Can municipalities and citizens restrict wireless installations in residential neighborhoods, as Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers set out to do? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to hear a case on this subject (Sprint Telephony v. County of San Diego) next week.
Christina Sansone, Glendale’s General Counsel – Public Works, emailed this report today:
Sprint filed a supplemental brief after the Solicitor General submitted its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court recommending against granting Sprint’s petition for “certiorori” (petition to have the Court consider the case). Sprint, of course, urges the Supreme Court to cast aside the Solicitor General’s recommendation. Sprint’s brief opens: “In response to the Court’s invitation, the government has filed a most peculiar brief. The government concedes that there is a circuit conflict concerning the interpretation of 47 U.S.C. 253(a)-one of the central provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The government further contends that the Ninth Circuit erred to the extent that it held that a regulation is preempted under Section 253(a) only if it effects a complete ban on the provision of telecommunications service. And the government does not dispute that this case presents an issue of enormous practical significance to the telecommunications industry in general and the wireless industry in particular.”
The entire brief can be downloaded from http://TelecomLawFirm.com (in the Headlines Section).
Reading through it, I’m struck by references to court decisions on payphones, and attempts to explain why Sprint should not have to justify its need for any particular installation as required by the ordinance. It concludes:
If the Ninth Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, it will provide a template for localities to impose draconian restrictions on the placement and design of wireless facilities, in derogation of the Telecommunications Act’s central promise that wireless providers can offer services free of such intrusive and inconsistent local regulation. The question presented by this case is surely worthy of the Court’s review.
The “enormous practical significance to … the wireless industry in particular” cited by the Sprint brief is an admission: People don’t want them in neighborhoods, so the wireless industry is asking the government to invalidate local efforts to keep them out.