Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br /> <br />the other four bands that it utilizes. To demonstrate a deficit, the applicant must show how the <br />functional service to be provided will actually be significantly better than whatever high-speed <br />broadband AT&T is offering now. AT&T has not made any effort do this and hence has not carried <br />its burden of needing this tower. <br />VIII. The Applicant has not proven that federal law requires approval of the application. <br />A. LTE is not “personal wireless services” and therefore declining to approve the CUP <br />cannot violate federal law. <br />The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 overrides local zoning authority when the local <br />law has the “effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”25 The statute defines <br />personal wireless service to be “commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and <br />common carrier wireless exchange access services.”26 In short, Congress only intended to enable <br />wireless carriers to override local zoning regulations as necessary to assure voice calls provided <br />by the carrier. On January 2, 2025, the Sixth Circuit confirmed this interpretation, holding that <br />“mobile broadband does not qualify as 'commercial mobile service' under § 332(d)(1)” with the <br />result that mobile broadband is not a form of “personal wireless services.”27 <br />AT&T claims there is a gap in in-building LTE 700 service. In addition to the misleading, <br />confusing and irrelevant emphasis on a “gap” in a particular band of coverage as discussed above, <br />LTE is a form of mobile broadband used by smartphones. The first page of the Project Narrative <br />states that the purpose of the facility is to offer “FirstNet broadband.” “Improved capacity and <br />speed are desirable (and, no doubt, profitable) goals in the age of smartphones, but they are not <br /> <br />25 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). <br />26 Id. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i); see also, 47 U.S.C. §§ 332(c)(7)(C)(iii) (defining “unlicensed wireless service” <br />with reference to “telecommunications services”), 153(33) (defining “mobile service” with reference to <br />“radio communication service”), 153(20) (defining “exchange access”). <br />27 Ohio Telecom Assoc. v. FCC, Case No. 24-7000 (6th. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025), available at <br />https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pdf. <br />Att B - Page 34 of 46