SB 649 Threatens Cities Rights to Regulate Cell Towers

California Senate Bill 649 is being heard this week in Sacramento.  Please contact your state representatives and make clear your opposition to this terrible bill.

Things have been relatively quiet in Palos Verdes for the past two months as Crown Castle rethinks some of the highly intrusive cell towers they had intended to plop right next to homes.  The sites as proposed were ugly eyesores; virtually guaranteed to detract from neighborhood aesthetics and negatively affect the home values of the nearby residents.

Fortunately, decision makers in both Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates decided to aggressively assert the city’s right to regulate these sites as allowed under both state and federal law.  Unsurprisingly, the wireless industry doesn’t like this.  They want quick and dirty cookie-cutter sites they can throw up as cheaply as possible.

Cell towers are a multi-billion dollar business and the industry is heavily lobbying Sacramento and Washington to strip municipalities of their right to regulate these sites.  The latest attempt in California is Senate Bill (SB) 649, being heard this week at the state capitol.  SB 649 will override municipal authority to apply common sense local planning review to cell towers.

hall of shame7

An existing dreadful cell tower on a Monero Drive cul-de-sac in RPV, it is only 30 feet from the residence.  This site never should have been approved but it was put in place prior to RPV’s comprehensive wireless facility ordinance.  SB 649 derails the City’s authority to prevent ugly cell towers like this from multiplying throughout the residential neighborhoods.

We need your help to let Sacramento know this unacceptable.  They tried this last year when Assemblyman Mike Gatto attempted to push through a bill stripping cities of the right to regulate ugly and intrusive cell towers.  That bill died in committee after an outcry from concerned residents and the municipalities themselves.  We’ve shown before that the wireless industry can be stopped.

Sacramento needs to again hear from concerned residents.  Also, please urge your city government to contact our local state senators and legislators and voice opposition to SB 649.  In Palos Verdes, our state representatives are:

  • Assembly: Al Muratsuchi, 66th Assembly District, (310) 375-0691   contact (link)
  • State Senate: Ben Allen, 26th Senate District, (310) 318-6994   contact (link)

If you are outside of Palos Verdes, you can find your state representatives here (link).

Giving the Wireless Industry Free Reign in our Cities is a Terrible Idea

We’ve documented the really ugly and highly intrusive cell towers installed before Rancho Palos Verdes implemented its comprehensive wireless facility ordinance (link).  This is what cities can expect with the wireless companies calling the shots.  It isn’t pretty.  Now imagine one of these eyesores in front of your house.

We’ve documented how Crown Castle misstated the size and intrusiveness of RPV’s proposed cell towers using misleading photo simulations (link).

We’ve documented how Crown Castle misstated the applicable law in wireless facility applications in both RPV and PVE (link).  We also documented how Mobilitie was playing the same games and was formally taken to the woodshed by the state of Minnesota (link).

We’ve documented the mistaken technical claims made by the wireless industry that lead municipalities into thinking they can’t deny a proposed cell tower (link).  We’ve also shown how they’ve changed their story when confronted on these claims.

We’ve shown how the wireless industry used lawsuits and legal threats to intimidate cities.   We documented how they went for broke in 2016’s T-Mobile et al vs. San Francisco and suffered a historic loss before the California Court of Appeals (link).  The court made clear cities maintain the right to regulate these sites despite the wireless industry’s attempts to twist the clear language of state law.

Don’t Let them Change the Law and Handcuff Cities

Now the wireless industry is trying to change state law despite the fact they’ve shown over and over they can’t be trusted to deal openly and fairly with cities.  It’s a terrible idea but it has huge amounts of money behind it.  Our representatives need to hear from the people, please contact Sacramento today and voice your opposition to SB 649.

 

Like this post?  Click here to go to our home page for more.

Crown Castle’s Coverage Map Games

This post gets into technical details regarding existing AT&T coverage in Rancho Palos Verdes.  In it we show that a recently submitted Crown Castle coverage map has a 30 dB discrepancy (that’s off by 1000 times as decibels are logarithmic) that erroneously depicts existing coverage being much worse than it actually is.  This continues a very troubling pattern in Crown Castle’s submissions.  We’ve tried to make the technical aspects readable to the layman and put the legal implications in context.

