking an exemption or waiver are likely to fall on deaf ears.

Basically, unless otherwise classified or excluded from the wireless regulation, a duck is still a duck even if it is to live inside a building (or duck house).  Bad metaphor, but you get the point.

iduck
(Photo source: Herzi Pinki. CC BY-SA 3.0)

(iQuack)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

RCR Reports AT&T Plan for New Small Cells Block by Block

Martha DeGrasse of RCR reports on AT&T’s plans for small cells.  She quotes Arunabha Ghosh, AT&T Labs’ Director of Wireless Communications, who said, “If you want to use 500 megahertz of spectrum and deliver 100 megabits per second, you have to have the sites like 200 meters apart maximum, 100 meters for autonomous vehicles,” he said. “A city block in Austin is 200-250 meters. You are talking about several small cells deployed every block to support this 100 megabits per second that we need.”

With four national carriers (at least today), now you’re talking about many hundreds of thousands of new small cells, mostly if not entirely in the public right of ways and utility easements, at the rate of 4 sites per block in densely populated areas.

I say, “Look ma…no hands on the wheel, but ONE HECK of a lot of small cell sites!”

jlk

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Does Spectrum (Charter) Cable Violate California Law?


Charter Cable purchased Time Warner Cable and promptly rebranded as “Spectrum.” That rebranding includes the Time Warner properties in Southern California, including where I live.

Over the last week I have had the need to have several service calls at my home that require I be present.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that Time Warner Charter Spectrum Cable apparently ignores California law which requires it give customers the option of a 4-hour window appointment for service calls that require the customer be home.

In the last week I have called in and asked twice for a four hour window appointment, and twice I’ve been refused. The service reps claim they have no option on the computer screen to offer such an appointment. They offer one hour window appointments but that’s not the law which provides for certain remedies if the four hour window is violated.

I suppose this should come as no surprise since it is likely that most consumers are unaware of the state law designed to protect them, and which provides  for up to $600 if the cable company misses the appointment without a valid excuse.

Below is The text of the state law  that Spectrum seems to be ignoring:

Civil Code Section 1722. (b) (1) Cable television companies shall inform their subscribers of their right to service connection or repair within a four-hour period, if the presence of the subscriber is required, by offering the four-hour period at the time the subscriber calls for service connection or repair. Whenever a subscriber contracts with a cable television company for a service connection or repair which is to take place at a later date, and the parties have agreed that the presence of the subscriber is required, the cable company and the subscriber shall agree, prior to the date of service connection or repair, on the time for the commencement of the four-hour period for the service connection or repair.

(2) If the service connection or repair is not commenced within the specified four-hour period, except for delays caused by unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences beyond the control of the company, the subscriber may bring an action in small claims court against the company for lost wages, expenses actually incurred or other actual damages not exceeding a total of six hundred dollars ($600).

(3) No action shall be considered valid if the subscriber was not present at the time, within the specified period, that the company attempted to make the service connection or repair or made a diligent attempt to notify the subscriber by telephone or in person of its inability to do so because of unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences beyond its control. If notification is by telephone, the cable television company or its agent shall leave a telephone number for a return telephone call by the subscriber to the company or its agent, to enable the consumer to arrange a new two-hour period for service connection or repair.

(4) In any small claims action, logs and other business records maintained by the company or its agents in the ordinary course of business shall be prima facie evidence of the time period specified for the commencement of the service connection or repair and the time that the company or its agents attempted to make the service connection or repair, or of a diligent attempt by the company to notify the subscriber in person or by telephone of a delay caused by unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences.

(5) It shall be a defense to the action if a diligent attempt was made to notify the subscriber of a delay caused by unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences beyond the control of the company or its agents, or the company or its agents were unable to notify the subscriber because of the subscriber s absence or unavailability during the four-hour period, and, in either instance, the cable television company commenced service or repairs within a newly agreed upon two-hour period.

(6) No action shall be considered valid against a cable television company pursuant to this section when the franchise or any local ordinance provides the subscriber with a remedy for a delay in commencement of a service connection or repair and the subscriber has elected to pursue that remedy. If a subscriber elects to pursue his or her remedies against a cable television company under this section, the franchising or state or local licensing authority shall be barred from imposing any fine, penalty, or other sanction against the company, arising out of the same incident.

Is this law important? Of course it is, because it’s the law, and because of the protections it provides to the public.  I personally know that having used it several times to sue my cable operators for missing appointments. I recovered each time. That’s what the law is intended to do, and why it offends the law and subscribers when it is ignored by a cable operator.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Welcome to the New Digs

After 9 years of this site being located at CellularPCS.com, followed by 11 years of the site and then the blog being at CellTowerSites.com, we’re now moved to this site, Wireless.Blog.Law.  All of the old links (should) work so if you have a direct link to a post or page at the old site, that link should still work and be forwarded automatically to this site.  If that doesn’t work, please let me know.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Congratulations Sean Heath, MAI

Tripp and I, and the others here at the firm are delighted to share Sean Heath’s excellent news: He just learned that he passed all of the elements required to be certified as a MAI, a Member of the Appraisal Institute. He’s already a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (MRICS).

Sean Heath, MAI
Sean Heath, MAI

Passing the various sections of the MAI is not an easy task by any means, so our hats are off to Sean, our friend and colleague, for topping this very high bar.

Jonathan & Tripp

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail