lightRadio? Really?!

Bell Labs has unveiled its lightRadio cell site in a cube system.  It’s received a lot of press from around the world over the past few weeks about it being ‘THE NEXT BIG THINK TO KILL OFF TRADITIONAL CELL SITES.’

Well,  maybe not.

Digging a bit deeper into the apparent technology underpinning the system produces some interesting things to ponder.   To set the stage for what I think this lightRadio thing is all about, and how it fits into the grand scheme, first watch the video below of Tod Sizer, the head of the wireless group at Bell Labs, as he talks about developing the lightRadio antenna module. Then look at the chart below the video. When you’ve done that, then I’ll ‘resume’ this conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As they say on TV, “Okay, we’re back…”

So what’s Mr. Sizer’s video tell us, and what does the chart mean?

Let’s start with Mr. Sizer’s video…  He talks about how the cubes can be stacked to provide directional signal control, similar to a macrocell site.  What’s not too clear is that each cube requires a backhaul connection using Internet Protocol (IP) back to…somewhere.  See the chart just above.

The deployment scheme is not too clear, but it sure looks like it has elements of DAS within it, or at least it seems closer to a DAS than it is to a self-contained macrocell or even a microcell.

Attention NextG, competition cleanup on aisle 5…

Given NextG’s history of suing where they believe someone is infringing on any shred of their DAS patents for network technology and deployment, I’ll just wait to see if they also think along the same lines I do regarding the possibility that the cube is really a micro DAS implementation.

This should be interesting, but it doesn’t appear to be the game-changer that the manufacturer would have us believe.

With apologies to Mr. Clemens, ‘Reports of macrocells’ deaths are greatly exaggerated.’

jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

‘Mr. Gorbachev tear down this NextG pole!’

On January 10, Lori and Michael DiMarco of the Long Island Town of Brookhaven, New York found that they had a new neighbor in front of their home; a 40 foot tall black wireless antenna pole.

Who would perpetrate such a dastardly deed?  Who’s construction crew allegedly lied to the homeowner about what was being installed, and who authorized it?

According to published reports, NextG Networks (a distributed antenna system provider based here in California) admitted it erected the pole without a town permit on Jan. 10.

WBST TV reports that “[i]n a statement, NextG admitted they installed the tower without the proper permits, saying in effect that the town was taking too long to review their application.”

In the same report, WBST noted that “[a]fter the DiMarco’s complained about this cell tower on their front lawn, the town found out that 9 others had also popped up in the area, literally over night.”

What kind of fertilizer is NextG using to make these poles grow so quickly?  Hubris, perhaps?

WCBS Radio has a blog page and audio on this story, as well as a photograph by Mrs. DiMarco of the pole.

The North Shore Sun has its own story and photo regarding this usually ‘in-your-face’ event.

Here’s a link to a WCBS TV page about this event. The video, below, is from the WCBS page. (Sorry, but you’ll just have to watch the commercial before viewing the report.)

What I’d like to know is who is NextG’s customer (or customers) that prompted the installation of the DAS poles.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Current Issues in Cell Tower Leases

March 3, 2011: 2 hour live teleconference
1 pm ET (12 pm CT, 11 am MT, 10 am PT)

Teleconference Highlights:

The wireless industry has built more than 250,000 cell sites in the United States in the past 20 years. But many more cell sites are needed as iPhones, iPads and the like strain existing network capacity with data, email, computer and video applications, as well as to fill gaps in coverage. New cell sites and significant modifications to existing cell sites will also be needed due to the FCC’s new advanced wireless services and goal of using wireless to increase broadband speeds and coverage.

This audio conference will help level the playing field by providing private and municipal property owners with the expertise of two faculty members highly experienced in cell tower and cell site leases – property owners usually are negotiating such leases for the first time, while the cell companies have teams who work exclusively on such leases.

