You are here
Wireless Misconceptions
Misconceptions
About Regulating Towers and Wireless Facilities
About Regulating Towers and Wireless Facilities
By Lawrence (Rusty) Monroe
and
Richard (Dick) Comi
Founders of The Center for Municipal Solutions
Striking a Balance! That's what the goal of local government should be as regards regulating the
number, siting, construction and modification of towers and wireless facilities in a community.
The balance that is struck should be between the (provable) needs of the carriers (not their best
wishes or desires) and the needs and public interest of the community. It's really about i)
protecting the nature and character of the community; ii) assuring that what is
built is safe; and iii) what is built is what was actually permitted. The fact of the matter is
that in any individual community only local the government can assure that this balance is struck.
However, in attempting to strike this balance, local officials are often forced to deal with a
number of misconceptions, some of which are simply erroneous assumptions, while others are
misrepresentations, some made knowingly and some unknowingly. This white paper is intended to
dispel these misconceptions and enable local officials to make truly informed policy decisions
based on fact(s), not assumptions or representations.
The following are assertions, statements and beliefs that reflect common misconceptions related to
regulating the siting of towers and wireless facilities, along with a synoptic discussion of each.
The points made reflect the author's experience assisting and advising more than 500 communities
in 20 states across the nation and having handled countless numbers of applications for them. Each
one has been proven in the real world to be a misconception, normally based on a lack of
familiarity and experience with the matter, i.e. a true understanding of all that's involved,
including the options or alternatives available (i.e. regulatory, technical and quasi-technical
alternatives) and the feasibility or permissibility of each. With the right knowledge a community
can create a situation where the proper balance is struck and everyone wins - the applicant, the
residents, the business community and the local officials.
Everyone involved in an application process should get what they need in a timely manner, i.e. the
applicant, the elected officials and the public, while the community is assured that the facility
is safe, is built as it was permitted and everyone is protected from unnecessarily visually
obtrusive facilities that can change the nature and character of the community . . permanently.
Misconceptions about the Regulation of Towers and Wireless Facilities
You can't be in complete control of the issue of towers and wireless facilities
Not everyone involved in or affected by a wireless application can get what they need
Local governments are a hindrance and bottleneck to the expansion of service
Regulation is inherently bad, harms the industry and is anti-free enterprise
Expert assistance costs the community
The Company wouldn't spend the money on a new site if it weren't truly needed
The carrier must have a tower on which to locate
Fewer tall towers (that permit co-location) are better than more facilities of a lower height
The carrier's primary issue or concern is cost
A tower has to look like a tower
A wireless facility simply can't be "invisible" or unrecognizable to the public
Multiple sites are more visually intrusive and objectionable than a single taller tower
Multiple carriers must have at least 6' of vertical separation on a tower between their arrays
A carrier must have true 'line-of-site' for its antennas to work
The antennas must always be above the tree line to work
You can't 'capture' an existing grandfathered tower under a new ordinance/regulations
An applicant must be permitted to use the least costly and/or most cost effective means
A community cannot deny a permit based merely on the 'appearance' of the facility
The size of a gap in service (hole) simply can't be reduced without a new facility
Height is the primary determiner of the quality/clarity of the signal
The FCC preempted addressing the issue of RF (NIER) emissions
Co-locations don't have the issues and concerns that towers involve
A (really good) new or revised ordinance is costly
The Propagation studies submitted always prove the need for the facility
Propagation studies submitted always prove the need for the height
Propagation studies can be made to show whatever the applicant wants
Companies always prefer to co-locate on an existing facility
Companies always do a thorough search for co-location possibilities
A community can't prohibit towers
A community must grant a permit for any site that is proven to be needed by every carrier
A community can't review an applicant's RF emissions calculations
A community can't deny a permit because of non-compliance with the FCC's RF emissions standards
RF emissions are to be calculated only for the applicant's facilities
A community cannot be in control of the issue without regulations actually in place
The application process must be adversarial
The information required in the application is burdensome to provide
Regulations slows expansion of the service and makes it cost prohibitive
Experts can't generate more Non-Tax revenue for leasing municipally-owned space to a carrier
Expert assistance costs the community
The lion's share of wireless facilities are in place today
You can't be in complete control of the issue of towers and wireless facilities [TOP]First, being in control does not mean that there is an inherently adversarial relationship with
applicants. In fact, being in control can often change what may have been an adversarial
situation. Being in control is conceptually as simple as having the right regulations in place and
the right people to administer them, i.e. professionals who truly know and understand both sides
of the issue and how to achieve the needs of both sides. However, very few local ordinances are
drafted by someone who truly knows and understands the industry, what is feasible and what is not,
as well as the correct answers to all of the "misconceptions" listed below. As well intended as
the drafters of most wireless ordinances may be, without such knowledge an ordinance seldom does
what's intended or desired, or it falls short of what can be done, or it can be done in a much
simpler and less costly manner for all involved in the process, including the applicant. In short,
protecting the nature and character of the community and the safety of the public and permitting
the applicant what it needs are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there should be an inherent
mutual interest of balance between the needs of the applicant and the community/public interest.
Not everyone involved in or affected by a wireless application can get what they need [TOP]Contrary to popular belief, all parties can 'win' in the sense that everyone gets what they need.
The carrier can get what it needs by having an expeditious review of its application and the
related decision as regards its permit; the public can get expanded and more reliable service,
often without a new tower and as often without creating a visually obtrusive facility at all; and
the local officials get what they need in the context of improved economic development
opportunities with a minimum of new, visually obtrusive towers and wireless facilities that would
otherwise likely be the case. All of this can happen much faster than is often the case without
the right regulations in place.
Local governments are a hindrance and bottleneck to the expansion of service [TOP]In the experience of the author, nothing could be further from the truth. Communities with well
crafted regulations, coupled with qualified people to process and analyze the applications can
actually facilitate and expedite the application process. However, the legislation won't work
without people possessing the requisite knowledge and experience and who truly understand the
issues and options involved (including the economic and technological feasibility of the options,
and the reason for the policies adopted) and these people can't do the job without the right
regulations in place.
Regulation is inherently bad, harms the industry and is anti-free enterprise [TOP]Regulation on the local level, when crafted correctly, can and should have the opposite effect of
this misconception. Local governments are in a position to actually facilitate and expedite the
application process. A classic example recently occurred in a community in Alabama where Verizon
received permits for 4 of 5 different co-locations a mere 30 days after submittal of the
applications; the 4th was permitted in 45 days. From the industry's perspective, it doesn't get
much better than this.An application review should be able to be completed within 2 weeks of the submittal of the
application and the applicant should know at that point if there are any issues to be resolved and
whether or not the recommendation will be positive. Again, everyone should win: the safety of the
public is protected, the nature and character of the community is protected, wireless service is
expanded and the carrier starts to generate about $3,000/day/site. What more could anyone
reasonably want?
Expert assistance costs the community [TOP]Not true! To wit, the services of the author's organization have never cost a community anything,
since under their model ordinance the applicant is required to provide the Community with the
money up-front by way of an escrow deposit to pay for the community's needed expert assistance.
The escrow is under the control of the Community, not the applicant. This is only fair, since most
communities do not have the expertise in-house to perform the type review and analysis needed,
e.g. RF propagation analysis, structural analysis, RF radiation emissions, and the need to have
this done is precipitated by the applicant who will be the financial beneficiary of the permit . .
. that is normally granted into perpetuity.
The Company wouldn't spend the money on a new site if it weren't truly needed [TOP]While this sounds like a reasonable assumption, it's not always true. Why? Because applicants
don't normally have the incentive to devote the time and resources to exploring alternatives, such
as adjusting existing sites, since often it's easier (and sometimes less costly) to put up a new
facility than to redesign an existing facility. This does not make them bad people. It merely
makes them human by looking for the easiest and least costly option. The community can
(unilaterally) create the incentive legislatively by making it a requirement to first examine what
can be done to adjust existing sites and prove that adjusting them won't eliminate the gap in
service or at least shrink the gap. Examples of what can be done include, but are not limited to,
increasing the ERP (wattage) of the antenna output, eliminating or reducing the down-tilt in
antenna panels in the direction of the problem area and/or moving the antenna array higher, if
it's on an existing tower and there is room to move up on the tower. While these adjustments won't
always eliminate or mitigate the need for a new site, they often can. Remember that reducing the
size of a gap in service inherently decreases the height that would otherwise be needed.
