There is a follow-up story in today’s Kennebec Journal regarding the Town of Manchester’s Town Meeting. Here’s a link to the story: CLICK HERE.
The Town of Manchester, Maine will hold an open town hall meeting on January 29, 2008 to decide whether to settle a law suit brought against it by MCF Communications and also whether to adopt a “Tower Moratorium Ordinance” for six months.
The interesting feature of this story is that the elected officials are asking the community’s eligible voters to decide whether to settle the suit, rather than deciding it themselves on behalf of the Town. In an editorial published by an area newspaper, The Kennebec Journal, the editors recount the history of the suit, and talk about a proposed settlement:
“All could have ended right there, peacefully and relatively quietly. Manchester selectmen could have approved the consent agreement, the cellphone folks would have paid a portion of the town’s legal fees and other expenses and life would have gone on. A new cellphone ordinance could have been proposed and adopted.
Instead, town officials took a duck…”
…when the town decided to let the residents decide the issue.
Interesting reading, to be sure.
According to a published report:
11/20/2007: Alton, Illinois Planning Commission votes to approve 90 foot “stealth tower.”
11/28/2007: Alton’s City Council approves resolution in favor of tower.
12/19/2007: Alton’s City Council votes to deny application.
01/18/2008: US Cellular files suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (Pacer Case No: 3:08-cv-00041-JPG-DGW)
Click Here to read the Complaint filed in federal court
The Heard Tribune in central Florida has a story about a 150 foot tall cellular flagpole proposed by Vertex Development LLC to be placed at a residential subdivision in East Manatee, Florida. Here’s a link to the story: Manatee facing a 15-story cell tower…masquerade.
While the story is nicely balanced, it omits an interesting point: The U.S. Flag Code requires that flags allowed to fly at night be illuminated. Since the proposed flag is to be 375 square feet, that’s going to take a heck of a lot of light. I’ll be interesting to see whether local private pilots show up to the hearing to complain about the lights that will have to shine to the sky.
There are many, many examples of cellular flags in the gallery here. To see some of them, CLICK HERE
On January 24, 2008 I had the pleasure of presenting my Wireless 101 lecture to the 
Planning Commission of the City of Oceanside, California. The lecture covers fundamentals of cell tower siting in a non-technical manner. I also use dozens of high-resolution photographs to illustrate the technology. No, I don’t shy away from dealing with the question of RF safety, and how local governments can review the issue within the boundaries established by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission.
Perhaps the best part of the lecture is a photographic review of “The Good; The Bad; and The Silly” of cell siting.
If you’d like to have me present the Wireless 101 lecture to your government agency meeting, please feel free to contact me.
The New America Foundation has released an interesting policy paper regarding Carterfone-type competition in the wireless sector. The following is from the New America Foundation website:
Working Paper
Wireless Carterfone
A Long Overdue Policy Promoting Consumer Choice and Competition
Rob Frieden, Penn State University
New America Foundation | January 2008Abstract
Wireless carriers in the United States operate as regulated common carriers when providing basic telecommunications services, such as voice telephone service, text messaging and speed dialing to services and content. Remarkably, stakeholders debate whether this clear cut regulatory status requires wireless carriers to provide service to any compatible handset, subject to a certification process to ensure that such use will not harm carrier networks.
Thirty-nine years ago the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established its Carterfone policy establishing such a right for wireline subscribers. Consumers now take for granted the right to purchase their choice of telephones and other devices (e.g., computer modems, answering machines) and to attach them to wireline networks without carrier-imposed limitations. After announcing its Carterfone policy, the FCC identified ample consumer benefits and applied this fundamental right in several instances so that consumers can freely use their handsets to access services, applications and content. This fundamental right has accrued unquestionable benefits to consumers and the national economy.
Wireless operators have vigorously opposed efforts to convince the FCC that it should establish a wireless Carterfone policy. Opponents claim that Carterfone offered an industry-specific remedy to a monopoly environment where the Bell System controlled both the manufacture and distribution of telephones and telephone service. They assert that the lack of such vertical integration and the existence of robust competition in the wireless marketplace obviate the need for rules requiring carriers to unlock the handsets they sell and to open their networks for access by any compatible handset.
This paper explains why wireless Carterfone policy constitutes a long overdue policy response to carrier practices that often have nothing to do with protecting their networks from technical harm or other legitimate network management needs. For example, blocking the implementation of wireless Carterfone enables carriers to continue locking subscribers into two-year service contracts with substantial penalties for early termination. In exchange for the service commitment, consumers acquire a carrier-subsidized handset, but they also consent to carrier-imposed restrictions on the use of the handset they bought, including the ability to access telecommunications and content services of competitors even after the carrier has recouped its subsidy.
This analysis explains how wireless carriers benefit financially by avoiding Carterfone obligations and refutes the rationales and justifications for this behavior. The paper also demonstrates that the FCC has ample statutory authority to apply wireless Carterfone policy based on the largely ignored fact that when wireless cellular telephone companies provide telecommunications service, they remain subject to most common carrier regulations regardless of the fact that they also may offer less regulated information services. Finally, this report explains that wireless carriers must comply with public interest regulatory mandates even though they might conflict with carriers’ preferred business plans. The Commission has undertaken a number of analogous initiatives to protect consumers from mandatory bundling arrangements, such as its 2005 order mandating alternatives to cable set-top box leasing, which underscore the continued importance of Carterfone principles to protecting the public interest.
For the full working paper, please see the attached PDF below.
Wireless Carterfone Policy Paper from New America Foundation