 The Importance of Propagation Maps

Rancho Palos Verdes’ comprehensive wireless facility ordinance requires applicants provide propagation maps depicting existing, proposed, and combined/existing proposed wireless service.  Propagation maps are sophisticated computer simulations that depict signal levels and cell tower coverage over a wide geographic area.  They are an industry-standard tool used to assess wireless service coverage.

att_palos_verdes_propagation_map

AT&T propagation map example, submitted to the City of Palos Verdes Estates in October 2015.  Note continuous coverage levels shown over a wide area.  (As an aside, this map was found to have significant errors as it omitted coverage from numerous existing small cells.)

Cities require propagation maps for good reason.  Proposed cell towers are often highly intrusive as the industry wants cheap sites, usually resulting in “cookie cutter” designs in highly prominent locations.  Fortunately, states allow municipal regulation of cell towers, including those in the public right of way.  In our state this power derives from the California Constitution which reserves for municipalities vested police powers to regulate these sites (see this post regarding  T-Mobile et al vs San Francisco, 2016).

Often highly intrusive cell towers are proposed for speculative reasons or to give a wireless carrier a competitive advantage.  Based on all we’ve documented that certainly could be the case for much of Crown Castle’s Palos Verdes deployment.  Cities are under no obligation to approve such sites.  Under federal law, municipalities may deny a cell tower if it is not required to close a “significant gap” in service OR if the cell tower proposed (i.e. design/location) is not the “least intrusive means” of doing so.  Cities protect themselves by requiring propagation maps proving the site is truly needed.

The cell towers installers don’t want municipalities challenging their proposed cell towers.  Any challenge can result in delays, increased costs, and could ultimately result in denial of the proposed cell site.  They like the good old days, such as back when Rancho Palos Verdes used to rubber-stamp these cell towers.  Our post on the proliferation of ugly towers in RPV (here) shows what happens without a strongly enforced ordinance.  The propagation map requirement was one of many long-needed reforms implemented to get this problem under control.

Coverage map games

Enter the coverage map games.  If the cell tower installers can create the impression that a significant gap exists (i.e. existing coverage is terrible) then cities will likely think they have no choice but to approve the site.  RF Engineering expertise isn’t commonplace, and few cities have the experience to challenge such claims so they usually go unquestioned.  Fortunately, we have both the experience and the required test equipment to scrutinize what we’re being told.  We documented multiple Crown Castle coverage map discrepancies in an earlier post here, and in every case the errors we found understated the actual existing coverage.  As we’ve seen over and over, Crown Castle’s “errors” almost always seem to be in their favor.  It certainly doesn’t seem random.

It looks like Crown Castle’s string of “lucky” errors continues, as their recent submittals have brought us a new gem. This is for site ASG53, proposed for the corner or Granvia Altimira and Monero right next to the Palos Verdes Estates city line.  We’ve seen this site before and it’s always been questionable as it’s only 800 feet away from an existing AT&T “macro” high power cell tower.  Here’s the existing coverage map they submitted.

crown_castle_asg53_alleged_significant_gap

Crown Castle coverage map submitted to Rancho Palos Verdes depicting an alleged “significant gap” in coverage.  Map is a public record.  Note it looks nothing like the Palos Verdes Estates propagation map shown above.

Right off the bat, it’s got lots of problems:

Continue reading

Sixteen New Verizon Cell Towers in RPV

It seems that Crown Castle has big plans for our community whether we like it or not.  We’ve discussed in detail the nearly 80 AT&T cell towers Crown Castle is trying to muscle into Palos Verdes neighborhoods.  We’ve now found out they are planning at least 16 new Verizon cell towers in Rancho Palos Verdes (that we know of so far).  As with their highly intrusive AT&T deployment, many are again proposed for residential neighborhoods without regard for community aesthetics or property values.  It looks like we are going to be busy going forward.

A Surprise in the AT&T Resubmissions

Crown Castle has started resubmitting the 26 AT&T cell tower applications that were rejected as incomplete earlier this year.  So far six have been resubmitted, and all six have again been rejected as incomplete since the submitted documentation does not meet the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes’ comprehensive wireless facility ordinance.  We requested and received copies of the documents for review (they are public records).

RPV’s ordinance wisely requires applicants submit a master plan including all proposed sites for the next two years.  Buried within the documentation was a table that surprisingly also included 16 new cell towers for Verizon.  As far as we know, these have never been publicly announced.  It would appear the city has not been formally notified of these as they are not shown on RPV’s extremely comprehensive cell tower webpage.