This audio conference will focus on key business issues in wireless site leases, including lease rates, who gets the revenues from additional antennas or carriers being co-located at a site, potential underpayments by cell companies on existing sites and why rent reduction requests generally should be denied. An emphasis on the industry-specific elements and terms of modern cell site leases, and renewals and modifications of expiring leases, which are important for the property owner, their attorney and the leasing agent involved in these efforts. You will be better able to identify and resolve issues that are unique to wireless siting, including what may be included in a lease that cannot be included in a government-issued permit, site location and value, lease term and terminations, access requirements, interference regulation and mitigation, design and camouflage, and radio frequency emissions issues.

Learning Objectives

  • You will be able to maintain and increase the revenues the property owner receives, and discuss the common elements of private wireless site leases on developed and undeveloped land.
  • You will be able to utilize practice pointers, including key concepts, for owners of private property and their attorneys, as well as municipalities and municipal attorneys.
  • You will be able to understand the basics of wireless technology and the real property, technical and technology issues that drive a wireless carrier’s siting and leasing process.
  • You will be able to review insurance and indemnity provisions to protect the property owner.

Faculty Information

John W. Pestle, Esq., Varnum LLP
Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq., FSCTE, BTS, BDS, BPS, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C.

MCLE/Educational Credit Information

  • AIA
  • AICP (Pending)
  • CC
  • CLE
  • ENG
  • PMI

Who Should Attend?

This audio conference is designed for attorneys, planners, directors of development, project managers, government administrators, council and board members, land use officials, public works and utilities directors, municipal government officials, engineers, architects, surveyors and real estate professionals.

5 Easy Ways to Register:
Online: www.lorman.com
Phone: 1-866-352-9539
E-mail: customerservice@lorman.com
Fax: 1-715-833-3953
Mail: Lorman Education Services, Dept 5382, PO Box 2933, Milwaukee, WI 53201-2933
Seminar ID: 387436
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2011 Prediction: AT&T Data Network to Speed Up

I predict that AT&T’s data network will experience a noticeable increase in throughput speed throughout 2011.  That’s great news for AT&T, and they can thank Verizon for helping to achieve that goal.

Of course, while AT&T struggles to deploy its LTE network, it’s goal of speeding its network will be aided in no small part by Verizon’s expected announcement, on Tuesday 1/11/11 (perhaps at 11:11:11?) that Verizon will finally offer its subscribers an Apple iPhone.

Verizon’s recent announcement that it, too, now calls its data network “4G” just like T-Mobile (…who knew?) sets the stage for heightened expectations, discovery of data holes in Verizon’s network, and other fun stuff.

Years ago I switched to Verizon from AT&T because AT&T’s voice network was inferior in terms of reliability.  Until a couple of years ago I wasn’t a data user, but I switched to a VZW Crackberry.  Last year I dumped the Crackberry Curve for a Motorola Droid 2 (it’s a good firmware/software platform in a fat, clunky body with a battery demanding nightly recharges…look at HTC, instead of Motorola).

Yeah, when VZW does offer the iPhone, it’s virtually certain that I’ll join the million or so other users switching from AT&T and upgrading from within Verizon.  Yes, I’ll be part of the problem; not part of the solution.

As a tip for you unhappy AT&T iPhone users: You can always use your existing GSM iPhone on T-Mobile’s new “4G” network.  If you jailbreak your phone and go to T-Mobile, you DO NOT  have to buy an expensive new iPhone like you would if you want to go to VZW’s sysetm.  That’ll make all of us existing Verizon users very happy, too!

Jonathan

PS: I also predict that 2011 will see (1) huge subscriber churn and net subscriber loses for AT&T, and (2)  someone in a wireless marketing department deciding that it’s time to call their network 5G!  I’m waiting for 9G, myself. -jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Going to Deny a Site in Nebraska? Better Do it Right.

US District Judge Richard Kopf has, again, set out the minimum ‘in writing’ and ‘substantial evidence’ standards for a Nebraska local government intending to deny a wireless site application.

On December 23, 2010, Judge Kopf granted a motion for summary judgment sought by Viaero Wireless to require the Village of Doniphan, Nebraska to issue the required permits to permit Viaero to construct a new wireless site within the Village.