A community is obligated to permit an applicant the means to achieve its 'desires' or 'objectives', as opposed to its 'needs' [TOP]This should be true, but only when desires and objectives coincide with true needs, such as being
able to provide "functionally reliable" service. Notably, "functional reliability", not
necessarily the signal strength claimed to be needed by the applicant, should be the test as
regards meeting the applicant's needs, It's important to know (and understand) exactly what the
carrier's needs are, as opposed to its desires or objectives. If one doesn't know exactly what the
problem is and what's causing it, as well as all the options for remedying the problem, the local
officials simply can not make informed decisions. Instead, they're relegated to simply relying on
the applicant's assertions and what little they know about the cause and the possible solutions to
the problem.Desires are normally couched in terms of the Company's 'objectives', which sounds good, but under
the law at (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) a company's desires or objectives are not the test. The test is the
actual, provable needs of the Company, i.e. to provide "functionally reliable" service primarily
within that community and not an adjacent community.An example of needs versus desires and objectives happened in a North Carolina county recently
when the applicant requested a 300' tower for a gap in a sparsely populated rural area along a
major highway. Upon review of the application, it was discovered that the carrier already had sufficient signal
to provide 'Rural In-Vehicle' signal strength throughout the majority of the
alleged gap in service. As it turned out, the applicant was requesting a 300' tower so it could
provide the equivalent of 'Urban In-Building' signal strength at the extremities of the area, even
though it was to serve a "Rural In-Vehicle" market. Once this was discovered, the Company agreed
that it could fill the few relatively small gaps in service that actually existed by co-locating
on existing structures. Result: no new tower. The key was in knowing what propagation studies to
request, being able to analyze the propagation studies, knowing and understanding the difference
between the applicant's desires and its true needs, and knowing what would enable the applicant to
fulfill its real need, i.e. to provide Rural In-Vehicle coverage for the relatively small area not
already covered.As the preceding shows, the effects of not understanding the difference between a carrier's
legitimate, provable needs and its objectives/desires, and how they should be treated, are
significant and can mean the difference between the construction of a new tower and being able to
co-locate on an existing facility of some type, with the facilities often being unrecognizable by
the average person. Result: No 300' tower and no physical or visual impact on the community, but
with improved and expanded service.
The carrier must have a tower on which to locate [TOP]While historically, due to a lack of wireless infrastructure, a tower has often been needed, today
significantly fewer new towers are needed. Theoretically, almost anything that can support the
structural load of an antenna array and its associated cabling and is of sufficient height can
serve in lieu of a tower.The effects of buying into this misconception can be seen when traveling any interstate highway.
How many towers do you see that have only 1 or 2 carriers attached and within a 1/2 mile or so
there's another identical situation? Assuming that either tower needs to actually exist, there
should only be one tower, not two or more.
Fewer tall towers (that permit co-location) are better than more facilities of a lower height [TOP]While this sounds logical, it isn't always necessarily true. It depends upon i) the community and
its desires; ii) the size of the area to be served from a given facility; and iii) the topography
of the area involved. This is an argument most often heard from tower companies who are primarily
concerned with the issues of maximizing their resource (space on the tower) and cost, convenience
and the time needed to get the permit so it can start leasing space on the tower. Again, this
doesn't make them bad people. It simply makes them good employees. It's simply that their
interests should be balanced by the public interest of the community in which they're locating.
Notably, unless the community chooses to grant them status, tower companies should have no
standing before a community, i.e. as an applicant. This is because under federal law they are no
different than the owner of anything else that could be attached to, such as a building, utility
pole, an electric transmission tower, billboard, church steeple, etc. Towers simply represent one
option for carriers and usually the least desirable from the community's perspective. Only the
carrier and the public have "needs" under the federal law.
