

In lawsuit, AT&T blames Cambridge, Mass. for crappy wireless service - ilamont
http://www.universalhub.com/2010/lawsuit-att-blames-cambridge-crappy-cell-service-b

======
woodrow
The law referenced in the article, from the complaint, regarding the "right"
to build cellular towers:

    
    
      The [Telecommunications] Act contains five enumerated limitations to State and
      local zoning authority. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). Among other things, "[i]f a
      [municipal] decision is not supported by substantial evidence, § 332(c)(7)(B)
      (iii), or if it effectively prohibits the provision of wireless service,
      § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), then under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,
      local law is pre-empted in order to effectuate the Act's national policy
      goals." Second Generation Props. L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 627
      (1st Cir. 2002).
    

ATT really has the right to judicial review of the Council's decision, which
may result in the Cambridge City Council's decision being overturned on the
basis given above.

------
nix
_The company said it looked at other locations in the area, but none would
work, either because the owners didn't want cell antennas on their
buildings..._

So either multiple owners are refusing to host antennas at any price, or AT&T
just doesn't want to pay market rent in Harvard Square.

------
nkassis
The city wasn't built with cell phone coverage in mind. I can understand that
they need to put antennas in weird locations to offer coverage.

I don't get what is so appalling about this. They are doing their best to
avoid making it a blemish on the roof of that building.

~~~
kylec
Sure, but I don't see why this translates into AT&T having the _right_ to put
up towers. If there's poor AT&T service in Harvard Square and customers
complain, AT&T can simply direct them to petition the zoning board to allow
them to put up towers. That way the issue can be resolved using local politics
instead of lawsuits.

~~~
bconway
_Sure, but I don't see why this translates into AT &T having the right to put
up towers._

I don't either, but apparently the federal government disagrees. The article
doesn't cite this "law," however.

 _If there's poor AT &T service in Harvard Square and customers complain, AT&T
can simply direct them to petition the zoning board to allow them to put up
towers. That way the issue can be resolved using local politics instead of
lawsuits._

More than likely, customers would just jump ship to Verizon instead, which is
the last thing AT&T wants.

~~~
djacobs
Given the vast number of iPhones I see in Harvard Square every day (probably
about 40% of all visible phones), I don't know if Verizon is necessarily the
logical end here.

~~~
learner4life
It might be if Verizon gets the iPhone by the end of this year or early next
year.