Viaero argued that the Doniphan Board of Trustees’ denial of its CUP application violated § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the TCA because the Board’s decision was not in writing or supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.  Judge Kopf agreed.

In his decision, Judge Kopf cited the facts from the record:

During its regular monthly meeting on February 8, 2010, the Doniphan Board of Trustees considered and held a public hearing to receive public comment on Viaero’s CUP application. A Viaero representative attended the meeting and made a Power Point presentation to the Board in support of Viaero’s CUP application. The representative also answered questions posed to him from both the Board and various citizens attending the meeting.   No motion was made to approve the application and no action was taken to approve or deny the application at that meeting.   With respect to the CUP application, the  February 8, 2010 meeting minutes only state:

The Public Hearing to receive public comment on a conditional use permit application from Viaero Wireless to construct a wireless communication tower in the 200/300 block of North First Street opened at 8:00 p.m. Chris Riha, Site Acquisition Manager with Viaero Wireless gave a power point presentation detailing plans for the tower, and its location. He also addressed common concerns with this type of structure and answered questions. There were several residents and property owners of the Village who were present for the discussion. The 80 foot self supporting lattice tower would be located to the north and east of White Farms Trucking and is needed in order to improve cell phone coverage for customers in the Doniphan area. The tower would be surrounded by a chain link fence housing a back up generator, a buried 1,000 gallon propane tank and an aggregate building to store the electronic equipment. The Board heard numerous concerns and comments from members of the public in opposition to the tower’s location, which is near a residential district. The overall feeling from the public was that the tower needed to be moved away from the housing area to a more suitable location. After a lengthy discussion the Public Hearing closed at 9:36 p.m. Chairman Treat then called for a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit application from Viaero Wireless to construct a wireless communication tower in the 200/300 block of North First Street. No such motion was made, therefore no action was taken by the Board and the Conditional Use Permit was not approved.

Viaero’s CUP application was again considered by the Doniphan Board of Trustees at a meeting held on March 8, 2010. No additional testimony on Viaero’s application was taken by the Board at that meeting. However, one of the trustees made a motion to deny the application. That motion was seconded and passed unanimously. There was no discussion by the Board of any reason for denying the application. The Board’s minutes for its March 8, 2010 meeting say only, “[a] motion was then made by Jenkins, seconded by Haile to deny the Conditional Use Permit Application from Viaero Wireless. Motion carried unanimously.”

(Internal citations omitted)

Judge Kopf explained:

The TCA requires that “[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). In USOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, Nebraska, 279 F. Supp.2d 1080, 1084-85 (2003), a case with facts similar to those presented here, I concluded that in order for a decision by a local government denying a request to place, construct or modify personal wireless facilities to be “in writing” for purposes of this section of the TCA, it must: “(1) be separate from the written record; (2) describe the reasons for the denial; and (3) contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the denial to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that supports those reasons.” Id. at 1084-85 (2003) (quoting New Par v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 395-96 (6th Cir. 2002)). The Doniphan Board of Trustees’ decision denying Viaero’s CUP application is insufficient under this standard.

The decision to deny Viaero’s application is only noted in the minutes of the March 8, 2010 Board meeting. As was the case in USOC of Greater Iowa, these meeting minutes merely reflect that the application was unanimously denied. The minutes do not contain stated reasons for the denial or an explanation of how the decision was reached. [The Village] argues that the combination of the meeting minutes from the March 8, 2010 meeting and the February 8, 2010 meeting satisfy the “in writing” requirement. The court disagrees. While the February 8, 2010 minutes give some general indication as to what evidence was presented at the hearing, there is no explanation as to why the Board ultimately denied the application.