In typical Crown Castle fashion, the list didn’t include addresses but only GPS coordinates.  We’ve gotten wise and know when things are muddled like this it is usually worth digging into.  It was simple to plug the coordinates into Google maps and figure out what they are up to.  Yet again, Crown Castle didn’t fail to disappoint.  Here’s the result. (Crown Castle’s full list of proposed sites can be found here)

crown-castle-verizon-cell-tower-map

Crown Castle’s proposed Verizon cell towers plotted out.  Despite the site labels, all sites are in Rancho Palos Verdes.  Note that six sites (PV01, PV02, PV04, PV05, PV06, PV07) are missing from the sequential list.  These are likely in Palos Verdes Estates or Rolling Hills Estates and were omitted from this list submitted to Rancho Palos Verdes.

Thirteen Residential Neighborhood Sites

Of the 16 sites, thirteen are located in the heart of residential neighborhoods.  Many of these are also in underground utility districts.  Here’s a few of the offenders:

Verizon Cell Tower PV 03 Location – 30100 block Via Rivera (West Palos Verdes)

verizon-pv03-cell-tower-location

This is an underground utility district and they appear to have targeted this streetlight based on the GPS coordinates.  It’s right in front of a home with houses directly across the street.  There’s an existing Crown Castle cell tower on a streetlight just 300 feet away.  They’ve also submitted an application for an AT&T cell tower for a streetlight just 9 houses down the street.  Talk about chutzpah!

Continue reading

Crown Castle’s End Game

The Palos Verdes Estates Planning Commission denied another residential neighborhood cell tower at the November 15th Planning Commission hearing.  This is the second residential neighborhood site the PC has denied, both on unanimous votes.  We could not be prouder of the Commission.

Unlike the city’s advisors, the Commissioners live in our community and will be stuck with these highly intrusive cell towers.  Critically, they no longer believe claims that they must accept these sites.

crown-castle-residential-cell-tower

A tranquil residential neighborhood in Palos Verdes Estates (Chelsea and Yarmouth).  The perfect place to put an intrusive cell tower and equipment cabinet according to Crown Castle.  Fortunately, the Planning Commission said no.  Note there is an existing AT&T macro site only 1400 feet away at Lunada Bay Plaza.

It was a long time in coming, some context is warranted.

What Crown Castle is up to

Crown Castle is attempting to place intrusive cell towers in the heart of every neighborhood in Palos Verdes, nearly 80 sites in all.  Despite all their lofty claims of serving the public, their motivation is economic profit.  As we documented here, their sponsoring wireless carrier (AT&T Mobility) wants to sell very expensive wireless data plans in our community.  To do that, they need more extensive infrastructure.  Crown Castle’s role is to convince our community into accepting the cheapest possible deployment that gives AT&T a competitive advantage.

palos-verdes-crown-castle-80-cell-towers

Crown Castle’s plan to put 80 cell towers across the Palos Verdes Peninsula.  Most are located within residential neighborhoods.  Note the close proximity, some sites are only 500 feet apart.

Why Palos Verdes?  To quote Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks, “because that’s where the money is”.  Crown Castle isn’t placing these in every neighborhood in Carson, Wilmington, Gardena, or other less affluent communities.  Make no mistake, we’ve been targeted and selected.  AT&T Mobility has staked out Palos Verdes as their turf, Crown Castle is the hired muscle, and we are supposed to roll over and welcome these highly intrusive installations into our neighborhoods. This is the 5G future they insist, there is no stopping it, and we have no choice but to accept it.

No one bothered to ask residents what they thought about all this.  They sorely misjudged our understanding of the law, our technical knowledge, and our resolve.  Not to mention we don’t give a damn about Crown Castle’s profitability, promises they’ve made to AT&T, or their highly questionable business model.  We care about our community.

Crown Castle has trotted out every trick in the book to convince Palos Verdes cities that they had no choice but to approve these sites.  Fortunately Crown Castle’s playbook is superficial, once you understand the game plan it’s much easier to fight them.  It’s doesn’t help their cause that virtually every one of their experts and subcontractors looks to be the lowest bidder who seem to have a really hard time explaining their actions.  Their book of tricks is a mile wide but only an inch deep.  Once the spell is broken, the illusion of inevitability falls apart.

