I tweeted him and he said that they are making good progress. I don't know what that means in terms of how far away they are from a tower actually being built but progress is progress.
No longer on a leash by Fido
I haven't had very much success with Wind at SFU. I know at UBC it does work well, but often times the signal dies when going into a lot of buildings.
So, no, "all laws" do not apply - only laws within the jurisdiction of the level of gov't that made the law for the matter at hand apply.
1. From time to time, I have heard stories (usually indirectly) that a local government won't allow a certain cell tower installation. But one time, I heard it directly. Over a decade ago, I was on Clearnet, and the signal at my home was very poor. I couldn't get the customer service and technical support to do anything, plus one guy from technical support said cellular signal is not supposed to go through concrete wall. I told him that my building is wood, not concrete. Then he said that yes, wood also. Because he was being so ridiculous, I wrote a letter to then CEO of Clearnet, George Cope (later Telus, and then now Bell). A couple of his subordinates kept in touch with me with my case, over the course of almost a year. At the end, when I asked why their new tower, which was supposed to be built, about a few blocks from my home, was still not there. Their answer was that they had hit some obstacle at the city (city government). Obviously you would think that Clearnet already had the licence from Industry Canada, Spectrum Management and so the only reference would be the local government. Would he be lying about it? I don't know, but this is not the first time. It is also often mentioned here.
2. About consultation. I have looked into what constitutes a proper consultative process. It is not written anywhere, and Industry Canada provides absolutely no guidelines about it. Yes, I have inquired into Industry Canada. I have heard many stories, that cellular providers were not able to erect towers in wealthy neighbourhoods, for example, the west side of Vancouver, which has always been weak for various providers since the early days, was because of this. The wealthy residents all object to the building of cell towers, and thus, without the residents' blessing, the city simply won't approve the building permit.
3. You said "quickly had those laws ruled ultra-vires". I have never studied law nor Latin, so I don't know what it means. Obviously you are a lawyer, or at least a scholar of Latin here, so you can explain further if I am not reading your post correctly. Mind you, we are on a cellular forum so wireless jargons are common here, but not Latin or legalese. My question is this: who or which body would "quickly had those laws ruled ultra-vires". How can this be achieved? By what kind of process?
4. 2 of my friends, both residents of the city of Vancouver, have been requested by Bylaw Officers, to have their antennas taken down from their residences. Another friend's acquaintance has had the same fate. These people are amateur radio operators, licensed by Industry Canada, and these radio stations, are regulated by Industry Canada. Moreover, a recent policy update from Spectrum Management, Industry Canada, has made it even more clear than before who has the full jurisdiction, and that is the federal government agency, namely Industry Canada. However, the policy still mentions a consultative process with the local government, saying that they would advise that would be the "good way" to do it. When they referred to the Bylaw Officers with these information, coming from Industry Canada, the Bylaw Officers ignored them completely, and said they only work under the City Bylaws. You said "quickly ultra-vires", so how, and via which body / person? Certain it is hitting a wall there.
5. If my friends, who have a fully licensed station, under Industry Canada's jurisdiction, cannot erect antenna on their own personal property, how would you say commercial interest trying to erect antennas in public land or commercial grounds? Would someone have more right and privilege on their own property?
robsaw, do you work in the wireless property management field? do you do legal representation for others in this matter? If so, I might have some business I can refer to you (provided you can provide references first of course). If you are right, then the local government has been actiing unlawfully, enforcing their Bylaws unlawfully. My take was that the Bylaws could be unconstitutional and thus could be challenged in court, but as is, before that could happen, a local municipality could still enforce such bylaw even though many would deem that unconstitutional. However, you don't think so. You think there is no way a local authority could enforce such law, no court is required to clear that up. One could simply cite something and then get away with it?
Let's say that our Constitution protects the right of a woman to bare her breasts in public, as that has been confirmed by a court in the past. However, a tiny rural town has enacted a Bylaw prohibiting this very same act. A woman decided to take off her shirt in a public park in that tiny rural town one day. A police officer saw that, and arrested her for breaking the local ordinance. Using your logic, this woman could simply tell the police officer that his arrest is unlawful, and she should be able to walk away for free. But in reality would that actually work? I bet in reality, she would still be arrested, and it would take a judge to rule in a court of law, to see if the Charter and the constitutionality is a factor and if that can be ruled at that court. But you don't think so right? So here may be you could explain how and why.
And I am looking for some precedences, not just you said it as a theory.
Let me give another anecdote, about since it is about the US it might not apply here, but it is certainly similar. Over 15 years ago, the FCC released the PRB-1, which supposedly cleared up all the federal vs local government in terms of jurisdictional conflict between the two regarding antennas and especially towers. 15 years later today, there are still a lot of problems getting the local (city, county, state) government to fully cooperate or even recognize this federal law. There are still a lot of CC&R related conflicts, to no end. If things are as simple as you (robsaw) claimed to be, then I don't understand why there have been so many court cases (won by either side) over the years there, and still no end in sight.
Although I am not a professional in this, I have been watching this closely, for the last 20+ years in both countries. I have a lot of information that have passed in front of my eyes over the years. Nothing I have seen, is as simple and as matter of fact as you, robsaw, claimed. So either I must be blind, or I must have been reading all the wrong information in the first place. Or may be my friends should have hired an expert here, perhaps even you or someone who has the same level of confidence.
Fortissimo, firstly, no I am not a lawyer but have experience in law, mostly contract law.
Secondly, my point is that while various jurisdictions might argue about their right to make law in certain areas that is quite different from the legal concept that the sum of federal, provincial and local law on "all" matters is actually valid when one level of government or the other has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction in an area. This is where things get fuzzy and have to repeatedly go to court.
The example over radio amateurs (of which I was active in the past) is an all too common one. So long as the antennas are installed in accordance with proper codes a muncipality cannot, regardless of bylaw, ban them even though they try and waste people's time in court. The organization Radio Amateurs of Canada has a website discussing this:
Wait is Wind Away still disabled here? I can't connect to Wind Away at all. When I was on Mobi I could at least roam up there and people could still text me. This is ridiculous, when are they going to get a tower up there. They're so many potential customers that don't want to join Wind/Mobi because they don't have service at SFU.