figure you read the -- sorry -- the report, the letter from accord communications regarding, from peter grukwaka, if you read that report, that statement, if you have any comments or a response to some of the points that are made in that. >> certainly. one of the points had to do with the number of antennas and indeed the design did change as was stated in order to reduce the number of antennas. seven antennas was the case we studied. that's the number that's shown on the drawings. so our report of the finding that it complies with all the federal safety exposure limit

figure you read the -- sorry -- the report, the letter from accord communications regarding, from peter grukwaka, if you read that report, that statement, if you have any comments or a response to some of the points that are made in that. >> certainly. one of the points had to do with the number of antennas and indeed the design did change as was stated in order to reduce the number of antennas. seven antennas was the case we studied. that's the number that's shown on the drawings. so our report of the finding that it complies with all the federal safety exposure limits indeed holds up. supervisor campos: one other thing that they question is the lack of a technical definition of a significant gap in coverage. and, you know, is there something to that point that it's really hard to make the case for necessity, whether it's relative to coverage or capacity, without such a technical definition? >> there are a number of definitions that are in active use in the industry. erickson, for instance, the manufacturer of a lot of this equipment, has published documents that shows