Thursday, July 3, 2014

Slimy T-mobile Now Cries to a Judge About "Proper Notification" While Still Refusing to Follow the Rules Themselves

GTCO-ATL Notes:  We find it interesting that T-mobile is taking up the issue of "proper notification" with the Supreme Court of the United States.  All across the country there have been citizens who have seen their rights trampled on by T-mobile.  The company is known for skirting local laws, especially the one that requires proper notification of the property owners near the area where they plan to build.  
Locally in Central DeKalb County - the business ethics of T-mobile have proven time and time again to be highly questionable and never on the side of doing what is right for their customers.  Those choosing to enter contracts with T-mobile should be looked at closely as these stories are often reported and well known.   No longer can a government or other official claim to "not know" what T-mobile is capable of doing.  No longer should anyone be surprise to find that, yet again, this company is in court, trying to get around the law and use loopholes in their own favor.

High Court To Hear T-Mobile's Appeal Of Cell Tower Denial

Law360, New York (May 05, 2014, 3:53 PM ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a T-Mobile USA Inc. unit’s appeal over whether a state or local government document denying a zoning permit to build cell phone towers without providing any specific reasons satisfies the Communications Act’s “in writing” requirement.

The Supreme Court granted T-Mobile South LLC’s petition for certiorari appealing a decision by the Eleventh Circuit that upheld a Georgia city's denial of T-Mobile South’s zoning permit application to construct a cell tower in the municipality. The City of Roswell sent the telecommunications company a denial letter without explanation two days after a lengthy city council meeting on the application.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the Communications Act to say that a state or local government's denial of "a request to place construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.”

The Eleventh Circuit held that a denial letter is sufficient to satisfy the “in writing” requirement where explanations or reasons are embedded in the administrative record, according to the petition.

T-Mobile South argued that there is a circuit split on the issue of what satisfies the “in writing” provision with the Eleventh and Fourth circuits breaking from the other courts. T-Mobile South' petition said the high court’s “review is urgently needed to bring uniformity to the law, and this case is the perfect vehicle for doing so.”

The telecommunications company argued in its petition that the Eleventh and Fourth circuits’ interpretation of the “in writing” requirement “not only badly misreads the statute but also, if left to stand, will seriously impede the prompt deployment of wireless services to consumers.”

“In particular, under the Eleventh Circuit’s approach, applicants will be forced to engage in the costly and time-consuming process of filing suit to ferret out the underlying reasons for permit denials; and judicial review will be vastly complicated as courts are required to sift through sometimes hundreds or thousands of pages of hearing minutes, transcripts and correspondence simply to discover the threshold question of the grounds of the local government’s decision,” the petition said.

However, Roswell argued the “in writing” requirement is merely a procedural issue, not an important federal question that deserves substantive review, and that there is not a true circuit split as many of the circuits are reaching a consensus on the "in writing" requirement, according to its brief against the petition.

“Indeed, the telecommunications industry has nothing to lose in this alleged conflict, but it undoubtedly has everything to gain,” the brief argued. “If the court granted the petition and decided that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong as to the interpretation of these four words, it is the local governments who would be harmed, as they would be forced to allow cellular towers based upon a mere technicality, without regard for the merits of their decisions.”

T-Mobile South had sought to build a cell tower disguised as a pine tree on a 2.8 acre, vacant parcel of property in Roswell and applied for a zoning permit, which was granted by the city planning commission pending the city council's approval, according to the petition.

The city council held a meeting in 2010 on the application that lasted more than two hours and resulted in 108 pages of transcripts, and at the end of which, the council voted to deny the application, according to the petition. The city sent T-Mobile South the denial letter two days later.

T-Mobile US Executive Vice President and General Counsel Dave Miller said in a statement Monday that the company "applauds" the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case.

“We believe local governments should clearly state ‘in writing’ the reasons why an application to build new or modify existing wireless infrastructure is denied," Miller said. "Building and improving mobile infrastructure is critical for consumers to fully benefit from our broadband economy.”

Counsel for the Roswell was not immediately available for further comment.

T-Mobile South is represented by Thomas Scott Thompson and Peter Karanjia of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The City of Roswell, Georgia, is represented by Richard A. Carothers and Regina Benton Reid of Carothers & Mitchell LLC.

The case is T-Mobile South v. Roswell, Ga., case number 13-975, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

--Editing by Emily Kokoll.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We want to know what you think. Leave your respectful comments here!