WASHINGTON-The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association blasted Rep. Charles Bass’ (R-N.H.) pro-local antenna siting bill, saying it would undermine public safety and competition and potentially make local zoning authorities hostage to anti-tower activists.
“We urge Congress not to enact the Local Zoning Preservation Act of 1999 and instead to preserve the delicate balance struck by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on wireless antenna-siting issues,” said Steven Berry, CTIA senior vice president for congressional affairs, in an April 21 letter to Bass, obtained by RCR last week.
The Bass bill would clarify that concerns about a tower’s impact on residential aesthetics and property values are legitimate grounds for rejecting siting applications. The measure also places a heavy legal burden on wireless carriers to justify their desire to erect transmission towers.
Federal appeals courts differ on whether local zoning boards can turn down a carrier’s request to build mobile phone towers based on aesthetic concerns.
“If it were to pass, it would be a grievous blow to industry,” said Sheldon Moss, director of government relations for wireless infrastructure for the Personal Communications Industry Association.
Specifically, Moss said the Bass bill “would have a serious adverse impact on the industry’s ability to win any judgment at all in court.” He noted PCIA officials met with Bass’ staff to voice concerns about the legislation.
While the wireless industry tries to keep Bass in check with help from House telecommunications subcommittee Billy Tauzin (R-La.), other legislative activity to curb antenna siting is in play.
Vermont Sens. Patrick Leahy (D) and James Jeffords (R) plan to re-introduce legislation at the end of May that would repeal a key antenna-siting provision in the telecom act. The provision says state and local authorities cannot reject wireless towers for health reasons if carriers comply with federal radio-frequency radiation exposure guidelines.
Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) is expected to sponsor a companion bill in the House.
In addition, Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) is mulling legislative strategy because of pressure from constituents complaining about mobile phone towers.
“There are a number of pieces of legislation out there, and we’re looking at them all,” said Philip Maggi, legal counsel to Johnson.
CTIA’s Berry said the Bass bill also would foster confrontation over cooperation; usurp the functions of the judicial system; discriminate against the wireless industry; and undermine in some cases the very state and local authority that the legislation attempts to advance.
To make his point on how shifting the legal burden to carriers could backfire, Berry laid out a scenario whereby a local citizen effectively could nix a tower application otherwise supported by local officials and the carrier.
“In other words,” said Berry, “the state or local authority’s decision is presumed wrong unless the wireless carrier affirmatively proves that the decision is right. Notwithstanding the language in the legislation’s findings that purports to champion Federalist principles, the legislation stacks the deck against decisions made by state or local authorities that allow the placement, construction or modification of wireless antennas.”
A quarter of the four-page CTIA letter dealt exclusively with public-safety benefits of wireless communications, the kind of supporting data heretofore reserved for House and Senate E911 legislation.
But the safety issue has proved tricky for the wireless industry, cutting any number of different ways in recent years. On the one hand, CTIA boasts about the 98,000 911 wireless calls made everyday. On the other hand, some have criticized wireless carriers for blocking non-subscriber 911 calls. Still others say phones make driving hazardous and may cause health problems.
