Congratulations to CALWA, the California Wireless Association on 10 Years

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

The California Wireless Association (CALWA) is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I am delighted.

As a ‘government guy’ you might ask why I care about the state’s wireless industry association.  Well, as it happens, I was one of its very first members, believing then, and now, that bridges are better than gulfs.  CALWA reached out to welcome local government officials into its ranks, and over the years, I have encouraged local government officials to join CALWA.  I continue to do so today.

CALWA runs annual education seminars worth attending, especially when they ask Tripp or yours truly to speak.*  They also throw some great holiday parties.  Although I lack the golf gene, I’m told their golfing events are pretty cool.

If you are a local government official in California and want to have access to an important (if a wee-bit biased) wireless information resource, go ahead and join CALWA.

Jonathan

 

* Hey, CALWA, it’s been a while since you invited me.  Just ask!  🙂

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Indoor iDAS and Wireless Site Permitting...Ducks are Ducks.

Indoor iDAS and Wireless Site Permitting…Ducks are Ducks.

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Do in-building distributed antenna systems (commonly called “iDAS”) fall in to the scope of a local government’s wireless regulatory process? As is often the case, the short answer is, ‘it depends.’

Depends? On what?!

Here are some things to consider:

  1. Does the local government wireless regulation exclude wireless facilities build solely within a building?  If the answer is ‘yes’ (which would be a surprise in most cases) then you’re done and most likely all that will be required are standard local government issued building and electrical permits.
  2. If the local government wireless regulation does not exclude wireless facilities built solely within a building, which in my experience is the most common answer, then follow the provisions of the wireless regulation.  This will commonly involve filing of an application, payment of fees, and demonstration of compliance with the provision of the wireless regulation.

Okay, 1 and 2 above are obvious, and the analysis is not terribly difficult, so, why even talk about this?

We’ll, I’m starting to see claims from iDAS providers telling local governments that somehow a wireless facility constructed inside a building is exempt of the local government’s generally-applicable wireless regulation. One argument used is that an iDAS constructed inside (even though it might require a rooftop backhaul antenna or other structural modifications) is not really a wireless site subject to local wireless regulation.  That’s merely a unfounded conclusion, rather than a legally adequate argument, at best.

If not excluded by the wireless regulation of the local government, or some other local code exception applicable to wireless sites, the wishes and dreams of iDAS providers seeking an exemption or waiver are likely to fall on deaf ears.

Basically, unless otherwise classified or excluded from the wireless regulation, a duck is still a duck even if it is to live inside a building (or duck house).  Bad metaphor, but you get the point.

iduck
(Photo source: Herzi Pinki. CC BY-SA 3.0)

(iQuack)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Mobilitie's "Walrus" Design

Mobilitie’s “Walrus” Design

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Mobilitie is deploying a variation of what I call its Pox-on-a-Pole™ design in the Los Angeles market.  I call this new variation the Walrus™ design. Here’s a new Walrus recently installed in West Los Angeles on Wilshire Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue:

A Mobilitie "Walrus" design, a variation of the "Pox-on-a-Pole" design.
A Mobilitie “Walrus” design, a variation of the “Pox-on-a-Pole” design.
The Mobilitie "Walrus" in its glory.
The Mobilitie “Walrus” in its glory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The two downward-pointing white signal gain antennas (let’s call them tusks, shall we?) are associated with the backhaul portion of the site. Backhaul is the site-to-switch portion of the network.

Pretty, eh?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

RCR Reports AT&T Plan for New Small Cells Block by Block

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Martha DeGrasse of RCR reports on AT&T’s plans for small cells.  She quotes Arunabha Ghosh, AT&T Labs’ Director of Wireless Communications, who said, “If you want to use 500 megahertz of spectrum and deliver 100 megabits per second, you have to have the sites like 200 meters apart maximum, 100 meters for autonomous vehicles,” he said. “A city block in Austin is 200-250 meters. You are talking about several small cells deployed every block to support this 100 megabits per second that we need.”

With four national carriers (at least today), now you’re talking about many hundreds of thousands of new small cells, mostly if not entirely in the public right of ways and utility easements, at the rate of 4 sites per block in densely populated areas.

I say, “Look ma…no hands on the wheel, but ONE HECK of a lot of small cell sites!”

jlk

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Does Spectrum (Charter) Cable Violate California Law?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Charter Cable purchased Time Warner Cable and promptly rebranded as “Spectrum.” That rebranding includes the Time Warner properties in Southern California, including where I live.

Over the last week I have had the need to have several service calls at my home that require I be present.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that Time Warner Charter Spectrum Cable apparently ignores California law which requires it give customers the option of a 4-hour window appointment for service calls that require the customer be home.

In the last week I have called in and asked twice for a four hour window appointment, and twice I’ve been refused. The service reps claim they have no option on the computer screen to offer such an appointment. They offer one hour window appointments but that’s not the law which provides for certain remedies if the four hour window is violated.

I suppose this should come as no surprise since it is likely that most consumers are unaware of the state law designed to protect them, and which provides  for up to $600 if the cable company misses the appointment without a valid excuse.

