 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to iknow
Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house? The FCC is just one part of the federal government.
For example, you cannot put a cell tower in a city park in a flood plain because FEMA and the EPA, and potentially other agencies, all have a say in whether or not the tower is allowed. And they always say no.
Highway right of ways are generally out as well, because the state or local government can appeal to the DOT who will always say no. It is also quite possible for the city to demolish a cell tower in an arterial right of way by expanding the arterial (the public health, safety, and welfare clause). The local government can even require that a demolition bond be posted at the time the tower is constructed and use that bond to demolish the tower when the wide is widened. How do I know this? An outdoor warning siren is a telecommunications device (2-way trunking 800Mhz).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | reply to DonLibes
OP, the use of tin foil hats can be dangerous according to the engineering department at MIT. »berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ you don't want to amplify what could be a normally safe RF level to that of an unsafe one!. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to iknow
said by iknow:i'd like to see a link to that Sorry to disappoint but 15+ years ago nothing was online. Also, common sense says a company doesn't voluntarily remove a few month old tower, eating hundreds of thousands of dollars for giggles. |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | said by morbo:said by iknow:i'd like to see a link to that Sorry to disappoint but 15+ years ago nothing was online. Also, common sense says a company doesn't voluntarily remove a few month old tower, eating hundreds of thousands of dollars for giggles. the FCC only made the ruling on the preemption in June 2, 2000 or a bit before, that's when the FCC guide was printed, in response to abuses by local authorities. there are some things which are too essential to deny, so, that tower episode was before the FCC claimed preemption over state and local laws in certain cases. you are talking 1997 or before!. i didn't know that was 15+ years ago, this happened, else i would have stated this. |
|
 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:For example, you cannot put a cell tower in a city park in a flood plain because FEMA and the EPA, and potentially other agencies, all have a say in whether or not the tower is allowed. And they always say no. I do find this hard to believe. Reason being, most of Manhattan is in a flood plain. However, I have not heard of FEMA or the EPA rejecting cellular antennas in any part of Manhattan; much so ever getting involved. |
|
|
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | I should be more specific, I mean a buyout park.
e.g. residential property bought with federal money for flood mitigation and turned into a park. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:Very true but there are 12 pages of comments by us computer keyboard legal experts and I've yet to see any official ruling by any court or AHJ that the pole and antenna in question is not a legal installation.
This is more a NIMBY argument thread than anything else.
AHJ in this case is the FCC
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
The preceding posting is null and void in Arizona and any other jurisdiction where prohibited by law. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to marigolds
highway ROW are under State jurisdiction. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to whizkid3
said by whizkid3:said by marigolds:For example, you cannot put a cell tower in a city park in a flood plain because FEMA and the EPA, and potentially other agencies, all have a say in whether or not the tower is allowed. And they always say no. I do find this hard to believe. Reason being, most of Manhattan is in a flood plain. However, I have not heard of FEMA or the EPA rejecting cellular antennas in any part of Manhattan; much so ever getting involved. Most on Manhattan is not in a "flood plain".
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
The preceding posting is null and void in Arizona and any other jurisdiction where prohibited by law. |
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to DonLibes
I've attached a report from SiteSafe, an engineering company hired by Crown Castle, to confirm that the node mentioned in the original post is FCC-compliant. (Nothing about compliance to local regs, though.) I've never seen a report like this so I figured others might find it informative as well. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to AVD
said by AVD:highway ROW are under State jurisdiction.
Yes, they are, but the state can go to the DOT to back them up on a safety disagreement with the FCC. You only need state permission, not federal, to place something in highway ROW, but if the state wants to deny you permission and you go to the FCC, they can go to the DOT. |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | said by marigolds:said by AVD:highway ROW are under State jurisdiction.
Yes, they are, but the state can go to the DOT to back them up on a safety disagreement with the FCC. You only need state permission, not federal, to place something in highway ROW, but if the state wants to deny you permission and you go to the FCC, they can go to the DOT. that's wrong, the FCC has jurisdiction on transmission facilities, the DOT wouldn't have a clue what field strength is, they'd think it has something to do with wrestling or the military or something. that wouldn't be good at all. the FCC is the department you need to have approve your transmission facility, and if it's one of those deemed as necessary, the FCC WILL assert preemption!. |
|
whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to AVD
said by AVD:Most on Manhattan is not in a "flood plain". While its slightly OT, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. NYC building codes, which have special requirements for buildings located in areas designated by FEMA as zone A and zone V. The FEMA map of floodplains is available (usually) here: »www.msc.fema.gov/
Its offline at the moment. But one can clearly see that most of Manhattan is located in the 100 year floodplain. (Not hard to guess, considering Manhattan is surrounded by large bodies of water directly on the ocean.) You tell me. This is from FEMA:
quote:
Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone used for 1-percent-annual-chance (base flood) floodplains that are determined for the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) by approximate methods of analysis. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown in this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.
