> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'"
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:37 PM
ns
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>
>
>
>> Remembe
t;'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Do you have your license, Mike?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent:
KB3PHD here.
BTW, I have not used the above approach. It was a last resort plan.
After 9 months of council meetings, writing letters to residents,
countless trips to the county gov't building, and other shenanigans, I
was able to get the permit I needed "by the books".
Patrick Shoemaker
Presid
Do you have your license, Mike?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
A requirement, yes. A burden, no. Just about
Don't call me an idiot you imbecile, I am an moron.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>A requirement, yes. A
List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Remember that one of the ham radio provisions is that you need to be a
> ham... :)
>
> Patrick Shoemaker wrote:
>> Also, read the actual code/charter that regulates the activity to
Remember that one of the ham radio provisions is that you need to be a
ham... :)
Patrick Shoemaker wrote:
> Also, read the actual code/charter that regulates the activity to find
> exemptions. Here in Prince George's county, MD, antennas that fall below
> a certain size and power output are co
WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Also, read the actual code/charter that regulates the activity to find
> exemptions. Here in Prince George's county, MD, antennas that fall below
> a certain size and power
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>
>
>> Reasonable is more often than not going to be
>> based on what a similiar tower would lease
>> similiar spac
idDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: "Blake Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Reasonable is more
t- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> They cannot require colocation, that is considered a
al Message -
From: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Would OTARD apply in a scenario of a mesh AP/CPE antenna?
>
> - Original Message -
Would OTARD apply in a scenario of a mesh AP/CPE antenna?
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> OTARD does
st
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that
"should " be able to be used to mitigate most of this. Especially of the
city attorney doesn't want to do much research. OTARD and the Ham ruling
could p
ogers
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:59 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the
construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies
required are part of the "Rent". Jus
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
There were many good on-list responses to your post so I'll be short
here with my comments.
Local jurisdictions can't prohibit your
contract and moved on.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:27 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Hey Joe,
What happened when you went before the
12, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> OTARD and PRB1 do not pertain to AP or backhaul locations
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dat
lied. Strictly HAM radio
> stuff, non-commercial.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing proble
There were many good on-list responses to your post so I'll be short
here with my comments.
Local jurisdictions can't prohibit your tower but your tower is subject
to their local zoning rules and regulations.
Co-location requirements are often made to minimize the number of towers
in an area i
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> My first question is, where is this taking place?
>
> I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first
card today.
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the
&
OTARD and PRB1 do not pertain to AP or backhaul locations
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:43:37
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
12, 2008 10:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
And you would be sued, and you would lose.
Reasonable accommodations have to be made for
collocation. If your competitor is required by the
town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him
from complying wi
;WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Good bunch of info here. Almost all of can be applied to us.
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html
>
> - Original Message -
&
, August 12, 2008 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>I ought to pull out our arguments we have used and put them on the wiki.
> There are four bits of federal code that you can use. Two of them apply
> to
> cell phone towers, but since we are part of the femtoce
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> They cannot require colocation, that is considered a "taking".
>
> - Original Message -
;
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> Actually, visual impact CAN be applied. Lambs
> Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application
> where the tower company lost.
>
> A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement,
&g
organ donor, sign your donor card today.
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>I would personally allow co-location, but
ign your donor card today.
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, es
8 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> We have found that most municipalities have not regulated, beyond a
> building
> permit, towers below a certain height. Some were very generous at 100-110
> feet, some were a bit stingy at 50 feet, but the majority has be
We have found that most municipalities have not regulated, beyond a building
permit, towers below a certain height. Some were very generous at 100-110
feet, some were a bit stingy at 50 feet, but the majority has been open for
anything of 70-80 feet or below.
That to me is a reasonable ordinance
: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>I am not sure, but I think something may have been amended in the section
>of
> federal code that helps cell towers stomp on the local planning and
> zoning.
>
]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very
> inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter
> with..."Because of
TECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Fiero
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
Clear as day in the ordinance.
I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision of
the
ordinance.
Joe
-Origin
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
They cannot require colocation, that is considered a "taking".
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM
Sub
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:52 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
You gotta get a better lawyer. Some of this stuff, especially RF emissions
are federally reg
They cannot require colocation, that is considered a "taking".
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
August 12, 2008 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
> My first question is, where is this taking place?
>
> I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we
> had been classified as a "telecommunications facility", and been require
&
My first question is, where is this taking place?
I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we
had been classified as a "telecommunications facility", and been require to
go through the extensive permitting process.
The requirements we faced were above and beyond an
41 matches
Mail list logo