Palos Verdes Estates now gets this.  Crown Castle’s plan was to carve the Peninsula up into a big grid and plop highly intrusive cell towers into the middle of each square with little regard for neighborhood aesthetics or adjacent home values.  They had City staff buffaloed into believing they couldn’t be stopped. The City’s advisor had a long list of things the city supposedly wasn’t allowed to do but was conspicuously quiet regarding Crown Castle’s behavior.  It was strongly implied the city couldn’t deny sites but could only require adjustments to their appearance.

The entire premise of “significant gap” was to be preemptively surrendered despite the fact it protects the city and its residents  (i.e. “significant gap” means a city can deny a cell tower if it is not required to close a significant gap in service.)  If Crown Castle claimed they didn’t have good enough coverage then that was it, they were entitled to a new cell tower.  There would be no challenge of significant gap, end of story.  Or so we were told.  As we’ve now made plainly clear, that isn’t what the law says.

Thank God the Commissioners live in our community and were willing to listen to us rather than following the word of outside advisors.

Continue reading

Leveling the Field, Holding the Cell Tower Installers Accountable

This blog has had a huge increase in web traffic over the last month and thanks to all who took a look.  Based on metrics we receive, most of the traffic came from outside Palos Verdes likely from civic groups and even municipalities themselves.  It’s clear there is a real demand for knowledge and it’s no surprise to us.  Knowledge is the key to fighting intrusive cell tower installations.

To be blunt, the wireless industry’s business model counts on uniformed residents and intimidated municipal staff.  Few people want a commercial telecommunications facility near their home, let alone in their front yard.  The industry and its sympathizers count on opposition ignorance to maintain the false impression that there is nothing they can do.  Our first-hand experience has been with Crown Castle, a multi-billion dollar cell tower corporation headquartered out of Texas.  By most accounts it is representative of industry behavior.

The key to protecting your city and your neighborhoods is knowledge.  You fight these tactics by exposing and documenting every discrepancy, every false claim, and every exaggeration.  Trust us, there is no shortage and this is the stuff that influences municipal decision makers and makes or breaks lawsuits.  We’ve included a sampling of our findings in Palos Verdes below and we really doubt things are any different in other communities.

The long list of “discrepancies”

With that preamble, let’s get to the list.  This isn’t meant to be exhaustive but to give those interested a taste of what we’ve found digging into Crown Castle’s submissions, installations, and tactics on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

All of this has been meticulously documented; much of it has been submitted to the corresponding municipality.  The rest is available as needed if things get ugly in the future.  Some of it has been discussed on this blog previously and we’ve provided links in places.  Some we are holding close to the chest.  Whether these discrepancies were intentional is really irrelevant, this stuff is damning even if its cause is just plain old carelessness.

Site Drawings and Documentation

  • False photo simulations that show proposed installed equipment much smaller than actuality (link)
  • Prominent equipment and cables missing from photo simulations
  • Distorted, not to scale drawings showing proposed equipment too small (link)
  • Distorted drawings that show the existing infrastructure (e.g streetlights) out of proportion thus making the proposed equipment look smaller by comparison (link)
  • Prominent equipment and cables missing from drawings (link)
  • Contradictory drawings, discrepancies between equipment sizes shown on different pages of submitted plans
  • Site plans missing key required elements such as existing and proposed utility routing and adjacent land use

Site Technical Documentation

  • Changing service metrics resulting in a 20 dB drop in “existing” coverage map levels without a corresponding shift in service target levels (RSSI to RSRP) (link)
  • Different “required” service levels in Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, PVE is 10 dB higher than RPV without rationale (link)
  • Wildly inconsistent “existing” service coverage maps submitted between Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes despite both showing the same geographic area (link)
  • Missing known AT&T-owned sites in submitted “existing” network facility maps (link)
  • Missing known AT&T-owned site coverage in “existing” service coverage maps
  • An “existing” coverage map submitted as 1900 MHz service that actually depicts 2100 MHz
  • Cherry-picked worst-case coverage maps from a single frequency band (out of four active bands) misleadingly portrayed as representing “existing” coverage
  • Incorrect antenna orientation shown on proposed facility maps
  • Service coverage maps alleged to depict “proposed” coverage modeled with only one of the two site antennas active (link)
  • Wrong antennas used in RF Emission reports thus reporting inaccurate values

