<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Section 6409(b)(1): Mandatory Wireless Siting on Federal Property?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://wireless.blog.law/2012/07/21/section-6409b1-mandatory-wireless-siting-on-federal-property/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://wireless.blog.law/2012/07/21/section-6409b1-mandatory-wireless-siting-on-federal-property/</link>
	<description>Musing about Telecom and More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:59:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Stu Chapman		</title>
		<link>https://wireless.blog.law/2012/07/21/section-6409b1-mandatory-wireless-siting-on-federal-property/#comment-614</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stu Chapman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:59:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://celltowersites.com/?p=1484#comment-614</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Sounds like its time for the State Department to take a look at Section 6409(b)(1). It seems like any U.S. property outside of the territorial limits is fair game, particularly in countries where the U.S. has very sensitive relationships. Consider the risks of any number of cellular providers in Russia or China seeking opportunities to place a cell site on the grounds of the U.S. Embassies in Moscow or Beijing. Not that these applications would be a &quot;Slam dunk,&quot; but what if they were held as a &quot;Quid pro quo&quot; for relief on some other issue? Scary.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like its time for the State Department to take a look at Section 6409(b)(1). It seems like any U.S. property outside of the territorial limits is fair game, particularly in countries where the U.S. has very sensitive relationships. Consider the risks of any number of cellular providers in Russia or China seeking opportunities to place a cell site on the grounds of the U.S. Embassies in Moscow or Beijing. Not that these applications would be a &#8220;Slam dunk,&#8221; but what if they were held as a &#8220;Quid pro quo&#8221; for relief on some other issue? Scary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
