Sprint aims to roll out
thousands of wireless antennas on utility poles to improve service
Then the wireless
industry has been lobbying to remove proof of gap/need from cell tower
applications, looking to substitute capacity instead (because there are no more
significant gaps anymore) - Skip to p. 7 http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/44f7c802-4036-48f0-9bb2-262172a396f4/31C5D5D81BBA11614012742C05C75CED.hon-jonathan-adelstein-testimony.pdf
When this happens, wireless companies can easily justify the need for a
cell tower anywhere - all they have to say is that if they don't get it, speeds
will slow during peak times. Proof of "significant gap" is
required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and challenging the wireless
provider to prove "significant gap" was one of the ways that
residents could stop a cell tower installation. Telecom almost succeeded
this year in February 2016 with the passage of the Mobile Now Act. The
original drafted version from November 2015 would have prohibited of local
governments from requiring the provider to perform a drive test to prove that a
new site is needed - i.e. cities will have to accept the wireless provider's
claim that they need a new facility without any proof, but it was rejected
because it gave telecom too much power. Then the Mobile Now Act was
revised and the provision for removing proof of need was removed.
However, telecom will no doubt try again at the next opportunity to remove
proof of gap/need..
If you haven't read the
research on cell towers and health effects, please do so. This is an
issue that affects you, your children, your grandchildren. Click on
"Please Read Examples of Research on Cell Towers" http://ehtrust.org/science/cell-towers-and-cell-antennae/ andhttp://www.safeschoolspg.org/research-on-cell-tower-radiation.html
You may end up with a cell antenna light pole near your school or residence,
and you might be powerless to stop it when it gets proposed. The time to do something about it is NOW
through legislation through your city and state. One way is to get a
setback of cell towers to schools and residences - 1500 ft. is recommended by
most experts.
Lastly,
I would like to remind everyone that cell towers, cell phones, all wireless
were never tested for long-term health effects from chronic exposure by the US
government until the NTP study which exposed rats to cell phone radiation for 2
years at levels that were not high enough to cause increases in body
temperature - yet cancer showed up at 1.5W/kg which is below FCC SAR limit of
1.6W/kg. In industrialized nations all wireless products have been
presumed to be safe (and are allowed to be sold) as long as there is not enough
microwave radiation emitted to cause increases in body temperature - i.e. personal
wireless devices sold in the US must be rated at SAR of 1.6W/kg or below.
iphone 6 plus SAR rating is 1.59W/kg with all antennas on https://www.sarchecker.com/apple-iphone-6-sar-rating-level-edges-extremely-close-to-legal-limits/
Angela
-------------------------------------------------------
Sprint’s
Wireless Fix? More Telephone Poles
Wireless provider’s innovative plan to
boost cell service runs into local hurdles
One of the wireless antennas
being installed on light poles in cities around the country for Sprint and
other carriers to increase cellphone service quality at lower cost than
much-larger tower antennas. Pole above is in Los Angeles.
By
RYAN
KNUTSON
June 7, 2016 6:03 p.m. ET
Don Budreski earlier this year noticed a roughly
three-story-tall utility pole pop up across the street from his Baltimore
electronics shop.
“It was just odd,” he said of the slender, steel post. “I
thought, ‘What are they putting that thing there for?’ ”
Mr.
Budreski had caught a glimpse of a key element of Sprint Corp.’s plan to improve its network and win back
customers: thousands of sidewalk utility poles.
The Overland Park, Kan., company wants to install low-power
cellular antennas in public rights of way, land typically holding utility
poles, street lamps and fire hydrants. In places where it can’t strap antennas
to existing poles, it wants to erect new poles.
Sprint is primarily working with Mobilitie LLC, a Newport Beach,
Calif., company to build these cellular antenna systems from California to
Massachusetts. Mobilitie has begun installing them, which it says are typically
the size of a briefcase and often inside boxes attached to the poles.
But the rollout has been delayed as communities confront what
some consider unsightly installations and authorities wrestle with new
regulatory questions. Sprint recently slashed its capital spending plans for
the year as it waits for zoning approvals. Mobilitie says it has about 1,000
permits approved and will start large-scale installations once more are in
hand.
In the past, wireless carriers built towers of 200 feet or more
that could send signals over large areas to cover as many customers as
possible. Now that more people use smartphones to stream videos and surf the
Web, carriers want to put lower-power antennas closer to the ground so that
fewer people will connect to each one—resulting in less network congestion.
“It’s not a new concept,” said John Saw, Sprint’s
chief technology officer. “All carriers are trying to ‘densify’ their
networks.” But Sprint’s goal is to be “cheaper and faster and more innovative”
than its rivals, he said.
Popping antennas on existing utility poles is something most
carriers are hoping to do. But cash-strapped Sprint aims to take the concept
further than rivals: It is hoping to install as many as 70,000 antennas in the
public right of way over the next few years. By comparison, it has 40,000
traditional antenna sites on towers or rooftops.
It
is a central piece of a strategy devised in early 2015 by Sprint Chairman Masayoshi Sonto improve service while keeping costs down.
Companies can negotiate with a city for one deal that includes various permits.
Mobilitie Chief Executive Gary Jabara says building and operating
these so-called small cells costs about $190,000 over 10 years, whereas a
traditional tower costs $732,000 because of real estate rents, power and other
costs.
The airwaves Sprint owns are ideally suited for this design
because their high frequency prevents them from traveling long distances.
Rather than string fiber-optic cables to each antenna, Sprint hopes to link
them via wireless connections, further bringing down costs and speeding
deployment.
Analyst Jonathan Atkin at RBC Capital Markets is
skeptical, saying Sprint may only be able to build a fraction of the sites it
wants in public rights-of-way governed by federal, state and local laws.
Mobilitie’s practices in some places have faced local
resistance. It has filed applications under various corporate names, including
the Illinois Utility Pole Authority, NC Technology Relay Networking, and
Interstate Transport and Broadband. It has used similar-sounding names in at
least 30 states.
Joseph Van Eaton, a lawyer who represents municipalities
dealing with the applications, says the names are misleading. “You may very
well end up with some of these applications being granted for exactly the
reason why they like these names—it sounds official,” he said.
Mobilitie is willing to modify its applications to avoid being
disruptive, Mr. Jabara says. “It’s more important to be a good citizen” than to
move quickly, he said. “You have to do the right thing.”
Mr. Jabara says the names also make it easier for local
officials to understand the status of his firm. The company is a registered
utility and those business names help reflect that status, he says. “In
some states it’s more comprehensible for a jurisdiction to work with an
authority,” he said. In the future, the company will most often use the name
“Mobilitie” in dealings with local officials, he said.
In Salem, Mass., Mobilitie applied last fall to install antennas
on seven poles. After some residents expressed concerns over the look of the
antennas, the company withdrew three applications and agreed to camouflage the
other four.
‘Not in my backyard has been around for a very long time.’
—John Saw, Sprint CTO
In Baltimore, Mobilitie was fined $5,000 for failing to get
proper permits for the temporary pole across from Mr. Budreski’s shop, which
was taken down after a few days. The company since has received approval to attach
equipment to 14 poles across the city. It will pay Baltimore $70,000 for pole
attachment rights in the first year of the deal. Mr. Jabara says that amount is
unusually high, and many places charge less than $50 a year per pole.
Mr. Jabara says such incidents were inadvertent mistakes.
Sprint’s Mr. Saw says his company is committed to being patient and making sure
municipalities are comfortable with its plans.
“We’re not surprised that sometimes you will run into opposition
in certain jurisdictions,” Mr. Saw says. “ ‘Not in my backyard’ has been around
for a very long time.”
