Excellent T-Mobile Camo Site in Piedmont, California

The antennas are hidden behind the faux vents in the bell tower.  The equipment is inside the building.  If I had not had this site pointed out to me by the rightfully proud planners in the City of Piedmont, I never would have guessed it to be a PCS wireless site.

Good job, Piedmont!

Good job, T-Mobile!

This type of pricing would be an interesting run on MetroPCS and Cricket, which offer all-you-can-eat fixed pricing, but with limited service areas (go outside and you pay hefty roaming fees on those two networks).

No, the T-Mobile program doesn’t offer data (you can get that for another $35/month), but if you’re a traveler and do nt use da ph 4 txting then it’s a good deal.

Jonathan

Huh? They need a good view to not feel along all day?

Actually, it’s because the femtocells need to know where they are installed so that the carriers can (try to) meet the E-911 location requirements.

Femtocells have built-in GPS receivers that tell the wireless switching center, call the Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO for short) where it is installed.  That would be inside your home.  Then, if someone makes a 911 call through your femtocell, the MTSO can use your GPS location (latitude and longitude) to help E-911 dispatchers get help to the caller.

So, to parrot the line from Sprint, “Can you find me now?  Good!”

=Jonathan=

among the happiest customers.  It’s another story altogether if you have Sprint Nextel.

But look closely at the scale: On the 1,000 point scale, Verizon/Alltel barely squeaked into the bottom of what would be called a “C” grade in school, and the industry averaged a high “D”.

Perhaps that why customers keep asking, “Can you hear me, now?”  “Huh?”

So, while Verizon may take the trophy for best in show, it was the prettiest mutt amongst a bunch of really mangy critters.

The article quotes Susan Carothers, a CPUC spokesperson who said, “CPUC staff is looking into allegations concerning T-Mobile cell siting.”

This isn’t the first time the CPUC has investigated wireless carriers for putting up sites sans all required local permits.  In 1993, the Commission levied fines of up to $4,370,000 against other carriers for violating the terms of city building permits.

It appears that Glotel, the London-based international technology staffing and projects company with U.S. headquarters in Chicago, will be a target of the CPUC’s investigation.  Two former employees of Glotel were quoted in the Chronicle article, one of whom said that the activities being investigated by the CPUC “…happened every day” and specifically identified these activities occurring in Marin, San Franicsco, San Matel, and Santa Clara counties.   Brian Lynch, the other Glotel employee quoted in the article, said he was fired when he told Glotel that they were not following the proper process.

Stay tuned…this should be interesting!  Here is a link to the original story at SFGATE.com.

=Jonathan=

According to a printed report, T-Mobile’s project was opposed by some of the neighbors who were “concerned about the appropriateness of a tower near graves and about possible health risks for children at a neighboring sports field.”

At least there’s no fear of ghosts.

jlk

=Jonathan=

PS: Claude is a member of WirelessAdvisor.com, and I use his photograph here with his kind permission.

I’m pleased to report that last week, SB 1252 was gutted by its author and swapped for some vehicle code section changes.  Same bill number; different bill text.

You can read more about the problems the bill would have caused by visiting http://www.TelecomLawFirm.com.

Score one for the good guys and gals.

Jonathan

Under Gov. Code § 830 ‘Public property’ means real or personal prop­erty owned or controlled by the public entity, but does not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the public entity. Generally speaking, public property includes all real property owned by the local government or public agency including, for example, a local government’s offices; a public agency’s offices; schools; corporation and maintenance yards; pump stations; wells, water tanks; parks; open space; police and fire stations; government training facilities; jails; municipal airports; etc.

Emergency wireless sites allowed under SB 1252 would be “temporary” installations, however the term ‘temporary’ is not time-defined in the Bill. There is a minimal (and potentially ineffective) prior notice requirement of the wireless carrier’s entry of the public property. There is a post-occupancy notice requirement, and a permit process commencement requirement, but no procedure other than judicial to eject an uncooperative occupying carrier if the permit is denied.

The Bill provides a severely time-restricted opportunity for a limited class of public property owners to opt out of the requirements of SB 1252 at existing radio sites, but not at all public prop­erty sites. The time restriction is limited to within 6 hours of the declaration or procla­mation of an emergency. To be effective, the actual notice must be received by the wireless carrier within that time.

There is no compensation requirement for the carrier’s occupancy of the public property.

The Bill provides that the wireless carrier will indemnify and hold harmless a limited class of public property owners, but no defense of the public property owner is pro­vided for in the Bill.

This Bill has cleared the California Senate, and is now in the Assembly, where it is cur­rently being held at the desk. It needs to stay there, or to be dramatically altered.

As of May 14, 2008, the following groups have officially supported the Bill: T-Mobile (source); California Chamber of Commerce; CTIA – The Wireless Association; the League of California Cities; and the Sheriff-Coroner of San Bernardino County.

A section-by-section analysis of the proposed legislation is available online. CLICK HERE to download the PDF file.