Crown Castle, Oyster Bay Seek Summary Judgment in Wireless Facilities Dispute
Crown Castle claimed a New York town violated sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act when it banned wireless facilities amid public opposition resulting from “unfounded fears” of RF emissions. Crown Castle and Oyster Bay sought summary judgment in…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Monday motions at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Crown Castle said it sought access to Oyster Bay’s right of way nearly two years ago, filing 24 applications and receiving 22 permits. After installing several facilities, the town imposed a ban on wireless installations in the ROW, revoked the 22 permits, refused to act on the other two applications and seized two partially installed facilities, Crown Castle said. The company misrepresents facts and misapplies statute, Oyster Bay countered. Section 332 doesn't apply to distributed antenna system nodes because they provide an information service -- wireless broadband -- not commercial mobile or personal wireless service, said Oyster Bay. Section 253 similarly applies only to telecom services and could challenge only a municipality's laws and regulations, not decisions on specific installations, the town said. Crown Castle installed facilities “without any building permits, special use permits or authorization from the Town Board to utilize the public right-of-way,” Oyster Bay said. “Upon the change in the Town's administration and discovery of these illegal DAS installations, the Town issued a letter to Crown Castle demanding that Crown Castle immediately cease all [such] construction and operation.” Oyster Bay later found Crown Castle installed more than 100 DAS facilities without building permits, special use permits or authorization, it said. The two facilities seized were trespassing in the ROW, the town said. The tower owner last year sued New York localities over delays to wireless infrastructure builds; last month, the company filed a motion for summary judgment in a pending case against Hempstead in the same court (see 1806130052). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed its complaint against Rye in December. The FCC is weighing a draft order that would prohibit local moratoriums on facilities (see 1807240035).