Defendant urges the court to reconsider its decision in USOC of Greater Iowa and find that any decision that is “in writing,” including a decision reflected in written meeting minutes, should be held to satisfy the “in writing” requirement contemplated by the TCA. The court declines to do so. As I concluded in USOC of Greater Iowa, “permitting local boards to issue written denials that give no reasons for a decision would frustrate meaningful judicial review, even where the written record may offer some guidance as to the board’s rationale.” USOC of Greater Iowa, 279 F. Supp.2d at 1084 (quoting Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 60 (1st Cir. 2001)). This reasoning remains sound. Without a decision adequately explaining the reasons for the denial, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record supporting the reasons for the denial.

Further, even assuming that the “in writing” requirement was satisfied, the Board’s decision would nevertheless violate the TCA because it is not “supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii.) “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” USOC of Greater Iowa, 279 F. Supp.2d at 1085 (quoting Mississippi Transp. Inc. v. NLRB, 33 F.3d 972, 977 (8th Cir. 1994)).

Further, even assuming that the “in writing” requirement was satisfied, the Board’s decision would nevertheless violate the TCA because it is not “supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii.)
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” USOC of Greater Iowa, 279 F. Supp.2d at 1085 (quoting Mississippi Transp. Inc. v. NLRB, 33 F.3d 972, 977 (8th Cir. 1994)).

Under the substantial evidence standard we cannot substitute our determination for that of the administrative fact-finder just because we believe that the fact-finder is clearly wrong. If the Board’s findings are supported by some substantial level of evidence (but less than a preponderance) on the record as a whole (contrary evidence may not simply be ignored on review) so that a reasonable fact-finder could reach the same conclusion as did the Board, the Board’s decision must be affirmed. We will not reject the Board’s decision as unsupported by substantial evidence because there exists the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions for the evidence.

Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Platte County, Missouri, 578 F.3d 727, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting USCOC of Greater Iowa v. Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment, 465 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 2006) ).

Defendant contends that substantial evidence supporting Defendant’s decision is contained in the minutes from the Board meeting held on February 8, 2010. In particular, Defendant points to the minutes’ reference to numerous public concerns and comments in opposition to the tower’s proposed location, which is near a residential district. With respect to these “public concerns,” the meeting minutes only state that “[t]he overall feeling from the public was that the tower needed to be moved away from the housing area to a more suitable location.” (Filing 24-3 at CM/ECF p.2. ) While public concerns can, in some instances, serve as substantial evidence, layperson residents’ generalized comments about aesthetics and property values are insufficient and, from the record presented here, there is no way of determining what the precise citizen concerns were. See USOC of Greater Iowa, 279 F. Supp.2d at 1086 (finding that generalized property value concerns by laypersons are insubstantial); Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 496 (2d Cir.1999) (finding that “generalized expressions of concern with ‘aesthetics’ cannot serve as substantial evidence” for denying a permit); Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir. 1999) (concluding that generalized concerns about property values and visual impact does not constitute substantial evidence). Moreover, there is no evidence that Viaero’s CUP application was denied based on the public comments referenced in the meeting minutes. There simply is no substantial evidence in a written record to support the Board’s decision.

Substantial evidence in the record, and written decisions based on the substantial evidence…  The formalities count, and Judge Kopf has confirmed that once again.

Case No. 4:10-cv-03059

viaero.wireless.complaint

viaero.wireless.answer

viaero.wireless.decision

viaero.wireless.order

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AGL Magazine San Francisco Wireless Conference

Above Ground Level (AGL) Magazine is sponsoring a one day regional conference in San Francisco on December 3, 2010.  The very interesting topics are listed below, including the session I’m leading, “How to Influence the Adoption of  ‘Good’ Wireless Ordinances.”

7:00 am – 8:00am Continental Networking Breakfast
8:00 am – 9:15am 4G, Whitespace, Pico Cells, Wi-Fi, Super Wi-Fi: What Do They Mean to Today’s Tower Company?

As the wireless world hurtles toward the high-speed data future, there will be a dramatic increase in the number and types of antenna/tower sites required. How can carriers and tower owners meet the demand? Distributed antenna systems (DAS) will play an ever increasing role. What are the challenges and opportunities in deploying DAS? And how can carriers and tower operators meet the backhaul capabilities required by a staggering increase in digital traffic? These issues will be addressed in depth by a distinguished panel of industry experts.

