By Jane Celltower
February 8, 2010
CRACTT - CITIZEN'S RIGHTS AGAINST CELL TOWER TAKEOVER
Cractt (Citizen's Rights Against Cell Tower Take-Over), is a Legislative Freedom Rights Campaign Against Cell Phone Companies And Local Governments Taking Over Private Residential Land Zoning And Constitutional Rights, Without Providing Public Knowledge of Thier Intention. Jane Celltower explains, "The building of cell towers within a community should be general public knowledge. The fact that local government's are hiding, withholding, and keeping secret "cell tower building" agenda plans from public view and opinion, shouts conspiracry! What is worst is that such action takes the power from the people, and their constitutional 1st, 4th, and 7th amendment rights, giving way to county government dictatorship. It is absolutely shocking that this can happen, and "is happening" in 21st Century Amercia."
Jane Celltower comments, " In its instructions to the FCC regarding the regulation of mobile communications services, Congress directed the Commission to consider “safety of life and property,” 47 U.S.C. § 332(a)(1) (1996). When the application to sit a cell phone tower is fraudulent, yet accepted by localities as fact without educated review in order to avoid a lawsuit by the wireless service providers, the public suffers. No one is above the law. There are many legal factors and safety concerns that must be considered in the siting of a cell phone tower. It is Cractt's objective and goal to inform and educate the public concerning their legal rights as well as reporting both pro and con advance of the age of communication and wireless technology.
One of many such legal considerations is knowing who is really behind the building of the proposed cell phone tower. There are cell tower building companies that are not wireless cell phone service providers covered by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Cell tower builders lease space on their cell phone towers much like an apartment complex leases apartments. They make money off of the cell tower located in your back or front yard, your child's school property, and local churches, and anywhere else they can make money and profit from one of lease space on their siting cell towers. They are in the cell tower real estate business, offering building options for companies like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, who lease space on the tower while avoiding the liablity and upkeep of those towers. Liability issues are always a major concern.
May 2003, Larimer County, Colorado, had an executive summary report submitted by Clarion Associates, 1700 Broadway, Suit 400, Denver, Co. 80290, of "Land Use Regulatory Options and Strategies for Telecommunication Towers, Antennas, and related Telecommunications Equipment." Speculative tower builds were deemed within their report, a drawback in that the application typically lacks studies that establish the need for the facility. If RF (Radio Frequency) mapping is produced for a speculative tower development, it is not able to accurately prognosticate future demand. Many localities no longer allow applicants for wireless communications towers to apply if they do not have an FCC license. To get around these problems, tower building companies are bringing a wireless service provider licensed by the FCC in tow, when applying for a new cell tower build. If this is the case, the public has a right to know. Also noted, is often misquoted cell phone towers/monotowers that are available near by for co-location. I have reviewed cell tower applications that claim there are no cell towers located within three miles to co-locate upon, when there was in one such case, one about 3/4 of a mile away. The applicant left this "cell phone tower", undocumented within their application. Study where the cell towers/mono towers are located. There may be one very close by which the applicant can co-locate upon.
GAP AND SUBSTANDARD CELL PHONE SERVICE NEED TO BE PROVEN BY THE CELL TOWER APPLICANT
Within the application for a cell tower build, the use of such statements as, “substandard wireless service” and “lack of co-location possibilities in the surrounding area”, are sometimes given citing the need for the cell tower siting. This is often a gross misrepresentation of fact, as there is not always a gap in coverage within the surrounding area. Also to be noted are applications by wireless service providers that have confirmed the tower siting is needed to: “... ensure that greater than 95% of the locations in the coverage objective can expect signal strength sufficient to meet the design requirements. In other words, the design for this wireless communications tower is to ensure that 95% of the residential structures in the coverage objective area will receive service indoors.”
A wireless service providers desire for 95% indoor coverage for their customers is "not" an FCC requirement to sit a cell tower. The FCC confirms need of coverage to only be "that a substantially better than mediocre level of service must be maintain" - 47 U.S.C. § 27.14 (a) When a cell tower applicant confirms their desire for a tower build based upon achieving a high level of service demand, when only a "substantially better than mediocre level of service" is required by the FCC, that cell tower may not be needed in relation to public health and welfare.
"We Need Local Commissioners And Government Authority To Represent Both Citizen And Community Interests. On the local, state, and national levels. Cractt Goals Are To Help Educate Both Community And Citizen Alike. Keeping Our Freedom Intact, With An Ever Present Eye And Hope On Future Prosperity And Growth." - Jane Celltower
Please Note: Jane Celltower is an alas, which serves to represent the average American John or Jane Doe who is left in the dark concerning cell tower sitings and the danger and health hazards of cell phone use, and cell phone towers.
Copyright - 2010-2015, Jane Celltower. All Rights Reserved.