Reflections on the FCC and the Telecommunications Act

Council needs to stop reciting pro-wireless bias narratives that rubber-stamp and cheerlead the interests of telecom and their so-called demonstrations. What is preempted is an actual moratorium that's specific to wireless –– for which Montgomery County is NOT GUILTY!

What the County’s attorneys continue to advise Councilmembers cannot be squared with what the FCC told the Supreme Court! The FCC never concluded that every limitation on any covered service is effectively prohibitory –– and told that to the Supreme Court! In addition, the FCC stated that “[n]othing in the Small Cell Order suggests that wireless carriers may “construct any and all towers,” or small cells, that they “deem[ ] necessary” in their “business judgment.” In addition, the Commission did not conclude that every limitation on any covered service is effectively prohibitory. See the DETAILS of what a resident researched and presented as to why it is wrong to construe that the small cell order implies that localities may never constrain a carrier’s preferences.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

The County is recklessly and fecklessly devoted to giving maximum locations to wireless facilities AS IF doing so is law –– all the while falsely alleging legal consequences when, in fact, “there is not a shred of evidence in the legislative history suggesting that . . . Congress intended plaintiffs to be able to recover damages and attorney's fees.” See the DETAILS a resident has researched and presented about the case history of City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams all the way up to the Supreme Court. Review this comprehensive look at why a telecom company can NOT sue a local jurisdiction for damages. Enforcing violations of §332(c)(7) would undermine the policies that the Telecommunications Act (TCA) reflects!

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Additionally reflective of the TCA is that streaming videos, viewing online movies, sending/receiving emails, browsing the Internet, and engaging in tele-medicine are NOT part of “personal wireless service” or even a telecommunications service and the preemptive provisions in 47 U.S.C. 253 and 332(c)(7). The Telecommunications Act’s (TCA) 47 U.S.C. 253 and 332(c)(7) do not apply to these aforementioned services in isolation.

coverage gap analysis is all about voice service –– NOT any perceived need to expand the aforementioned data services. Coverage required is for outdoor, wireless phone calls (which require up to “5 bars" of telecommunication service). As per the FCC itself, coverage is "outdoors and stationary. It is not meant to reflect where service is available when a user is indoors or in a moving vehicle.” –– https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map

WHY is it that the following has not dawned on Council –– that it’s exceedingly unlikely that the US Congress in 1996 intended for the US population to be sickened, injured, and die of profoundly deleterious RF/EMF effects –– all in order to allow the wireless industry to maximize its profits!

Posted by techwisemocoadmin