Where did you get the information about building a HAM tower for a $95 licensing fee? That information seems incorrect. Getting a HAM radio license requires passing the appropriate HAM radio licensing tests for the license class that you want.
Tom DeReggi wrote: > You may wanted to argue two points.... > > 1) That your company/broadcast site does not match the description of > "telecom facility" as defined in the County Code. And that there is no > provision listed in the county code that specifically states your business > type and use, and that bundling you into the closest thing is not > appropriate because the closest thing is far away from the profile of your > company and infrastructure, and therefore appropriate to assume that you > should be exempt from the County code requirements as written. > > 2) Second, argue that you are Grandfathered at that site from any future > legislation, as you were installed prior to any new legislation or > ammendments that may decide to make to attempt to charge you unfair amounts. > > You must get the county code, and read it like a hawk, and be clear on > exactly what it states. Thinks like "telecom facility" you re specifically > exempt from if you are not a "telecom (LEC)". Brand X case should have > proved that an ISP is a "broadband" company. A wireless provider is usually > portrayed as a "broadband company". The key to your defense is in the > "definitions" of terms used in the County code. > > Additional approached.... > > 1) Contact FCC for help. The Otard does not specifically protect the right > to build towers, it falls under the jurisdiction of county code (unless a > smaller governing intitiy liek an incorporated city).. But there are > provisions at the federal level that prevent counties from putting overly > stringent demands and delays on broadband/tower owners. There was a really > well known and big case on this issue, that was won by the tower owner, > after several years of legal trials. (guessing around 3 years ago). The FCC > will help you, by putting pressure on the County to play fair. > > 2) Determine if you have public support for your services and tower, versus > a tower that the public wants to seen torn down. If its likely you'd have > public support, you can always go to the media. Stories like "County plans > to shut down local entreprenure, stop economic development, and deprive > under served areas and consumers of broadband." Followed by ideas that you > might move your business to another county that supports economic > development. Etc Etc. Stating the County should be pitching contributing > matching funds, instead of burdening you with fees and taxes. Maybe send > the rough draft to your local legislators prior to sending it to the local > newspaper. > > Important note.... In most cases, they do NOT have the right to prevent you > from operating and broadcasting while legal trials or appeals are being > faught and negotiated, provided you are not causing a significant safety > concern. The burden of proof is on them, to get a ruling of why you need to > take it down. They do have ways to make life hard for you, so if hard ball > occurs, you'll probably need an attorney. For example, even if they just > used the dispute to put a hold on your corporate status, that could prevent > you from getting a loan until resolved. > > Another option is that if the site is important enough to you, and it > becomes a large enoug problem, you may want to seperate it from your other > core business. > You could set up a seperate company that owns that tower, so any legislation > regarding that tower does not effect your other business operations. > > Lastly, info is needed like whether you followed the proper proceedure and > permitting in building the tower in the first place. In most counties, you > do not specifically have the right by default. They just didn't update their > code to consider new business types like WISPs. > > 3) You can always go the HAM radio tower route. Federal law allows you to > build a HAM radio tower, for a license fee of about $95. The catch is that > you are NOT allowed to use it for commercial purposes. You could say > anything you are doing is free to the users you are connecting with (other > HAMs). That would then add an additonal burden to the county to have to > prove that you were actually serving paying customers from that site. > > An important factor here is... what makes the county more money? If you > give service away, and aren't making any money, you don't pay income tax on > the revenue that you useed to make. > If they learn your tower isn't going anywhere do to the HAM license, and > that your business model truly does not afford to pay tower telecom level > permit fees, and they are only accomplsihing reducing your taxable income, > they very well may give up, and give up on it, without a justifyable reason > to pursue it further. > > Good luck with it. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Isp Operator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:37 AM > Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem > > > >> Hi Gang, >> >> We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the >> interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the >> location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location >> (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this >> determination. >> >> The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of >> view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most >> basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni >> and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no >> resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what >> most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly >> larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite >> any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be >> 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the >> determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater >> and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind >> generator, weather station or other application. >> >> The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru >> is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty >> application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine >> yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then >> also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire >> access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we >> would not be able to comply. >> >> Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal >> guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only >> imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other >> uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in >> our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine >> that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get >> cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to >> these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense >> here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly >> refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. >> >> Thanks all. >> >> >> (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for >> some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views >> which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not >> share detailed system information with anybody....) >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" NEXT ONLINE TRAINING AUGUST 18-19 2008 <http://www.linktechs.net/askwi.asp> FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger> Phone 818-227-4220 Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
