I was not clear. I was not talking about getting a HAM license. I was talking about the local "permit fee", for the tower application. It is rediculously low, atleast in my county. (maybe it was as high as $300 max?) The HAM guys did a good job protecting their rights over the years. They are almost sacred. The person applying for the tower would already have to be a HAM operator and already have a HAM license.
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem > 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: <[email protected]> >> 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: [email protected] >>> >>> 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
