Saturday, December 14, 2013

Battle over Milton cell tower back in U.S. appeals court

Battle over Milton cell tower back in U.S. appeals court

By Neal Simpson
Posted Dec 07, 2013 @ 07:00 AM

A four-year legal battle over a proposed 140-foot cellphone tower near the Blue Hills Reservation has wound up back in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Green Mountain Realty Corp., the developer that first sought to build the tower near Houghton’s Pond in 2009, filed a brief Wednesday appealing a U.S. District Court judge’s decision siding with the town in its rejection of the project. Milton’s zoning board is scheduled to meet behind closed doors Tuesday to consider the appeal.

The dispute, which is being heard by the appeals court for the second time, stems from Green Mountain’s attempt to build a tower on a triangle of land between Interstate 93 and an on-ramp from Blue Hill River Road to the southbound side of the highway at Exit 3. The developer has said the tower would close a coverage gap in the area and keep drivers on the highway from losing calls.

The project drew nearly unanimous opposition from people who live near the proposed tower site and from supporters of the Blue Hills Reservation. The opponents said the tower would be visible from several key spots in the state park and would taint the natural beauty of the area.

“Houghton’s Pond is one of the centers of the reservation, and the tower would have been seen from a number of pretty popular places within the park,” said Judy Lehrer Jacobs, executive director of the Friends of the Blue Hills. “We feel it would really detract from the visitor experience.”

After the proposal was rejected by Milton’s zoning board of appeals and conservation commission in the fall of 2009, Green Mountain appealed directly to U.S. District Court, arguing that the boards violated the federal Telecommunications Act by rejecting its proposal without substantial evidence. It said the boards’ decision effectively blocked cellphone carriers from providing coverage in the area because no other options for a tower existed.

A federal district court judge sided with the town in 2011, but last year the appeals court ordered the judge to reconsider whether the boards’ denial had the effect of prohibiting cellphone service along the stretch of Interstate 93 near Exit 3.

In his second decision, filed in September, the district court judge ruled that the boards’ decisions may have amounted to a prohibition of cell service when they were made in 2009, but he also said a recent merger between T-Mobile USA and MetroPCS – the two carriers that agreed to put antennas on the tower – had changed the circumstances.


Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1069228145/Battle-over-Milton-cell-tower-back-in-U-S-appeals-court#ixzz2nWGiHEJa 


Follow us: @milforddaily on Twitter | 104182678168 on Facebook



DM issues guidelines for telecom stations, towers


DM issues guidelines for telecom stations, towers


Sajila Saseendran / 10 December 2013

All new mobile towers and masts need to meet guidelines on distance from educational institutions and health facilities, exposure limits of radiation. 


The Dubai Municipality (DM) has issued new guidelines to minimise the health and environmental impact of mobile phone base stations and towers. All new mobile towers and masts need to meet the new guidelines, including those on the distance from educational institutions and health facilities, and safe exposure limits of electromagnetic radiation emission.

“We have released a comprehensive guide that covers all aspects of telecom towers, including their design, selection of site, installation and operation, requirements to get environmental permission in addition to the safe exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation frequencies,” said Hind Mahmoud, Head of Environmental Studies and Planning Section of Environment Department at DM.

“We have also held a technical meeting with telecom companies to inform them the most important requirements and environmental standards that must be taken into account when selecting sites of wireless communication stations and towers.”

As per the new guidelines, telecom operators — Etisalat and Du — must conduct a preliminary field study about a proposed site for erecting the masts before they approach the authorities for approval. “They need to get an environmental permit, which now covers more clauses than earlier. The procedures for the initial evaluation of the construction sites will ensure that the communication stations and towers don’t negatively impact the environment and public health.”

She clarified that the permit will not be granted if the stations and towers impact air routes, heritage sites or natural reserves, in cases of which approvals need to be taken from other entities like the Dubai Civil Aviation Authority and the Architectural Heritage Department.

The meeting also discussed the mechanisms to enhance cooperation and coordination between the parties to realize the vision of sustainability in the emirate. “We are encouraging the telecom operators to share same towers wherever they can so that we can minimise the number of towers in particular areas.”

She also stressed the need to comply with all environmental standards contained in the technical guide, which has been developed in accordance with best international practices and standards of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/government/2013/December/government_December68.xml&section=government

