Whether AT&T Wireless should be allowed to install new cell phone antennas on a San Pablo Avenue rooftop is now a question for federal court.
AT&T filed a lawsuit against Albany on Wednesday in response to the to deny the company's plans to improve cell phone service in the city.
AT&T is requesting a court order that would require the city to grant the company's application to construct new antennas on the rooftop at 1035 San Pablo Ave.
AT&T and city officials have not responded to requests for comment yet.
According to the formal complaint (attached as a PDF to the right), AT&T claims that the council's decision "effectively prohibited AT&T from closing a significant service coverage gap in the City," which violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
AT&T also points to the fact that the rooftop that it wants to use already has Sprint antennas.
See all of Albany Patch's cell tower coverage.
"By denying AT&T's Application even though Sprint was allowed to install its facility on the rooftop of the Site, the City is discriminating against AT&T," the complaint states.
AT&T chose that specific San Pablo rooftop because of a section in Albany's municipal code that mandates new wireless communication facilities be co-located with existing facilities whenever possible, according to the complaint.
But the Planning & Zoning Commission , and again in May. The commissioners cited the city's rules about rooftop coverage as the reason for the denial, saying there was not enough room on the building's roof.
AT&T appealed to the City Council, . Before the second meeting, AT&T submitted revised plans that the company argued would have met the rooftop requirements.
But city officials said it was too little, too late, and in a split 3-2 vote the council upheld the planning commission's decision.
In the formal complaint, AT&T argues that the council's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, pointing to the contradiction between the city's co-location mandate and its rooftop coverage limitations.
AT&T also claims the City Council relied on public concerns about radio frequency emissions——in making its decision, which violates the Telecommunications Act.
AT&T's efforts over the last four years to install new cell phone antennas in Albany have elicited passionate responses from both and .
Several residents feared the City Council's decision in July would lead to a lawsuit.
AT&T has requested an expedited review of the case, though that request has not yet been granted.
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/72-the-world-as-seen-from-new-yorks-9th-avenue except substitute Albany for Manhattan. I think the powers that be in Albany will be shocked when the courts decide in favor of AT&T.
I wonder how much we will have to spend to defend this lawsuit? I hope the Counci l settles immediately and lets them go ahead and put the proposed antennas on top of 1035 San Pablo. The Zoning issues are truly minor and certainly not worth fighting over.
Since Verizon agreed to use an antenna setup that looked like the old one, Planning and Zoning approved the swap. But city council reversed P&Z, and Verizon sued. The lawsuit settlement required P&Z to do it over again in the light of a new federal law which basically says P&Z has to allow such antenna upgrades. So the federal law makes P&Z do what it had already agreed to do before. But this time council did not take up the appeal on the advice of their attorney. I'm still trying to get the cost figures for the lawsuit, which was a total waste of time in my opinion. P&Z got it right the first time, and if council would have butted out, we'd have more money in our limited city treasury.
Who would have won the suit if the law hadn't changed? No way of knowing.
AT&T = 1 (cost of monthly service never received) Me = 0
Make it city = 3 because the city charges a user utility tax on you cell phone of 3 percent, even if the city's policies prevent your cell phone from working. But remember that AT&T has spent thousands of dollars of staff and engineering time on this proposal to attempt to get you the service that you pay for.
The obvious solution is to duplicate the success of the cell installations on our private high school (St. Mary's has three) on our public high school (which could also use the revenue). That would also require modifying our city's cell ordinance, but is technically a much better idea.
1) Parks are not an approved zone so the Wireless Ordinance would need to be modified 2) an EIR would certainly be required, adding at least 6 months 3) we already have a Master Plan for Albany Hill that does not include a wireless tower 4) the City is not allowed to to require that a carrier use a city facility and 5) Carriers locate their facilities to provide the best coverage and there's no guarantee they'd select a hillside facility.
Thanks a lot, Albany ლ(｀ー´ლ)
"The company temporarily shut down the 850 MHz frequency for 2G customers. The 2G network is the company's oldest, meaning relatively few customers would be affected, Britton said. Those on 2G are using some of the company's oldest phones and would still be supported in the affected areas on the 1900 MHz frequency. "The company temporarily shut down the 850 MHz frequency for 2G customers. The 2G network is the company's oldest, meaning relatively few customers would be affected..... Those on 2G are using some of the company's oldest phones and would still be supported in the affected areas on the 1900 MHz frequency."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104919685/Settlement-Letter-Verizon-vs-City-of-Albany