Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. 2002. Industry issues and answers: Background on CTIA's semi-annual wireless industry survey. <http://www.wow-com.com/industry/stats/surveys/>.
2.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1996. Wireless fact sheet #1. New national wireless tower siting policies. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. April 23. <http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/siting/fact1.pdf>.
3.
SquirePeverill. 1997. TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, Inc., Memorandum Order and Opinion, FCC 97–331 rel. September 19.
4.
SquirePeverill. 1999. State of Minnesota, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 99–402 rel. December 23.
GlistPaulHepplerWesley R.ThompsonT. Scott. 2000. Cable television law 2001: Competition in video, Internet & telephony—Telecommunications franchising. Practising Law Institute. March-April 642 PLS/P: 349–90.
7.
JordeThomas M.SidakJ. GregoryTeeceDavid J.. 2000. Innovation, investment, and unbundling. Yale Journal on Regulation 17, no. 1: 1–37.
8.
MartinSusan Lorde. 1997. Communications tower siting: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the battle for community control. Berkeley Technology Law Journal12: 483–501.
9.
MillerNicholas P.LoweryWilliamVan EatonJoseph. 2000. Municipalities and communications networks: Some key issues, 1999–2000. PLI order no. G0-00E9, 659. Practicing Law Institute.
10.
RoweBob. 2000. Substance plus process—Telecom regulation reforms to protect consumers and promote investment. Colorado Law Review71: 879–90.
11.
SinelNorman M.GrantPatrick J.PhillippsStephanie M.alet. 2000. Cable television law 2001: Competition in video, Internet & telephony—Recent developments in cable law. Practising Law Institute. March-April 642 PLS/P: 9–251.
12.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1996. H.R. conference report no. 104–458, 206.
13.
WeiserPhil. 2000. Paradigm changes in telecommunications regulation. University of Colorado Law Review71: 819–47.
14.
WorstellJennifer L.1998. Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: A permanent physical appropriation of private property that must be justly compensated. Federal Communications Law Journal50: 441–81.