Month: April 2011

When (Wireless) Worlds Collide…Will Site Landlords Get $quashed?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin carries a buried-lead story about Sprint’s deployment of new, flexible base stations that are multi-modal, multi-band, and potentially multi-user.

Faced with Data Surge, Carriers to ‘Feed the Beast’ with Base Station Innovation

Noting the importance of scale, spectrum and innovation, representatives of Sprint Nextel and Clearwire discussed how the growth of wireless data traffic must result in the complete modernization of cell site equipment on a panel on March 22 in Orlando, Fla. They spoke at the Raymond James Breakfast, which was moderated by Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James & Associates.

“We must keep feeding the beast, or we are just going to turn our customers away. We must innovate around the cost. Technology allows it,” said Iyad Tarazi, vice president, network development and engineering, Sprint Nextel. The carrier expects 10x growth every three years for the foreseeable future.

The challenge for Sprint Nextel is to keep up with the pace in a cost-effective manner. To do so the carrier has unveiled Network Vision, which is a blueprint for enhancing data speeds by consolidating multiple network technologies into one, seamless network.

Today, Sprint uses separate equipment to deploy services at 800 MHz, 1.9 GHz and, through Clearwire, 2.5 GHz. The Network Vision concept features the use of software to bring together multiple spectrum bands on a single, multimode base station.

“The technologies that we are deploying in the Network Vision project allow us to modernize our cell sites in a way that gives us a lot of flexibility with the types of technologies we put on it,” Tarazi said. “In the future, with the Network Vision project, we will build spectrum at 40 megahertz to 60 megahertz at a time, and we will build it once.”

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

In interview with AGL Bulletin, Ted Abrams, president, Abrams Wireless, reacted to statements made at the session, applauding the move toward network sharing saying network operators will be able to increase overall efficiency of bandwidth and infrastructure through the new technology.

“Multi-modal equipment connected to big backhaul pipes can transport payload from end users through the cloud across retail platforms branded differently,” Abrams said. “Most of the attributes of a wireless network are fungible, readily adapted to exchange on par. Antenna physics and other band-specific requirements continue to require consideration. As infrastructure providers are able to increase the density of sites supporting these new technologies, the rate of broadband deployment can be accelerated.”

As an attorney representing wireless site owners (landlords), the question that instantly comes to my mind is this: As Sprint deploys it’s wireless upgrade, how will ‘electronic collocations’ be accounted for in legacy wireless leases?

Huh?

Go back now and carefully reread the following excerpt from the AGL Bulletin report, above:

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

Okay, back to reality for landlords.

Historically, savvy landlords have received incremental income from collocations and their tenants sublease to other wireless providers.

In Sprint’s future world of electronic collocation, site landlords won’t know when Sprint has subleased a portion of the use of the site to another company. Legacy leases don’t usually specify that collocation must be ‘physical’ in nature, so those same savvy landlords (and I assure you, their attorneys, including yours truly) are likely to reasonably take the position that that if Sprint has subleased the electronic use of a wireless site to another, then that revenue should be shared with the site landlord pursuant to the existing lease agreement.

Landlords and their attorneys should be on the lookout for proposed lease amendments for legacy sites and sublease terms in new leases that might try to draft around this $$multimillion dollar issue$$.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AGL Bulletin: With GPS Complications, Short-Term Site Growth May Elude LightSquared

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

From today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin.

With GPS Complications, Short-Term Site Growth May Elude LightSquared

The tower industry’s dreams of being a part of LightSquared’s plans to deploy 40,000 high-power transmitters may have to wait. Given the potential for interference to its spectrum neighbor, GPS, the proposed nationwide broadband network may not trigger significant site leasing activity in the near term, according to RBC Capital Markets.

LightSquared’s system proposes to operate in the 1525-1559 MHz band, right next to the GPS downlink frequencies in the 1559-1610 MHz band.

“Given LightSquared’s current spectrum impairment (GPS interference in one of its L-band slots, and Inmarsat clearing requirements in the other slot that are not slated for resolution until 2013) and the availability of spectrum in other bands, we believe a conservative stance is appropriate with respect to LightSquared actually building out a significant network, even if it were to reach an agreement with Sprint,” RBC Capital Markets wrote in its April Equity Research Industry Comment.

In January, RBC first voiced uncertainties about LightSquared, even though it had its funding in place, because it noticed the carrier was slowing its build out. Then the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration sent a letter to the FCC warning it about possible GPS interference.

“LightSquared significantly slowed its network planning and site acquisition activities near the turn of the year, and we are aware of continuing progress in only three markets,” RBC noted.

The aviation industry is very concerned about the possibility of interference to GPS receivers, which provide planes with navigation, according to Aviation Week. Manufacturers and users are currently testing GPS receivers for susceptibility to interference from the planned nationwide broadband wireless network. The FCC’s waiver grant required LightSquared and the U.S. GPS Industry Council to work together to investigate the possibility of interference and to identify ways to prevent that interference to GPS, if necessary.

However, in an ex parte teleconference presentation to the FCC on Jan. 19, the U.S. GPS Industry Council already presented the potential for LightSquared service to cause severe interference to GPS users.

“Simply put, the U.S. GPS Industry Council’s testing discloses that LightSquared’s very high output power from its planned 40,000 sites, coupled with its proximity in frequency to the very weak GPS downlink band, forms a witch’s brew for catastrophic interference to GPS receivers,” Jonathan Kramer, principal, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, wrote in his blog. “LightSquared has stated that it can take care of the potential interference to GPS users using filters. It’s unclear whether the filters are sufficient, or who would be expected to pay for the cost of the filters.”

All eyes will be on that receiver testing with those filters, which will be completed at the end of May with a final report due to arrive at the FCC on June 15.

If you don’t already subscribe to AGL Magazine and the AGL Bulletin and you’re a wireless professional…you’re not really. Subscribe today.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

More on Substantial Evidence (YAT-MC) (T-Mobile v. City of Margate)

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In T-Mobile South LLC v. City of Margate (Florida) decided on April 4, 2011 (SD FL Case No. 10–cv–60029), District Judge Alan Gold discussed the topic of substantial evidence in several interesting lights.

In granting summary judgment to T-Mobile, Judge Gold said

d. “Substantial Evidence”Looking beyond the text of the written Resolution to the transcript of the December 9 Hearing, T–Mobile argues that the City Commissioners’ ultimate decision denying its Application was not supported by “substantial evidence” as required by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). T–Mobile asserts that the only opposition voiced against its Application was “purely generalized objection, with no specific evidence or support” and “unqualified, unscientific opinion of the City Commissioners and lay members of the public.” [ECF No. 24, p. 13]. T–Mobile concludes that such generalized opposition may not qualify as “substantial evidence” under the TCA.

*10 The City responds to this argument with two short paragraphs in which it outlines the definition of “substantial evidence” and notes that T–Mobile bears the initial burden of proof on this issue. [ECF No. 33, p. 8]. This response raises no disputes of material fact and offers no reasons why the Commissioners denied the Application, much less any explanation as to why those justifications for denial should qualify as “substantial evidence” under the TCA. As T–Mobile notes, the City also incorrectly argues that T–Mobile must present “substantial evidence” whereas the TCA actually requires that relevant State or local governmental denial decision be supported by substantial evidence. 47 U.S.C. § 332(7)(B)(iii).

Although I could hold in T–Mobile’s favor alone on the basis of the City’s inadequate response on this point, I am also obligated to consider the record in its entirety when reviewing a dispute governed by § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Thus, I look once more to the transcript from the December 9 Hearing because the City’s official written decision provides no reason for the denial. As reflected in that transcript, the City Commissioners’ votes to deny the Application were not accompanied by any contemporaneous comments from the Commissioners offering reasons for their votes. [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 86:11–87:11]. Elsewhere in the transcript are certain complaints voiced by City residents against T–Mobile’s Application. Some residents indicated that they opposed the plan because they preferred that T–Mobile place the new tower in its neighboring town of Coral Springs.14 But as noted above, the City concedes that a significant coverage gap exists in the City of Margate, and it advances no arguments that the heart of that gap was in Coral Springs, or a neighboring town, or any place else other than Margate. Likewise, the City Attorney responded to these comments by informing the residents that Margate’s ordinances prohibit using residents’ preferences to place the tower in another town as a basis to deny such an application.

Another city resident cited health concerns such as radiation as a reason for his opposition to the Application. [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 64:24–65:22]. Again, the City Attorney responded that the “federal courts have specifically ruled that radiation cannot be the basis for turning this down.” [Id. at 66:2–4].16 It does not appear that the City Commissioners were concerned with the aesthetics of the proposed WCF. When T–Mobile representatives offered to show pictures or designs of their proposed “flag pole” design, at least one City Commissioner responded: “We don’t need to see it. We know what it looks like.” [ECF No. 26–1, p. 24–27]. Likewise, when the City Attorney asked the City’s independent consultant to comment on the proposed idea, a City Commissioner stated “No, I don’t want to hear anymore.” [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 71:25–72:1]. Several other aspects of the December 9 Hearing transcript provide the distinct impression that the City Commissioners denied T–Mobile’s application in order to appease a crowd of local residents who had gathered to attend the hearing and oppose the Application.

