kkpw.gif (2346 bytes)

 

PlanWireless

       

 

Home

Grant Writing

Issues â

 

Technologies

The Trouble with Towers

Lawsuits

Questioning the industry

Fiscal Realities

Right-of-Way

What Can Be Done â

 

Helping Government

Helping Communities

Send us Your Leases

Newsletter

About Us

Contents

 

 

  Lawsuits â
 

Significant Gaps
ACT v. City of San Diego
Ho Ho Kus, NJ
City of La Cañada Flintridge
Sprint v. Ontario
Sprint's Appeal
Penn Township, PA
Metro PCS v. San Francisco
Ho-Ho-Kus Remanded
Albemarle Co
AT&T v. Carlsbad
VoiceStream v. StCroix
Property Rights as Substantial Evidence
Update in San Diego

Home
> Lawsuits > Sprint v. Ontario

PlanWireless has been focusing on this important case since the March 1998 issue of PlanWireless (see also the April 1998 and May 1998 issues). Sprint Spectrum, in suing the Town of Ontario over the denial of three monopoles, claimed that technological imperatives dictated a series of shorter personal wireless service facilities to guarantee "in-building" coverage. To underline to the judge that they were right, Sprint Spectrum made the following points in their complaint:

There is no evidence in the record offered by a competent, qualified radio frequency engineer which would support or substantiate the Planning Board's belief.

The only competent evidence in the record before the Planning Board on this issue was presented by Sprint PCS's Design Manager, Ralph Mastrangelo.

There is no evidence in the record which contradicts Mr. Mastrangelo's expert testimony that the three proposed Ontario sites are necessary to provide adequate, in-building PCS service in the area to be covered.

In other words: "Sprint's right, everyone else is wrong."

But Judge Telesca was having none of this technological-superiority claim. He felt that the Town of Ontario had the right to decide for itself what adequate service was, even though the Town lacked the technical knowledge to dispute Sprint's claims.

Sprint achieved "in-vehicle" coverage (-103dBm) with one tower in the similarly-constituted neighboring towns of Walworth and Macedon. However, throughout this litigation, Sprint has consistently referred to "in-building" level of coverage (-99 dBm) as Sprint's "goal," or "objective," for the Town of Ontario, without providing any authority (FCC regulation, license condition, etc.) as to why that higher level of coverage is the minimal level which would be "adequate" for the Town of Ontario. Even so, the Town still had the authority to determine whether Sprint could provide that level of service with fewer than three towers.

The important message is not that local governments get the last word, but rather that local governments should not stray into the area of technology in the first place. A local government should start to worry if they have staff or activists who think they are experts in radio frequency engineering. Click on "Facts About Personal Wireless Service Facilities" to see why.

 

To learn more, subscribe to the PlanWireless newsletter...

featup.gif (843 bytes)Top of
page

Home ] Issues ] Technologies ] The Trouble With "Towers" ] Lawsuits ] Questioning the Industry ] Fiscal Realities ] Right-of-Way ] What Can Be Done ] Helping Government ] Helping Communities ] Send Us Your Leases ] Newsletter ] About Us ] Contents ]

Kreines & Kreines, Inc.
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920
Phone: (415) 435-9214
Fax: (415) 435-1522
e-mail: mail@planwireless.com