Title:دستورالعمل جدید FCC بر کنترل محلی تأسیسات بی سیم تأثیر می گذارد

۰۷-۰۶-۲۰۱۳ این وب‌کست فقط برای مشاهده در دسترس است. برای اعتبارات AICP CM قابل استفاده نیست. ارائه‌دهنده: جرارد لاوری لدرر قوانین فدرال اخیر در مورد تجمیع‌ها، راهنمایی‌های غیرالزام‌آور FCC و اکنون پیشنهادهای قانونی در سطح ایالت می‌تواند به طور چشمگیری بر قدرت برنامه‌ریزی جامعه شما و منطقه‌بندی محلی برج‌های تأسیسات بی‌سیم تأثیر بگذارد. در این وبینار، وکلای مخابراتی BB&K مروری بر چالش‌ها و فرصت‌های پیش روی دولت‌های محلی در تلاش برای حفاظت از منافع محلی و در عین حال پیروی از الزامات فدرال حاکم بر منطقه‌بندی تأسیسات بی‌سیم و شکست دادن پیشنهادهای قانونی آسیب‌رسان ایالتی که کشور را فراگرفته است، ارائه می‌کنند. این وبینار موارد زیر را پوشش خواهد داد: قوانین فدرال در مورد مکان یابی امکانات بی سیم. و همچنین قانون تجمیع جدید تصویب شده؛ تلاش‌های اخیر FCC برای جلوگیری و محدود کردن اختیارات منطقه‌بندی دولت‌های محلی، از جمله دستور «ساعت شات»؛ رهنمودهای FCC در مورد اختیارات محلی در مورد تجمیع‌ها، از جمله تفسیری که می‌تواند تا حد زیادی گسترش دهد که صنعت مخابرات چه امکاناتی را می‌تواند به برج‌ها، قطب‌ها و دیگر پلت‌فرم‌های موجود بدون هیچ نظارت محلی اضافه کند. آنچه که رهنمود در مورد مالکیت دولت ها و مناطق ویژه بر امکانات ارتباطات بی سیم و نگرانی های آنها برای امنیت و امنیت عمومی نمی گوید. قوانین FCC که انتظار می رود در تابستان امسال راه اندازی شود، می تواند این دستورالعمل را به قوانین الزام آور تبدیل کند، الزامات جدید “ساعت شات” را ایجاد کند و قوانین مکان یابی مدل ملی را توسعه دهد. جدیدترین تهدیدهایی که در مجالس ایالتی دیده می شود برای تضعیف بیشتر قدرت منطقه بندی دولت محلی تحت پوشش ارتقای امنیت عمومی. و اینکه چگونه دولت‌های محلی می‌توانند تأثیر مثبتی بر روند قانون‌گذاری بگذارند و شکل دهند.

قسمتي از متن فيلم: It’s britney and ben frost I’m the professional development officer for the northern New England chapter and I’m really happy to have you all on this webcast today I met Jerry virtually through email through a mutual friend of ours when he alerted the New Hampshire planning community to a bill that was in

Our legislature one that had slipped by me I even though I tracked the legislature pretty closely and it deals with the the FCC guidance and the the bill would incorporate a lot of what the FCC was saying in its guidance and in essence take away a lot of local

Authority to deal with expansions of existing telecommunications facilities and so with with his generous guidance we were able to make some changes to the legislation which has now passed the legislature in better form although not perfect better form than it would have been originally so let me introduce

Jerry Jerry is of counsel to best best and Krieger in their municipal law practice in their DC office he has a long history and really then don’t tell people I can’t hold a job please he has he’s held many positions of importance in dealing with municipal regulation and

Also is of currently of Legislative Council to tell community which is a collection of local governments that are dedicated to local rights and he’s not shy about defending municipal authority and advocating for it and he’s he actually wrote one of the did wrote the first model license agreement for access

To municipal buildings and rooftops to help telecommunication service providers protect their interests and has a variety of other positions he’s admitted to the admitted to practice in the state of New Jersey and DC and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania he’s a graduate of Temple University Law School

And haverford college and I’m very happy to have him on this webcast today Jerry Ben thank you so very very much and everyone welcome in thank you for joining yes I really do want to thank Ben for introducing me and for introducing me to this whole program

That APA has has been mentioned I I’ve been in Washington for quite some time in fact since 1985 and in that time I have represented almost exclusively local government interest and as the years went on I went from being the general counsel at the US Conference of

Mayors where I had a broad portfolio to becoming more of a specialist in the communications area and so my firm for years was a firm called Miller in many and we were acquired by best best and Krieger about two years ago and so what we do is we try to protect local

Governments interest in this intersection between typically real estate and or planning size zoning and in the communications world to friday afternoon it’s a friday afternoon in the summer it’s pouring rotten down raining here in DC it’s pretty glum i got to figure out how to make this exciting for

You all and and i put you I think the best way to make things exciting is to tell the truth when things are scary and this should be scary to you the planners nightmare is really federal and state preemption of local wireless authority and what we’ll do is we’ll go through a

Couple of different areas where you’re being threatened if I could I’m going to put this up on the screen for about one second and they get rid of it my marketing people always make me at least put one slide up about best best and Krieger we’re very proud of the fact

That we only represent municipal interest in and for that reason we’re we’re proud that to never be conflicted out of work unless it’s a litigation between two communities but them so if you find yourself in need and not just in the telecom area but water environmental law finance you know more

Than happy to help and again I apologize but this way my marketing people don’t throw me out so what are the goals of our program well let me tell you my unstated goal the American plan association is has incredible credibility here in DC and it always has

I love when I can reach out to the APA and the American Public Works Association because both of your organizations are viewed as the real people on a day-to-day basis that have the challenges of keeping cities livable and keeping them you know it’s some way shape or form not subject to

Environmental blight or visual blight by some of these developments and so my unstated goal is very simple I’d like to do my best to help educate and bring some of these issues to the APA with the net benefit being to me my clients and local government that we have an

Influential and an informed APA but beyond that what I’d love to do is to provide an overview of the evolving federal standards that are affecting local authority to control the zoning of wireless facilities and buy wireless facilities because Ben’s been kind enough to give us that you know this 90

Minutes we’re also not going to talk about just cell towers but for the last few minutes we’re also going to talk about some of the rules that impact satellite dishes because in fact there are three major metropolitan areas that have satellite dish ordinances that have been stayed the effectiveness up and

Stay by the FCC and that’s Boston Chicago and Philadelphia so hopefully we’ll talk a little bit about that at the end but what we really are focusing on it primarily is wireless facilities that is cell towers collocations on those cell towers cell towers is sort of

A catch-all phrase and you all know that because the cell tower may in fact be you know a deployment on top of a roof top or or it may be on top of a telephone pole etc so when we’re talking about wireless facilities use your imagination and understand that we’re

Trying to talk about its broader category as possible tell you what we expect next at the FCC and that and then and then has been indicated how we got to know one another discuss how state laws related to these new federal standards are coming up out and where we’ve seen them what you

Can expect and just how fast these things move again thanks to the leadership of Ben and others in the planning community in New Hampshire that bill is not nearly as bad as it was when it started up and I think Ben’s experience will point out that most

Legislators you know once you point out to them or you can i educate them on some of these issues will respond and so we can go from there so what’s the overview well the first part of the overview is Ted this problem is not going away those of you who thought that

At some point the challenges that you faced locally on the siting of cell towers or other cell devices what would slow down because my god how many can you deploy and how many do you need well remember we’re now into 4G which is the fourth generation of these services so

Every time you roll out a new generation again this is a little bit overly simplified but every time you roll out a new generation of wireless what you’re basically doing is you’re reducing the size of the cell or the size of the geographic area that that cell site

Serves and the reason that you do that is it that you have to because the only way that you can meet the increasing demands for data wireless data transfer is to use the spectrum most efficiently or reuse the spectrum most efficiently so if I take a website a cell site today

You know or the original ones and say it was a mile square and and and we’re now down to about 16 boxes within that cell site and why is that because that that increases by a multiple of over 16 how many times you can reuse that spectrum

And that’s how you can meet the man so here’s a chart that just shows you that from ctia that’s the industry that 18t wireless alone right so that’s not verizon that’s not sprint that’s like t-mobile that’s not the other crickets the invention or alone plans to just to deploy over 1000 distribute

Antenna systems and 40,000 small cell systems moving forward and the numbers will continue increase of the problem is not going away it will only increase and the other thing that you want to know and the new trend is this das das dads were distributed antenna systems the difference between das and other towers

Is that das are often installed to lease the others so I’m the company that owns the das comfort the das equipment many times I’m not the one that’s providing the service I’m sort of this mini tower system that sets up and then others come and use it now because it’s smaller

We’re seeing a lot more challenges with respect to putting those devices in the rights of way and we now have two issues that are impacted right because it’s not only your wireless ordinances that are impacted but now we’re talking about your rights away ordinances that are impacted and what are these das people

Are they a wireless company or are they an occupant in the rights of way and there are different rights and privileges that each of them get and sometimes it’s somewhere in the middle and then again there are many many different types of installations some of the meretricious some of them are not

They involve antennas boxes and poles cabinets on ground so that’s the common theme right you’re always going to see in a tenant you’re always going to see some sort of a box on the pole or a cabinet on the ground one of the great statements that’s made over and over

Again and bend you tell me if I have it wrong is that the secret about wireless telecommunications is that it’s anything but wireless right the only thing that’s wireless is the last connection to the user everything else in the infrastructure of that of that that environment is in fact wired and again

Hundreds of thousands of these are likely to be installed and so here’s an example just a single page giving you a flavor for what these new systems may look like and if you look on the far light you can see some of them are amazingly unobtrusive right I mean

That’s a simple looks like it’s a simple extension of a of the light pole others are you know a little bit were visible a little more obvious but these are the ones that the industry will always show you the ones that blend right in and aren’t a big deal that’s

Not necessarily what you’re going to get in the future and the reason for that is because of the collocation by right language that we’re about to talk to before we can do any of this and I promise that this is not law school 101 but all of you should know these things

Because these are your rights and privileges but also your limitations as you move forward the federal government has since about nineteen ninety-six been looking at ways to address and preserve address / preserve local zoning in terms of telecommunications infrastructure whether it be wired or wireless section

۲ ۵۳ of the Communications Act so it’s 47 USC 253 prevents state and local laws that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide telecommunication services but it has some carve-outs it has some safe harbors and the exceptions are that local governments planners get to retain

Your police powers with respect to regulations rights-of-way management and the ability to require compensation for use of the rights of way now that’s what the federal law says I don’t want to confuse anyone a number of your states as i looked at the list and again thank

You all for being here a number of your states have surrendered rights of way are they compensation or they put a cap on it but that’s not what federal law says the federal law says that you’re entitled to that and the FCC has stated that this provision does not apply to

The siting of personal wireless facilities right and that’s where the debate will come in in many of your communities is a das a personal wireless facility the upper section of the 96 Act which is vitally important and plays a role here is section 332 C 7 and what

Section 332 C 7 said is that localities maintain control over the placement construction and modification of any personal wireless service facilities some check to certain limitations now again this is what every one of you lives every day so I’m not telling you anything new here but it’s sometimes

It’s good to review under 332 some of those limitations are that you can deny you can deny so long as the local regulation does not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services so you can’t say that what system can go there and another can if they’re functionally

Equivalent and you cannot deny if it would have the the effect would either specifically prohibit or it would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services such as you a little bit more the federal law says that a locality must act on a sighting request within a reasonable

Period of time now again hopefully everyone has been following this it’s this section of the law that has been in contestant lately the FCC and we’ll talk about a second is Tudor shot clock and we on behalf of local government challenge that shot clock as to whether

Or not the FCC had the right to define the terms and that is you have to act a reasonable period of time is defined under the FCC rules now as 90 days for a colocation 150 days for a new tower and then within the shock there are too many

Shot clocks of that that tell you how much time you have to tell the applicant that their application is complete because the 90 days and the 150 days run from the acceptance of a complete application but you don’t get to have that open forever you have to tell them

Within a specific amount of time whether or not their application is in fact complete again federal law says that you have the right to deny and if you do deny that writing has to that denial has to be in writing and it has to be supported by substantial evidence in the written record

Right so again you all live this every day I mean this is sort of the zoning code you know what is it that you what have you based your decision on so you want your record to be as robust as possible and you need to do it in

Writing um says one other thing it says that localities may not deny based on RF concerns RF is radio frequency concerns as long as the facility complies with the FCC’s regulations on RF emissions now those of you who are in this business full-time probably would educate me on the fact that probably

Ninety percent of the complaints or the issues that your community has on the sighting of a tower has to do with what is the impact on radio frequency one kids that walk by and the people that live in the neighborhoods and we clearly understand that and you know it’s

Important for you to be able to say the folks we’re not even know how to ask that question that is the exclusive domain of the FCC i will tell you though and my contact information is at the end of this presentation that the FCC has just released a notice of proposed

Rulemaking in which they’re asking folks do they need to upgrade or update their RF emissions so those of you that are out there that would like to be active in that please simply send me an email and i’ll send you the link to that and

It’ll give you the time frame one of my colleagues Jim opposite in fact just wrote up a small summary of it and with suggested comments that people might want to do so that folks have interest in that let me know and then finally if you deny and you have denied it based

Upon substantial evidence and you have reduced that denial to writing you give that to the K are you give that to the applicant the applicant only has 30 days within to file an action in a court based on that failure so then there’s a shot off on them so that’s where we are

So know that so that’s the that’s that’s that’s round one that’s 1996 the Communications Act of 1996 in November of 2009 the FCC came out with a declaratory or order on shot clock and again I’ll read this quickly because we’ve already talked about it what the

FCC does is it defines and I’m going to take away I’m defines presumptively and the reason that presumptively is underlined is that these are not hard and fast dates if the 150 days and the 90 days don’t work for both parties either parties can get together and

Extent mutually extend if you can’t get it done because of extenuating circumstances and the your industry partner on this refuses to agree to an extension you can still go to the court and say you know this is why we couldn’t get it done the FCC does not say that

There is no reason that you would go longer than that they’re just saying presumptively we determine that these are the time periods 150 days for a new tower 90 days for a colocation the FCC also in the declaratory order to find what is effectively prohibit because

Remember what we said before one of the probit one of our limitations under federal law is that we cannot prohibit or effectively private the provision of the you know personal wireless services and the shot clock made very clear that you can’t deny solely because one or more carriers serve a given geographic

Location and if you look back you’ll see that there have been made those types of decisions of the made in the past where people will say we don’t need another tower here because there are two other carriers already in place and we don’t need a third you know in the past in

Some places that was actually defensible after this order after the declaratory order of November 2009 that’s no longer defensible right most courts are going to defer to the FCC on this determination so make sure that that is never the grounds that you use for denying the grant of either a colocation

Or a new and then finally remedy court action where Court decides if local action complied with the law okay so now so we’ve got the FC we’ve got the 96 Act we’ve got the shot clock now the FCC now wants to sort of expand on this and it’s asking what are the

Impacts or what is the effect of local regulation or sometimes they call us regulatory underbrush what is the effect of this regulation on the ability of folks to deploy these new technologies whether it be a broadband by wire or a broadband wireless and there’s no asking this in this being done on a

Case-by-case basis but nothing has happened round 4 was this past the are two year and a half ago the Congress passed a new law called some people call colocation by right colocation a statute but in 2012 Congress created a new section of the Communications Act which

Is now 47 USC 45 1455 you may hear it also referred as section 64 09 because that was the section of the Act that this language was found in in a larger tax bill but what this new language says is that a state or local government may

Not deny and shall approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station and then it defines eligible facilities request as any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station

Involving colocation of new transmission equipment removal of transmission equipment or replacement and it further gave the FCC authority to implement it now every one of those if I go back yep good every one of those underlying words are words that we believe have significance and a lot of them are not defined other

Than eligible facilities request and then within the eligible facilities request the question is what’s an existing wireless tower or base station we think we know what that means the industry many times aggressively tries to expand it and that’s what happened in New Hampshire with Ben’s legislation is

That what the industry did was it sought to go in and try to expand or define those terms so that the FCC then came out in January this year with what they call the staff guidance and then that staff guidance they define substantially change through criteria that were

Developed in a different context they were developed in both stark preservation and in migratory birds and migratory bird patterns and I big towers could get and they said that for example no substantial change if an addition extends a facility less than 20 feet in any direction now the nice thing about

Ben’s language is that they do away with that and they do it with respect to the size of the tower so I mean 20 feet in any direction if you’re talking about a monopole well that substantially changes that pull up but if you’re talking about a traditional tower which is I don’t

Know you know 20 yards or what each base than 20 feet may not so I mean that this is a big problem the other thing is that it offers a broad definition of a base station and that it could make the statute applied to many facilities including utility poles and so this is

The whole idea that they could come in and mandate that either your got your governance your management of some of your poles might not in fact continue to exist because it’s a base station and they’ll cite to this language and say you cannot deny and you must approve and

It does not discuss safety issues proprietary property or non zoning rules that may affect placing so one of the things that we’re intrigued by and I hope that all of your communities are renting out rooftop space or renting out growl leases to these tower companies because it’s a it’s nice ancillary

Income for your community and in many cases I’ve been able to negotiate over the years you know free carriage or free placement for you know my clients of Public Safety users one sixth hour so I really encourage you to to to to involve your proprietary property but the

Question is wait a second is this apply to me as just the regulator it does it also apply to me when I’m the landlord so if i don’t have terms in my ground lease or on my rooftop agreement that provide for additional compensation for co locators does that mean that they can

Cite 64 09 as a justification that i can’t fight it well we think that’s not the case but but please beware there are some in the industry that will try to move that way and this new guidance is non-binding and it’s important that you all understand that if somebody comes to

You and shows you this guidance this document from the FCC staff that was released in january of this year you know you’re not bound by it i think you want to pay attention to it you want to work around it but you’re not bound by

It so if if they’re trying to say that you’ve got no flexibility because of the staff guidance tell them that’s just not true and then but there are there are serious questions raised in it and where I think we’re leaving is that we’re expecting next at the federal level that

At some point and and I thought it was going to happen this month I still think it will happen before the summer is over that we will see a new rule making on tower citing an old colocation and what it will do and it will and the reason

One of the things I didn’t tell you is that the supreme court decided did review a case arlington vs FC C that was brought challenging the legality of the FCC’s rules the FCA the Supreme Court didn’t actually accept the case with respect to the underlying substantive

Rules it accepted it whether or not the FCC had jurisdiction and whether or not it was in tight the deference in finding its own jurisdiction and again if anyone wants a greater discussion of the arlington vs FC C case please send me an email my colleagues represented Arlington a

Rapper tree represented local government in the matter and I can sentence you but because the the Supreme Court held for the FCC we think that their delay in moving forward will now go away ah the only other thing that might keep them from moving forward is that the FCC

Right now is down to commissioners chairman Genachowski and senior GOP Commissioner Robert McDowell of both have moved on ah and the president has dominated a fellow and I’m a Tom wheeler to be the successor to chairman Genachowski is chairman the FCC and we’re waiting for the Senate top-2 to

Share with the president who they think it should be it should be their new Republican Commissioner so it’s probably we probably won’t see a fully staffed FCC until the fall at the earliest but the folks that are there now because most of this is being done at the staff

Level I suspect we’ll still get a ruling out this summer that will look further into the rules of shot clock colocation das and small cells and also that RF rule exposure rulemaking that we talked about and it will be vitally important that planners across the nation are

Involved in sharing with the FCC how these things do not work and what the law of unintended consequences truly is when it comes to these things and again here’s the information on the RF issues not going to spend much time on it other than to say here’s the information

Here’s the docket up and if folks are interested please feel free to send me an email and i will send you the summary and the information done by my colleague Jim Hobson but it is clear that the Commission looks to do a proceeding this summer former chairman Genachowski said

That he wanted to have action in the coming months the further streamline the das is small cell deployment he also want to examine whether current application of the tower citing our rules are providing sufficient clarity to both industry and municipalities and he also wants to develop model facility siting rules for

Localities Commissioner PI who’s the new Republican Commissioner there are five so we have three right now two Democrats one Republican Commissioner pie one of the lone Republican says that he’s clearly that he believes that there needs to be additional relief for wireless because you planners and local government people are really slowing

Things down and for those of you in California please know that he said it you all as especially troubling so it might be especially important for you all to participate but but I don’t want to make this partisan because Commissioner rosenworcel Jessica rosenworcel who is a Democrat has called

For there to be the development of model ordinances now she doesn’t think that they can enforce them which is up on that far but again it might be something that the industry and locale local government might be able to come up with on a national level for people to review

So the translation on all this is that significant federal actions are luckily that happen soon I think it’s going to be sometime this summer expect that we will see them implementing section 455 again 1455 is the collocation by right also expect action to address das installation if for those of you out

There that have those types of questions understand that it’s coming and you all you need to be active and that expect that there will be specific communities targeted as problems that justify these restrictions we’ve seen this show before of the industry will come in and a lot

Of times they won’t even identify you they’ll come in and they’ll say something like a County in Northern Virginia Jersey required us to wait you know 140 days before they would even accept our application you know and what we’ve done over the years is weaved and

Not when I say we I mean myself and well as people that work for the comforts of mayors the League of Cities the National Association account geez and the National Association of telecommunications officers and advisors what we have tried to do is we’ve tried to reach out to APA and to the American

Public Works Association and say help us identify these community so we can tell the other side of the story because to what we find is that yes it did take 140 days for that application to be reviewed but the reason it took 140 days when you

Talk to the county that was in charge was because they it was given back to them three times for being incomplete but they’re not going to tell you that the other thing that we find is many times a lot of the sighting and you know this again I apologize for being

Pedantic you because you know better than I do a lot of the sighting applications are not made by the company’s the carriers but they’re made by the sighting companies are these real estate interests on behalf of the cell companies or the tower companies and it’s a little hard for them to go back

And tell the people that are paying them significant money to do these things oh well we blew it because we didn’t have the right information so you go back and you badmouth the local government man up the Zoning Board you’ve been paying out the planners because it’s easier to

Blame you all rather than to tell the truth that they didn’t do the things they were supposed to do so again we need to make sure that we respond we respond by making it clear to the to the FCC that in the past that many times they have criticized us without even

Having our input and they need to be able to do that they need to make sure that they give each locality that’s that’s that’s maligned the opportunity to be heard they need to be able to distinguish between proprietary property issues and safety issues over and above the deployment issues because many times

These are so very important and guidance you know we need to make sure that that we were not found to have in fact slowed wireless deployment because again we think that history is on our side now you’re all going to shoot me because you’re going to say you know Jerry

You’re in the next three minutes you’re going to show us photos that are going to better clarify everything you’ve just said why don’t you just start with this I should but I didn’t so in the classic case of about a picture giving a thousand words I just want to show you

Some mock-ups that we have done so here we are we’ve got a historic site if you look at the this the the tower to the right is actually a cell tower it’s a cell tower that was made to fit in and look like a silo because of the new

Colocation by right statute there’s nothing that prevents the industry from coming in and doing this because while they have to file we believe they have to file an application with you your rules with respect the historic sites with respect to visual you know harmony um it goes away because that doesn’t but

That does not substantially change the nature of at that Tower and so that’s what you have perhaps even more importantly I think is so many of you out there over the years have been able to tell community local communities hey we will protect you because we will create a stealth installation so that

Stuff installation becomes a flagpole or it becomes in the case of once you knew they made it a large pencil and others they’re screening whether it’s a tree etc but going forward under this new colocation by right there’s nothing that prevents the industry from taking what was agreed with you the local government

You the local planner and you the local community as a stuff installation there’s nothing now that prevents them from coming in and adding this new edition and so one of the things that I think all of you need to be mindful of is that when the industry comes and

Tells you hey this will be just fine we can give you a stealth offering I think you have every right to say to them how can you guarantee me that the stuff offering today is so a stealth deployment today will be a stealth deployment in the future because under

This new section this colocation by statute you know i’m told that i cannot deny so how can i say to the community oh don’t worry this will always be stopped and then finally here’s a one of the things that worries us very much is that here’s a typical um I think both don’t

Have a highlighter here it is somewhere around here so they did well alright hopefully you can see but if you look there you can actually see some some very nicely a screened of wireless devices on the outside of this rooftop here and what would happen though under

This new rule is again that camouflaged in the tradition goes away now you’re saying wait a second Jerry that’s more than 20 feet that’s right that’s right what I’m trying to show you here is evolving sites and this is really what’s troublesome so I come in the first you

Know I come in the first january and i say i’m going to exercise my colocation by right and i’m going to do something that’s 18 feet so i’m under the 20 or it’s under ten percent or whatever the number is we happen to come up with and

Then six months later now i want to come back in on june first or july the first and i’m going to supplement it again and say well you know my structure is no longer x it was x plus you know x plus 18 and i can go another you know you

Know nine percent of what x plus 18 is so that’s one of the other real fears is that we you get this evolving in nature of these sites you an example so this is a home das deployment in a neighborhood so they’ll drill down a little bit you

Can see it here so there’s the das and that’s how it was done but in time under these rules I don’t think anybody’s going to do this but I think we’ve got every right to point out to the FCC that unless they make clarification that’s exactly what’s going to happen and then

If you look down at the base you see all those boxes because remember each one of these das deployments have got basically three components right you’ve got the the antenna then you’ve got the box that interaction brings the power in and that’s where it converts over to a

Wireline service that to be carried back we have these boxes down here on the ground because there was a das site out in California where they actually had the things down and and we have the no local news report to this show showing kids actually running into these boxes

On their bicycles so again we don’t think that we’re guilty of hyperbole when we say this is what you might be looking at and again these are the types of things i think you have every right as a planner to ask well way to say how

Is this going to work in the future i mean how are you going to protect us how are we going to protect the community Howard how do we do this how do we keep faith with our local community when we allow you to bring these things in and

Do it in such a way that preserves the integrity of the neighborhood while also ensuring that people have access to these services which is equally important i’m not trying to denigrate that or discount that one bit so what I think we believe that you should be

Expecting so we pose of what you should be expecting at the federal level which is this new FCC proceeding we think at the local level you should be expecting litigation all we think that you should be expecting additional actions or challenges to local ordinances particularly your local ordinances with

Respect to collocations so I would really suggest that when you’re done this call you know one of those emails or memos II might send what might be to your city attorney and say hey are you aware this new law and have we in fact looked at our colocation rules or

Perhaps even better you can tell them what your complication rules are and suggest that maybe they need to be examined to see whether or not they’re they would fit the new world or or how you might adjust to it we’ve already seen one company amended complaint against the local community in New York

Alleging a violation of section 1455 again that’s the colocation by statute which says you cannot deny and must approve you should also expect significant misinformation to be distributed with respect to section 1455 again you know you see things that along the lines that prevents a locality from even require

Link requiring a colocation application that is not true so if you find that there have been collocations made in your community and people haven’t even come in and filed an application then you still have the right to enforce their there is nothing in the there’s nothing in the statute nor in the FCC

Staff advice that says that you do not have to have an application for a colocation so don’t be bullied on that make sure that you enforce that the best you can and again this is where Ben and I got to know one another you know what

It make very clear that states are also addressing these types of issues and what’s happening is that the industry i think is coming to understand that what what they thought was a knockout punch in section 1455 wasn’t nearly the knockout that they thought it was and so

Now they’re going to the states to try to impact or define the terms there now I again I apologize for just taking a second but it’s important for everyone to understand in the wireless world federal law is king but there’s nothing that prevents States from improving from the industry standpoint or in federal

Law so when I talked about the shot clock creating a 90-day presumptive reasonable time period for collocations 150-day presumptive reasonable time period for new towers shame on me what I didn’t clarify is that’s only in the absence of shorter terms or shorter durations under state law if your state