 sajila@khaleejtimes.com

Committee endorses temporary cell tower moratorium in Guelph


Committee endorses temporary cell tower moratorium in Guelph

Dec 10, 2013
























































































































































































GUELPH — A city committee voted unanimously Monday to enact a moratorium on building cell towers in the city, while Canada awaits a review of guidelines that govern exposure to electromagnetic energy created by mobile networks.
But even though the meeting featured discussion among affected residents, an intermediary group and a representative of the telecom companies, the committee's action carries little weight when it comes to deciding where cell towers will be placed in the city.
City zoning inspector Pat Sheehy said it is Industry Canada — not the city — that gives final approval to carriers seeking to build towers.
"We can concur, or we can choose not to concur, but Industry Canada can still approve the tower."
So even if the full city council approves a cell tower moratorium at its Dec. 16 meeting, proposed towers at Grange Road and Starwood Drive, Kortright and Edinburgh roads and on Victoria Road could go ahead.
"We're not the approval (body)," Mayor Karen Farbridge said. "That's what we've been communicating to people."
The committee's decision to enact a moratorium was prompted by an approach from the Canadian Radiocommunications Information and Notification Service, a group that offers to act as an intermediary between municipalities, wireless firms and federal regulators when it comes to cell tower approval and construction.
The group's director, Todd White, told the committee his organization helps cities "manage a public consultation process" and scrutinize proposals by wireless firms to make sure residents are fully aware of where new towers are planned.
He said his group "has become the clearing house of information to the public" regarding cell tower construction in cities where it operates.
The city's planning, building, engineering and environment committee recommended withholding the city's approval from all new cell towers until sometime around March 2014 or later, when a committee struck by the Royal Society of Canada will deliver recommendations on whether to update Canada Safety Code 6, which regulates exposure to electromagnetic energy in federally regulated industries.
Sue Lebrecht, who lives in the vicinity of Grange Road and Starwood Drive, where a new cell tower is proposed, urged council to enact a moratorium and accept assistance from the intermediary group.
"I cannot survive the location of a new tower. I'm living on one of those rare spots in city without a tower within one square kilometre," said Lebrecht who says exposure to radiofrequency energy causes her a range of health problems, ranging from heart palpitations to tinnitus.
But a lawyer representing wireless carriers pointed out that White's group is not registered as a non-profit, but as a business, and has "caused difficulty" when carriers and cities in New Brunswick began planning for cell towers in that province.
"It's a pan-Canadian organization attempting to shoehorn itself into these various schemes," Stephen D'Agostino, a lawyer representing Bell, Rogers and Telus said of White's group.
White did not respond to his organization's registration as a business.
D'Agostino didn't discuss health concerns brought up by several Guelph residents at the meeting.
"I know there's people here talking about health and I'm not here to talk about health. But what I suggest is that you have a medical officer of health who is equipped to deal with it."
Another speaker, Dan Welland of Canadians for Safe Technology, told the committee Safety Code 6 is outdated, and even Russia and China have enacted more stringent regulations.
"It's not applicable to the 21st century and was never meant to protect the Canadian public."

Pasco school district supports controversial campus cell tower

Pasco school district supports controversial campus cell tower

Some Bethel residents fight new cell tower plan

Some Bethel residents fight new cell tower plan

Updated 9:46 pm, Wednesday, December 11, 2013

BETHEL -- Although a cell tower proposal for private property on Codfish Hill Road is still in the early stages, some residents have come out against it.
The preliminary plan would be to construct an 150-foot wireless telecommunication tower facility in the easterly portion of the approximately 49-acre property at 62/64 Codfish Hill. Records show the land is owned by Claudia Stone.
The town has six other cell towers.
A new state law requires that an applicant for a tower must make a connection with the municipality where it would be located before applying for a permit from the Connecticut Siting Council, which approves tower locations.
A meeting Dec. 5 in town was the first step the North Atlantic Towers took to satisfy the law.
About 40 people attended the meeting. Some had received notices from the company proposing the tower.
"People are really upset,'' said Gillean Reinders, who received a notice about the meeting because of her closeness to the tower.
"Not only is there data about the health issues related to living close to the tower, but property values can be affected. We'll do everything we can to stop it."
She said they could see the balloon, indicating the height of the towers, from her deck and so could neighbors.
The group will meet next week to begin to formalize their efforts to protest the tower, she said.
First Selectman Matt Knickerbocker attended the meeting Dec. 5 and said that no one spoke in favor of the proposal.
He said the new law also allows the municipality to propose a different location for the tower.
"We will propose the company look at several different sites like Rock Ridge Golf Course and other locations away from residents," Knickerbocker said. "But, if this property is the only option, we would insist that the tower be put in the center of the property, which would be more than 950 feet away from the nearest home."
Reinders said that she has adequate cell service at her house and other neighbors also said their service was good so they didn't know why the tower was needed.
The proposed facility would allow AT&T and other carriers to provide wireless services.
Melanie Bachman, acting executive director of the Connecticut Siting Council, said that the company has not made a formal application for this tower yet.
"When an applicant comes in, the burden on them is to show us there is a need for coverage in an area," she said.
Even though there are other towers in Bethel, she said, sometimes their coverage areas are reduced by the topography.
She said there are no specific restrictions on the siting on a lot, but the council would look at how far the tower is located from a property line.
She said the companies working in the state are aware of what the council wants to see.
"They have come to know what we require so they can alleviate concerns ahead of time,'' she said and often the company will modify its proposal based on concerns of the residents.
There was no formal next step yet in the approval process, except for the plan of Reinders' group to meet next week to organize.
eileenf@newstimes.com; 203-731-3333

City unveils strict cell tower rules


City unveils strict cell tower rules

Proposed San Marcos ordinance would limit 'eyesore' antenna farms


Pine Island Chamber to conduct survey on proposed cell tower

Pine Island Chamber to conduct survey on proposed cell tower

Online survey seeks to gauge community reaction

Cops and Feds Routinely ‘Dump’ Cell Towers to Track Everyone Nearby

Cops and Feds Routinely ‘Dump’ Cell Towers to Track Everyone Nearby



Photo: barryskeates/Flickr
The nation’s mobile phone carriers received more than 9,000 requests last year for cell-tower dumps, which identify every mobile phone at a particular location and time, often by the thousands.
The revelation, revealed in a congressional inquiry, underscores that domestic authorities, from the FBI to the local police, are performing a massive amount of surveillance on Americans on domestic soil, sometimes without probable-cause warrants.
Figures provided by the nation’s largest carriers, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and AT&T, and smaller companies, like C-Spire and Cricket, show that the carriers overall got as many as 1.1 million requests for customer cellular data last year. They’ve earned tens of millions of dollars processing the data, the records show.
The governments requests, most of which were honored, include data for, among other things, the geo-location of a device, call detail records, texts message contents, voicemail, cell tower dumps, wiretapping, subscriber information, and websites visited.
But the most startling figures show that the authorities are obtaining information on the whereabouts of perhaps thousands of people at once, often by a judge’s signature based on assurances from the authorities that the data is relevant to an investigation.
A myriad of factors determine how many people are caught in the web of one of these so-called “cell-tower dumps” or “searches,” including the time, location and a mobile-phone tower’s capacity. The data from a dump can provide a wealth of information regarding whoever is carrying a mobile phone in a tower’s area — from the phone number to various device information pointed to a phone’s account.
According to Verizon: (.pdf)
Although we do not specifically track the details of each tower request, our experience is that we typically receive requests for less than 30 minutes (e.g., where law enforcement is already able to pinpoint the time of a crime). But we also receive requests covering more than an hour (e.g., where there has been a crime spree). When we receive a demand for a longer period, cognizant that the cell tower dump will contain many mobile device numbers, we will often ask law enforcement to narrow the scope of the time period or accept reports run for shorter, incremental periods, even if the longer time period was approved by a judge. The number of mobile device numbers per cell tower dump depends on many factors including the location of the tower and the time day. A major event (like the Boston Marathon) may lead to a substantial increase in the number of mobile device numbers communicating with a tower at a given time.
Sprint said it “provided approximately 6,000 cell tower searches (.pdf) to law enforcement agencies.” T-Mobile did not answer the question.
The responses were released today as part of an inquiry by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts).
“As law enforcement uses new technology to protect the public from harm, we also must protect the information of innocent Americans from misuse, said Markey, who is a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. “We need a Fourth amendment for the 21st century. Disclosure of personal information from wireless devices raises significant legal and privacy concerns, particularly for innocent consumers. That is why I plan to introduce legislation so that Americans can have confidence that their information is protected and standards are in place for the retention and disposal of this sensitive data.”
The disclosures come amid revelations from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that National Security Agency snoops are harvesting as many as 5 billion records daily, without warrants, to track mobile phones as they ping nearby cell towers across the globe.
The law on cell-site locational tracking — while generally favorable to the government — is far from clear. Courts are offering mixed rulings on whether warrants are needed, and the Supreme Court has yet to take a case to resolve the issue.
Markey’s proposed legislation, which he is expected to drop within the coming weeks, would require probable-cause warrants for mobile-phone location tracking “to believe it will uncover evidence of a crime. This is the traditional standard for police to search individual homes.”
Chris Calabrese, the legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said: “The idea that police can obtain such a rich treasure trove of data about any one of us without appropriate judicial oversight should send shivers down our spines. There is an easy fix to part of this problem – President Obama and members of Congress should pass legislation that updates our outdated privacy laws by requiring law enforcement to get a probable cause warrant before service providers disclose the contents of our electronic communications to the government. Anything less is unnecessarily invasive and un-American.”
The figures, meanwhile, although they show that the carriers are all over the map in terms of whether warrants are required for dumps, also reveal that the carriers keep the data for differing time periods, too. For example, U.S. Cellular and Verizon keeps cell-tower data for a year. T-Mobile (.pdf)  and Sprint retain it for 180 days and AT&T five years. Markey would like to see a nationwide, uniform approach to that.
AT&T said the average cell-tower dump was 80 minutes. (.pdf) The company said it charged $10.3 million last year furnishing thousands of request for data to the authorities last year. Verizon, which reported 2,400 tower dumps, said it charged “less than” $5 million last year to comply with all government demands for customer and cell-site monitoring.