Need Ordinance Update

Towers and Wireless Facilities . . . 1 Million More

Are You Prepared to Deal with the Situation?

By: L.S. (Rusty) Monroe and Richard Comi

Co-Founders of The Center for Municipal Solutions

Written for PSATS (Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors)

(The Center for Municipal Solutions represents and assists more than 500 communities in
23 states with regard to how to minimize the number and visual impact of telecommunications towers and wireless facilities)

Most people are not aware of the fact the wireless telecommunications industry has acknowledged that it will need as many as
1 million more facilities (i.e. sites) in the next several years. While in the short term there are certainly issues of a more critical nature facing most communities,
few will have more of a long term, permanent impact and effect on the nature and character of a community than this issue, even if the new facilities are co-located on existing structures. The number, placement and appearance of these facilities goes to the heart of preserving the nature and character of a community and the effects of today's decisions regarding these facilities will have to be lived with for decades.

What is the cause or reason for this situation? The full answer is somewhat complicated, but a short explanation is that the carriers are deploying wireless internet access service. However, to do so they need to eliminate the fringe or marginal areas. This is accomplished by having much smaller areas served by each site, since due to size of the current service areas, there is often intermittent, spotty or otherwise unreliable coverage on the fringes. Eliminating the marginal fringe areas is critical for such services as electronic funds transfers (EFT's) where the service must be absolutely 100% reliable.(For example, if a single digit is dropped, there are major problems.

Another cause for the situation is the fact that more and more sites no longer have the capacity to deal with the number of calls due to the number of cell phone users and their call activity, especially during peak times, resulting in calls being blocked or dropped. Thus, the carriers need to upgrade the capacity of the existing sites, as well as add new sites to hand-off the excess call volume. Just these two situations alone, internet access and the need to increase call-handling capacity, will in the near future result in 3 to 4 times the number of sites currently in the most communities. Many are already seeing a new round of applications for new sites. For example, in a mere 150 mile by 100 mile area of rural western New York state,
one of the major carriers has announced that it will need an additional 1,800 sites in the next year, in addition to the several hundred already in place.

Lastly, there are new technologies, new services and new service providers emerging that were never even contemplated when the 1996 Telecommunications Act was adopted and when most current local ordinances or regulations were adopted. These include, but are far from limited to, wireless high-speed broadband access provided by wireless Local Area Networks (LAN's) and Metropolitan Area Networks (MAN's) operating at broadband speeds, and a new service and technology known as Wi-Fi, both of which will require many more sites than the current cellular, SMRS or PCS service. A single Wi-Fi provider, in a moderately sized community of just 5 miles by 2 miles, could require as many as a dozen sites, since the coverage is merely a few hundred yards in most instances. Imagine what the situation will be if there are just 2 or 3 Wi-Fi providers! Even rural communities are getting between 4 and 6 applications at a time from each of the current carriers, just because of wireless internet service and a lack of capacity of current sites, and this doesn't even count Wi-Fi and MAN applications.

How do you deal with the situation? By being proactive and being prepared to address it, but in a way that enables everyone to "win" and that doesn't slow down the deployment of the new technology or expanded coverage in the community, yet assures that the community always controls the issue. If not addressed properly, communities will almost assuredly have many more sites than are really needed, the sites will be more visually intrusive than necessary and the community won't know if they're safe, i.e. built in compliance with applicable federal law, rules and regulations 1. In this context we strongly recommend updating and revising current tower and wireless regulations to reflect the current and anticipated situation.

It is recommended that all communities have their tower and wireless facilities ordinances or regulations updated and revised to reflect the current and anticipated situation and the current state of the art of the industry vis-ˆ-vis siting of towers and wireless facilities 2. This is simply too important an issue not to be proactive about, especially given the permanent effects on the nature and character of the community and the economic development benefits that can accrue, if handled correctly.

Need for Expert Assistance - A Case Study

For those who don't perceive or understand the need for expert reviews and analyses of applications, the following is the raw data that is needed just to determine the following most basic issues:

1. If a wireless facility is needed at all;

2. If a new tower is needed, or if adjacent sites can be adjusted (reengineered)
to reduce the needed height and thus potentially eliminate the need for a new
tower; and

3. The minimum height needed to meet the needs of the applicant.

The preceding are the assumptions used by the applicant in calculating the Effective Radiated Power (ERP) that need to be understood to determine the validity of the conclusions shown on a propagation study. The issues include the most basic of issues that need to be determined, those being proving:

1. The need for the site in the first place

2. The need for a tower, or whether the facility can be co-located on an
existing structure

3. The height of the facility or the height of attachment to the facility

Otherwise, the propagation studies are virtually useless from the community's perspective. Note that in this instance several of
the losses used in the calculations are incorrect, i.e. excessive, and skewed the results to attempt to justify a new tower of 190 feet. Had the information not been provided and had the analysis not been done by experts, the community would have had another unnecessary tower. This is intended to demonstrate that to even address the most basic issues one must know and understand RF propagation and the engineering data used to produce the propagation studies, as well as what the numbers and answers should be. Understandably, the staff of very few communities are trained in RF engineering and propagation analysis and interpretation.

While this is not rocket science or quantum physics, as the preceding shows it is not a simple matter to analyze and requires substantial specialized experience and expertise. If a community has the expertise in-house (technically qualified experts) to analyze this information and make a determination, it probably doesn't need assistance. However, if it does not have its own experts who know what information to require, what the numbers should be, how to verify the calculations and how to use the information, as well as what less intrusive alternatives could work, then it should seriously consider getting expert assistance. If not, the community is not even addressing the most basic issues and will have no means or hope of controlling the matter and protecting the nature and character of the community. It will simply have a "process" that doesn't do much more than create a "form over substance" situation and the community ends up simply going through the motions, but with no meaningful effect.

The good news is that, if handled correctly, communities should be able to get the needed ordinance or regulations (or revisions to their current ordinance or regulations), as well as the needed expert assistance, both of which are needed to assure that the community is truly in control, at no cost to the community.

Be Proactive! The issue of controlling towers and wireless facilities is a classic example of the need to be proactive, since once applications are received, it's too late, as applications must be processed under whatever regulations are in place. Given the long-term, permanent effects of not controlling the matter, coupled with the fact that there should be no cost involved to get meaningful and effective regulations in place and the needed expert assistance, the question becomes, "Why wouldn't the community want to do what's necessary to take control of this issue?"

1 The FCC's Wireless Bureau simply does not have the staff to monitor, much less
police, hundreds of thousands of sites nationally. Thus, without municipal
oversight, this becomes a self-policing situation for the industry. As Ronald
Reagan said, responsible government "Trusts . . . but verifies".

2 For example,
the technology now exists in certain instances to accommodate multiple carriers
at the same height, the result of which is that new towers can now be "shrunk"
or significantly shorter and much less visually intrusive, if one knows when and
how to require such.