Speakers:

Don Bishop, Executive Editor, AGL magazine (moderator)

Ted Abrams, Abrams Wireless

Brian Allen, TowerCo

9:20am – 9:40am A Political Campaign Approach to Win Siting Approvals

Scott Ingham, The Elliott Bay Group

Political campaign-style strategies and tactics can effectively blunt siting opposition by mobilizing citizen support for better coverage, especially in more challenging jurisdictions like San Francisco. There are several objectives to using a political strategy to help get sites approved and on-air: identify and educate target advocates; bring wireless siting advocates to the table early and often in support of applications; and level the siting playing field and neutralize the increasing success of siting opponents.

9:45 am – 10:45pm Roundtable Discussion on using a Political Campaign Approach to Win Siting Approvals

Speakers:

Scott Ingham, The Elliott Bay Group (moderator)

Andrew Thibault, Partner, EMC Research

Tasha Skinner, Real Estate Manager, AT&T Mobility

Marian Vetro, T-Mobile

10:45m – 11:00pm Break
11:00 am – 12:00 pm The Art of Negotiation: Lease Optimization in the 4G World

With the introduction of 4G and other next generation technologies, all of the signs point toward a flood of amendments at towers across the country as well as the need for additional sites. Does this give tower companies the upper hand in lease negotiations? Or can the carriers successfully keep a lid on rising rental prices?

Speakers:

Richard P. Biby P.E., Publisher, AGL Magazine (moderator)

Adam Kauffman, Managing Director, NTP Wireless

John Paleski, Owner, Subcarrier Communications

Thomas Leddo, VP Operations, Md7

12:00m – 1:00pm Lunch Networking Break
1:00 pm – 2:30 pm Using a Public/Private Approach to Addressing Zoning Challenges

The Silicon Valley Joint Venture’s Wireless Communications Initiative brings together wireless service providers, cities, businesses and users to improve wireless service in the Valley and eliminate dead spots. The consortium builds on existing relationships with municipal governments to lead a coordinated public-private sector effort and mounts a highly strategic campaign to transform Silicon Valley’s wireless data & communications infrastructure.

Speakers:

Patti Ringo (moderator)
Director, West region Municipal Relations, ExteNet Systems

Leon Beauchman, Area Manager, External Affairs, AT&T

2:30pm – 2:45 pm Break
2:45 pm – 4:00 pm Is there such a thing as a good wireless ordinance?A growing number of municipalities are adopting wireless ordinances. Some of these rules have a broad impact on both macro-cell and DAS siting. Who writes these ordinances? What are the components of an ordinance? How much does one town’s ordinance differ from another and why? What makes these ordinances harmful to the wireless industry and what can it do about?

Speakers:

Jonathan Kramer, Kramer Telecom Law Firm (moderator)

Natasha Ernst, Director of Government Relations, NextG Networks, Inc.

Jeannie Hamilton, Division Manager, Department of Building and Code Enforcement, City of San Jose

Suzanne K. Toller, Partner, Co-chair, Communications Practice, Davis Wright Tremaine

Harriet A. Steiner, Partner, Best Best & Krieger LLP

4:00pm – 5:00pm Changes in Federal Regulations: What You Should Know to Operate Towers

The rules regarding towers are in a state of flux as the FCC and FAA streamline their processes. Change in regulation is also the constant as regulators hustle to keep up with the evolution on technology. This panel will cover changes in rules concerning tower lighting and marking, the Draft MOU between FEMA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pole attachment rules, the FCC’s Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) program, as well as new services such at the FCC’s Spectrum Dashboard.

Speakers:

Julian K. Quattlebaum, III, Channel Law Group, LLP (moderator)

Jon Dohm, AICP, Zoning Manager, West Area, Crown Castle International

John Koos, Co-Founder, Core Development Services

5:00 pm Closing

Highly recommended, and very reasonably priced at $75.00 for the full day.

