Interesting developments in a commercial tower case here locally which
may have implications for how the new Telecommunications Act of 1996 may
be employed: US District Court Judge R.A. Jackson found the Va Beach City
Council's denial of permission to build 2 135-foot towers on the Little
Neck peninsula (about a mile from my QTH) in violation of the act. A
local church had sought permission to lease land for the two towers for
$ 60,000 per year, and the move was opposed by area residents who felt
the towers would impact adversely on the residential area. The judge
determined that the council's decision "denies AT&T and PrimeCo rights
under the act to compete in the area under existing cellular companies
such as GTE and 360 Communications. AT&T and PrimeCo have entered the
Hampton Roads market by opening digital service to customers...
"Any decision to deny digital service providers the means to extend
coverage to the Little Neck peninsula would favor the existing services
at the expense of the newcomers."
An appeal is expected. Because the law is so new, there is
little experience in dealing with it, but the concern here is that it
is going to give the telecommunications companies an extraordinary amount
of clout in getting what they want, even of the majority of residents in
an area oppose them.
Virginia Beach has a very liberal ham antenna tower policy for
a growing city - you can have one tower not taller than 90 feet - though
you must meet some pretty stringent wind requirements, etc. There are
several such towers (mine included) on the Little Neck peninsula, and
local residents outside of 2 newer large neighborhoods which have "no
external antenna" covenants are pretty sanguine about ham installations.
I went to the initial hearings just a an interested party -
wanted to make sure no wild-eyed "those damn things cause cancer..."
arguments surfaced which might spill over into trouble for us hams, and
the arguments were mostly aesthetic. The area is residential, heavily
wooded with old trees - lotsa tall pines - but the concern was that the
significantly taller towers would really stick out. I didn't hear any
adverse comments about hams and their installations.
I'm a physician, not an attorney, but wonder if this decision -
if it withstands appeal - mightn't be a harbinger of Big Gorilla tactics
by the giants in the TelCom industry which may have bad implications for
us and our frequencies. I'd be interested if others in other parts of
the country have encountered any similar activity. It's not hard to
imagine some judge saying something like: "...while this decision to
reassign 144-148 Mhz might inconvenience some, the interests of the
public and fairness in competition dictate that AT7T (or Primestar, or
360 Comm, etc) be awarded these frequencies...."
Anyway, food for thought.
Vy 73, Don W4ZYT
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|