The carrier's primary issue or concern is cost [TOP]Time is the primary issue for the applicant, since, on average, nationally, each carrier at each
site will generate about $3,000 per day and each month they are not in operation means at least
$90,000 - $100,000 in revenue that will never be realized. In many areas (including in some heavy
traffic rural areas and small communities) the revenue per carrier per day per site is several
times the national average of $3,000/day. Is it any wonder that time is their primary issue and
that cost, as long as it's not prohibitive, is less of a concern?
Local governments must permit carriers to fill a gap in service from a single location, meaning they will need a tower to give them the needed height to do so [TOP]Local governments are not obligated by law to permit a carrier to fill a gap in service from a
single site, e.g. a tower. The issues here are cost and convenience . . . to the applicant.
Applicable federal law does not address the issue of cost or convenience when permitting a
wireless facility, nor does it require local governments to do so, as long as they do not act
unreasonably, discriminate among functionally equivalent service providers, or act in a manner
that would have the effect of being prohibitive.Instead, if deemed an appropriate policy to adopt by the local legislative body, with the proper
regulations in place local officials can require that the gap be filled from multiple facilities
co-located on existing structures such as existing towers, buildings, utility poles, etc.. More
and more in urban areas utility poles can be used where even experts who did not know the facility
was there could easily pass it by without noticing it.The argument often heard is, "Which would you rather have - a single tower on which others can
co-locate, thereby reducing the number of needed towers in the future, or a bunch of wireless
facilities around the community?" That's a loaded question that is intended to take advantage of
local officials. The answer should be, "That's not the only option. We don't want any more new
towers than are absolutely necessary and the need for which can be definitively proven." In short,
in many instances there are alternatives to towers. In most communities a new tower should be the
exception.
A tower has to look like a tower [TOP]Sounds reasonable, but it's not axiomatic. Towers can be disguised in any number of ways . . .
discounting those so-called "trees" that don't fool anyone. In fact, there are companies that
specialize in disguising towers. However, some of the more ingenious examples include a nice, neat
new little farm with a new 20' x 30' pole barn (that houses the electronics), on the end of which
is a silo that contains the antenna array(s) and is surrounded by (maintenance free) white PVC
board fencing. How about co-locating on high-tension electric towers that are often taller than
many wireless towers, but already exist and where the antennas would be virtually invisible? What
about the possibility of using a disguised tower as a landmark unique to that community in the
right circumstances? In one community they had it disguised as clock tower.
You can't "shrink" a tower [TOP]This is simply not true. In a number of instances it is possible to significantly reduce the
requested height of a tower. Why? Because many times carriers no longer need the 6' to 10' of
vertical space between antenna arrays. (This was originally needed for reasons of frequency
isolation so they don't interfere with each other.) With technological, more and more they can
actually be located at the same height on the tower. If someone questions this, take them to any
building with multiple carriers co-located on the roof and ask them to show you the vertical
separation. There is none. Often they are even within inches of each other, horizontally.
A wireless facility simply can't be "invisible" or unrecognizable to the public [TOP]Not true. Just a few examples include attaching to utility poles (it looks like just another
transformer on the pole, which no one even pays attention to anyway); facilities co-located on
buildings that are painted to match the color of the building almost exactly (be sure the cabling
is also painted to match if it runs up the exterior); disguising as a silo or actually building a
pole barn and silo as discussed previously. Cell sites have even been mounted on the face of
cliffs and disguised to look like a part of the rock. Many cell sites should be virtually
unrecognizable by the layperson as a cell site.
Multiple sites are more visually intrusive and objectionable than a single taller tower [TOP]This need not be true and in many instances should not be. As previously discussed, there are
normally a number of alternative options, none of which would normally even be recognized as a
cell site by the layperson. Assuming the multiple sites involved towers (if it could be proven
there were no co-location options), the question should be asked, which is more visually intrusive
and has a greater impact on the nature and character of the community; a single tower that is
100', 200' or in some instances 300' above the trees, or several (e.g. 3) towers each of which
only protrudes above the trees about 20' and that still accommodate multiple carriers?
Multiple carriers must have at least 6' of vertical separation on a tower between their arrays [TOP]This used to be true, because the separation was needed for what is known as frequency isolation
to prevent interference or conflict with another carrier's service. However, today in most
instances they do not need vertical separation. For proof, look at any rooftop that has multiple
carriers located on it. They're normally all at the same height and often with only inches between
them horizontally.
A carrier must have true 'line-of-site' for its antennas to work [TOP]To the layperson, the term 'line-of-site' is a bit misleading. If this were literally true, one
could not use the service inside a building. Actually, the issue involves a combination of
factors, including a combination of signal strength, height in relation to nearby solid
obstructions, the effective radiated power (electrical power stated in terms of watts) and the
desired service area from that site.One does not literally have to be able to see the antenna in order to use the service. There can
be numerous types of 'obstructions' and the service will work just fine. It's really more a matter
of cost and convenience for the carrier, rather than functionality and reliability. However, from
a practical perspective an antenna mounted at a height of 30' in the middle of downtown will
probably not have much of a reach, since the signal normally won't go through 2 or more buildings
and still be functional.
The antennas must always be above the tree line to work [TOP]This misconception is related to the preceding one. While traditionally this has been the case, it
isn't always anymore, especially with the advent of 'micro-cellular' deployment related to 3G
technology and service. The proof of the matter is that in urban areas more and more carriers are
locating on structures lower than the surrounding trees and buildings, e.g. on utility poles, the
facia or eave of buildings, billboards, etc.. The issue normally is how far the signal will travel
and whether the local officials want to permit the gap in service to be filled from a single
(taller) site or whether they want to require multiple, but visually less obtrusive sites.
You can't 'capture' an existing grandfathered tower under a new ordinance/regulations [TOP]This is done regularly, but requires the right language in the ordinance or regulations. They key
is for the local ordinance or regulations to require an application and a permit for any
modification of an existing facility, such as the changeout of equipment or the addition of a
carrier's facilities that are new to that tower. Thus, when the tower or any of the facilities
associated with it is modified, the tower becomes subject to the new regulations.
An applicant must be permitted to use the least costly and/or most cost effective means [TOP]The 1996 Telecommunications Act is completely silent on the matter of cost, though some states
have preemptory regulations that deal with this issue. The fact is that there is no such
requirement placed on communities by federal law, other than the implicit test of
'reasonableness'.As regards the issue of cost, applicants are often heard (mis)representing that permitting costs
will affect service rates in the community. This simply is not true, as the rates are set
nationally, not even regionally, much less by state and community.
A community cannot deny a permit based merely on the 'appearance' of the facility [TOP]The 1996 Telecommunications Act does not prohibit this. By expressly protecting local authority
over the location/siting, construction and modification of wireless facilities, the 1996
Telecommunications Act inherently or implicitly allows for denial based on egregious situations
where such authority is not preempted by State law or regulation, for example where the facility
would change or negatively and unnecessarily impact the nature and character of a community.
However, there should be a well-established written record documenting the matter.
The size of a gap in service (hole) simply can't be reduced without a new facility [TOP]Given the extent of the deployment of wireless facilities today, the size of a gap in service can
sometimes actually be reduced by adjusting the facilities on the existing adjacent sites. In the
vast majority of instances, reducing the size of a gap in service inherently reduces the height
needed to fill that gap, i.e. from a single taller facility. If the need for significant height is
eliminated, the probability of being able to co-locate on an existing structure or building is
significantly increased.
Height is the primary determiner of the quality/clarity of the signal [TOP]Other than as regards the 'reach' of the signal (the distance from the facility that the signal
will work), in most instances signal quality is not solely an issue of height. The more height,
the farther the signal will reach, normally. However, the height of a tower is only a factor up to
a point. Beyond that it's normally an issue of 'leaseable' space on the tower for the tower owner.
In other words, it's a revenue issue for the tower owner, who is the one party to the process that
under federal law (and good local regulation) has no standing, because it has no need under the
law. Again, only the carrier, the community and the public have a need, not a tower company.
Towers are merely one means of a carrier having its needs met, but certainly not the only option
in many instances.An example of a situation that most have experienced is when you're using your cell phone and you
can see the tower down the road in the distance, but the party on the other end of the call cannot
hear you or only hears every other word. This is often because the cell phone (powered by only
6/10 of 1 watt) will simply not reach the tower, even though the tower can be seen. In such
instances it's normally a safe assumption that the tower is taller than it needs to be.
The FCC preempted addressing the issue of RF (NIER) emissions [TOP]The FCC only preempted the actual establishment of the standards/requirements and prohibits denial
of a permit based on RF Emissions if the applicant meets the FCC's requirements. However, local
governments retain the right to determine compliance with the FCC's regulations as part of the
application process. If this were not true, how could they deny an application based on failing to
meet the FCC's requirements, since they wouldn't know?
Co-locations don't have the issues and concerns that towers involve [TOP]This is simply not true and is a dangerous misconception. The number of issues does not normally
differ between a new tower and a co-location. The difference is the form the issues take, not the
number of issues.For example, it might appear to be a 'no brainer' if the applicant wanted to co-locate on an
existing tower that was grandfathered, i.e. it was permitted prior to the adoption of the current
or proposed new regulations. However, how does one know that the tower was designed and
constructed to structurally accommodate the new load, or that it will not create a safety hazard,
since its structural adequacy has never been reviewed, much less proven?There should be a written record established proving that the tower, as designed and constructed,
can support the additional ice and/or wind load, most of which comes form the cabling, not the
antennas, themselves (including accounting for the foundation as a factor of the type of soil and
the type and size of the tower). This should be done both to protect the community and to avert an
assertion of disparate treatment from future applicants. For co-locations on towers there is still
the issue of structural adequacy, as well as the issue of the inspection history of that tower, as
required by ANSI TIA/EIA 222F 1996. Has it been inspected when and as required (different types of
towers have different inspection requirements and intervals between inspections)? Is there a
record of this? The issue normally involves the effect of rust or loose fittings or attachments.Even when attaching to buildings there are structural issues and questions as relate to the
location of the attachment, what it's to be attached to, whether or not it will extend above the
roof line, whether it will create substantial additional ice and/or wind load and, whether the
roof will support the equipment shelter that houses the electronics if it's proposed to be placed
on the roof, etc.?Of course, there are a number of visual issues related to co-locations, often more than with a new
tower, since camouflage or concealment should be prime goals. Examples of some very basic concerns
include: Will the facilities be painted to match the color of the facility being attached to
(including any exposed cabling)? Will the antennas extend above the roof line or can they be
mounted on the fascia and be virtually undetectable? Can an antenna array be used that will
accommodate more than a single carrier on the same array?There are other safety issues such as electrical grounding and bonding, and issues involving the
adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed means of attachment and the security of the facility.
As regards the means of attachment, for example, most people are unaware that there are different
types of welding requirements for attachment to different types of water tanks. Certain types of
welds are prohibited. With respect to security, most people are not aware that a rooftop, even
with a locked door for access, is normally deemed to be accessible by the public, thus creating
several issues and concerns involving the rf radiation from the antennas. In almost all instances,
warnings and barricades should be placed to prevent people from getting too close to the antennas.
If this were not the case, why does OSHA require wireless maintenance workers to wear radiation
detection badges?
Professional Engineers' certifications should be assumed to be correct and doesn't need to be checked or verified [TOP]This can be a dangerous assumption. Professional Engineers are human and are not infallible. They
make mistakes, like everyone else. As Ronald Regan said, the best and most prudent policy is to
"trust . . . but verify", especially when it shouldn't cost the community anything. In the
author's experience, about 25% of all documents signed and stamped by Professional Engineer have
problems, are not complete and/or contain outright incorrect information. They also often make
assumptions that are not warranted or rely on unverified information provided to them.
A (really good) new or revised ordinance is costly [TOP]The correct response is a resounding, "Not true"! There are good ordinances available throughout
the nation that can be customized or individualized, that are a matter of public information and
that can be obtained merely by requesting them. The author's model ordinance is probably in place
or has been used as a model in more communities than any other wireless ordinance in the nation
and it costs nothing, as it is provided at no charge to clients.
The Propagation studies submitted always prove the need for the facility [TOP]Not true! Propagation studies do not always prove the need for the facility. What they show is
simply a gap in service, which may or may not require a new facility to fill. This can't be
determined until the propagation studies are analyzed by those experienced with rf propagation
analysis, including knowing the parameters that were used in their calculation/production and the
appropriateness of the signal strength and the Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of the antennas,
i.e. their wattage. Seldom do carriers design for the maximum ERP for which the equipment is
designed.
Propagation studies submitted always prove the need for the height [TOP]Not true! In fact, many times the propagation studies initially submitted do not prove that the
height requested is the lowest height that will work, especially as regards new towers. The test
should be "the minimum height needed (for that carrier) to provide "functionally reliable" service
in an unserved area . . . that is primarily within the community".It should be remembered that tower companies, not the carriers, own the majority of the towers.
The primary asset or resource of tower companies is space on the tower and, understandably, they
want to maximize their resource, i.e. space to lease. Therefore, tower companies have no incentive
to mitigate the height of the facility. They are in the business of obtaining the maximum height
they can get approved. Remember, tower companies have no specific standing and no protections
under Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, because they have no need under federal law.
It is the carrier that has the need, not the tower company, and the carrier's current needs can
often be satisfied with a significantly lower height than that requested by the tower owner.
Propagation studies can be made to show whatever the applicant wants [TOP]True. The results are totally dependent upon the parameters or modeling information that is
programmed into the computer. Garbage in - Garbage out! This is why it's critical to have the
propagation studies reviewed by those experienced in the analysis of them, since most other issues
stem from and depend upon what the propagation studies show. Far too frequently the propagation
studies submitted reflect the 'desires' of the Company, as opposed to the actual 'needs'. In other
words, the outcome was pre-determined and the studies were designed to reflect this pre-determined
outcome. IN essence they become "self-fulfilling prophecies".
Companies always prefer to co-locate on an existing facility [TOP]Historically, they do if 1) there is one that is conveniently located (i.e. one that they don't
have to look too hard for); 2) they can lease space for a nominal amount; and 3) if it meets their
'desires' or 'objectives'. However, they will normally not do so (of their own volition) if a
co-location site only meets their actual 'needs' as opposed to their 'objectives'.
Companies always do a thorough search for co-location possibilities [TOP]This is simply not true, to wit the preceding discussion.
A community can't prohibit towers [TOP]There is nothing in the federal law that prohibits such a policy, unless it can be proven that
such a policy in that community creates an effective prohibition on the deployment of the service.
However, there are many other ways to deal with the matter that are less likely to engender
animosity and potential litigation. One relatively simple approach is to adopt a policy that
places a new tower as the last, worst case option and requires the applicant to prove,
dispositively, the need for a new tower, i.e. that there are no possibilities to co-locate on an
existing structure of some kind.
A community must grant a permit for any site that is proven to be needed by every carrier [TOP]Depending upon the situation, including the federal circuit in which a community is located, this
may not be true. Albermarle County, Virginia is one example of a situation where the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the community was not obligated to grant a permit for a new
facility for the applicant (in this case a tower). The Court said that the federal law only
requires that service be available by one carrier in a community, but not necessarily by each and
every carrier.
A community can't review an applicant's RF emissions calculations [TOP]This is simply not true. While only the FCC may establish the numerical parameters that must be
complied with, local verification of compliance is not prohibited and, in fact, is presumed by the
FCC, since the FCC only addresses this if there is complaint. The question then becomes, how does
the average person know to even suspect if a site is not in compliance with RF emissions
standards? They don't. To facilitate this task, the FCC issued a handbook for local officials
explaining just how this should be done. As this is normally one of the two biggest concerns of
the public (along with the visual obtrusiveness and appearance of the facility), it's an issue
that communities would be well advised to address and have verified. A review of the RF (i.e.
NIER) emissions should be conducted by an individual experienced with the regulations, the
technology being employed and the physics of RF propagation.
A community can't deny a permit because of non-compliance with the FCC's RF emissions standards [TOP]This is simply not true! Non-compliance with any federal regulations, and refusal or inability to
bring a facility into compliance, is grounds for denial of the application. See previous
discussion.
RF emissions are to be calculated only for the applicant's facilities [TOP]This is not true. RF emissions are to be calculated cumulatively, i.e. to show the effects of all
wireless service facilities at the location. Seldom does a single carrier's facility cause an RF
emissions problem. Rather, it is normally the cumulative effect of multiple facilities that causes
problems.
A community cannot be in control of the issue without regulations actually in place [TOP]This, also, is not true. A community can adopt an interim application process, i.e. pending the
adoption of the new regulations or ordinance, whereby applications are permitted during the
drafting of the new ordinance or regulations, but which states that any permit granted for such
applications will be granted under and subject to the new ordinance or regulations once it is in
place. This is one example of creating a win-win situation. This should prevent litigation based
on a claim of an unreasonable delay, as applications will be processed, but the permit will be
issued under the new regulations, and should serve to get the applicant what it needs, while at
the same time protecting the community. The carrier is not delayed by a moratorium and the
community is protected, since if a permit is granted it will be granted under the new regulations.
The key is not to delay in the crafting and adoption of the new regulations. Normally 90 days
should be sufficient time.
The application process must be adversarial [TOP]The application process should not be inherently adversarial, especially if both parties have
individuals who truly understand and are sensitive to the issues and the needs of the other party.
The other key is to have a well drafted ordinance or set of regulations that addresses the needs
of both parties and the public, and that has clear, well defined requirements and procedures that
are not unduly burdensome or time consuming.
The information required in the application is burdensome to provide [TOP]This is not (or should not) be true. Applicants normally have the information necessary to prove
the need for what they're requesting, that it's designed to be safe, and to prove that it's the
least visually intrusive possible. They have this for their own business purposes. It should
simply be a matter of compiling it in the manner required in the regulations and providing it in
an application.
Regulations slows expansion of the service and makes it cost prohibitive [TOP]Well-drafted local regulations can, and have been proven to, actually facilitate and speed up the
process, especially if administered by those who truly know and understand the issues and the
options. Issues can be quickly sorted through, focusing on those issues that are potentially
problematic - plus, in many instances, alternatives and options can be suggested that will meet
the applicant's needs and still protect the community and its interests. Actually, the industry
has acknowledged numerous times that it would rather work under good regulations than work through
a poorly designed process, no specific process or a process with an ambiguous process and
requirements. Any of these situations can result in an effort not unlike trying to "nail J-ello to
the wall", that it results in a continuously moving target and unnecessary delays. Put another
way, if you don't know where you're going, how do you know when you get there?Recently in Westchester County, New York, an industry representative stated the following in an
interview with the New York Times as printed in the Westchester County edition of the NY Times on
July 11, 2004:"Ms. Dunleavy described the process as "longer and more drawn out" in the county than in other,
similar areas. It takes an average of about 18 months to get a cellular site approved . . ."This simply should not be. There's no reason for an application to take an average of 18 months.
Experts can't generate more Non-Tax revenue for leasing municipally-owned space to a carrier [TOP]With respect to negotiating leases for the use of municipal facilities or property, the authors'
experience has been that, on average, they have been able to negotiate at least double the amount
of revenue that was originally proposed, resulting in between 200% to 300% more than originally
proposed over the term of the lease. How much should a community be getting for the use of
municipal property or facilities? Depending upon the specifics of the market, they should expect
between $1,500 to $4,000 per month per carrier based on the industry's average, per site
revenue-generating capability.
Expert assistance costs the community [TOP]Not true! To wit, services provided by the author's organization, The Center for Municipal
Solutions (CMS), have never cost a community anything. How? Because under their model ordinance
the applicant is required to provide the local government with the money up-front vis-Ö-vis an
escrow deposit that is under the control of the community.
The lion's share of wireless facilities are in place today [TOP]Nothing could be further from the truth. The industry has acknowledged that with the current
deployment of 3G (3rd Generation) technology and service, it will need two (2) to three (3) times
as many sites as it currently has, nationwide. This is several hundred thousand more new wireless
sites and facilities in the next 3 - 5 years. Is your community prepared to deal with this
situation? The bad news is that this is an example of another un-funded responsibility placed on
local government. The good news is that it doesn't have to cost the community anything if it is
handled correctly, and just as importantly it doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) a contentious
or adversarial situation. All parties to the process (the community, the public and the applicant)
can get what they need, including the community and the public, as well as the applicant.