Source: http://scientists4wiredtech.com/case-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:02:37+00:00

Document:
Federal laws passed by our elected US Senators and US Representatives and then signed by the President have the highest status among our laws. These laws are somewhat like directives from a corporation’s CEO, setting overall direction/vision which is called “congressional intent”, often employing very general and vague language such as “reasonable time period” or “seek to promote competition”. The various Federal Agencies, such as the FDA, EPA and FCC are given the task of writing Federal regulations to implement these laws (the blocking and tackling of how to administer each Federal law). Each Federal regulation must be consistent with the congressional intent of the law it is attempting to implement.
Federal regulations are routinely challenged in Federal courts, when the regulations overreach to the point of being inconsistent with the congressional intent of the laws they are attempting to implement. Many of our Federal Agencies are captured agencies: they are dominated by the industries that they presumably regulate. None is more captured than the Federal Communications Commmission, which currently is comprised of only four of the five commissioners that it should have.
A California appeals court upheld a decision granting local governments in that state relatively broad aesthetic control over small cells and other wireless structures in public rights-of-way.
T-Mobile, Crown Castle and ExteNet initially brought a suit against the city and county of San Francisco, claiming the municipality couldn’t require permits or review sites based on state law. A trial court ruled in favor of the city, claiming that it could prohibit specific installments for aesthetic reasons.
The case underscores the growing tensions between some municipalities and telecoms looking to build out their networks with small cells and other transmitters. Small cells are widely viewed as a crucial component for wireless carriers as data consumption continues to ramp up, particularly in densely populated areas.
The haste to roll out small cells has resulted in pushback from some municipalities. For instance, The Wall Street Journal reported in June that Sprint’s efforts to deploy as many as 70,000 of the transmitters across the country had been delayed due in large part to trouble obtaining permits.
Some of that pushback has clearly been warranted given reports of vendors installing small cells without permits or that are simply eyesores.
By J. Sharpe Smith, August 20, 2014; Original article here.
August 19, 2014 — The U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit upheld most of the district court’s summary judgment against American Tower in its lawsuit with the City of San Diego for rejecting its conditional-use permit requests for three existing towers in San Diego. In California, the decision will have a broader effect on over-the-counter approvals of collocations, as well as on least-intrusive means analysis of new sites.
The court case is the latest skirmish between a cell tower developer and a municipality and reflects tension between the wireless industry’s need for a more streamlined zoning system and the loss of control that the cities have felt since Congress passed Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
Perhaps the most important legal point made in the decision was that the permit denial did not constitute an effective prohibition of service because American Tower did not demonstrate that its proposals were the least-intrusive means of filling a significant gap in coverage.
The Second and Third Circuits have defined “least-intrusive means” as the wireless site location and design that most closely conforms to the local values and still fills in a significant gap in service.
However, the First and Seventh Circuits hold that all that is needed is a showing that there are no alternative sites available to provide the needed coverage. Municipalities have attempted to use the various versions of least-intrusive-means language as a litmus test to judge whether a cell tower is appropriate for a certain location.
The court upped the ante saying that American Tower needed to actually provide the municipality with evidence allowing for a “meaningful” comparison of alternative sites and designs. Additionally, the City does not have to rely American Towers’ conclusions regarding the options but may judge for itself based on the evidence whether a zoning denial is in effect a prohibition of service.
From the outset of American Tower’s litigation, PCIA — The Wireless Infrastructure Association has maintained that time-limited permits significantly hinder network planning and management.
American Tower V. City of San Diego also addresses the issue of whether or not a public hearing should be required under California state law for a change to an existing antenna structure. Wireless advocates hold that legislative language in Section 6409(a) that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request” precludes the need for a public hearing.
The court states that the automatic approval of American Tower’s applications without a hearing would deprive landowners of their property rights and would violate due process.
“[American Tower] claims that the automatic approval of its conditional users permit applications would not constitute a substantial or significant deprivation … because the facilities are already in existence, their continued presence cannot possibly deprive adjacent landowners of any property rights . . . This argument ignores [American Tower’s] obligation to return the sites to their original condition now that the original conditional-use permits have expired by their terms . . . Dozens of antennas perched on hundreds of feet of towers alongside hundreds of square feet of equipment shelters may not seem like a cognizable impact to [American Tower], but we believe most landowners would beg to differ"
"Significant Gap in Coverage" definitions apparently depend on the facts of each case, how they are argued and the mood of the judge.
Here is a 2016 case that shows that various courts’ determinations of "significant gaps in coverage" for Commercial Wireless Carriers are all over the map.
When comparing the substantial evidence in the Piedmont public record, the video we produced proves that there is NO SIGNIFICANT GAP in coverage outdoors in the City of Piedmont near the proposed Crown Castle/Verizon Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRA). In addition, the record shows that neither party (neither Crown Castle nor the public) provided in-vehicle or in-building coverage assessments.
Therefore, Crown Castle has not met the burden of proof by providing substantial evidence (based on actual RF measurements) proving that a gap in coverage exists, significant or otherwise.
"As to whether there was a significant gap, the district court recognized there are no bright-line rules but that each case is to be considered on its own, taking into account a number of factors courts have identified, including the gap’s physical size and location, the number of affected customers, dropped-call or failure rates, and “whether the purported gap affects a plaintiff’s ability to provide outdoor, in-vehicle, and in-building coverage.” See Orange Cty.-Poughkeepsie Ltd. P’ship v. Town of E. Fishkill, 84 F. Supp. 3d 274, 297 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting cases).
Circuit courts are split over whether the significance of a gap should be viewed from the carrier’s perspective or the consumer’s perspective.
In a carrier-perspective jurisdiction, a carrier can meet the first prong of the test by showing a significant gap in the carrier’s existing service.
In a consumer-perspective jurisdiction, a carrier must show that no wireless carrier provides service to the area."
See City of Cranston, 586 F.3d at 49 (discussing split); T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cty./Kan. City, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1153–55, 1165 (D. Kan. 2007) (same), aff’d on other grounds, 546 F.3d 1299, 1303 (10th Cir. 2008).
Case law recognizes that holes in coverage or “dead spots” that are limited in number or size do not constitute a significant gap in service. See, e.g., MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 733 n.10 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by T-Mobile So., LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S. Ct. 808 (2015); Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 631 (1st Cir. 2002); Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643–44 (2d Cir. 1999).
To be sure, isolated “dead spots” or de minimis areas of noncoverage do not amount to a significant gap; examples include “a small residential cul-de-sac,” id., “the interior of buildings in a sparsely populated rural area,” or “a limited number of houses or spots as the area covered by buildings increases,” Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643.
A number of courts have concluded that the lack of reliable in-building or in-vehicle service is a legitimate consideration in determining whether a coverage gap is significant. See, e.g., Town of E. Fishkill, 84 F. Supp. 3d at 297 (in-building and in-vehicle coverage); T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cty./Kan. City, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1168-69 (D. Kan. 2007) (in-building coverage), aff’d on other grounds, 546 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 2008); Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Amherst, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1196 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (in-vehicle coverage).
The bottom line is that we are left with one set of Federal laws (and a slew of Federal Regulations) that might have various interpretations among the cases heard by the many different District Appellate Courts. For California the buck stops at the Ninth District Court of Appeals (unless the decision is appealed to and heard by the US Supreme Court). Lower court rulings in the Ninth District do not carry the same weight as the rulings by the Ninth District Court of Appeals. In Telecommunications law, the key terms of Significant Gap in Coverage and Least Intrusive Means (which applies only to Telecommunications Services — the ability to make calls and send texts — which is distinct and separate from Information Services — downloading Internet and Video data — were each defined in the following case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1406360.html or http://scientists4wiredtech.com/regulation/case-law/9th-district-metro-pcs-vs-san-francisco/.
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and many districts have more than one. The formal name of a district court is “the United States District Court for” the name of the district—for example, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. There are 94 active United States district and territorial courts. Each of the 50 states has between one and four district courts, and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico each have a district court.
In contrast to the Supreme Court, which was established by Article III of the Constitution, the district courts were established by Congress. There is no constitutional requirement that district courts exist at all. Indeed, after the ratification of the Constitution, some opponents of a strong federal judiciary urged that, outside jurisdictions under direct federal control like Washington, D.C. and the territories, the federal court system be limited to the Supreme Court, which would hear appeals from state courts. This view did not prevail, however, and the first Congress created the district court system that is still in place today.
The Central District of California is the largest federal district by population; it includes all five counties that make up the Greater Los Angeles Area. By contrast, New York City and the surrounding metropolitan area are divided between the Southern District of New York (which includes Manhattan, The Bronx and Westchester County) and the Eastern District of New York (which includes Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County). The Southern District of New York and the Central District of California are the largest federal districts by number of judges, with 28 and 27, respectively. The busiest patent litigation court is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, with the most patent lawsuits filed there nearly every year.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.