Login
Cell tower developers often mislead residents and local officials by claiming new or taller towers are needed to fix coverage gaps — even when the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) official map shows the area already has good coverage, said attorney Robert Berg.
“The bottom line is the companies are lying,” Berg said. “They’re trying to bamboozle the local government into claiming a need that doesn’t really exist.”
Berg represents residents who are fighting proposals for cell towers or wireless antenna placements near homes or schools.
Speculative developers know they can make a big profit by building a cell tower and leasing it out to carriers like AT&T, Verizon or T-Mobile, Berg told The Defender.
However, wireless companies must prove a new tower is needed to fill a coverage gap in order to win local support and secure a land-use permit or variance to bypass zoning laws that restrict tall towers.
Companies often present their own radiofrequency (RF) propagation maps showing supposed gaps, even when the coverage is already strong and capacity is sufficient to support broadband service.
In many cases, residents can expose the companies’ false claims by showing local officials the FCC National Broadband Map, Berg said.
Federal law requires internet and telecom companies to submit reports to the FCC twice a year, specifying every location they serve — right down to individual street addresses, Berg said.
“There have been enforcement actions by the FCC where inaccurate data has been provided, so internet and telecom providers can’t lie here,” he said.
The wireless companies must map their coverage areas and attest that upload and download speeds meet the FCC’s broadband criteria.
Berg said he’s seen instances in which a carrier tells local community leaders there is a significant coverage gap, and directs them toward a “phony” RF propagation map.
Berg said:
“If you compare the carrier’s map to the FCC National Broadband Map, you’ll oftentimes see that on the national broadband map, there’s 100% coverage for that carrier in that very geographic neighborhood where the carrier is saying there’s no coverage or there’s not sufficient coverage.”
Berg said he points out the discrepancies during the hearings, telling local authorities, “they’re either lying to you or they’re lying to their federal regulator, the FCC. Who do you think they’re lying to? I think they’re lying to you.”
At an open meeting on Sept. 30, the FCC will vote on whether to consider accelerating the rollout of wireless infrastructure.
Berg plans to submit a public comment before the meeting. According to him, the FCC’s National Broadband Map shows that many proposed cell towers are not needed.
Pointing local authorities to FCC map ‘should be a compelling, winning argument’
The FCC map goes into granular detail. A person can look up every address in an area and find out whether it has broadband coverage.
The information on the FCC’s map “should be a compelling, winning argument,” Berg said. However, it isn’t foolproof.
Recently, Berg worked on a case in Santa Cruz County, California, where local officials approved a 140-foot cell tower in a rural neighborhood despite evidence from residents that no coverage gap existed.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write. 
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
At the public hearing, at least 20 residents testified they already had strong service and presented the FCC’s official broadband map showing no gap in outdoor coverage.
“That fact should matter, but doesn’t always,” said Tim Richards of Santa Cruz County for Safe Tech, the group opposing the project.
CTI Towers, a wireless tower provider, presented AT&T’s own maps, which claimed service gaps. County authorities approved the tower.
Now, residents are suing the county, alleging the approval was illegal. On July 16, attorneys — including W. Scott McCollough, lead litigator for Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless cases — filed a complaint in Santa Cruz County Superior Court.
Parties of interest in the lawsuit include AT&T, CTI Towers and Delta Engineering Group.
CHD’s Stop 5G initiative is supporting the residents in their lawsuit.
Related articles in The Defender- ‘No Place in Our Community’: Santa Cruz Residents Sue County Over AT&T Cell Tower
- Residents of Alaska Town Battle to Keep 120-ft Cell Tower Out of Neighborhood
- Residents in Small Nevada Town Step Up Fight Against Verizon’s Plan to Build Cell Tower Near School, Homes
- Residents of Hawaii’s Big Island Pass Law to Keep Cell Towers Away from Homes, Schools
- School That Let T-Mobile Install 9 Cell Antennas Near Playground Locked Into 31-Year Contract