For meeting registration and very discounted hotel reservations, please CLICK HERE.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

RIP 800-Goog-411

Google is ‘hanging up’ on its excellent 800-Goog-411 interactive 411 service.  Google started the service three years ago, and it officially shutters on November 11, 2010.  That’s too bad, because it could (should) have been wildly successful given that (a) it was free to the consumers, other than air-time, and  (b) it offered various ways of specifying the listing (i.e., “Supermarket, Santa Monica, California ” or “Whole Paycheck Market, Santa Monica California”), and (c) it was faster than calling 411 and paying a 411 surcharge on top of the air-time.

If you have not yet tried 800-Goog-411 from your cell phone, or your home phone, give it a try before it fades away.

It’ll be interesting to see what search firm steps in to fill the Goog-gap!

=Jonathan=

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

CTIA’s Worst Fear: Point-of-Sale Access to Consumer Information

The Cellular Telephone Industry Association (the CTIA) sued the City and County of San Francisco on July 23, 2010 in an attempt to overturn the City’s new ordinance requiring disclosure of the “Specific Absorption Rate” (SAR) data.  The Ordinance is titled the “Cell Phone Right-to-Know Ordinance” (Ordinance No. 155-10).

So what is a SAR, anyway?

As the FCC says,

Working closely with federal health and safety agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the FCC has adopted limits for safe exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy. These limits are given in terms of a unit referred to as the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is a measure of the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The FCC requires cell phone manufacturers to ensure that their phones comply with these objective limits for safe exposure. Any cell phone at or below these SAR levels (that is, any phone legally sold in the U.S.) is a “safe” phone, as measured by these standards. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).

(from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/)

Every cell phone sold in the U.S. must comply with the FCC regulations requiring compliance with the SAR rule, and public disclosure of the SAR value via the FCC’s web site, and sometimes at other web sites.

It’s the ‘public disclosure’ part is just what the CTIA (and the wireless industry that funds it) is so afraid of.

So what, exactly, has San Francisco done to tick-off the CTIA?

San Francisco adopted an ordinance requiring easily accessible point-of-sale disclosure of the SAR value for each phone sold or leased in San Francisco by retailers.

For the purposes of the ordinance, a retailer is someone who sells or leases cell phones to the public within the City,  or anyone who offers cell phones for sale or lease within the City. Retailers, as defined in the ordinance, specifically excludes anyone selling or leasing cell phones over the phone, by mail, or over the internet, and also excludes anyone selling or leasing cell phones directly to the public at a convention, trade show, or conference, or otherwise selling or leasing cell phones directly to the public within the City for fewer than 10 days in a year (i.e, a person who sells his or her old cell phone to someone else, for example).

So, what does the ordinance require?

First, it requires that any cell phone service provider (think: Verizon, AT&T, MetroPCS, etc.) provide the City with a list of their retailers located in the City.  That list must be updated annually.  (Ord. Sect. 1102.)

Tough to do?  I think not.

Second, if “a cell phone retailer posts display materials in connection with sample phones or phones on display, the display materials must include … three elements: (1) The SAR value of that phone and the maximum allowable SAR value for cell phones set by the FCC; (2) A statement explaining what the SAR value is; and (3) A statment that additional educational materials regarding SAR values and cell phone use are available from the cell phone retailer. ”

To promote uniformity, the City will adopt regulations specifying the content and format of the three elements just listed.

Third, the ordinance sets the minimum physical size, and the type face and minimum point equivalencies for the notice.  (Ord. Sect. 11043.)

Fourth, the ordinance phases in over the period between now an May, 2011, and does not begin enforcement actions against non-compliant persons until August 2012.  Even then, before any fines are imposed, the retailer will have 30 days to come into compliance.  And even if fines are imposed, the ordinance specifically says that fines are the only penalty…no jail time for violations.

