Verizon Wins Fight Against NBA Affiliate Over Small Cells in Milwaukee
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by the Deer District in Milwaukee, which challenged a lower court ruling that Verizon could legally install small cells on poles it had put up near the Fiserv Forum, home of the Milwaukee Bucks. A lower court held for Verizon after the city denied the company's permits to install the small cells. Verizon won in the 7th Circuit in a procedural ruling handed down Friday (docket 24-1212).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The city had argued that its denial was in keeping with its authority under the Telecommunications Act and Wisconsin Statute 66.0414. The city didn’t appeal, but the Deer District, an intervenor in the initial case, did. According to the decision, the Deer District, an affiliate of the NBA team, wanted Verizon to instead use a distributed antenna system (DAS) that the district would install. The proposed cost was $10 million to use the DAS and then a monthly rent of $10,000, subject to a 3.5% annual increase, the court said. “Verizon decided to install its own small-cell poles, concluding that the DAS would introduce compatibility issues with its existing network and that Deer District’s proposal was cost-prohibitive.”
Judge Nancy Maldonado, who wrote for the three-judge panel, said “two features of Deer District’s appeal are notable”: The city didn't join it, and Deer District didn't challenge the district court’s holding that the city violated the Telecom Act. “Instead, it argues that the district court erred in identifying the Plaza as a ‘right-of-way,’” as used in the Wisconsin statute, “and likewise misinterpreted its rights under the Lease. On these bases alone, Deer District asks us to vacate the district court’s judgment against the City.”
Those features of the challenge “preclude us from redressing any harm Deer District may have suffered from the injunction,” the court said. “Deer District lacks standing and we must dismiss the case without reaching the merits.”