Law says that you have to act or your code your local code says that you have to act within 60 days then the 150 days the federal law creates is not of any help to you you’ve got to live with six and again I know that there are states

Out there with shorter time periods you have to live with that shorter time period the other thing is is that in in the law between state and local governments there’s a very old concept in the law that local governments are the creatures of the state right so constitutionally there is a recognition

That there are states and there’s a federal government there’s really not a recognition so much that there’s a local government and so what stage choose to do with respect to local government again we’ve got very few appeals to the to the feds on that other than you know

If it happened to impact a constitutional right and and so you need to be very aware that wall you know people like the APA and apwa in the Conference of Mayors illegal cities nutella may do a terrific job of fighting and defending local government authority at the federal level while

That fight is going on you can lose everything at the state level and the problem is the day localities are now seeing efforts at the state level to significantly restrict can’t roll over wireless placements and we may in fact find conflicts between state and federal

Law but as I just said to you if the conflict is such that it it improves or is more restrictive or obligatory on the local governments part that’s fine it just can’t be less give you an example of this type of legislation took place out in California and again 64 09 1455

We use them interchangeably here we are talking about the whole idea of what that collocation by statute language reason that fills it in its AP 162 now that has been moved to it’s a two-year bill and and so that threat is gone but it’s there it’s there and again these

Are our points that I will you know defer to our California colleagues you can this but again it goes into greater detail it talks about things at the state level that you don’t even maybe get to at the federal level and again this California standard defines what is

This essential change and it today allows a locality to do it I will tell you in other locations that’s not the case so you know changing something from a stealth facility to non stealth you know is something that needs to be protected and I would hope that all of

You would do something if you can at the local level again dash is another thing that’s being pushed very hard and it’s a unique challenge there’s some sites to some individual cases in California that way about we’ve been involved in but again understand if you’re not in California and you elsewhere the real

Challenge with das is that there’s right-of-way implications that is people want to be in your rights of way they want to be up on top of your poles they want to be in your your street bolts etc and how do you go about protecting yourself on that here’s a map that’s

Probably won’t fully out of date already but you can see just in the course of of literally six months we’ve already seen legislation passed in three states and it’s pending and well I guess you’ve been you said you’re now passed right in New Hampshire so we’ve got a pending in

North Carolina Georgia Wisconsin Missouri Washington in California and if it’s anything like we saw with state cable franchising laws I suspect that the next session of most state legislatures you will find this so if your state is in blue right now I couldn’t encourage you more to reach out

To your state league of cities uh and or to your own advocates up in the state capitol and let them know that you fully suspect that there will be dangerous colocation legislation coming and what they simply simply allow you to participate outline the problems so again I’m going

To skip through a B 162 because that’s all California information and I’d rather get to to to our answers but again what do we think that you need to do one we think if the state level just as the federal level you need to ensure that your representatives understand the

Problems with the industry proposed legislation you know let them understand that you know it’s hard enough to do these sightings many times these sightings are negotiations and if you have colocation by right our colocation by statute it will be very difficult for you to be able to in fact keep faith

With both the provider and the community and hopefully most local elected officials most state elected officials they’re going to understand that mostly what we do in the planning process is compromise right it’s the respect the needs of all and understanding that in respecting the needs for all sometimes

Both sides have got to give a little and please keep up the date on possible PUC proceedings ah but but the bottom line is that you need to educate legislators before legislation is introduced because at the state level things move at a mercurial rate and and if you wait till

The legislation is introduced typically it’s then it’s too late we also think that you should review and update your ordinances in light of section 1455 that is the collocation by statute we think that it would make great sense for a PA to be one of our leaders in creating a

Coalition to educate the FCC in Congress on these different rule makings and how they are likely to impact communities and again the nicest thing about having planners is that you come at it from a educated experience and and an unbiased experience because I mean if you’re a planner you understand the need for

Broadband technologies being available in your community because absent broadband availability then you’re gonna have a hard time competing in the world but at the same I’m you know you can look around the world as planners tend to do not just within the u.s. you can look around the

World and you can see how other locations other countries and cities within communities within this country have in fact deployed all these technologies without being visually offensive to the community that’s going to be served by those facilities and again when this thing comes up we hope

That you’ll help us act at the SEC so I I say questions here and and I also give you an example of a paper that was written by a couple of my colleagues which will do all that but if it’s okay with you I’m going to blow through in in

Five minutes and then we will have plenty of time for questions what’s happening with satellite displacement under o tarde o tart is an acronym for over-the-air receptacle device and in 1996 the Congress directed the FCC today promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer and that’s important viewer ability to

Receive video programming services through devices designed to receive over the air so it’s not just a satellite dish but it could also be an antenna I will tell you that the Commission has sort of blown right by the word viewer and they now say that it applies to any

Device that will allow you to to receive and send things over the air and they’re just the case was well you know if you’re looking at a the internet then in fact your review or not of your video but your viewer of text the FCC adopted

There are rules of 47 Code of Federal Regulations one point four thousand that’s the over-the-air receptacle devices arm and and you know it started off really talking about tenants and then it went on to homeowners associations and now it is citywide and again as I mentioned it was expanded to

Include to a fixed radios in there was a case called in ray continental airlines those of you from Boston may remember that had to do with Logan Airport trying to limit where that could they could put their they’re out there Wi-Fi services there and that’s when the

FCC says done and we’re going to say that this is any kind of a wireless device and it just does have it does not simply have to be for video so this is the rule the rule preamps any restriction governing a particular property that impairs the installation

Maintenance or use of a notar right so a dish or an antenna okay and any restriction includes but not limited to state or local law or regulation including zoning land use or building regulations private covenants homeowner association type covenants lease provisions or any other similar restriction and the rule only applies

That only applies to restrictions that would be for property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user or the 0 tarde user where the user has a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property the rule does not address restrictions in common areas so there’s no protection

For common errors and the rule gives rights to both tenants and property owners and then you know a restriction would be something that unreasonably delays or prevents installation maintenance or use of the O tart or unreasonably increases the cost of installation maintenance or use or precludes the reception or transmission

Of an acceptable quality signal so let me put that in English you can put in rules so long as they don’t delay the installation they don’t increase under they don’t unreasonably delay the installation they don’t unreasonably increase the cost of that installation or the rules don’t somehow impair the

Reception or the transmission of the signal quality that the device is there for yep so again we’re let me let me go through this there are two exceptions to the o tarde rules there’s one for Public Safety and there’s also one preserve his park or prehistoric or a

Historic district so the FCC has read these exception has read these exceptions very narrowly the burden to demonstrate no impairment is on the party that seeks to maintain or impose the restriction and that’s vitally important in three cases I’m about to talk to because until the local government can demonstrate that it does

Not impair the rule estate and two it can’t take enforcement action if the FCC petition or there is a court case pending and again the FCC has yet to find for one of the creators of the barriers it’s found every time its review the case to the end it is found

For the antenna user so currently there are there are four proceedings pending at the SEC SPCA and again you all know that acronym because to deal with them that’s a satellite broadcast association they’ve challenged Philadelphia’s ordinance they’ve challenged Chicago’s ordinance and they’ve challenged Boston’s ordinance each of those

Ordinances and and perhaps I’m guilty here and in full disclosure my colleague represents thought up here and i represent boston in this matter but i do believe that a fair reading of each of those ordinances says that if you can put in it you can put a dish or an

Antenna somewhere other than on the front of the building and you can do it in such a way that does not cost you an unreasonable additional amount of money or does not cause you an unreasonable delay in having the deployment and does that cost you any kind of signal quality

Then you can’t put it on the front of the building that that’s pretty much what all three of them say no others may argue but that’s the intent that it so it’s a satellite it’s a preferential location ordinance that says that if you can put it somewhere else and it’s not

An undue burden in terms of time money or signal carriage then you’ve got to put it somewhere else and and and those have been state now they’ve been stayed for some time City Philadelphia is coming up on about two years since it’s been able to enforce

The city of Chicago is about 15 months and the City of Boston is about 13 months now interestingly enough City of Boston hasn’t even had a chance to reply it the FCC has been sitting on it so you know they’re telling us we’ve got a shot

Clock to act within 90 150 days that’s what a reasonable period of time is in the case of Boston there now over 400 days without even giving the city an opportunity to to reply and then finally the SPCA is also petitioned the FCC to change its rules currently you only are

Protected in the playing and o-tar device in an area that’s under the exclusive control of the user and the the SPCA says that that rule I should not be able to be carried over to local rules that that was a rule that was put in place to try to limit the Fifth

Amendment challenge by property owners landlords for instance to ensure that a tenant didn’t have any claim for space outside of the demised premises and they believe that that it should in fact not be enforceable by a local ordinance local government is reply pretty strongly but none of it’s the way it is

Because if you don’t have exclusive control over the area then how do we know who’s responsible when the thing blows over in a windstorm and hit somebody or simply falls off or who do we go after one has to be removed so here’s the SPCA vs philadelphia and

Again there’s just more detail and what’s happened that talks about what the law says and again so April and 2012 is when they SB CA came in and asked for the Oh tarde rules to be changed and where we stand right now is pending and Philadelphia spending

Chicago is a state pending resolution of Philadelphia Boston no action has been taken today and the rulemaking a petition is pending at some point we expect that the Commission is going to act on a rulemaking petition or decide to throw it off you matter we have no

Idea and we have no idea a little action on the petition for rulemaking services dismissal or an opening of a new proposal NPRM sameep stands for notice of proposed rulemaking so we’ll have to see but again from from a planner standpoint please understand that what we thought were pretty clear rights that

Were preserved for local government are being challenged left and right right now at the FCC and you know as far as industry is concerned they’re basically winning because they’re winning by having the matter never even resolved so with that I’ll stop please I take you again for any of you that are still

Awake I was hoping Ben would like give me a hard time every once in a while just so you wouldn’t hear the monotony of the same voice on here questions if there’s questions or answers are there and Brittany told me I have to put my ugly mug up for what we’re doing the

Questions today if folks don’t get a satisfactory answer please feel free to email me or if you wanted any of those other other information please feel free and then I think I turned it back over to you too three questions or to tell me where I need to go next thanks Jerry

Actually I want to give a really short update on the situation in New Hampshire and and thanks to you we were able to intercede in this even though it had already passed our Senate and had come out of committee in the house it just happens to be that because you alerted

Us and i happen to be friends with the committee chairman where it was in the house we were able to get a floor amendment in in the house which yesterday our senate agreed with so it’s on its way to the governor and we’re elbow with able to deal with the issues

You pointed out about the iterative increases in height or width of these facility and also the problem of stealth or camouflage so the way our bill now which I expect will become law reads is that any any any modification to an existing camouflaged or a stealth facility that

Would defeat that camouflage would in fact require local review so it’s it’s not exempt from local review so we feel you feel pretty good about that and thanks Rob Oh alerting us Bravo that’s awesome um and I want to re-emphasize a point you made knows about involving your state municipal leagues and also

The your APA chapter in this if if you’re not involved directly with the legislate legislature talk to your legislative committee in your APA chapter get them involved make sure they know that this happening is really really important question I have free Jerry is related to the timing and you

Pointed out with regard to the shot clock and and and state or local regulations that state and local regulations can identify a shorter review time than the shot clock my understanding though and for example in New Hampshire a planning board has to approve an application within 65 days of

Accepting jurisdiction but the shot clock if I understand correctly that that clock starts clicking that starts ticking as soon as the a complete application is submitted even before the jurisdiction is accepted is that right that’s exactly correct so right so being lawyers as been is as well one of the

Things that we want to always emphasize is that there are important terms there so it’s a complete application starts the clock but if you have a bifurcated which a lot of local governments have where you know you the planning made to part of it the zoning may do part of it

Yeah you don’t get to shot clocks it’s a unified shot clock and you have to meet its terms of it now again I want to say this because I think sometimes I come off as an industry bachelor and and I and that doesn’t do

You any good I will say that I have yet to find a case where there’s an issue that people know there’s going to be an issue where the industry participant has not agreed to a mutual extension think about it it makes sense that they ought to that because if they don’t grant you

An extension of time to address these things then you’re almost bound to deny and if you deny in writing and you can substantiate the record that there was an ambiguity or there was there was a lack of clarity and you saw it the opportunity to address that the industry

Wouldn’t give it I don’t think I want to defend that if on the industry in front of a court right I mean if our greatest defense is is that if we act reasonably and if we document that we’re acting reasonably because again it’s not that you act reasonably it’s that you can

Prove that you acted reasonably so make sure that you’re documenting these things I mean I’m sure that there are many folks that are on this call that have more than once in their life badmouth their city or county attorney for all the paperwork but it but it

Helps it helps and so if you do not have a tickler system set up where you know the date that you deem that to be a completed application and and and you don’t have that end date somewhere alerting you that pay up you’ve only got

۳۰ days act on this or 20 days whether it is you need to put something like that in place okay we’ve got a lot of great questions from attendees I’m going to start with one from brush wiki’s I hope I have the pronunciation right and

He asks how is it that states such as Vermont have very few wireless towers is it a matter of market forces at work topography or regulation I don’t know I suspect I suspect that it has to do with population and you know I mean again in fairness to the industry

Towers cost a lot of money to put up and and if there’s not if there’s not enough demand then you try to come up with the most efficient an economic way to provide those services um I I don’t know if anybody is on the phone from Virginia

Or from Maryland but I love to use Fairfax County and Montgomery County as two examples of communities that have a you know pretty robust zoning and planning requirements are and yet because of the economics of those two communities that’s funny industry finds a way to comply because there’s a return

On that so if the I’m sorry I think you said the gentleman’s name was Russ Russ so I think that that might be you know it’s simply a matter of economics now the problem for the industry is this though when when I pay my verizon account in in Bethesda Maryland you know

And I look at that that map that they provide me of service coverage it says to me that Vermont is covered so they’ve got to meet their sort of contractual obligations to me when I go up there so but again it’s a terrific question I I guess the only thing that I can

Definitively say is that uh I can show you places that have been accused of being terribly over regulatory and that has not prevented them from in fact deploying you know at least four generations of high quality wireless services I wonder too if in Vermont it

Might be a case of the existence of the statewide act 250 which imposes a an additional layer of review certain kinds of developments including wireless facilities I was the director of a Regional Planning Commission that used to be by state and its straddled the Connecticut River between New

Hampshire and Vermont so I got some familiarity with the Vermont laws and when the 96 Act passed there was a lot of concern that the towers were all going to go in the New Hampshire side because why would you put them in Vermont and have to face act 250 was it

Something because at some point the towers won the New Hampshire side aren’t going to reach far enough in next question from Michelle wrench do home-rule municipalities have different standards than non Home Rule uh with respect to the shot the shot clock applies regardless of your statute

Status right so so it’s a it’s a federal law that is applied across the board now with respect and I’ve just used your very good question is as a way to broach another area and that is a realized an area that talk about up the you are responsible for meeting you’re the most

Stringent time period and that time period may be set by the feds it may be set by state law or it may be set in your own code right and many times what we find is people people get hung by their own codes um and and so I don’t

Know if I’ve got a really short time period in my code I think I might share what the you know the powers that be whether it be the executive director of the you know of the legislative body at the City Council County Council you know town council whatever might be I mean

I’ve got a really really really short time period i might say hey you know what the industry except this is the federal level why don’t we why don’t we give ourselves the same amount of time there’s no rule that says you can’t expand yours to be consistent with the

Feds you just you know again if it’s shorter you’re bound by it if it’s longer you don’t get the benefit of it you’ve got to act within the nine days for colocation 150 days for new tower sighting unless again as I said your time period is shorter okay from

Clayton Comstock we have this question any issues with municipalities requiring that an abandoned tower be removed for instance if the tower owner is still active but no carriers haven’t any on the on the tower for more than one year it’s a really good question it’s a really good question Clayton and and and

This is where if you don’t mind what we’ll take a second to answer two ways um it depends on what hat you’re wearing if you’re wearing the hat of the property owner on which that tower is standing uh and and and you know you’re being paid based upon the number of

Carriers that are on there and you know you’ve got a term in your contract that says eight by the way you’re entitled to X amount and you’re not getting it well then you can enforce those kind of contractual obligations with respect to whether or not you’re able to remove

Something based upon are based upon its that’s being in use I can’t answer that question without knowing what your state and local law say uh but I suspect the answer is no that you you you probably couldn’t enforce the removal and would you say that now because typically abandonment requires some demonstration

Of intent to abandon which is difficult to prove then it it’s nice to have co-counsel in this absolutely correct there is that intent and the other thing is is that suppose know if we could think back to the very first slide that I showed and if I knew how to do this

Quickly i would do it right i mean if we go back to this very first slide right I you’ve got no what what what what do we know what’s happening we know that there is an increased demand of sites coming down the pike we know that for a fact so I’m not so

Sure whether if a tower is empty today but I couldn’t make a very good case that in fact I’m out there as the tower owner looking to build excess capacity for the future sigh I now if if the towers falling down are the towers and I

Site an eyesore I’m not telling you not to be aggressive but if is being maintained i’m sure i’m looking to buy that headache okay elizabeth let it and again pronunciation i hope i have correct asks they heard that there was a cell tower proposed for yellowstone park

Within view of old faithful will any of the rules these rules changes affect a site like that i’m assuming this is on federal land yes Elizabeth that’s a wonderful question and the terrible section that I showed his section 64 09 was in a piece of legislation that dealt

With taxes and a lot of other things the section right after 64 09 and I maybe 6410 I just don’t have a committed to memory did talk about uh aggressively deploying wireless technologies on federal facility on federal lands and so I wouldn’t be surprised if in fact there

Is a tower that might be cited there now that being said uh you know a lot of times the towers can be camouflaged and need to be camouflaged well now I say that and then we can talk about the the problem with with with the loss of stealth type of characterization but uh

Yeah I saw I I suspected but that’s that’s true but you know in fairness when you and I go to to to national parks um we want to have cell service right I mean up so I mean you got to get it somehow and and so I think that

There’s uh you know there’s going to be an effort to preserve the integrity of the of the environment oh but I think people more and more are expecting to have access to the wireless services I know for instance we represented we represented the City of Yuma in battling

A carrier down there and in fact we were able to get that Nate they created a cell tower down by the ok corral area and we were able to make them that they were going to camouflage it in a an old water tank like a a railroad water tank

And we were able to make them sort of comply with what the look of one of those tanks would be in the day of the of the ok corral time um so I suspect that if it’s going in a national park there will be requirements that that’d

Be that’d be that’d be shielded to the greatest extent possible ok we have a question about Stealth from my friend Anna branic she asks to clarify can these additions be done in a like manner if agreed to a time of initial approval that as future editions would be done in

Accordance with stealth standards that’s a that’s a wonderful question and I don’t know the answer to that Anna and you just demonstrated by the way why we need planners at the table as we prepare to address these issues with the FCC and then I’m going to paraphrase to make

Sure I’ve got Anna’s question right because it’s it’s brilliant and that is can i as a local zoning Authority local planning authority can I approve a cell tower deployment that is stealth contingent upon any collocations being made on that tower preserving the stealth characteristics and and I don’t

Know quite honestly right now how to answer that question because if i could i will let me let me simply get back to the language of the of 64 nine so it says here a state or local government may not deny and shall approve eligible facilities request

Or a modification of an existing closest i can read an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical it’s not the physical appearance but it’s the physical dimensions of the tower or the base station so while I think your question is extraordinarily reasonable

And your plan makes great sense as I look at section 1455 pay I cannot if I were to be your council guarantee you that that would be an enforceable term and that you might not be subject to litigation if you try to deny deny the colocation based upon the prior

Agreement to keep it stealth or whatever the characteristics were okay a question from Amanda orenchi sandy know ever been year do you agree with my reading on that or my doom I I a I can’t come to a solid conclusion on this okay Amanda asks how is colocation to find does it

Have to be with another wireless facility or can it be on a water tower or some other utility ah fantastic fantastic um are you sure no I don’t wanna leave the web learn oh I messed up there um one of the problems is Amanda that like colocation um is not really

Defined it’s a modification of an existing wireless tower so that’s the the colocation is the modification and a wireless tower or base station so you’re asking about a water tower well under the rules right now and under the current FCC definitions a wireless tower is a coward that was put up for the

Primary purpose of supporting wireless devices that’s not what a water tower is not what a rooftop is and so the question is whether or not that tower or that base station would in fact what a water tower meet that definition and we think that right now

The answer is it’s certainly not a lock ah that’s we’re worried that but the FCC is given authority to implement this and we think that those will be a push for that type of of that type of expansion of going forward now I want to go back

To what I talked about before and saying especially with a water tower typically with a water tower you’re wearing two different paths right because typically the people that own water towers are the local government and there are things that you can do as the property owner

That you might not be able to do as the local regulator and so one of the things that you want to do i think immediately is if you ever do a deal with any of these cell providers to be up on one of your water towers you always want to

Make sure that there is something in place with respect to collocations if for no other reason to increase the rent that you’re being paid based upon the number of other folks that are up there so the fact that goes without saying ah but but there there i’m hearing

Arguments and that’s what penalty that’s what we lawyers do we argue with each other as that how these things might play out I mean there are some people out there that are worried that absent a colocation clause in a municipal a contract release and or license with it

With at our company you might not be able to limit the number of co locators on a site so I think you want to clearly address it in contract uh in terms of whether or not you still have regulatory authority I think that you can demonstrate or you know probably get

More clearance before the summer’s out from the FCC but as of right now it’s not clear that whatever that’s whatever the device is that’s being used to host the the the coal tation whether or not that fits into the current definition of an existing tower or an existing base station so if I

Could ask you to clarify something I’m recalling one of the examples you showed and it was of a fairly low lying building at an intersection that had some nicely camouflaged antenna array so I guess under the our historical this doesn’t have a long history interpretation of the law that building

Was not built primarily for the purpose of being a tower so colocation would would not be as of right but are you suggesting then that’s the picture if very suggesting then that the FCC is moving in a different direction now I’m suggesting that the industry would make

The case for first of all what what you have here is is in fact an extension of a current roof to serve as a tower so that so it’s not the building itself you’re looking at this sort of mini tower behind it so it in fact would I

Don’t know if you can see my screen but this whole part here is is a sort of a rooftop extension above that is considered be could be considered a tower so your point is well-taken that you know that there it’s not crystal clear and i apologize i mean the

Question is so we have more definition of these things and more clarification i think that you need to anticipate that the industry will come to you and we’ll make those claims and i think you’ve got every right to say ask them to show and define or demonstrate that their

Application meets this so when it’s a wireless tower i think you’ve got the right to them to say wait a second is this a wireless tower under the FCC’s definition we’re not sure it is can you help you know prove that out to us or is

This a base station prove that out to us we have a a simple statutory question from Jack welcome do you define days as business days or calendar days oh it’s calendar days calendar days jack okay calendar days with with with the recognition that recognized federal holidays if the due

Date is the recognized federal holiday then it goes to the next in that case goes to the next business day okay and I’m all all right all days count until you get to the end so the deadline can’t fall on a federal holiday or weekend okay including saturday don’t cut a pose

Right okay why are you cutting it that close but she this is where this is why lawyers either lose their hair or gray prematurely because you know you got people like Jack asking us that question cuz we know exactly what you’re thinking of there jack good James garofalo asks

If the this is regarding Oh tarts if the outside four inches of the townhouse are common property does that restrict o-tar devices absolutely absolutely if you absolutely if the outside four inches are yes the common property again common property isn’t the term of art the term

Of art is that the area where the device is installed has to be under the exclusive control of the viewer now James I want to make it very clear that the FCC has the FCC has its own view of real estate law on almost every apartment building our reserves to the

Common ownership each of the balconies so that they can you know enforce rules and regulations over that area the FCC doesn’t the FCC used that as under the exclusive control of the the homeowner I will tell you that there was a there was a case at the FCC where the home owner

Like to put sorry not the homeowner but the homeowner but that was it goes a townhome development so in this condo townhome type development each home owner or property owner was responsible for the maintenance of their own roof so while it was a common roof each person had their own responsibilities for

Maintaining and in that case the Commission actually found that the person had a right to deploy the satellite dish there over the over the flat prohibition by the by the homeowner association so again it’s exclusive control is the operating term but its exclusive control from the FCC

Standpoint okay we have a lot more questions in just a little more time well great you guys are wonderful christine Marrone asks from New Jersey is there anything that can be done in New Jersey because colocation has been exempted from site plan review under most circumstances is there anything

That can be done in New Jersey yet raised a law talk to your legislators yeah yeah and and and in look let’s be honest right you guys saw my whole presentation and most of it you were bored to death but you like the photos so take that lesson for yourself take

Photos show them why you need to have some sort of control and take your mayor with you right good that I’m sorry okay so from let’s see I give someone a chance it hasn’t asked a question before from Sarah Schneider you have information about modification of towers or base stations on federal government

Property do similar laws apply or have cases about towers and base stations on federal property gone to court Sarah I’ve never represented the GSA I’ve worked with them in the past up as as property owners government property owner advocates when the issues but I’ve never represented the GSA or any state

GSA so I can’t I can’t really say to a lot of cases I can tell you that there have been laws that have been passed at the federal level uh that that encouraged the GSA to make federal government buildings available and and available at a reduced rate at cost and

Again that was passed as part of the the same bill that in which 64 09 was passed was this other language that talked about making federal facilities and federal grounds available for wireless devices and wireless towers I think this will be our last question because we’re

Just about out of time this is from cade havoc at the beginning of us mentioned that a greater distribution of towers was necessary to meet increasing data transmission requirements that sounds like new tower locations not collocations what am I missing are there ways to control proximity of new and or

Co-located towers Kate what a great question and you think he got me she thinks she caught me and Ben you set me up with this being the last question way down nice guy nice guy if I like honest guy Kate the answer is this that historically companies have put their

Own towers up or they have worked with tower companies to put them up and they’ve each sort of had their own what you’re finding more and more is because I more companies need to be on in more areas that there’s a lot more co-locating between providers so my

Sprint tower that was exclusively sprint five years ago made today support AT&T and Verizon because that sprint provider is gets to also co-locate on the AT&T and Verizon so we’re talking about war sites I think the great majority of them will be in fact co-located because they will better

Utilize existing towers that being said I don’t want to mislead anyone there are a significant number of new sites whether their towers whether their rooftop deployments whether this new das sort of of infrastructure more are coming but again because of this speed to market and the efficiency from the

Carrier standpoint that a colocation offers that’s why I think you’ll see you know many collocations as well as new towers well Jerry before I turn it back to Britney I want to thank you for for taking the time today to really inform us with this melt some alarming material

And you know speaking on behalf of the planning community it’s really great to have people like you at our back thank you what a nice thing to say thanks man all right I’m yeah Thank You Ben and Jerry for the presentation I’m going to switch it back over to me and I’m going

To go over just a couple reminders on how you can submit your CM credits for attending today’s event ok so for those of you who are still with us I’m to log your CM credits for attending today’s webcast please go to ww planning org slash the end select today’s date which

Is friday june seventh and then select today’s webcast which is impact on local control of wireless facilities of new federal law FCC guidance in state legislative proposals this webcast is available for one and a half cm credits also we are recording today’s webcast so you will be able to find a recording of

This webcast on our YouTube channel so with that this concludes our session for today and I want to thank everyone again for attending Thank You Brittany bye bye bye hey Brittany is still there yeah yeah I’m just going to give people a moment to dot jot down the the site to get the

Recording and how to slog their team Kristin and I’m gonna log off thank you okay

ID: NZmPMr5vCWA
Time: 1370647069
Date: 2013-06-08 03:47:49
Duration: 01:31:26

منبع