Questionable Legal Claims and Behavior

  • False legal claims that new sites fall under “Section 6409” and thus can’t be denied by the city (link)
  • False claims that a 90 day shot clock applies to brand new sites
  • Mistaken statements regarding a municipality’s right to regulate these sites under PUC Section 7901
  • Mistaken claims regarding the existence of a “significant gap” based on cherry-picked frequency bands and incomplete coverage maps (link)
  • Underground installation mock-ups using unnecessary intrusive ventilation stacks to make the city-preferred option look unappealing (link) (link)
  • Excessively large and 75% empty ground-mounted cabinets claimed as required after Rancho Palos Verdes rejected pole-mounted equipment (link)
  • Excessively large antennas claimed as required in Rancho Palos Verdes despite using antennas one-third the size in Palos Verdes Estates (link)

Site Approval and Community Engagement Tactics

  • Repeatedly failing to provide residents timely notification for public hearings
  • Construction crews misinforming residents when queried as to what they were doing (link)
  • Installations and work performed beyond that authorized by the city
  • Permanent installations constructed as the “mock-up”, then leaving it in place for months longer then required when not immediately approved (link)
  • Underground fiber installed throughout the city before a single antenna installation was approved despite city objections and concerns (link)
  • Failure to provide alleged analysis for alternate locations despite promises to do so (link)
  • Failure to involve AT&T in public hearings or resident meetings despite requests to do so

Issues with Existing Installations

  • Installations on utility poles in violation of CPUC General Order 95 Section 94.4 (safety and reliability regulations) (link)
  • Highly intrusive cable routing and extremely poor workmanship on existing sites (link) (link)
  • Amateurish paint jobs using hardware store spray cans resulting in fading, streaks, uneven coverage, and overspray (link)
  • Existing installations that are far more intrusive than depicted in submitted photo simulations (link) (link)
  • Existing installations that don’t match submitted drawings

Why all this matters

Pretty interesting list, huh?  For those of you still wondering why all this matters we recommend you spend a little time reviewing Verizon vs. Fairfax County (E.D. Virginia, 2015) (available here).  Verizon sued the County after it rejected a cell tower installation under its wireless facility ordinance.  It’s a recent case that’s highly relevant as it discusses LTE technology, a cell tower installer middleman, lousy documentation, and unsubstantiated technical claims.  The court found for Fairfax County on all counts and absolutely shredded Verizon on multiple fronts.  Similar to T-Mobile et al vs. San Francisco, it was a total wipeout.

The court had some really interesting things to say.  First off, the court openly rejected Verizon’s standing in the case as a cell tower installer middleman was the applicant.  The court also questioned the depth of Verizon’s involvement as virtually all the work was done by the middleman with Verizon seemingly out of the loop.  Does this sound familiar?  It sure ought to.  AT&T has been completely absent from the Palos Verdes cell tower project.

Crown Castle repeatedly makes claims allegedly on AT&T’s behalf, yet AT&T itself has been nowhere to be found in this whole fiasco.  This despite the fact the PVE Planning Commission has now twice requested greater AT&T involvement.  The Commission has requested both an AT&T presence at the hearings and in meetings with residents.  Neither has happened.  We don’t blame AT&T as we wouldn’t want to be directly involved with this either.  Unfortunately for them, the Fairfax County decision shows Crown Castle’s failure to engage AT&T could be really problematic.

Next, the court took Verizon to the woodshed for poor documentation, conflicting claims, and a general making-it-up-as-they-went-along approach.  The court outright rejected Verizon’s “expert” claims regarding location requirements and lack of feasible alternatives as lacking substance.  The court praised the citizen group for their detailed records and documentation, and painted a sharp contrast to Verizon’s behavior.   Déjà vu, anyone?

The court also tackled the issue of minimum LTE signal levels.  Verizon’s expert stated under oath that the required LTE signal level for indoor coverage was -95 dBm RSRP, 20 dB (100 times) lower that Crown Castle’s current claim in Palos Verdes Estates.  Despite this, the court still found there wasn’t a significant gap even at these low levels.  (Side note: We now have an AT&T engineering report from another jurisdiction where AT&T states the minimum LTE signal level is -96 dBm RSRP directly contradicting Crown Castle’s “required” signal claims in Palos Verdes on their behalf.  Stay tuned.)