*11 Eleventh Circuit case law provides certain guidelines about the types of reasons a State or local government may rely on in order to deny an application under the TCA. For example, a “blanket aesthetic objection does not constitute substantial evidence under § 332.” See Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 761. But aesthetic objections “coupled with evidence of an adverse impact on property values or safety concerns can constitute substantial evidence.” Id. Similarly, denial may be based on testimony of local realtors that the proposed cell tower would adversely impact home resale values or if the site may have a negative effect on nearby air traffic or to the safety of school children. Id. at 760; City of Huntsville, 295 F.3d at 1208–09. But “generalized objections with no articulated reasons” and “rationalizations constructed after the fact” do not constitute “sufficient evidence” under the TCA. Preferred Sites, 296 F.3d at 1219–20 & n. 9.

This case law provides no support for local governments that deny a provider’s Application on the basis of health effects or a preference to place the relevant cell tower in a neighboring town. Construing this evidence in the light most favorable to the City, I can only conclude that there are no disputes of material fact that the City did not provide sufficient evidence for its denial of T–Mobile’s Application, and a reasonable mind could not accept the evidence in the record as adequate to support the City’s denial.

(Emphasis added.) T-Mobile S. LLC v. City of Margate, No. 10–cv–60029, 2011 WL 1303898, 9–10–11, Slip Copy (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2011). 

“YAT-MC” = “Yet another T-Mobile Case”

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

T-Mobile v. City of Newport News VA – Substantial Evidence, Not.

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In T-Mobile Northeast LLC. v The City Council of the City of Newport News, VA et al (EDVA Case No. 4:10cv82), the magistrate judge (Hon. T. Miller) spent a fair amount of time in his opinion discussing what constitutes substantial evidence in the way of claims of property devaluation resulting from the proposed installation of a cell tower.

Judge Miller said, “[a]lthough the Court is aware of the Fourth Circuit’s charge to not hold citizens to a standard which requires them to come armed with a slew of experts to defeat any CUP, the Court finds that such a nonspecific claim as to a possible decrease in property values for the general community falls closer to the “speculative” nature of comments less likely to be considered substantial evidence by the reasonable legislator.”  T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. City Council of Newport News, Va., No. 4:10cv82, 2011 WL 1086496, at *6 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2011).

In her decision adopting the recommendations of the magistrate judge, Judge Rebecca Smith made it clear that, “[ ] unsupported statements about fears of some possible reduction in home value without further evidence cannot form the basis of substantial evidence.”  (Emphasis in the original.) T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. City Council of Newport News, Va., No. 4:10cv82, 2011 WL 1103004, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2011).

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AGL Bulletin: Lawsuit Tests Mettle of FCC Shot Clock

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

The following is from today’s edition of the AGL Bulletin. A subscription link is below the article.

Verizon Wireless has filed a lawsuit against the Town of Irondequoit in the U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, concerning inaction on a proposed cell tower in the upstate New York town. It appears to be a good test case for the FCC’s shot clock, which is designed to ensure municipalities don’t drag their feet in processing cell tower applications.

“I was at the FCC when the shot clock order was issued, and I know that the sincere intent was to spur broadband deployment by creating a more efficient tower siting and collocation review process. Companies prefer to work things out with zoning authorities and lawsuits really tend to be a last resort,” said Monica Desai, Patton Boggs, former FCC official.

Back on June 18, 2010, Verizon Wireless filed an Application for Special Permit with the Town Board to replace an existing 20-year-old tower and equipment shelter at a local fire department with a new monopole and shelter, which could be used for collocation of the fire department and county public safety. The original tower is 62 feet in height with an antenna that reaches 82 feet AGL.

Seven months into the process, Feb. 11, 2011, the Town filed a positive declaration under New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act, which triggers the time-intensive development of an environmental impact statement. A little more than a month later, Verizon Wireless filed its suit.

Verizon Wireless accused the Town of “unreasonably and repeatedly delaying” it from providing service where a gap currently exists. The carrier noted language in the Telecom Act requiring municipalities to act on requests to build wireless facility in a “reasonable time period,” and the FCC’s definition of that time period at 90 days for collocations and 150 days for new builds.

Both the Town Board and the Town Planning Board met in workshop sessions, followed by a public hearing last July at which the public voiced its concerns. The application was addressed again in a Town Board workshop in August, and a wireless consultant was subsequently hired to review the proposal’s technical aspects. A week later, Verizon Wireless supplied supplemental information, and another public hearing was held at which, according to Verizon Wireless, the same group of residents voiced the same concerns as they had at the earlier hearing.

In September, Verizon Wireless performed two days of crane/transmitter testing to fulfill requirements of the consultant’s report. The tower was scheduled for a vote in September but a supplemental report by the consultant caused an adjournment until October. Two more public hearings were held in October, but the vote was postponed to November because Verizon Wireless had not completed the analysis of its testing.

Also in October, the consultant supplied two supplemental reports requiring additional information from the carrier, a repeat of the crane/transmitter testing by an independent party, the effect of the tower on property values, the structural stability of the tower, sound levels from the on-site generator, title issues on adjoining property and the provision of data services on the tower in addition to voice.

