Cell Tower Application at 40 N Owyhee St., Boise, ID

Request for CUP Denial

On behalf of Idahoans for Safe Technology Foundation, Inc,  We are requesting that City of Boise Planning & Zoning Deny this conditional use application based on the following:

Project Description:  CUP21-00015 – BOI BSU Campus ROW SC 21 – VZW Small Cell Verizon Wireless is proposing to place a small cell wireless facility in the Public Right-of-Way. Please see narrative for additional details. 40 N Owyhee St

Coverage Maps from Three Leading “Wireless” Carriers

All three carriers offer basic voice “Telecommunication services” to this location.  There is No significant gap in Title II coverage, therefore there is no need for an additional wireless cell tower!

Find carriers coverage maps at  VerizonT-mobile & AT&T.com.

Existing “Wired” Broadband Providers and Coverage Map.

This location already offers superior wired DSL, Cable, or Fiberoptic wired broadband capacity, there is no need for additional 4G or 5G wireless broadband.

Find broadband services providers at  BroadbandNow.com.

Summary for Denial

All three leading wireless carriers have sufficient towers and infrastructure in place to provide basic phone and texting  “Telecommunications Service” to this location with no significant gap in coverage.  In addition, this location is already hardwired for superior broadband “Information Services”.   Therefore an additional tower is NOT need at this location unless the applicant can prove that this tower will be providing Title II services.   Application Denied

The Law

Local Government has the Authority and Responsibility to Regulate Personal Wireless Facilities (see below)

“Title I”  / Broadband / 5G/ Information Services are Not Regulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act!

Mozilla et al. v FCC – Quoting from Judge Millett’s Ruling in Case No. 18-1051.

” The 1996 Telecommunications Act creates two classifications for broadband Internet: ‘telecommunications services’ under Title II of the Act and ‘information services’ under Title I.

  • Title II [telecommunications service] entails common carrier status, see 47 U.S.C. § 153(51) (defining “telecommunications carrier”), and triggers an array of statutory restrictions and requirements
  • Title I “information services” are exempted from common carriage status and, hence, Title II regulation.

The judge’s discussion then continues onto mobile service, showing that the FCC’s  Restoring Internet Freedom Order, 33 FCC Rcd. 311 (“2018 Order”) classified broadband Internet as an “information service,” see 2018 Order ¶¶ 26–64, and mobile broadband as a “private mobile service,” see id. ¶¶ 65–85 . . . therefore the only wireless service that remains as regulated Title II is wireless phone call service.

Link to more info: 

How to Prohibit 4G & 5G in your city

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996-TCA) . . . also known as Section 704 from Senate Bill 652,

47 USC § 332(a)(7)(A)

General authority.  — Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.

47 USC § 332(a)(7)(B)

  • (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government shall not prohibit
    • functionally equivalent services
    • personal wireless services
  • (ii) State or local government shall act on any request for place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time
  • (iii) Decision by a State or local government to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
  • (iv) No State or local government may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions
  • (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.

Links for more info: 

Reading the Law: 1996 Telecommunications Act

Interview with cell Tower attorney Andrew Campanelli.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube

Leave a Comment