That’s what the wireless industry finds to be simply egregious, but they frame their argument in terms of, well, PR spin.  Just read the  first line of that portion of the CTIA’s press release about it’s law suit. The quote, attributed to John Walls, their VP of Public Affairs is:

CTIA has filed this lawsuit to prevent consumer confusion. The problem with the San Francisco ordinance is not the disclosure of wireless phone SAR values – that information is already publicly available. Consumers can learn a device’s SAR value from a number of public sources, and the value is often included in user manuals and listed on the websites of manufacturers and the FCC. CTIA’s objection to the ordinance is that displaying a phone’s SAR value at the point-of-sale suggests to the consumer that there is a meaningful safety distinction between FCC-compliant devices with different SAR levels.

“The FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are ‘safe.’ The FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis, and its standard for RF exposure is based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. Furthermore, according to the experts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the available scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cell phones. As the FDA states on its website, ‘[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.’

“In contrast, the message conveyed by the San Francisco ordinance to consumers is that the FCC’s standards are insufficient and that the safety of an FCC-authorized wireless device depends on its SAR level. Therefore, the ordinance contradicts the thorough review of the science by the FCC, FDA and other U.S. and international expert agencies, and will send consumers the false message that there is a safety difference between wireless devices that comply with the FCC’s stringent standards.

“The wireless industry is committed to consumer choice. That means providing consumers with the best information to assist them in making the right choice for them when purchasing a device and services.  The San Francisco ordinance, by conveying a misleading impression about the relative safety of wireless phones, will hinder – rather than assist – consumers in making their choices.”

(Emphasis added)

I love the in-your-face PR spin that the “CTIA has filed this lawsuit to prevent consumer confusion.” It’s classic misdirection. Consumer’s are confused because, ah, the same metric is presented in the same way across different handsets? And that metric is available at the very moment the consumer is considering what, exactly, to purchase? Yup, that would confuse me, too.

Not.

Cell_Phone_Label_StandardI’d like to offer my own idea for a label, and one that is instantly recognizable to anyone who happens to ingest food on a fairly regular basis.  A label, like I show below, could provide basic information to consumers at the time and point of sale, just when and where the CTIA would rather you not have that information. There could be room for other optional data about phone-specific features as I’ve suggested.

We learned to first live with, and then to realize the immense value of consumer information at the point-of-sale for all sorts of consumer food goods, and later at fast-food restaurants.   Consumer’s have not stopped buying groceries, nor have they stopped dining at Micky-D’s, but if they want the consumer information about what they’re going to eat, its right there for them when they are making their buying decisions.

Does any rational person believe that consumers will stop buying cell phones in San Francisco if the ordinance goes into force?

Nope, me neither.

Finally, I believe that consumer rights’ groups should be banding together to oppose to the CTIA’s lawsuit as it is an attempt to bar a government from requiring consumer-oriented disclosure of public record information. The chilling effects that would result could deal a real knock-out blow to smart, informed consumerism.

To read the law suit and the City’s ordinance at the heart of the suit, click on this link.

For more information on SAR from the FCC, start at these sites:

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/sar.html
and
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Newest staff member: Aleen Tomassian, BS

August 5, 2010: Aleen Tomassian BS (Berkeley, ’10) joined the firm’s staff in July 2010 as Jonathan’s newest assistant.

Aleen Tomassian, BS

She steps in for Mr. Tripp May who is now on a three-year leave of absence to attend the University of San Diego Law School, and then to take the California Bar examination.

Ms. Tomassian graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 2010 with a bachelors of science degree. She intends to attend law school starting in the fall of 2011.

Aleen’s formal science education background has already provided to be very valuable in reaching solutions to client issues based on application of scientific analysis and systems solutions.

We’re very glad that she’s now a member of our team!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

How to Spoil A New Mexico View

Here’s a gem of a cell tower that literally towers over an otherwise beautiful desert and mountain landscape along I-25 south of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

This tower is 150 feet tall, and completely towers over everything in the view of the drivers along this stretch of I-25.  For those of you who want more information on this gem, visit this FCC web site.

<soap box>Sites like this are a black-eye on the wireless industry, and the planners who permit them. </soap box>

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail