Third Circuit has used its definition of a significant gap in many decisions. One of these decisions, Omnipoint v. Newtown (Pennsylvania), was appealed by Omnipoint to the U.S. Supreme Court. The key objection by Omnipoint was the Third Circuit’s definition of “significant gap.” The Supreme Court refused to hear that appeal, thereby letting the Third Circuit’s decision stand.
b) The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found Sprint's projected coverage maps unclear in Sprint vs. Palos Verdes in defining "significant gap". In any event, that there was a “gap,” is certainly not sufficient to show there was a “significant gap” in coverage”…In addition, the Court noted how Sprint already had existing cell towers throughout the city. It also acknowledged that public remarks and residents’ drive test results contained in the staff report “further illustrate that Sprint’s existing network was, at the very least, functional.” (Sprint vs. PV also allowed cities to regulate cell towers based on esthetics so long as there is no prohibition of providing wireless services to fill "significant gap".) Skip to page labeled 14552 to read about "significant gap" http://cdn.
c) Ninth Circuit Ct of Appeals found that in Metro PCS vs. San Francisco, 2005, found that “[t]he TCA does not assure every wireless carrier a right to seamless coverage in every area it serves,” and that the inability to cover a “a few blocks in a large city” is, as a matter of law, not a “significant gap.” While we recognize that the TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small “dead spots,” the existing case law amply demonstrates that “significant gap” determinations are extremely fact-specific inquiries that defy any bright-line legal rule. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/