Category: Legal

The End of Chevron Deference: A BIG DEAL for Wireless

The End of Chevron Deference: A BIG DEAL for Wireless

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Tripp May and I were quoted today in Inside Towers regarding the Supreme Court’s decision (last Friday) ending Chevron Deference.  For civilians, it’s not a big deal; for the FCC and the wireless industry, it’s a REALLY BIG DEAL.

Here’s the Inside Towers article: https://insidetowers.com/municipalities-cheer-scotus-overturn-of-chevron

…and here’s an extended discussion:

On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court overruled the deferential doctrine it announced forty years ago in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), Now, the Supreme Court holds that the courts must “decide all relevant questions of law . . . and set aside any [agency] action inconsistent with the law as they interpret it.” Loper Bright Enters., v. Raimundo, Secretary of Commerce, No. 22-451, p.12 (S.Ct. June 28, 2024).

Tripp May, Managing Partner of Telecom Law Firm PC says the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper represents a colossal shift in how courts review agency actions, and spells trouble for the wireless industry’s ability to influence the FCC.

What is Chevron deference and why does it matter?

Chevron deference required courts to uphold agency actions, like FCC actions, so long as:

(1) Congress had not specifically addressed an issue or left an ambiguity within the statutory scheme about that issue; and
(2) the agency action was “permissible” within the scope of such statutory gap or ambiguity.

Most importantly, Chevron deference required courts to uphold the agency action that met both these requirements even if the court thought that it had a better interpretation. This now dead doctrine even allowed federal agencies to overrule judicial interpretations given to ambiguous statutes.

Such broad and flexible deference significantly empowered and emboldened federal agencies by largely shielding agency actions from meaningful court challenges. To survive a challenge to an agency’s decisions under Chevron deference, all an agency needed to do was convince a court that the agency’s action reasonably filled a gap or resolved an ambiguity. Over the last four decades, federal agencies have had overwhelming success against judicial challenges to their actions. Loper sends a new and clear signal that the winning streak for federal administrative agencies has come to an end.

What changed after the Loper decision?

Dr. Jonathan Kramer, Telecom Law Firm’s Founding Partner said that Loper overruled Chevron and effectively killed the doctrine that insulates federal agencies from meaningful judicial review. Perhaps the most harmful blow to agency autonomy is the Supreme Court’s holding that federal courts must decide for themselves on the “best” statutory interpretation and should no longer accept an agency action that was merely “permissible” within whatever the statutory gap or ambiguity might reasonably allow. If disputes over statutory interpretation were baseball, the tie no longer goes to the agency.

How does this impact the wireless industry?

At the federal level, the wireless industry has been successful at two things: (1) getting legislation passed riddled with ambiguities, and (2) convincing the FCC to interpret those statutory ambiguities in a way favorable to the industry. Mr. May added that this was a winning strategy under Chevron deference, but almost certainly won’t fly in the new Loper era.

Ambiguous statutes used to open the door for agency discretion. Now those ambiguities invite the courts to second-guess the federal agency’s interpretation. Lobbyists for the wireless industry will have to think longer and harder about whether to push ambiguous statutes like those found in the Telecom Act or the Spectrum Act. Similarly, the FCC will have to think more carefully about whether their interpretations are the best, or merely permissible.

According to Dr. Kramer, wireless industry and FCC lawyers will now have to convince courts that the FCC was exactly right on an issue rather than just hand-grenade close.

The extra degree of difficulty imposed on federal agencies by Loper could well be a good thing: Congress could be spurred to pass clearer and more focused laws, and the FCC might be moved to more carefully consider and discuss whether it faithfully implemented congressional intent before it adopts new rules.

Maybe…just maybe…all the stakeholders will realize that they can avoid the judicial review process altogether if they just reach out and work closer to reach consensus on what the law should be, Mr. May said

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

California Pending Bill AB 965: Open the Permitting Flood Gates?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

The wireless and cable industries are pushing new legislation in Sacramento to engage in bulk permitting of telecommunications facilities.  The alleged basis is to speed up broadband deployment, but the bill does not impose ANY requirements for that deployment.   Essentially, it’s the ‘if you make it easy for the industry, they will come through to serve the un(der) connected’ approach that has repeatedly failed to bridge the digital divide in California.

Take a look at the state of this legislation as of June 13, 2023:

SECTION 1.

This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023.

SEC. 2.

The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-73-20 stated that “the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the extent to which broadband is essential for public safety, public health, and economic resilience.”
(b) The public’s increased reliance on high-speed internet access for remote work, telehealth, emergency response, education, and commerce demonstrates the need for legislation to accelerate the deployment of broadband infrastructure.
(c) The length of time it takes for a local jurisdiction to process permits for broadband projects is among the many factors that can directly impact the length of time it takes before a project can provide high-speed internet service to a local community and get people connected.
(d) Each local jurisdiction in California has its own permitting process and timeline for broadband projects. Some utilize the industry best practice of permit batching, master permit, programmatic permits, or term permits, which allows large volumes of substantially similar broadband permits to be processed and approved within an expedited timeframe.
(e) Both public and private broadband projects are trying to be built as fast as possible since unobligated federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2) funds expire on December 31, 2024.
(f) Each year, thousands of broadband permit applications are submitted to local jurisdictions throughout California that would improve internet connectivity for residents and businesses.
(g) Processing groups of substantially similar broadband permits at the same time will be more efficient on the workload of local government staff. Permit fees will still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide.
(h) Batch broadband permitting processing will allow local governments to more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet.
(i) Given the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, and job creation, it is in California’s best interest for public and private broadband project permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

SEC. 3.

Section 65964.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:

65964.3.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Batch broadband permit processing” means the simultaneous processing of multiple broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites under a single permit.
(2) “Broadband permit application” means an application or other documents submitted for review by a local agency to permit the construction of a broadband project.
(3) “Broadband project” means the proposed facility, including the support structure and any supporting equipment necessary for operation of the proposed facility. A broadband project may be comprised of one or more components, including, but not limited to, a wireless facility, a fiber optic connection, and other supporting equipment, each of which may require separate permits or authorizations by a local agency.
(4) “Local agency” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 65964.5, except that it does not include a publicly owned electric utility that is subject to Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code.
(5) “Presumptively reasonable time” means the timeframe, if any, specified in applicable law within which a local agency must review and resolve an application following submission of a complete broadband permit application. The presumptively reasonable time period may be modified by mutual, written agreement between the local agency and the applicant.
(6) “Substantially similar broadband project sites” means broadband project sites that are nearly identical in terms of equipment and general design, but not location.
(b) Subject to subdivision (e), a local agency shall undertake batch broadband permit processing upon receiving two or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the same applicant. Batch broadband permit processing for wireless broadband projects shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable time pursuant to applicable law unless a longer period of time is permitted under the circumstances pursuant to applicable law, including Section 1.6003 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(c) If a local agency does not approve broadband permit applications for substantially similar wireless broadband project sites submitted for batch broadband permit processing pursuant to this section and issue permits, or reject the applications and notify the applicants, within the presumptively reasonable time or a longer period permitted under applicable law, all of the permits shall be deemed approved pursuant to Section 65964.1.
(d) The Legislature finds and declares that batch broadband permitting processing will allow local governments to still receive permit fees, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide and more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet. This will allow the state to meet the federal broadband funding deadline of December 31, 2024, while creating greater broadband equity amongst communities so more individuals can have access to high-speed internet access for emergency response, remote work, telehealth, education, and commerce.
(e) The requirements of this section shall not apply to eligible facility requests, as defined and governed by Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(f) (1) This section does not preclude a local agency from requiring compliance with any requirements relating to the design, construction, or location of broadband projects that the local agency is otherwise authorized to impose or enforce under applicable law, including, without limitation, any generally applicable health and safety requirements.
(2) If a broadband permit application is denied, the local agency shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for the denial.
(g) Nothing in this section shall supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to comply with safety standards, including, but not limited to, both of the following:
(1) Article 2 (commencing with Section 4216) of Chapter 3.1 of Division 5 of Title 1.
(2) The Public Utilities Commission’s General Order No. 128, Rules for Construction of Underground Electric Supply and Communication Systems, or successor rules adopted by the commission.
(h) (1) A local agency may place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit processing.
(2) A reasonable limit imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be no less than either of the following:
(A) For a city with a population of fewer than 50,000 or a county with a population of fewer than 150,000, including each city within that county, 25 project sites.
(B) For a city or county with a population greater than the applicable population described in subparagraph (A), 50 project sites.
(3) A local agency may only remove a broadband project site from grouping under a single permit under mutual agreement with the applicant or to expedite the approval of other substantially similar broadband project sites.
(i) A local agency may impose a fee on batch broadband permitting processing consistent with Section 50030. Where limited resources affect a local agency’s ability to process applications for a broadband project, including batched applications, a local agency shall work with the applicant in good faith to resolve those resource limitations, which may include, but is not limited to, provision by the applicant of supplemental resources.
SEC. 4.

The Legislature finds and declares that the efficient approval of broadband permit applications is critical to the deployment of broadband services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 3 of this act adding Section 65964.3 to the Government Code applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 5.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

Here’s a link to the current status of this Bill in the Assembly: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB965&showamends=false

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

19 Words Can Cost a Wireless Landlord $1Million

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Wireless landlords beware:

If you see your wireless tenant trying insert a sentence in the lease or an amendment along the lines of “Landlord agrees to grant additional space to Tenant for radio frequency signage and barricades if required by Applicable Law” know that if you agree you’re likely giving up tens of thousand, hundreds of thousands, or even over $1,000,000 in lease revenue over 30 years.

Why?

Because when a wireless carrier needs to install barriers, or otherwise exert control over portion of your building (likely the roof) if required by Applicable Law then the landlord should rent that space, not just “grant” (give) it to the tenant.  We’ve been dealing with more and more issues like this recently, and recovering substantial additional rent for our clients.

Words count.

Understanding what the words mean counts.

Understanding how the words can be so simple, yet so negative, count.

Beware and be aware.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Sprint/T-Mobile “Landlord Release Agreement” Trap?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

We’re seeing Sprint sending some landlords a “Landlord Release Agreement” in connection with Dish Wireless that contains:

Release. Effective as of the Assignment Date, Landlord, for Itself and its affiliates, successors and assigns, does hereby forever release and discharge Tenant and its affiliates, partners,
employees, agents, successors and assigns of any and all liabilities and obligations arising from or relating to the Lease from and after the Assignment Date.

Most savvy cell site landlords will recognize the inherent danger to their lease security by agreeing to this little stinker clause.

If you receive any sort of release agreement from a wireless carrier (either directly or via one of their agents), take the time before you sign to get a qualified legal opinion regarding the terms of that agreement.  In some or many cases, the true benefit flows solely to the exiting carrier, not to the landlord!

Jonathan

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Verizon sues Rochester NY over attachment, tench, overhead fees

Verizon sues Rochester NY over attachment, tench, overhead fees

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Verizon has sued the City of Rochester, NY in federal court claiming that Rochester’s fees for attachments, trenching, overhead, etc. exceed the FCC’s presumptive caps, and therefore sink to a prohibition of service.

How silly. How very silly.

I suspect this little law suit will go exactly nowhere while the big show is playing out in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Verizon law suit against Rochester turns on the outcome of the main 9th Circuit case.  The 9th Circuit case is where local governments around the country are suing to set aside the FCC’s Small Wireless Facility Order. It’s that Order that Verizon cites as the basis for its suit against Rochester.

I will not be surprised one bit when the judge in the Rochester case puts the brakes on that case to await the outcome of the 9th Circuit case.

Here’s Verizon’s complaint:

VZ-Rochester-Complaint-8.8.19

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Professional Engineers Stamping Wireless Plans Without Actual Knowledge Will Be Caught

Professional Engineers Stamping Wireless Plans Without Actual Knowledge Will Be Caught

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

It continues to amaze me, and sadden me, how some professional engineers seem to be willing to put their hard-earned licenses on the line so often, and so obviously.

When a professional engineer stamps and seals plans that unambiguously show that the wireless site as built will violate ADA clearances, then we know the PE failed to protect the public.  When PEs stamp plans that will result in inverse condemnations, we know the same thing. There are other ‘tells’ we look for when reviewing wireless project applications for our clients.  Those tells allow us to identify the PEs we suspect are no more than a mere stamp mills, most likely being paid per project stamped.

Wink, Wink, shall we?

I recently sat in a government meeting reviewing a proposed small wireless facility where, when pressed, the entitlement rep conceded that the PE who stamped the plans probably never visited the site and likely had no personal knowledge about the measurements and elements shown on the plans sealed by that PE.

Really?

This dangerous and probably unlawful ‘public-be-dammed, all wireless siting ahead‘ mentality will come back to haunt those PEs when they find themselves referred to state PE licensing boards by local governments for prosecution.

The PEs won’t be the only ones referred to state boards.

Along with the PEs are likely to be entitlement companies that hire them, and potentially the wireless carriers who hire the entitlement firms.

To be crystal clear, there are true Professional Engineers out there who care about what they do, care for the quality of their work, and respect the public interests they serve.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who those true PEs are…their work speaks for them.  Those honorable and thoughtful PEs clearly do actual engineering reviews before sealing plans, and I suspect some of them have ended up on a  ‘naughty list’ for not being willing to waive the public interests they are committed to serving.

Jonathan

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
City of Berkeley Wins (Again) in CTIA RF Warnings Law Suit

City of Berkeley Wins (Again) in CTIA RF Warnings Law Suit

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit ruled (again) in favor of the City of Berkeley in CTIA’s law suit regarding the City’s requirement that cell phone vendors alert purchasers to FCC-required RF warnings.

The City of Berkeley requires in its current Municipal Code the following:

9.96.030 Required notice

A.    A Cell phone retailer shall provide to each customer who buys or leases a Cell phone a notice containing the following language:

The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:

To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.

B.    The notice required by this Section shall either be provided to each customer who buys or leases a Cell phone or shall be prominently displayed at any point of sale where Cell phones are purchased or leased. If provided to the customer, the notice shall include the City’s logo, shall be printed on paper that is no less than 5 inches by 8 inches in size, and shall be printed in no smaller than a 18-point font. The paper on which the notice is printed may contain other information in the discretion of the Cell phone retailer, as long as that information is distinct from the notice language required by subdivision (A) of this Section. If prominently displayed at a point of sale, the notice shall include the City’s logo, be printed on a poster no less than 8-1/2 by 11 inches in size, and shall be printed in no small than a 28-point font. The City shall make its logo available to be incorporated in such notices.

C.    A Cell phone retailer that believes the notice language required by subdivision (A) of this Section is not factually applicable to a Cell phone model that retailer offers for sale or lease may request permission to not provide the notice required by this Section in connection with sales or leases of that model of Cell phone. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. (Ord. 7443-NS § 1, 2015; Ord. 7404-NS § 1 (part), 2015)

The CTIA challenged the current law saying, essentially, that the City was forcing wireless providers to ‘speak’ thus violating their First Amendment rights.  The District Court hearing the case denied CTIA’s request to bar the City from enforcing its RF disclosure rules.  The CTIA appealed to the 9th Circuit.

In its original decision on CTIA’s appeal, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit disagreed with CTIA and allowed the ordinance to remain in force.  The CTIA then asked the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit decision.

The Supreme Court took the case, vacated the 9th Circuit decision supporting the City, and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit directing that the Circuit Court reevaluate the decision in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 201 L. Ed. 2d 835 (2018) (“NIFLA”).

The NIFLA case challenged a California law requiring compelled speech by anti-abortion counseling centers that included references to abortion clinics.  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the California law citing a violation of the First Amendment.

NIFLA connects to CTIA by way of the Supreme Court’s analysis in NIFLA that said that a lower level of First Amendment protection exists for noncontroversial professional speech.  In NIFLA, the majority in the Supreme Court said,

[O]ur precedents have applied more deferential review to some laws that require professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial information in their “commercial speech.” See, e.g., Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985); Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States, 559 U. S. 229, 250 (2010); Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 455–456 (1978).

According, the Supreme Court’s remand to the 9th Circuit required that the Circuit Court evaluate whether the City’s RF notice was factual, noncontroversial information.

In the case re-decided yesterday in favor of Berkeley, the majority said:

Given the FCC’s requirement that cell phone manufacturers must inform consumers of “minimum test separation distance requirements,” and must “clearly disclose[ ]” accessory operating configurations “through conspicuous instructions in the user guide and user manual, to ensure unsupported operations are avoided,” we see little likelihood of success based on conflict preemption.

Berkeley’s compelled disclosure does no more than alert consumers to the safety disclosures that the FCC requires, and direct consumers to federally compelled instructions in their user manuals providing specific information about how to avoid excessive exposure. Far from conflicting with federal law and policy, the Berkeley ordinance complements and reinforces it.

Yesterday’s decision cited existing disclosures in the FCC Record, as well as cell phone manufacturer warnings.

On remand, the 9th Circuit found that Berkeley’s RF law as non-controversial under the Supreme Court’s holding in NIFLA.  A dissent by Circuit Judge Friedland takes the opposite position.

The decision and dissent are provided in this link: CTIA v Berkeley. Case No. 16-15141

It seems likely that there will be another petition by the CTIA to review yesterday’s decision.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Mobilitie: Fake News; FCC Fines; and Churchill's Barking Dog.

Mobilitie: Fake News; FCC Fines; and Churchill’s Barking Dog.

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Mr. Jason Caliento, the Executive Vice President of Network Strategy at Mobilitie, presented the keynote address and a follow-up discussion at the AGL Summit on September 27, 2018. That Summit was held in Kansas City as an ongoing part of AGL’s (very important for municipal officials and industry personnel alike) lecture series.

I spoke at the AGL Summit on a 5G topic, but that’s not the focus of this post.

Mr. Jason Caliento (left) with Mr. Bryan Tramont.  Photo  Copyright © 2018 by Dr. Jonathan Kramer

The focus of this post is a snippet of about 2 minutes and 40 seconds of the one-on-one follow-up discussion with Mr. Bryan Tramont, Esq., the Managing Partner of Wilkinson Baker Knauer, LLP. The subject of that portion of their exchange was the 2018 Consent Decree between the FCC, Sprint, and Mobilitie. That Decree was adopted and released on April 10, 2018. (CLICK HERE to download and read the Consent Decree.)

In their relatively short exchange, Mr. Caliento managed to claim that there was some sort of ‘fake news’ involvement in the story about Sprint and Mobilitie violating the FCC’s rules; that the ends justified the means; and that Mr. Caliento seems guided by Sir Winston Churchill’s quote, “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.” I suppose an apparently intentional program between Mobilitie and Sprint to build sites absent required regulatory permissions is the barking dog in his odd analogy.

Please listen to Mr. Caliento’s comments responding to Mr. Tramont on this topic in its entity.  Then you may decide for yourself what you think of Mobilitie’s and Sprint’s (presumably and hopefully former) approach to regulatory compliance:

Okay. I suppose that’s one way to spin intentionally violating federal regulations because the ends seem to justify Mobilitie’s and Sprint’s means. Further, as for the ends justifying the means, apparently paying the FCC an $11 million dollar fine seems a very small and economical price to Mobilitie and Sprint given the billions Mr. Caliento claims that they have saved (and presumably will save).

I opine that now we know the real fake news.

Jonathan

PS: The next AGL Summit is in Atlanta, Georgia on November 8th. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend, but I highly recommend this event to municipal officials who want the real story about what’s happening in the coming 5G world. -jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Most Favored Wireless Lessee Clause?

Most Favored Wireless Lessee Clause?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

One of the big wireless carriers has added an interesting new ‘standard provision’ in its lease template.  It’s a clause that makes that particular lessee the ‘most favored lessee’ over the decades-long life of the agreement.

Some of you will recognize this type of contract provision as a Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) clause.

In the wireless leasing context, a wireless landlord granting this MFN might be called a “Most Flagrant Numskull.”

I’ll review the meat of the MFN clause. Then I’ll you how we’re handling this odious little clause for our wireless landlord clients.

Paraphrased, major elements of the MFN cause require the Lessor to guarantee to its wireless carrier tenant that if the Lessor does any subsequent lease deal…not just for wireless…with another entity at the same property — or even at an entirely different property anywhere in the world — then the wireless tenant gets to decide whether they want those same better deal points

The elements of the MFN include rent, contract benefits, as well as the terms and conditions for any deal the lessor does for identical or even similar land deals.  Essentially, every deal point comes into play. The MFN also requires that the landlord timely disclose every one of  those lease deals to the carrier, but the carrier reserves the right to reject any or all of the other terms if it doesn’t like them.

Oh, yes, through the MFN, the carrier reserves the right to independently dig into every deal the landlord does. Arguably, this means that any type of similar deal the landlord does anywhere else in the world has to given to the wireless tenant to pick and choose to see if they want also, some, or none of the terms retroactively.

Also, there’s no limit to the number of times or deals that the MFN can be used to favorably tweak its wireless lease.

What’s a landlord to do?

Well, there are two obvious answers to the MFN issue.

The answer I particularly like is to AGREE to the MFN clause and…

wait for it… wait for it…

…the landlord requires that the carrier mirror the MFN clause so that the wireless carrier has to give the very same bundle of rights to landlord. Yeah, like that’s going to fly with the carrier.

Okay, you can probably guess the better second answer: We recommend our clients strike the clause and tell the carrier to keep their hands inside their own ride at all times.

Do I chide the wireless companies for overreaching clauses like this?  Of course not.

The legal duty owned by management to its wireless company shareholders is to enrich the shareholders regardless of the legal and financial devastation they might do to the unknowing landlord.  There are no morals involved here. It’s simply the way of business.

It’s also why we enjoy working with wireless site landlords to point out the obvious and not-so-obvious legal landmines buried in wireless site leases.

Jonathan

(Base photo: By Reedhawk – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36811331)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Sprint Uses My Photo of Mobilitie to Promote Small Cells

Sprint Uses My Photo of Mobilitie to Promote Small Cells

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I guess Sprint really, really likes my cell site photo collection, and photos I use in my lectures.  So much, in fact, that they they included one of my annotated photos of a Mobilitie ‘pox-on-a-pole’ site in Los Angeles as a presentation tool in an Ex Parte meeting with 9 staff members at the FCC on October 23, 2017.  Here’s my annotated photo, used by Sprint in its Ex Parte presentation:


Did Sprint bother to ask me for permission to use my intellectual property in its Ex Parte presentation?

Of course not.

Does my annotated photograph above, used by Sprint without my permission, look like the type of cell you’d want in front of your residential balcony?

I suspect not.

Hey, Sprint (and specifically Keith Buell), the next time you’d like to use my intellectual property, please consider giving me a call first.

Here’s a link to Sprint’s Ex Parte 4-page filing containing MY photo: CLICK HERE.

jlk

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail