Chubbuck City Council denies T-Mobile cell tower application

Screen Shot 2014-12-18 at 20.58.56

T-Mobile representatives went to Chubbuck, Idaho on Wednesday to put forward their case for a cell tower to be built on the grounds of an elementary school in the city. But after debate with Chubbuck City Council, its application was denied.

Prior to yesterday’s meeting, T-Mobile had been given a conditional permit to build an 80-foot tower in the city, providing that it was build at least 80 feat from property lines and from the school’s playground. But T-Mo’s plans had the tower placed right on the school’s eastern property line, requiring playground equipment to be moved somewhere else.

If accepted, the cell tower would have been the only T-Mobile tower in Chubbuck, and would have addressed “thousands” of complaints by residents of patchy coverage in the area. Despite that, many of the city’s residents were concerned about having a tower so close to their homes.

“It’s not a place for a tower of this type,” said Allen Martin who lives near Chubbuck Elementary. “I can see no reason whatsoever in having something like this in a residential area.”

T-Mobile can still go down the route of appealing the decision in federal court, if it wishes to do so. Of course, it’s not the largest city. It’s currently home to around 14,000 people (around 4,000 households).

Watch the full report over at Local News 8.

Tags: , , , , ,

  • Ryan

    This is why eastern Idaho with forever be stuck on edge with Tmo. My inlaws live in Pocatello which is next to Chubbuck. Unless you’re on wifi or with big red, you’re screwed. I’m LOVING the wideband LTE that was deployed in Boise however. I’m getting 40 down/12 up at work.

  • Willie D

    Can’t have it both ways. They did that in California and lived without reception for years.

    • TheVorlon

      They still do. City councils are constantly turning down new tower requests.

      • UMA_Fan

        Are they morons or do they have a good rational case to make?

        • TheVorlon

          The typical “not in my neighborhood” excuses:
          – Unsightly towers
          – Fear of radio signals

        • 1) Mobile network operators and vendors solved the “unsightliness” years ago by developing cloaking mechanisms for tower structures. 90% of the time, you can’t even tell where a site is.

          2) Utter nonsense, since cell sites are set up so that emissions degrade gracefully enough that brain-frying would only happen if you were dumb enough to be inches from it when it is started up. Otherwise, it’s not a problem.

        • TheVorlon

          Heh. Logic has nothing to do with this in California. ;-)

          Example: Residents in Santa Clara tried to prevent the rollout of “smart” power meters claiming that they were “allergic” to wifi.

        • philyew

          Those are the easier issues to address.

          I’d like to know the means by which they can effectively disperse the charge from a lightning strike when the tower is located in the grounds of an elementary school, right next to the kids’ play equipment? How do you get it disperse without being conducted through the ground on which the kids might be standing?

          Part of the reason that setbacks are recommended/required is because the charge will effectively disperse over the setback distance. In this case, TM got provisional approval for the tower with an 80-foot setback. Why didn’t they comply?

          Frankly, if I had kids at that school , I’d want to know why they needed to ignore the stipulation in an area where there are only 14,000 residents and therefore, presumably, more suitable locations available.

      • Jay Holm

        What about putting antennas on billboards, or office buildings? There has got to be other ways to improve coverage without having one central cell tower.

    • joeD

      WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I’ve had a mobile phone since 1996 and I’ve had good reception throuout the great state of California. The only time I didn’t have good reception was around 1983 (my Dads device), and that’s because the cell phone was not widely available to the general public. What a stupid comment. Slick Willie, you’re a idiot.

      • Brad

        Clearly you were in every city in the entire state of California… It’s never been bad anywhere in the state at all ever and it’s always sunny and that wasn’t an earthquake.

        • joeD

          Yes stupid, that’s more likely than slick Willie claiming the entire state of CA had no reception, you dumfuk. I’m a traveling salesperson and I work 80% throughout the state. I’ve been to more cities than you could ever possibly dream of knowing.

        • Brad

          You sound like you’re 7

  • besweeet

    I wonder how many other areas are in a similar situation that we might not know about.

    “If accepted, the cell tower would have been the only T-Mobile tower in Chubbuck.” — Is this accurate? All of the mapping sites show that they have several there.

    • Ryan

      Voice coverage is decent. Data is unbearable.

      • besweeet

        Was data ever good? RootMetrics is showing decent speeds.

        • Ryan

          No, it’s been on edge for ages. Which is why pretty much everyone is with VZW. They’re the only ones with consistent coverage. We’re traveling to that area to see my wife’s family next week. THank goodness for wifi lol.

        • besweeet

          Oh, weird. T-Mobile, Sensorly and RootMetrics shows LTE all over that area :/.

        • Ryan

          Maybe they finally did some upgrades. Haven’t been out that way in about 6 months. It would be a pleasant surprise.

        • CalicoKJ

          It’s just past Chubbock (in my experience) that you pick up Pocatello’s LTE signal. Once you get to that point it’s great.

        • CalicoKJ

          Data sucks between Twin and Pocatello…has forever. Actually anywhere >5 miles outside of a “major” city is terrible. I do volunteer my backyard as a tower site if they are interested. :)

    • Tanner

      They have some in Pocatello which is connected basically. That’s how they get some service, but it is very patchy in the whole area. Very hilly town. Disappointed in this decision. Don’t live there anymore, but do visit sometimes.

  • AA-Ron

    I was planning a trip to ChubRock city too. Not now if I’m not going to get any reception.

    • Jordan

      Of course, you could use a payphone…
      Just sayin’ :P

    • Nick

      coverage doesn’t look too bad on sensorly

    • Hmmm

      What was in ChubRock for you? You need your phone to vacation and relax? I thought you were supposed to sit back and relax.

      I can’t believe how many of the TMobile Reps have actual accounts here and post giberish to support their company. Is there a post count goal every month too like the Jump adding without consent? ?

  • UMA_Fan

    Stupid stupid people.

    • UMA Hater

      Not nice to call people stupid.

      • Jay Holm

        Unless their a Sprint customer, lol!

      • derp hurr-durr

        …but being a Hater is okay?

        Strange world…

    • I Like Myself

      Yes you and the 15 people liked it are pretty stupid. You don’t live there but believe the people residing there should share your beliefs.
      Yeah that’s pretty stupid

  • trife

    Who are these people using T-Mobile if there is minimal coverage there? Why would you purposely screw yourself like that?

    You go with what works for you in your area. Common sense ain’t so common I guess.

    • CalicoKJ

      Many of us in Idaho that are on T-Mobile (and not in Boise) use WiFi for the majority of our data. Voice is not a problem in most areas. My experience with Verizon (customer service) and Sprint (network) was horrible. I don’t care how good VZW’s coverage is, I’m not giving them my money to be treated like I was.

      • trife

        So you’d rather shoot yourself in the foot and not have data outside the range of WiFi?

        I’m all for brand loyalty and I’m not a VZW fan myself, but that simply makes no sense to me. I’m not going to make myself suffer as some sort of protest of a company and their customer service.

        But hey–do you. Enjoy your EDGE data. Just please don’t complain about your data coverage if you’re not willing to use a provider who offers LTE in your area.

        • CalicoKJ

          So based on this reasoning you’d be willing to go to a company that treats the majority of customers in this area like dirt? Yes, I admit their coverage is better. Their prices are 2x higher and as I mentioned, their customer service is poor (both in the store and over the phone) and that’s being generous. It has nothing to do with brand loyalty at this point. In this area, you’re going to have complaints against any of the carriers; whether it’s for signal, price, customer service, or any combination of those 3.
          Now as for the data signal, I can get LTE signal when I’m in what T-Mo considers “major cities” in Idaho (Boise, Twin Falls, Pocatello, Idaho Falls. and Coeur d’Alene). Unfortunately, I don’t live in one-I’m a whopping 7 miles away as the crow flies. I get voice signal just fine, and EDGE or HSPA+ depending on where I’m standing in the house. It’s not stable so I choose to use WiFi.
          What we need more than towers (although we really need those) is 700 MHz signal, but unfortunately they haven’t procured any of that in Idaho…yet.

        • trife

          You said it yourself, man. “You’re going to have complaints against any of the carriers; whether it’s for signal, price, customer service, or any combination of those 3”.

          Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But me? If I have a smartphone, I would like my data coverage to be sufficient enough to consistently let me utilize its capabilities. Isn’t that THE MAIN POINT of a smartphone? It seems like a waste to be paying for a device AND a data plan that sometimes works where you spend a lot of your time.

          I’m dealing with crappy customer service in order to get what I pay for any day of the week instead of relegating my phone to a brick when I need to use it in a pinch. But that’s just me, I guess. Then once T-Mobile actually had good coverage in my living area, I’d switch in a heartbeat.

    • Singleweird


  • bryck

    That’s the same people complaining about not having service. Can’t have it both ways in the real world.

    • wicketr

      “I can see no reason whatsoever in having something like this in a residential area.”

      This made me laugh. Like seriously, you don’t consider cell phones necessary in a residential area??

      • KijBeta

        People like my grandparents, still have a landline phone for when they are at home. For them, there is no reason to have a cell tower in their neighborhood.

  • jacky

    Whatnthe hell os wrong with these people first they complain about t mobile spotty coverage there then they denied the buildout of t mobile tower. Do tjey want service or not? What the hell.

    • Adrayven

      Those on the board are Verizon customers.. they can afford the overage fee’s and hiked prices.. they don’t care about budge cell service…

  • DStudio

    Cam, how many feats in a yard? Depends on the size of the yard, right? ;)

    • trickinit

      There’s bout three feats in a yerd.

      • Jay Holm

        A “yerd”?

        • Toy

          Damn you are slow jay, this comment and the gluten comments above were jokes! Like haha jokes! Please refrain from posting if you don’t undestand them.

  • Mike

    Guessing this happens all the time in little bum fuck towns across America. They want progress like cell phones and data plans but not the hassel running their idealistic landscape. Guess they lost an opportunity that will not be coming back anytime soon.

  • LKO900

    ..not in my backyard!

  • Jay J. Blanco

    I hope they realize they would get paid 1500 to 2000 a month because the tower is there. Hope they resolve this t-mobile need to improve wherever that needs improving.

    • Jay Holm

      Thank you for commenting without mentioning gluten or something else having absolutely nothing to do with cell towers. Gluten has to do with food people, food!!!

      • Jay J. Blanco

        I literally laughed at that comment. lmao

  • Adam

    I had a similar experience in my town. The tower was to be a fundraiser for the
    local high school, but parents objected thinking the tower was a potential
    cancer risk. Even promoting the tower as gluten-free didn’t

    • Dafuq? What does gluten have to do with anything?

      • iGina

        Damn Kudo. You’re not as smart as I thought…

      • Adam

        The dangers of gluten and cell phone towers come from the same scientific research.

        • philyew

          Tell that to a sufferer of celiac disease.

        • SumYungGai

          Most if not the vast majority of people who claim they have celiac don’t. For a normal person there is a zero to negative risk posed by eating gluten.

        • philyew

          While that may be true, it’s not really a contradiction of the point I was making, which is that gluten does present a genuine threat to some individuals.

        • PenDeH0

          So do peanuts jack of arse… What’s your point?

        • SumYungGai

          I thought it was pretty clear that the guy you were responding to was referring to pseudo-scientific concern trolls/morons.

      • holidays11

        This guy (Conan kudo) proves that you don’t need neurons to post on blogs.

      • Jay Holm

        I thought that myself!

    • Tanner

      That is the funniest comment ever. In the history of this planet. Lol

    • Logan S

      You should have promoted the tower’s calming effect on the student population, its proven impact on lessening teen pregnancy, and not to mention its big-bro power of monitoring drug transactions. I would have voted to put it two, not one, on my kids’ school!

  • Adrayven

    People complain about anything.. towers are one of the hardest things to get approved. Cell companies have been known to have been forced to ‘dress’ towers up as tree’s, Windmills, etc. crazy crap.. just to get those same people the valued signal they demand.

  • Thomas Vu

    Enjoy your lack of data speeds

  • Joe

    I think everyone in the city council are rich people who use Verizon and could care less about other people.

    • Singleweird

      Im rich. I use tmobile. Because verizon sucks.

      • Bi-Weird

        How much was your inheritance because judging by your post you most likely didn’t achieve it with your intelligence!

    • Why Fanboy TMobile

      Believe it or not most wealthy people are cheapskates. How do you think they aquired the money to begin with?

      • Romdude

        True but they like certain brands, a friend of mine would rather keep Verizon just for the name even though in our area, she would get better coverage, better DL speed and cheaper rates on tmobile.

    • spell

      Couldn’t !!!!!!!!!!1

      • Grammer

        As long as you’re nit picking, couldn’t care less is a double negative which implies that they could possibly care.

  • Eric

    Thousands of complaints of patchy coverage?

    “We deny your cell tower.”

  • Raiterio Patterson

    Chubbuck: Improve our coverage!
    T-Mobile: okay, we’ll build a tower in your area
    Chubbuck:“I can see no reason whatsoever in having something like this in a residential area.” SMFH…

    • Mr Paul

      Like in this case, schools are among the best places to put towers. If T-Mo and or Sprint got boosters or towers on every school in my town, and even AT&T and VZW joined in, it would make a huge difference in coverage for everyone. Schools are quite often right in the middle of dead zones.

      A lot of areas have these type of politics. I think the reason why Sprint and T-Mobile have barely any towers, and why T-Mobile doesn’t have a single retail store in my entire county, is not just T-Mobile or Sprint’s fault, because I know my area has tons of crooked politics and politicians. We even don’t have certain stores and fast food and restaurant chains.

      I’m not fan of politics or big government or whatever, but areas like these need to get completely raided by the feds. Cut the crap, it’s 2015 and there’s still thousands of areas that have coverage like ten years ago and 98% of the time, it’s due to ignoramus’ and their stone-ager opinions and politics. I wonder why it’s moderate and liberal areas that always have the most coverage ;/

  • Singleweird

    Shoulda just put it up and thrown some branches on there.

  • John Mayson

    “80 feat”?

  • philyew

    Perhaps they are concerned about lightening strikes and the reported higher incidence of fatalities from a strike discharging across the ground than experienced from direct hits. A number of apparently scientific studies have concluded that cell towers increase the risk of lightening strikes in the immediate vicinity which present a risk to a wider area than the tower footprint alone.

    The question which isn’t addressed is why TM failed to bring forward a solution that complied with the original provisional approval. Why did they feel the need to pursue the most emotive and least defensible solution possible?

    • Also, tornadoes. Idaho is one of 31 landlocked states, which means there is no nearby cooling mechanism to prevent air from getting unstable really quick.

    • SumYungGai

      Given that lightning strikes killed all of 23 people in the U.S. last year even with our hundreds of thousands of cell towers I’d say they’re full of crap. Lets not mistake irrational fears with justified concern.

      • philyew

        Some of the larger cell towers are hit several times a year. People don’t get killed usually because they are sufficiently remote from habitation that the charge will be dispersed easily without threat. That can’t be said, if you put the tower in the grounds of a school.

        The tower received provisional approval if the placed it with a normal setback from the school perimeter. Why didn’t they find a way to do it?

        • SumYungGai

          Why should they have to? Schools are hardly doing recess anymore regardless and they won’t let them outside during a thunderstorm. Yes: I know that lightning can strike at other times. So can reckless drivers or choking and they’re by far the greater risk, but we don’t ban driving or eating.

          Death by lightning strike is literally a less than one in a million risk, it’s not worth worrying about.

        • philyew

          Outside every school where I live speed restrictions are imposed during the hours when kids are at risk.

          Tower operators use sophisticated charge dispersal setups to prevent damage to equipment and limit risk from secondary electrical activity. You can’t do that effectively when the tower is right on top of a vulnerable location.

          You can make the statistical arguments, but local authorities have a duty of care to avoid unnecessary risk to the children in their temporary care.

          In this case, they didn’t reject the tower outright, they made a very normal stipulation, which tower operators routinely respect. TM chose to Ignore it.

        • donnybee

          I don’t think this is an issue of electrical harm, this is just due to T-Mobile’s disregard to the initial permit. I know schools in my area, including elementary schools, that have cell sites on the grounds. There have been no issues whatsoever of electrical harm, or any other kind of harmful issues. My surrounding neighborhood has cell sites in many dense areas where people routinely walk near, such as parks. And some of these are older towers that have been in place for about 8 years.

          And we also need to remember that cell sites are surrounded by fencing that will prevent anyone being too close to the tower. I really feel this lightning argument doesn’t hold much weight when looking at longstanding outcomes.

        • philyew

          I think you may be right that this wasn’t the consideration in this case. I mentioned it initially because everyone seemed to be focused on the usual issues of aesthetics and radio waves which are routinely and often justifiably ridiculed.

          If it was my kids in that school, I would like to know why a site was chosen that raised their level of risk (however minimal) when several other locations were available. I would also like to know that risks were properly addressed in relation to the chosen site. Normally those concerns are dealt with by following a setback guideline, so you don’t have to go into detail, but when that guideline is ignored other questions emerge.

          This piece makes it seem that the city council were pretty and parochial, but they did provide preliminary approval and were willing to consider several alternative locations. A more balanced response may therefore be justified.

        • derp hurr-durr

          “People don’t get killed usually because they are sufficiently remote from habitation”

          …or they are built so that the electricity is not shunted directly into the ground? (Simple thing to do, really. Do you actually know squat about Equipment towers or lightning?)

        • philyew

          I know that there are methods of distributing the dispersal of the charge, but that would be somewhat harder to do when the tower is sited right on top of the kids play area. I’ve already referred to these methods in this thread, so cherry-picking my words to maked them sound uninformed isn’t really an objective response.

          Did you know that, according to a news report in Idaho, TM apparently had up to 10 sites to choose from in the area, but favored the one the presented the most difficulties in terms of stipulations?

          I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be a tower, just that their decision to pursue its placement right against the elementary school boundary wasn’t the best course of action in the circumstances.

    • guidomus_maximus

      One could make the same claim about tall trees.

      • philyew

        Yes, and I’m sure if someone wanted to plant an 80-foot tree in that location, they might raise similar questions.

        This has got somewhat out of hand, all I wanted was to point out that there are other concerns than the normally ridiculed arguments about aesthetics and radio wave risks that might have motivated the decision.

        The bottom line is that TM had other options than this location (9 apparently) and yet they felt the need to stick with a choice that not only went against the known stipulation in their provisional approval, but was also guaranteed to raise the greatest level of emotion because it involved perceived risks to young kids.

        Frankly if they didn’t really want the expense and trouble of erecting and servicing a tower in that area, that would be a pretty effective way of sabotaging the deal.

  • superg05

    well you can’t say they didn’t try to give coverage to this tiny ass town

    • TylerCameron

      Why not? Here in Virginia Beach, there’s a few high schools that have cellsites on campus. I see no problem with it. Non-ionising radiation isn’t harmful. In fact ,the high school I went to had a T-Mobile cellsite.

      • superg05

        less bull$hit is why somethings you can see possibly coming

        • TylerCameron


        • superg05

          things you know people might and will wine and complain about so its best to avoid the situations all together for a speeder process. But hopefully those customers complaining will take the time to complain to the city council after that news report but not likely ass people are lazy

        • School is Cool

          Lazy like your grammer…. I have no idea what your post even means….

        • superg05

          the day i care what some random human thinks will be joyous indeed

        • 1st Step

          you replied which shows you cared enough to respond

        • donnybee

          You lost me at “less”

      • Troy

        I was about to say the same thing. I live in Chesapeake. Oscar Smith and Salem high both have T-Mobile towers on their property.

        • TylerCameron

          So cool to know someone else from the 757! :D
          I’m also certain Princess Anne High has a cellsite.. not sure which carrier(s?) and I know Landstown has a Verizon 3G site… In fact, there’s a few sites around Landstown and TCC.

        • BigO

          PA does have TMO tower. Make no mistake. It is simply politics. I just wish the local governments would do the right thing. No body complains when they put in a new power pole.

        • TylerCameron

          It’s all about money. I’m sure T-Mobile and the other carriers give schools a pretty hefty penny to have sites on their property. It’s also really logical to have a cellsite on a high school. It offloads the traffic of hundreds, if not, thousands of customers that would, otherwise, be overloading other sites just by idling.

  • hanfeedback

    I believe that people have a right to choose if they want a tower in their neighborhood. But the people against it should walk the walk and not be permitted to have a cell phone. Problem solved.

    • backfeethand

      And that makes sense how? So any place that doesn’t want a tower get stripped of their right of a cellphone? Your statement is ignorant at best and somehow 15 others liked it?!?

      • hanfeedback

        Because a loud minority doesn’t get to choose that their neighborhood doesn’t get electricity, running water etc. A cell phone tower is a utility like any other. These are the same people who if they didn’t get coverage on the carrier they are currently using would be complaining the loudest.

  • RJ

    See if the school needs any other improvements and buy a new playground, tmobile foots the bill, tower approved. Although something I found poking around the internet,

    After reading this article it sounds like there were 10 possible sites Tmobile ranked and of all Tmobile choose the school. So one person voted yes, that must be a tmobile customer, the 3 no was probably Verizon and the one who didn’t vote at all must be a att customer. Does it have to be by the school, I mean a tower in town where the council and most residents will tolerate it is better than no tower at all right? Or is there a underlying issues if Tmobile finds a way to get approval whats to stop the other carriers from wanting to place a tower of their own in town.

  • Jerry Rich

    Next thing ya know, them dam commies will be puttin fluoride in our town reservoir.

    • poize

      Fluoride IS poison.

      • Jerry Rich

        So IS salt and water. What’s your point?

      • Right and Chemtrails are real.

      • schweddyballs

        ever looked at the label on a tube of toothpaste?

      • Scott

        I just read your comment on the internet so it MUST be true!

  • ElmoGagootz

    Some people are born ignorant, others like these in Chubbuck, Idaho work at it!

  • Logan S

    Never underestimate the force of NIMBY. It can rain on your parade, last minute.

    Did they try to alleviate the community concerns by offering any camouflage for the said tower?

    Is there no water tower, church or other tall(er) building in town that they could have leased some space out to hang their equipment? Here in dense and heavily populated 22302 (DC’s backyard), I know there are telco’s equipment’s hidden in churches, and out in plain view on highrise apartment (painted to match) or old medical buildings. It’s a win-win for the operator, the landlord, and the community (and probably the city too if it gets some tax on it).

  • Justsomecommentor

    Why not use small, inconspicuous cell sites (a.k.a. DAS)? They are cheaper, less noticeable, and can be deployed in more places.


    This is so ridiculous. Did you listen to that video? One woman
    objected because she was worried it might “fall over”. Really? REALLY? Because
    that happens a lot… I mean, after all four tier 1 carriers erecting probably
    300,000+ towers across the nation we don’t know how to build them so they won’t

    T-Mobile absolutely needs to file suit under the 1996
    Telecommunications act and get it approved that way.

    • dontsh00tmesanta


  • Javon C

    I like how the older guy commented saying that “a residential area isn’t the right place for a tower” but in reality it is the perfect place for one. They could literally just disguise it like a tree…

    • Joe

      How big was the tower planned vertically?

    • Paul Rivers

      ““It’s not a place for a tower of this type,” said Allen Martin who lives near Chubbuck Elementary. “I can see no reason whatsoever in having something like this in a residential area.””

      It’s just straight up manipulative language or PowerTalk. All it says is “I don’t want a cell tower in a residential area”.

      It’s like “The roads are no place for cars. I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever in allowing cars on the road, let people enjoy cars while they’re parked in their garage after being towed there with a horse and buggy.”

  • Kelly

    This is why Idaho can’t have nice things.

    • I AM THE 1

      You and the 6 likers need cellphones to believe Idaho can be nice? Maybe the problem isn’t Idaho and maybe that cell phone service shouldn’t dictate your perception of a place. I love cell service but i not going to make some thoughtless post based on my own wants especially when I don’t live there most likely like yourself. They voted and decided what the majority of the area wanted, are you anti-American?

      • CRT24

        Wow a little sensitive about Idaho are we? “Thousands of complaints about patchy coverage”……News Flash, it takes towers to provide coverage and it likely wasnt a majority vote that prevented this from happening but more the minority that wanted to make it difficult to proceed. I doubt Kelly was disparaging Idaho because of a cell tower but was using satire to illustrate the irony of the situation. If you have thousands of complaints in a town of 14,000 then likely the majority want the tower. Wise up!

      • Romdude

        7 and I upvoted because i thought it was funny. Lighten up.

      • donnybee

        This is why we can’t have nice jokes

      • Patheticloser

        Lighten up, Francis.

      • Kelly

        Actually I have lived in this area my entire life and just like their ass backwards bridge connection between Pocatello and Chubbuck, this area makes things harder then they really should be.

  • Tim

    I bet if they revoted yes TMobile would be right back there. But thanks for trying

  • Alex Zapata

    Probably a good time to propose a DAS deployment…..

  • Michael Carannante

    Just let them build it.

  • vinnyjr

    And they complain about Mobile service ???