by Bradley Parsons
Staff Writer
A complaint filed against the City, claiming insufficient wireless coverage for emergency calls, is “a flawed work product that should not be taken seriously,” according to the City’s response.
In a two–page draft letter to the State’s Wireless 911 Board, the City said the original complaint, filed in September by a wireless lobbying firm, was riddled with inaccuracies. The City claimed that the Florida Telecommunications Industry Association misrepresented the intent of State statutes, which provide guidelines for wireless emergency coverage.
“Most glaring, the . . . inconsistencies all occur within the report’s first two sentences,” said the letter.
Jacksonville was one of 18 Florida cities and counties named in the FTIA report. It complained of “unreasonable delays in locating wireless telecommunications facilities” needed to provide cellular users with emergency service.
In response to the report, the State’s Wireless E911 Board formed a subcommittee charged with recommending solutions to the State House and the governor.
Those recommendations will help form a statewide policy for the installation of cell phone towers and antennas.
If the City’s emergency wireless coverage was found wanting, the board’s recommendations would likely include less local control over cell tower construction. Kraig Conn, legislative counsel for the Florida League of Cities, said the board could strip away some local control over wireless zoning. However, he said the League of Cities would fight to protect local oversight.
“There’s certainly an aesthetic issue; no one wants to see a 200–foot tower every half-mile,” said Conn. “But a complete loss of municipal authority is not really a possibility. These decisions need to be made at a local level.”
The FTIA report was filed on behalf of wireless carriers: Alltel, Cingular, AT&T, Nextel, Verizon, T–Mobile and Sprint PCS. It claims that obtrusive local oversight has prevented the carriers from building towers or antennas needed for emergency calls.
However, Conn said the complaint could be an attempt by the carriers to build more towers. He said it was “hard to discern” from the FTIA’s report whether the carrier’s wanted to increase safety or expand their market.
“We’re not agreeing to put a tower wherever they want just to increase market share,” said Conn. “The legislative requirements are very specific toward what can be done; market share is not a concern.”
In the letter, the City said it invited on July 15, 2002, “all stakeholders to the table to discuss and negotiate revisions to the City’s wireless laws.” The recommendations were adopted by a 17–0 City Council vote, and the City’s service “have been working satisfactorily to the City, its citizens and cellular service providers.”
The letter said the City was “at a loss” to explain the source of the FTIA’s complaint. The City, it said, contacted area wireless providers after receiving the report and “failed to turn up any specific processing problems or coverage gaps.
“Until otherwise proven, the City does not believe its wireless service facility laws are causing providers to experience unreasonable delay.”