A small 5G wireless facility on top of an existing wooden pole, Lavallette, New Jersey, May 2023 (Photo: Shorebeat)
An expected federal court showdown between Verizon and the Lavallette city government over the borough’s denial of six additional “small cell” 5G antenna arrays could lead to a possible jury decision, according to court records. He says it will be a long and difficult task.
Verizon charges that the borough violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by denying wireless providers’ requests to add tranches of pole-mounted 4G and 5G antennas until Dec. 13, the last day of eligibility. filed a lawsuit against the autonomous region. at various addresses around town. So-called “small cell” nodes are installed on top of existing utility poles, and in some cases, Verizon is installing new utility poles where the equipment will hang to fill gaps in the network’s data and voice coverage due to the company’s woes. It was proposed to install a . on the frequency spectrum.
On Tuesday night, borough attorney William Burns told City Council members that a hearing before a federal judge is scheduled for next week, during which the parties will develop a joint plan to manage discovery in the case. He said he agreed.
“I don’t think anything will happen from there for a few months,” Burns said.
A small 5G wireless facility on top of an existing wooden pole, Lavallette, New Jersey, May 2023 (Photo: Shorebeat)
In its response to Verizon’s 50-page complaint against Lavallette, embedded below, the borough says it wants to reserve the right to try cases before a jury, and that federal telecommunications laws should be decided as such. This is a rare example. The district also took the position that it reserves the right to sue to have the case dismissed, but that seems unlikely.
In November 2023, the Borough Council spent the better part of a nearly five-hour meeting debating whether to acquiesce to Verizon’s request to place more small cell nodes in town than ever before, a move that many elections An unsightly and dangerous way to provide wireless service that is considered a nuisance by elected officials and the public. Verizon is the only major wireless provider that requires such a network to be installed locally, and its engineers believe that the frequencies on which its network runs make it difficult to connect high-speed data and traditional phone calls. It explains that there is not enough bandwidth for text messages. It is best to use a combination of high-mounted towers and a mesh network of antennas close to the ground.
Lavallette officials say the addition of 5G antennas and their associated “shrouds,” as well as 4G antennas and their associated “shrouds,” will add hundreds to the borough’s utility poles, which tend to tilt due to continued coastal winds. I doubt whether it can withstand the weight of pounds. Electrical box that provides power to the system.
Verizon says its equipment meets all federal standards, cannot be denied based on aesthetics or claims of unproven health hazards, and that the company has minimal regulatory requirements from the state under federal law. They claim that they have the right to introduce infrastructure. The court is being asked to issue an injunction preventing Lavalette from denying requests under the ordinance because of its scope. The company also seeks reimbursement for attorney’s fees and unspecified damages resulting from the denial.
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Trenton, Verizon accuses the borough of “prohibiting and/or effectively prohibiting Verizon from providing personal wireless and telecommunications services,” in violation of the Telecommunications Act. “The denial is unlawfully based on federal law.” -Preempted the problem of environmental impacts from radio frequency emissions and “imposed unreasonable and exorbitant application and code requirements, including unreasonable and exorbitant escrow and application fees.”
Small cell 5G node installed along Route 35 in Lavalette in March 2022 (Photo: Daniel Nee)
Small cell 5G node installed along Route 35 in Lavalette in March 2022 (Photo: Daniel Nee)
Lavallette officials say they feel the borough is being arbitrarily targeted by Verizon, whose network operates on a frequency spectrum not optimized for 5G coverage. He said he should not be forced to approve cell antenna networks.
Lavallette argued in his response that the district’s ordinance “complies with all constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements and obligations” and that Verizon’s refusal to add the array “will result in significant harm.” It was argued that the legal standard requiring proof was not met. Interfere with communications services and personal wireless services. ”
A stumbling block for officials asked to vote on the issue was that of all the wireless providers in existence, only Verizon has submitted proposals for small cell sites, compared to the current 16. There was no guarantee that the company would end this service. There appears to be a seemingly constant proliferation or new site proposals. One City Council member hinted that the company may have also targeted locations near the homes of officials, including the mayor.
Why Lavallette?
As Shorebeat previously reported, the number of antennas already approved and proposed in Lavallette is now up to 16, with 20 new utility poles proposed along the town’s boardwalk extending beyond Belmar. That number is smaller than that of nearly every other town on the Jersey Shore, except for This case also developed into a lawsuit after being denied.
Ahead of the vote on whether to permit the new arrays, officials gathered statements from city officials in other towns on and off the barrier island, indicating that a small number of antennas had been approved and proposed for installation within their towns. . Most were 2 or 3, compared to his 16 proposed by Lavallette, but could have more in future applications. Mayor Walter Lacicero asked Verizon officials for answers as to why Lavallette was the subject of so many antenna permit applications, as opposed to neighboring communities that likely receive more summer visitors. In one case, while showing a graph of spikes in wireless activity, the Seaside Heights St. Patrick’s Day Parade is shown as one of the peak days, and he wonders why so much antenna development is concentrated in Lavallette. The discussion began.
Small cell 5G node installed along Route 35 in Lavalette in March 2022 (Photo: Daniel Nee)
“The density in Ocean Beach is much higher than in Lavallette,” Lacicero said. “There are so many more people over there than here. I don’t understand why all this is concentrated in Lavallette. Why doesn’t it spread?”
Edward Pucelle, a lawyer representing Verizon, denied the company’s claims that it singled out Lavallette, saying wireless providers are deploying such networks across the state, especially in coastal areas where demand for bandwidth surges in the summer. He said he is doing so.
“There are 52 Shore municipalities in New Jersey,” Purcell said. “Thirty-one of them have small nodes on the air. There are 301 small cells in the air in Monmouth, Ocean and Atlantic counties. There are quite a few of these facilities across the state.”
Verizon is suing to deny five of the seven antennas originally proposed for this series of installations. The company said in court documents that one application was approved without the borough’s input because it is located along state Route 35, and the other application was at least temporarily withdrawn.
Telephone poles were officially proposed to be installed at the following locations:
- 72 Ocean Front (revised)
- 2 President (revised)
- 122 Newark Ave. (New Plan)
- 100 Oceanfront (Revised Edition)
- 110 White Avenue (revised)
- 506 Ocean Front (revised)
Verizon’s complaint states that “Congress declared that wireless communications services, including personal wireless services and telecommunications services, must be made available to the nation without delay,” and that the FCC’s governing rules “require states and local governments to regulation of telecommunications and personal radio services, which clearly goes beyond effectively prohibiting their provision, and protects against the implementation of decisions not supported by substantial evidence. ”
A copy of the complaint is embedded below.