Below is The text of the state law  that Spectrum seems to be ignoring:

Civil Code Section 1722. (b) (1) Cable television companies shall inform their subscribers of their right to service connection or repair within a four-hour period, if the presence of the subscriber is required, by offering the four-hour period at the time the subscriber calls for service connection or repair. Whenever a subscriber contracts with a cable television company for a service connection or repair which is to take place at a later date, and the parties have agreed that the presence of the subscriber is required, the cable company and the subscriber shall agree, prior to the date of service connection or repair, on the time for the commencement of the four-hour period for the service connection or repair.

(2) If the service connection or repair is not commenced within the specified four-hour period, except for delays caused by unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences beyond the control of the company, the subscriber may bring an action in small claims court against the company for lost wages, expenses actually incurred or other actual damages not exceeding a total of six hundred dollars ($600).

(3) No action shall be considered valid if the subscriber was not present at the time, within the specified period, that the company attempted to make the service connection or repair or made a diligent attempt to notify the subscriber by telephone or in person of its inability to do so because of unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences beyond its control. If notification is by telephone, the cable television company or its agent shall leave a telephone number for a return telephone call by the subscriber to the company or its agent, to enable the consumer to arrange a new two-hour period for service connection or repair.

(4) In any small claims action, logs and other business records maintained by the company or its agents in the ordinary course of business shall be prima facie evidence of the time period specified for the commencement of the service connection or repair and the time that the company or its agents attempted to make the service connection or repair, or of a diligent attempt by the company to notify the subscriber in person or by telephone of a delay caused by unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences.

(5) It shall be a defense to the action if a diligent attempt was made to notify the subscriber of a delay caused by unforeseen or unavoidable occurrences beyond the control of the company or its agents, or the company or its agents were unable to notify the subscriber because of the subscriber s absence or unavailability during the four-hour period, and, in either instance, the cable television company commenced service or repairs within a newly agreed upon two-hour period.

(6) No action shall be considered valid against a cable television company pursuant to this section when the franchise or any local ordinance provides the subscriber with a remedy for a delay in commencement of a service connection or repair and the subscriber has elected to pursue that remedy. If a subscriber elects to pursue his or her remedies against a cable television company under this section, the franchising or state or local licensing authority shall be barred from imposing any fine, penalty, or other sanction against the company, arising out of the same incident.

Is this law important? Of course it is, because it’s the law, and because of the protections it provides to the public.  I personally know that having used it several times to sue my cable operators for missing appointments. I recovered each time. That’s what the law is intended to do, and why it offends the law and subscribers when it is ignored by a cable operator.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Welcome to the New Digs

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

After 9 years of this site being located at CellularPCS.com, followed by 11 years of the site and then the blog being at CellTowerSites.com, we’re now moved to this site, Wireless.Blog.Law.  All of the old links (should) work so if you have a direct link to a post or page at the old site, that link should still work and be forwarded automatically to this site.  If that doesn’t work, please let me know.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Congratulations Sean Heath, MAI

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Tripp and I, and the others here at the firm are delighted to share Sean Heath’s excellent news: He just learned that he passed all of the elements required to be certified as a MAI, a Member of the Appraisal Institute. He’s already a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (MRICS).

Sean Heath, MAI
Sean Heath, MAI

Passing the various sections of the MAI is not an easy task by any means, so our hats are off to Sean, our friend and colleague, for topping this very high bar.

Jonathan & Tripp

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Bloomberg BNA on the T-Mobile v. San Francisco Appellate Decision

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In her article, “In T-Mobile Wireless Equipment Dispute, San Francisco Wins on Aesthetics” (September 20, 2016) reporter Bloomberg/BNA Lydia Beyoud discusses some of the key impacts of San Francisco’s appellate win in the case.  I provided her with insights and several quotes.  I link the decision to 5G deployment pressures which drive carriers to want to build sites in the public right of way very close to users.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Mobilitie’s Increased Transparency is Somewhat Opaque

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Back on May 27, 2016 Martha DeGrasse of RCR Wireless published a very interesting article titled, “Mobilitie to increase transparency for jurisdictions”.  It’s well worth going back to (re)read her article about how Mobilitie’s President, Christos Karmis said his firm would use its own corporate name with local jurisdictions.

Huh? Use its own name? Why is this a big deal?

Well, this arose out of Mobilitie’s process of using “<INSERT THE STATE NAME> Utility Pole Authority” names with local governments.  Using the word “Authority” as an entity identification in government filings suggests that the entity is, itself, some sort of governmental agency. That’s made clear in Martha’s article.

With Mr. Karmis’s assurance back in May, many of us on the government side thought the hide-the-ball issue was resolved.

Fast forward two months after Martha’s article to July 28, 2016. That’s the date on a letter from Keenan Adamchak, legal counsel for a nifty new entity called “Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC”, addressed to the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

What did the July letter request on behalf of  the Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC?  The first paragraph of the letter sets out that

On behalf of Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC (“Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME,”
or the “Company”), transmitted herewith is the Company’s Application for Authority to Provide
Intrastate Local Exchange Telecommunications Service in the State of Maine.

I suppose Mobilitie, which set up Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC back in February, is still enamored with being called an Authority.  Given that local governments commonly ask for proof of state authority to operate in those local jurisdictions when an entity seeks local permits and authorizations, names really do count.

It’s my opinion that the Maine application, filed over two months after Mr. Karmis’s comments about transparency, suggests a parallel with another matter of public concern and interest where the words counted:

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail