Sure, but I don't see why this translates into AT&T having the right to put up towers. If there's poor AT&T service in Harvard Square and customers complain, AT&T can simply direct them to petition the zoning board to allow them to put up towers. That way the issue can be resolved using local politics instead of lawsuits.
Sure, but I don't see why this translates into AT&T having the right to put up towers.
I don't either, but apparently the federal government disagrees. The article doesn't cite this "law," however.
If there's poor AT&T service in Harvard Square and customers complain, AT&T can simply direct them to petition the zoning board to allow them to put up towers. That way the issue can be resolved using local politics instead of lawsuits.
More than likely, customers would just jump ship to Verizon instead, which is the last thing AT&T wants.
Given the vast number of iPhones I see in Harvard Square every day (probably about 40% of all visible phones), I don't know if Verizon is necessarily the logical end here.
The company said it looked at other locations in the area, but none would work, either because the owners didn't want cell antennas on their buildings...
So either multiple owners are refusing to host antennas at any price, or AT&T just doesn't want to pay market rent in Harvard Square.
The law referenced in the article, from the complaint, regarding the "right" to build cellular towers:
The [Telecommunications] Act contains five enumerated limitations to State and
local zoning authority. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). Among other things, "[i]f a
[municipal] decision is not supported by substantial evidence, § 332(c)(7)(B)
(iii), or if it effectively prohibits the provision of wireless service,
§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), then under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,
local law is pre-empted in order to effectuate the Act's national policy
goals." Second Generation Props. L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 627
(1st Cir. 2002).
ATT really has the right to judicial review of the Council's decision, which may result in the Cambridge City Council's decision being overturned on the basis given above.
8 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 33.3 ms ] threadI don't get what is so appalling about this. They are doing their best to avoid making it a blemish on the roof of that building.
I don't either, but apparently the federal government disagrees. The article doesn't cite this "law," however.
If there's poor AT&T service in Harvard Square and customers complain, AT&T can simply direct them to petition the zoning board to allow them to put up towers. That way the issue can be resolved using local politics instead of lawsuits.
More than likely, customers would just jump ship to Verizon instead, which is the last thing AT&T wants.
So either multiple owners are refusing to host antennas at any price, or AT&T just doesn't want to pay market rent in Harvard Square.