In short, Verizon went in unprepared with sloppy documentation, arbitrary technical claims, and an argument from authority.  They lost because the County and residents had done their homework.

 

Knowledge is power as they say, and in this case it’s certainly true.  The wireless industry counts on you being uninformed and intimidated.  It doesn’t take much digging to bring down the whole house of cards.

Like this post?  Click here to go to our home page for more.

 

Our Biggest Week Ever

We had one thousand page views over the last week (1006 to be exact), a new record for this site.  There have been 27 views in the last hour it took to compose this post alone.  Thanks to all who took a look and a special thanks those who took the time to contact us.

The reason for our blog

We started this blog back in May without much fanfare.  Our intent was to document our findings regarding Crown Castle’s proposed AT&T small cell deployment in Palos Verdes, California.  As you can see from this photo simulation, Crown Castle’s “small cells” aren’t all that small, particularly if they want to locate it in your front yard.

neighborhood cell tower

Crown Castle photo simulation of a proposed streetlight cell tower site in a residential neighborhood (Via Rivera) in Rancho Palos Verdes.

As we dug into it, we were truly astonished by the quantity of mistaken site documentation, highly questionable technical claims, and false legal claims of entitlement.  Even more surprising to us was that these tactics were seemingly accepted, no one questioned it, this was just how the game was played.  It sort of reminded us of when you take your car to the body shop and the guy asks you if need a a real estimate or one for the insurance company (wink, wink).

We find thisoffensive.  Consider that Crown Castle and the others claim an entitlement to place highly intrusive cell towers in residential neighborhoods right next to people’s homes.  No one wants a commercial telecommunication facility right next to their house.  They are ugly, often noisy, and have a significant negative impact on neighboring home values. Would you buy a home with an obvious cell tower several dozen feet away?  For most families their home is their biggest investment.  Yet these good folks are just supposed to suck it up and accept it so that these companies can hit their return on investment targets.

When it happens people feel helpless and with good reason.  It’s a David vs. Goliath situation, as a multi-billion dollar corporation has invaded their quiet little street allegedly justified by a bunch lofty legalese and technical mumbo-jumbo.  Even worse, the governing municipality whose primary obligation is to serve residents, often responds with “there is nothing we can do about it”.  It’s not true of course, but no one in City Hall wants a lawsuit on their watch. City staff may not be consciously thinking about it, but who would they rather have mad at them; a few residents or a sue-happy corporation?

Regarding the technical issues, well these guys are the experts and if they say it then it must be true, right?  Actually, no.  The level of erroneous technical claims we’ve found and documented is truly staggering.  These “errors” could conceivably result from carelessness, though they do always seem to be to the cell tower applicant’s advantage.  It certainly doesn’t look random.  If it is, these guys should head to Vegas as they’re on a hot streak.

What we aim to accomplish

We first started this blog after finding there was nothing on the internet like it.  The problems we were finding in Palos Verdes were systemic and we had a hard time believing they were isolated to our community.  Our goals were four-fold:

  • Maintain an accessible repository for relevant information and documentation regarding Crown Castle’s AT&T deployment
  • Inform Palos Verdes residents regarding the discrepancies we’ve uncovered, of our municipal rights to regulate these sites, and what residents can do about it
  • Provide a resource for those in other communities who may be in a similar situation
  • Document discrepancies in the event of future legal action

With regards to the last point, we’ve only put up a sampling of what we’ve found as it’s probably best not to show all one’s cards.  But here’s the thing, if a multi-billion dollar corporation is going to demand an entitlement to place a highly intrusive cell site right next to someone’s home, they better make sure every freaking “i” is dotted and “t” is crossed.  As anyone who follows these cases closely knows, this type of carelessness is the stuff that loses lawsuits.  Instead the submitted documentation is laughable.  Let’s just say the level of “carelessness” we’ve found is truly astounding.

Thanks!

Thanks to all that have visited the site.  We got a bunch of new emails via our contact page this week and are working to get back to everyone.  Please bookmark us and check back regularly as we usually put up new posts once a week or so.

Like this post?  Click here to go to our home page for more.

