Thinking about Sprint v. County of San Diego

By now many/most/all? of you know that on September 11th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Sprint Telephony PCS, L. P. v. County of San Diego case.  The court held 11-0 that the ‘Auburn’ decision standard announced by the same court eight years ago was wrong, and reversed itself.

The now-discredited Auburn permitted a telecom carrier to facially attack a zoning ordinance.  A facial attack is one where the underlying facts of a particular case don’t really matter.  The court only looks at the face of the ordinance.  As applied to telecom ordinances, the Auburn facial attack meant that if a court could read an ordinance on its face and find that it may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecom service in a community, the court would strike down the law.  The facts giving rise to the court challenge were, frankly, irrevelant.

In most court cases, the courts look at a law “as-applied” (in a particular case and with a particular set of facts) to determine whether it is legal.  Facial attacks, such as those that were applied using the Auburn standard, never get to the facts as applied.

As the en banc panel of the 9th Circuit found, and as Judge Graber wrote (in small part) for the entire panel:

We find persuasive the Eighth Circuit’s and district courts’ critique of Auburn. Section 253(a) provides that “[n]o State or local statute or regulation . . . may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting. . . provision of . . . telecommunications service.” In context, it is clear that Congress’ use of the word “may” works in tandem with the negative modifier“[n]o” to convey the meaning that “state and local regulations shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications service.” Our previous interpretation of the word “may” as meaning “might possibly” is incorrect. We therefore overrule Auburn and join the Eighth Circuit in holding that “a plaintiff suing a municipality under section 253(a) must show actual or effective prohibition, rather than the mere possibility of prohibition.”

*   *   *
Please click here to download the full decision.
*   *   *

I expect that Sprint will ask the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, and I also expect that the request will not be successful. Ultimately, I believe this ruling will mark a return to (more) common sense in wireless siting cases and hearings.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Choosing a Municipal Wireless Consultant – A Wireless Industry View

Wireless Industry attorney Scott Olson of Cooper Erving & Savage LLP (Albany, NY) has written a very interesting blog essay on his “Cell Tower Siting Blog” offering hiring suggestions to governments looking to employ wireless advisers.  The title of his essay is, “Choosing a Wireless Consultant.”

Scott Olsen, Esq.
Scott Olson, Esq.

While it may seen like Scott (on the wireless industry side) and I (a leading wireless adviser to local governments in multiple states) might not have a lot to agree on, I’m happy to report that nearly all of Scott’s suggestions and comments could have as easily been written by me.

The bullet points of Scott’s blog essay are:

1. Be wary of a consultant who preaches fear.

2. Carefully scrutinize a consutant’s draft tower law.

3. Be cautious about a consultant that demands to take control of the review process away from the municipal board with permitting jurisdiction.

4. Question the length of review of a typical application.

5. Municipalities, don’t be fooled by a lengthy review.

6. Be cautious with a consultant who emphasizes that his/her services will not cost the community anything; that the carrier will pay for everything.

7. Excessive application fees for tower applications present potential legal issues, especially when the application fees for other uses are substantially less.

To read his full blog essay, please visit THIS LINK.

Recommended!

=Jonathan=

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

CPUC Investigates Allegations of T-Mobile Sites Without Permits

As reported by staff writer Seth Rosenfeld in the San Francisco Chronicle (Aug 30, 2008, Page C-1), the California Public Utiltiies Commission is investigating whether T-Mobile has been constructing cell sites in Northern California without following local building laws.

The article quotes Susan Carothers, a CPUC spokesperson who said, “CPUC staff is looking into allegations concerning T-Mobile cell siting.”

This isn’t the first time the CPUC has investigated wireless carriers for putting up sites sans all required local permits.  In 1993, the Commission levied fines of up to $4,370,000 against other carriers for violating the terms of city building permits.

It appears that Glotel, the London-based international technology staffing and projects company with U.S. headquarters in Chicago, will be a target of the CPUC’s investigation.  Two former employees of Glotel were quoted in the Chronicle article, one of whom said that the activities being investigated by the CPUC “…happened every day” and specifically identified these activities occurring in Marin, San Franicsco, San Matel, and Santa Clara counties.   Brian Lynch, the other Glotel employee quoted in the article, said he was fired when he told Glotel that they were not following the proper process.

Stay tuned…this should be interesting!  Here is a link to the original story at SFGATE.com.

=Jonathan=

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

US Court of Appeals – No decision on FCC’s emergency power rules

On July 8, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to act on the CTIA’s request to block the FCC rules on emergency power of telecom sites (including cell sites).

From the order:

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: Hurricane Katrina exposed several weaknesses in the Gulf Coast’s communications infrastructure, among which was the loss of power for critical communications networks. To address this problem, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated a rule requiring commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to maintain a minimum amount of emergency backup power for “all assets necessary to maintain communications that are normally powered from local commercial power.” In the Matter of Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, 22 F.C.C. Rcd 18,013, 18,035 (2007) (“Reconsideration Order”).

The rule thus requires a backup power source (e.g., batteries or generators) for every cell site and paging transmitter unless an exemption is met.  Petitioners, who are wireless and paging service providers, oppose the backup power rule on the grounds that the Commission adopted it without statutory authority, that the parties lacked notice, and that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously. We decline to address these contentions now because the case is not ripe for review.

You can download the entire order by clicking here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

T-Mobile’s Plan to Construct A Cemetery Cell Dies

T-Mobile’s plans to construct a new cell site at an old cemetery in Stoneham, MA have died.  Omnipoint Communications, T-Mobile’s parent proposed an 80-foot tower in St. Patrick Parish’s cemetery at Broadway and MacArthur Road.  See the Google Street View map below for a photo.
View a Google Street Map of the Site

According to a printed report, T-Mobile’s project was opposed by some of the neighbors who were “concerned about the appropriateness of a tower near graves and about possible health risks for children at a neighboring sports field.”

At least there’s no fear of ghosts.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Hands Free Comes to the Golden State

Welcome to California.  Now put down the cell phone when Use A Cell Phone Get A Ticketyou’re driving.  That law is now in effect here in the Golden State.  No warning period; just get a ticket.

Now that this law is in effect, if you are in a fatal accident (with other than you being the fatality), you can be charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter.  That’s good for up to a year in jail, on top of everything else that will happen.

Think about safety when you’re driving and talking.

…speaking of which, the new law doesn’t prohibit you from DIALING or TEXTING while driving; only talking on a handset while driving.  Those loopholes should be closed fairly quickly when the California Legislature comes back from recess.

Finally, if you’re under 18, don’t worry about what I wrote above.  You’re prohibited from using a cell phone while driving, regardless of whether you’re using a handset OR a handsfree device.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

“Can you find me now? Good! Can You Find Me Now? Good!”

ACLU And EFF Sue Justice Department To Uncover Records Of Cell Phone Tracking (7/1/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit today urging a federal court to order the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over records related to the government’s use of people’s cell phones as tracking devices. The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the records in November 2007 following revelations that federal officials are using Americans’ cell phones to pinpoint their locations, sometimes without a warrant or any court oversight. The DOJ has failed to release the documents or provide an adequate response to the request.

“This is a critical opportunity to shed much-needed light on possibly unconstitutional government surveillance techniques,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU and lead attorney on the case. “Signing up for cell phone services should not be synonymous with signing up to be spied on and tracked by the government.”

The ACLU submitted the FOIA request to the DOJ after media reports revealed that some government officials claim not to need probable cause to obtain real-time tracking information from people’s cell phones. The reports also suggested that some federal law enforcement agents have obtained tracking data directly from mobile phone service providers without any court oversight.

The request for information includes documents, memos and guides regarding the policies and procedures for tracking individuals through the use of their cell phones, as well as information about the number of times the government has applied for cell phone location information without establishing probable cause and how many times it has been granted.

“The public has an overwhelming interest in the requested information, which concerns our most personal communications,” said David L. Sobel, EFF Senior Counsel and co-counsel on the case. “But remarkably, the Justice Department refused to respond quickly to the request, as the law requires when ‘urgent’ information is at issue. Further delay will allow important privacy policies to be developed behind closed doors.”

Attorneys on the case are Crump, Sobel and Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

The complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/35873lgl20080701.html

The ACLU’s FOIA request can be found online at: www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/32893res20071129.html

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Tower Climbing: The Most Deadly Job in the US

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (with additional data from WirelessEstimator.com), the Discovery Channel has it all wrong: The deadliest job in the U.S. isn’t fishing; it’s tower climbing.

As reported in the July 7, 2008 edition of RCR news, the top three deadliest jobs are:

#1 Tower erectors/climbers: 183.6 deaths per 100,000 (18 deaths)
#2 Fishers and fishing workers: 141.7 deaths per 100,000 (51deaths)
#3 Aircraft pilots: 87.8 deaths per 100,000 (101 deaths)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Does your cell phone give away your location?

That’s a common question, and the simple answer is, ‘sometimes yes; sometime no.’

Cell phones regularly transmit update information back to the mobile telephone switching office (MTSO).  This data is sent when you turn on your phone, at regular intervals while the phone is turned on but not in use, and when you turn off your phone.

So why would your phone silently transmit information on a regular basis?  Quite simply, when you turn your phone on, the phone transmits a handshake to let the cell system know that the phone is turned on, and where in the world you are. This is necessary so that the network will (a) stop automatically routing your incoming calls to voicemail, and (b) to let the network know where to find you to complete incoming phone calls.

If you’re roaming outside of your home area, this turn-on handshake will also sometimes initiate a validity check with your home area carrier to see whether you’re authorized to roam.  If you are, then you’ll be able to make and receive calls without interruption.  If not, when you try to make a call, you’ll be forwarded to an automated or manual system to collect credit card data for billing calls while roaming.

Once you’re ‘logged in’ to the network, the phone will regularly transmit a small snippit of data letting the network know that your phone is still turned on and within range.

When you turn off your phone, you’ll notice that it doesn’t immediately go blank.  In the few seconds between the time you press and hold the turn off button, the phone is communicating the shut-down request with the network so that incoming calls will be routed to voice mail.  This is why a caller will immediately go to voice mail when your phone is off, but if your phone is on it will ring a preset number of times before switching to voicemail.

The network technicians can also manually ‘ping’ your phone.  If it responds, the network tech will also be able to identify the cell site receiving your phone, and sometimes the general direction of the signal coming in from your cell phone.   This function is sometimes used to locate missing hikers. The cell phone is pinged, and the return data is used to estimate the location of the phone (and hopefully the location of the hiker).

The accuracy of the location data provided by your phone will depend on several things. The FCC generally requires cell phone operators to provide location information down to about 100 meters when you call 911, but that accuracy can be improved if your cell phone is equipped with a GPS receiver chip and antenna, and the network recognizes that data.

The use of cell phone records in court proceedings is a related discussion, and one that I’ll cover in a separate posting.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

New California Wireless Bill is DEAD

As first discussed in THIS POST, T-Mobile wanted to fling open the doors to public property for temporary cell sites during/after certain emergencies.  The bill was as drafted and later modified was riddled with problems and inconsistencies, and would have damaged Homeland Security.

I’m pleased to report that last week, SB 1252 was gutted by its author and swapped for some vehicle code section changes.  Same bill number; different bill text.

You can read more about the problems the bill would have caused by visiting http://www.TelecomLawFirm.com.

Score one for the good guys and gals.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail