Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Please help

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:42:51 -0500

------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please help

See my responses below...... (and sorry for the CAPS)

Alan S. Tilles, Esquire
Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A.

In a message dated 1/8/2003 8:27:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:

> 1.Considering the fact this tower has been approved outside of existing requirements, is
> there anything that can be done to reverse this approval that anyone on this list is
> aware of?

HONESTLY, THIS IS REALLY A LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS DEPENDANT ON: (1) THE COMPLETE PARTICULAR
FACTS IN YOUR CASE (NOT IN YOUR E-MAIL); AND (2) THE LAW IN YOUR JURISDICTION (AND THEN
WHETHER THE FCC PLAYS INTO IT, WHICH IT MAY OR MAY NOT DEPENDING ON THE FACTS).  NOBODY
CAN GIVE YOU AN OPINION OF ANY VALUE WITHOUT THESE TWO ITEMS.  FYI - YOU MIGHT WANT TO
LOOK AT THE TOWER PAPER ON OUR WEB SITE HERE: http://www.shulmanrogers.com/tower.html
WHILE ITS WRITTEN FROM THE TOWER OWNER'S POINT OF VIEW, IT MIGHT GIVE YOU SOME INSIGHT
NEVERTHELESS.

>
> 2. The last I recall, numerous cities were still experiencing multiple problems with
> cell tower interference and public safety equipment. Our city has had problems too, but
> no one seems to relate this to possible tower interference. Is there an improvement in
> this problem or does it still exist?

INTERFERENCE STILL EXISTS NATIONWIDE.  THERE ARE SEVERAL ENGINEERS THAT CAN ASSIST WITH AN
ASSESSMENT OF WHERE THE INTERFERENCE IS COMING FROM, INCLUDING SOME FOLKS ON THIS
LISTSERVE.  WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION, THE CURRENT 800 MHZ PROPOSAL IS
DESIGNED TO CORRECT THAT INTERFERENCE PROBLEM.  HOWEVER, YOUR E-MAIL DOESN'T INDICATE
WHETHER YOUR CITY'S OPERATIONS ARE IN THE 800 MHZ BAND.

>
> 3. Did I not read that New York City was considering not approving any additional towers
> until money was set aside to cover some of the problems?

CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE NYC SITUATION (PROBABLY OTHERS CAN), HOWEVER ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY HERE
IN MARYLAND HAS ATTEMPTED

> TO DO THAT, AND THE LEGALITY OF THAT ISSUE IS PRESENTLY BEFORE THE FCC RIGHT NOW.  IT IS
> A SIGNIFICANT LEGAL ISSUE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY VS. FEDERAL REGULATION, AND IS NOT AN EASY
> ONE (I WON'T GO INTO ALL THE LEGALESE HERE ON THAT).

HOPE THIS HELPS.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/