Meet Crown Castle’s competitor; Mobilitie, LLC

We’ve been very critical of highly questionable tactics on Crown Castle’s part.  As a quick reminder we’ve covered numerous troubling aspects of Crown Castle’s cell tower deployment in Palos Verdes:

  • Misleading photo simulations (here) and “not to scale” drawings (here) that show equipment smaller than actuality, and are missing important components entirely
  • Highly questionable technical claims regarding existing coverage and an alleged “significant gap” (here)
  • False legal claims regarding our cities’ rights to regulate these cell towers (here)

Plus various other sundry topics, just keep scrolling down the blog for more.

It turns out that while Crown Castle (and its former entities NextG and Newpath Networks) may have written the book on questionable tactics, they certainly aren’t alone in practicing them.

Introducing Mobilitie

Mobilitie, LLC is a cell tower outfit out of Newport Beach that makes Crown Castle look like pikers.  They want to place thousands of cell towers in the right of way for Sprint and they are coming our way.  We recently found out they are trying to establish themselves on the peninsula, all South Bay cities need to be on guard.

Sprint is dealing with cash-flow issues and has dramatically scaled back their planned network expenditures over the last few years.  Despite what the guy on TV says, network quality has suffered.  Sprint saw Mobilitie as their savior, able to roll out thousands of cheap, quick, dirty, and most important, rent-free cell towers in the public right of way. In addition, Sprint further plans to save money by connecting the cell towers using a master tower with microwave links rather than running fiber optic lines between them.

However, that plan would only work provided municipalities were willing to go along with it (or alternatively, thought they had no choice in the matter).  Note also that these master “backhaul” towers are typically 120 feet tall in order to ensure they have line of site connection to the smaller towers that directly serve the consumer.  Certainly not aesthetically pleasing or in-character with most neighborhoods.

mobilitie-120-foot-utilty-pole

Example of a proposed microwave backhaul tower.  Note the ridiculous “utility pole” designation. This monster tower would communicate with smaller towers thus being cheaper than running fiber optic lines between sites.  Also note the residential neighborhood character for this proposed example.

Mobilitie (not to be confused with the wireless carrier ATT Mobility) has multiple alter egos.  They’ve been doing business as (dba) the “California Utility Pole Authority” in our state and numerous other monikers across the US.  There’s an interesting post here on their recent incarnation as the “Pole & Fiber Network Authority” in Maine.  These guys seem to have an “authority” obsession, despite the fact they have no authority.  They are a private company with no connection whatsoever to any government agency.

We won’t comment on the motives behind the alter egos but will say that we are grateful that multiple knowledgeable individuals quickly spread the word as to who exactly these guys were and what was going on.

The Minnesota Smackdown

Mobilitie doesn’t like being criticized.  So instead of us describing their tactics, we’ll let the Minnesota Department of Commerce do it.  This department actually does have “authority”.  It seems the good folks of Minnesota don’t appreciate slick Southern Californians telling them what they are “allowed” to do under Minnesota law.

minnesota-flag

minnesota-mobilitie-smackdown

You can find a full size PDF of the document here.

What a great letter, we only wish California’s regulatory agencies were as proactive in protecting our cities from the wireless industry’s misleading claims of entitlement.  In that absence, we are extremely grateful that San Francisco took the lead in aggressively defending municipal rights in T-Mobile et al vs. San Francisco (2016).  It’s a shame it also took the California Court of Appeals to set the record straight.

Our favorite quote from the Minnesota letter:

The Department requests that Mobilitie cease from asserting that PUC (Ed: Public Utility Commission) authority has exempted it from the regulatory requirements of local government units.  If such communications continue, the Department will pursue whatever remedies it may have available under Minnesota law.

 LOL, gotta love it.

What this means for Palos Verdes

As far as we know, Mobilitie has only made overtures on the peninsula so there’s likely no direct impact yet.  That being said, the Minnesota smackdown letter mentions tactics reminiscent of Crown Castle’s claims in Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes.

We’ve documented how Crown Castle claimed federal law (known as section 6409) applied to their proposed cell towers, and that because of that, the City couldn’t deny them.  As we made clear in our post (here), those claims were blatantly untrue.  Crown Castle has also repeatedly claimed the California Public Utility Code Section 7901 limits municipal power to regulate their cell towers in the right of way.  T-Mobile et al vs. San Francisco utterly obliterated that claim.

Residents and municipalities need to question California’s regulatory agencies why they aren’t taking a more proactive stance against these tactics.  Until that happens, California cities need to aggressively challenge every claim made by any of these guys.

Like this post?  Click here to go to our home page for more.