»www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/fq···shtm#in8
Or take it from Wikipedia:
quote:
This floodplain map figures very importantly in building permits, environmental regulations, and flood insurance.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_year_flood
Or are you just being a grammer nazi? |
|
 owlynPremium,MVM
join:2004-06-05
Newtown, PA
 ·Comcast
| reply to iknow
Such poles are going up in my township. The company went to the state PUC and had themselves declared a utility. Once they have that status, they can erect telephone poles in the public right-of-way (no easements needed). They are allowed to install poles even in areas that have no other above-ground facilities, even if the land is deed-restricted to having only below-ground utilities. They still need permits, and the township tried to fight them in court and lost. Now that the public is aware of these poles going in, a big stink was raised, and the township will be appealing the lower court decision. The township's fear was that if they lost in court, they would be on the hook for lost revenue, because the pole company had a contract with a carrier, and was required to provide service beginning on a certain date.
There are two real issues going on here. First, it appears to be more of a NIMBY thing than anything else, except that, second, this isn't too terrible when the first company comes in and starts putting up poles. But what happens when the next and the next and the next companies come in and want to do the same? The landscape gets littered with poles where there were none before.
BTW, these poles are going in primarily to support 4G.
It's the old problem of everyone wants service, but not equipment to provide it. |
|
 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | said by owlyn:There are two real issues going on here. First, it appears to be more of a NIMBY thing than anything else, except that, second, this isn't too terrible when the first company comes in and starts putting up poles. But what happens when the next and the next and the next companies come in and want to do the same? The landscape gets littered with poles where there were none before.
BTW, these poles are going in primarily to support 4G.
It's the old problem of everyone wants service, but not equipment to provide it.
That is the issues. Nothing else. NIMBY
Deed restrictions requiring underground utilities mean nothing and do not apply to the right of way. I know of many such neighborhoods that have that restriction that have pad mounted transformers, phone and tv boxes on the right of way in "Front" of their houses with the wiring underground to the house.
A couple of companies are sticking up poles all over my county and the adjoining counties to provide wifi. It's line of sight so numerous poles are needed to cover the entire county. We are rural and have no other options other than Sprint and Verizon wireless broadband which now is 3G. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to iknow
said by iknow:said by marigolds:said by AVD:highway ROW are under State jurisdiction.
Yes, they are, but the state can go to the DOT to back them up on a safety disagreement with the FCC. You only need state permission, not federal, to place something in highway ROW, but if the state wants to deny you permission and you go to the FCC, they can go to the DOT. that's wrong, the FCC has jurisdiction on transmission facilities, the DOT wouldn't have a clue what field strength is, they'd think it has something to do with wrestling or the military or something. that wouldn't be good at all. the FCC is the department you need to have approve your transmission facility, and if it's one of those deemed as necessary, the FCC WILL assert preemption!. Regardless of the need for the transmission facility, if the placement of the tower jeopardizes public safety on a highway or interstate the FCC decision can be overturned. There is a reason there are no tornado sirens in interstate right of ways.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | said by marigolds:Regardless of the need for the transmission facility, if the placement of the tower jeopardizes public safety on a highway or interstate the FCC decision can be overturned. There is a reason there are no tornado sirens in interstate right of ways.
Really? Then they should remove all the structures for highway signage and the message boards that are right on the side of the pavement in the right of ways.
Right now they are installing the structures for the installation of EzPass on some of our interstates. The vertical structures are on the right of way next to the travel lanes. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | said by Jack_in_VA:said by marigolds:Regardless of the need for the transmission facility, if the placement of the tower jeopardizes public safety on a highway or interstate the FCC decision can be overturned. There is a reason there are no tornado sirens in interstate right of ways.
Really? Then they should remove all the structures for highway signage and the message boards that are right on the side of the pavement in the right of ways. Right now they are installing the structures for the installation of EzPass on some of our interstates. The vertical structures are on the right of way next to the travel lanes. They should, but they choose to keep those because the signage is considered to have a more important purpose than outdoor warning sirens. (Mostly because you cannot hear the sirens in a vehicle on a highway, so the message boards are a more viable alert system.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5 | reply to DonLibes
Utilities are typically granted the blanket authority to operate within the ROW subject to some very broad, seemingly vague requirements.
While I have a degree of sympathy for the OPs individual plight, I see nothing there that is not normal, accepted industry practice.
I would, however, like to talk to the foreman that allowed that dog-legged POS pole to be installed...! |
|