On March 18, 2011, Verizon filed suit against the Town. “The defendants have engaged in unnecessary delays and have unreasonably failed to take final action on the application,” Verizon Wireless wrote in its complaint. “The delays … have put the fire district site application into its 273rd day as of the day of this complaint; far more than the 150-day limit previously prescribed by the FCC.”

But Verizon may face a Shot Clock Order problem of its own making, according to Jonathan Kramer, a lawyer and RF engineer representing governments.

Kramer notes that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Telecom Act allows an aggrieved party to file suit “within 30 days after such … failure to act” by a State or local government.

The FCC’s Shot Clock Order clarified when the 30 days begins. Kramer cites that portion of the Order, which says “Specifically, [the Commission finds] that a ‘reasonable period of time’ is, presumptively, 90 days to process personal wireless service facility siting applications requesting collocations, and, also presumptively, 150 days to process all other applications. Accordingly, if State or local governments do not act upon applications within those timeframes, then a ‘failure to act’ has occurred and personal wireless service providers may seek redress in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days, as provided in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).”

Kramer points out that Verizon admits in its complaint that it waited 273 days from the date of its initial application filing to commence the lawsuit against the Town. Under the shot clock order, the lawsuit should have been filed on or before the 180th day. The delay in filing its lawsuit, according to Kramer, may deal a knockout-blow to Verizon’s shot clock claim.

If you are involved in wireless and tower siting/planning issues and don’t already subscribe to Above Ground Level (AGL), then you should subscribe today at  http://www.agl-mag.com/subscribe.html

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Orgonite: The Cure for Cell Towers!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’ve just learned about an amazing but little known homemade compound structure that can protect people from cell towers. It’s called Orgonite, and you can make it at home.

According to the following text I found on the Internet, Orgonite has amazing properties! According to the Orgonite web site:

Orgonite: A proven effective solution.

This is a purely informational site about orgonite, a simple compound anyone can create in their backyard with fairly inexpensive, widely-available materials which balances ambient energy by turning the negative energy into positive energy, with many easily-confirmed effects. Orgonite does this continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without electricity.

Quick Facts About Orgonite:

* Simple. Easy to make. Works continuously.
* Turns negative energy into positive energy.
* Purifies the atmosphere, detoxifies water, ends drought.
* Helps plants grow better, repel pests & require less water.
* Mitigates harmful effects of EMF radiation.
* Disarms and repels predatory forms of life.
* Inspires a pleasant demeanor and balanced, happier moods.
* Frequently remedies insomnia and chronic nightmares.
* Helps awaken your innate psychic senses.

The Orgonite web site goes on to describe the apparent magical properties of this homemade compound in connection with suppressing the negativity associated with cell towers:

It has been the experience of many chembuster enthusiasts that the widespread deployment of digital cellular communications towers across the populated areas of the world in the last several years has created a thick blanket of DOR/negative energy which saturates our homes and communities, promotes drought, negativity, fear, etc., and significantly hinders chembuster operation (among many other detrimental effects).

However, it has been widely experienced that these negative effects can be disabled and chembusters can be made to start working properly again simply by tossing or burying small muffin-sized chunks of orgonite called TowerBusters (TB’s) near all the cellphone towers in their area, an increasingly-popular activity which has become known as “gifting”, and is conducted literally all over the world now by thousands of selfless and highly-dedicated individuals and Internet-organized groups.

This site is intended to provide a basic, accurate, efficient introduction to orgonite for those interested in learning more about it. If you wish to perform further research, we have a comprehensive list of informational resources in our Further Reading section.

The positive, self-empowering effects of working with orgonite quickly become obvious to those who choose to make and use it. If you are interested in seeking your own confirmations of it’s effectiveness, please visit our section on How to Make Orgonite to find out how you can begin to improve the energy and create real beneficial changes in your home and community.

Here’s a video of someone “gifting” a cell tower:

So, now that you know about the amazing benefits that are achieved with Orgonite,would you like to make your own Orgonite Tower Buster? It’s so easy, and requires only the least amount of brainpower. When you see how Orgonite is made you’ll understand what makes these pucks so effective, especially if you inhale the fumes while mixing up a batch! (Which I certainly DO NOT recommend!)

You can visit the ‘how to make it page’ at the Orgonite web site by clicking here. It has step-by-step photo-illustrated instructions that you’ll find to be infinitely valuable, and oh-so-detailed!

To see a short video on how to mix up a batch of Orgonite ‘muffins’ to place around cell towers, click watch video below!

Okay, now you know all you need to cure yourself of the fear of cell towers!

Jonathan

PS: I had intended to post this message exactly two days ago, but I was too busy out shopping for magnetic bracelets and magical amulets. I found both, so now I’m feeling even better! jlk

PPS: Remember, if you read it on the Internet, it has to be true. jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail