City Denies Crown Castle Allegation It ‘Overtly’ Discriminates vs. Small-Cell Technology
Crown Castle’s statement during Jan. 7 oral argument before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the design manual of the city of Pasadena, Texas, “overtly” discriminates against small-cell technology (see 2306070069) “is simply incorrect,” the city wrote the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
5th Circuit in a letter Monday (docket 22-20454). Crown Castle sued Pasadena in September 2020, asserting the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing requirement in the city’s manual because that manual significantly limits the locations where it may install small-cell nodes and node support poles in the public rights of way. Pasadena is appealing the district court finding that a “plain reading” of the manual shows the spacing requirement for small-node networks is “clearly more burdensome” than the requirements applicable to other users of the public ROWs. Many Texas cities “have adopted the design manual as promulgated," including regulating each city’s ROW, in a manner that’s “statutorily beyond” the FCC’s “exclusive jurisdiction,” said the city. All cell technology “is equally regulated under the design manual” and the prohibition on erecting new poles in the city’s ROW, “the issue in this case,” applies equally “regardless of the technology utilized,” said the city. Though Crown Castle admitted it’s not in the Pasadena case a small-cell provider, neither the state statute nor the design manual quoting Texas law “contain any language prohibiting any provider from erecting network poles to support small cell technology,” said the letter. That’s “provided” that such construction “complies with the design manual patterned on state law,” it said. It’s the “same obligation imposed on a traditional cellular provider,” it said.