Jonathan Kramer on Wireless Tower Siting » Site Planning

If the Tower Doesn’t Grow, Can Municipalities Say No?

Jonathan Kramer — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:48:45 +0000

John Pestle of Varnum and I have been invited to speak on this month’s T-Mobile’s National External Affairs Headliner Speaker Series. This is a monthly conference call/webinar with hundreds of internal and external T-Mobile executives, managers, line-level staff, and outside contractors.

The title of our lecture, thought up by T-Mobile, is “If the Tower Doesn’t Grow, Can Municipalities Say No?”

The conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, April 25th at 11am PST/2pm EST.

If you’re invited, you should already have the call-in information. If not, you’ll have to contact External Affairs to get it.

This should be fun! I have lots of slides to share.

Heck, I’ve always wanted to be a headliner!

(Added 4/23 at 8:50 a.m. PDT: I’ve received several questions asking if non-T-Mobiler’s can sit in on the call. The answer is that I wish I could say yes. This is a closed webinar, so you’ll have to ask your contact at T-Mobile External Affairs whether you can join in. -jlk)

Why not WiMax, Sprint? Oh, it’s LTE. Got it.

Christy O'Berry, Esq., LL.M., P.E. — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:16:46 +0000

Sprint, whose original “4G” network was to be built on a WiMax platform, is moving to deploy an LTE network in place of WiMax. This means that Sprint is currently running 2 types of “4G” technology on its network, LTE and WiMax.

The problem with WiMax is that its availability is limited and its performance, when compared to LTE, is not lighting fast. It’s just DSL fast and we all know that isn’t really that fast. Another limitation of WiMax is the farther you get from the node the slower the network speed. Who wants slower speed?

Is Sprint ditching its WiMax partner? It appears so.

The big push to deploy LTE seems to be a result of pressure from Sprint’s consumers rather than a big difference in the technology. I mean, all the other big time providers are deploying LTE, why can’t Sprint’s customers have LTE?

WiMax might still have viability in other platforms like broadband internet access as a landline bypass, as cable or satellite TV bypass, or for providing some limited backhaul services.

One thing that seems almost certain, is that WiMax viability as a mobile telephone provider is waning as LTE is becoming the next go to technology for high speed mobile data.

Wireless Siting Professionals: A Vanishing Breed?

Jonathan Kramer — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:14:46 +0000

I’ve been talking with a number of my friends who are in the wireless siting business as contractors. These are the people, mostly independent contractors, who show up at the planning counter to file siting projects representing the wireless carriers. They perform important functions in the wireless permitting process. I have great respect for the work they do, and the way the do their work with the grace and skill that comes from experience and professionalism. Their work starts long before a wireless project ever hit the planning counter.

Some years ago…say 10…it was common for these siting professionals to have the opportunity to develop significant experience doing what they do. They had that chance because of what’s called “Pay Points.” In days gone by, these professionals were not paid on an hourly basis, but rather at the time some event along the process happened, hence the name.

Once the siting professional received the project package (generally the search ring, a blank lease, and other carrier parameters), they’d go out and spot potential properties, research land records, find willing owners, get lease options signed, attend the A&E meetings, and submit the project to the local government for approval. Then they’d stay with the project through the government planning phase, and attend the hearings representing the carrier client. Each major events was a pay point, and each pay point was the incentive to get the work done and stick with the project.

Because there was fairly significant money involved (I’ve been told $10,000 to $15,000 per project was not uncommon), the professionals could afford to stick with the projects that didn’t ultimately pan out because they got the earlier pay points, and had other projects generating different pay points.

But, alas, lots of people got into the siting business, and then the squeeze on pay point amounts came down from the carriers and their master contractors. Essentially, the siting professional were offered more work with fewer dollars. The result is that a core of professionals remain in the siting business today, but they are also looking for every way to cut costs. Some of these professionals have shut down their physical offices and main telephone numbers turning to become virtual firms (read: working from home with cell phones and computers).

One of the more undesirable results of the squeeze today is that lots of much less experienced people are entering the siting business. It shows.

My staff and I see and deal with the greenhorns when we’re negotiating leases on behalf of our wireless landlord clients, and when we’re dealing with project packages tendered for our review through our government planning agency clients. The quality of the work product coming in is declining, as is the fundamental understanding of the processes. All of this leads to longer negotiations and increased review times. It also leads to more of the real professionals leaving the business to find more profitable lines of work in other areas of project management.

Now comes Section 6409. Generally the siting professionals are very excited about the passage of Section 6409, but some (including yours truly) think there’s a fairly significant cloud surrounding a thin silver lining. I suspect Sec. 6409 is going to turn into a real cloud burst casting off even more rain on the quality people in the business of wireless siting.

As 6409 seems to grant broad collocation (really, Co-Siting) authority to the wireless firms, and the approvals appear to occur in some or many cases by right, I expect the large master contractors who work directly for the carriers (i.e., Bechtel, ALU, Ericsson, B&V, etc.) to look to shave their subcontractors costs even more to benefit their own bottom lines. My gut says the master contractors will assign the Sec. 6409 work to in-house employees for the engineering work, and low level permit runners who are paid a relatively modest hourly fee for their work to file the projects with the local governments.

In major markets like Southern California, this will be a huge and increasing amount of the main siting work. Since the Verizon and AT&T LTE projects and the Sprint Network Vision work will apparently fall under Sec. 6409, there goes that slice of the pie from the mouths of the core of professionals.

And since Sec. 6409 will drive carriers to less desirable sites (that term depends on who’s uttering it…but I digress) but with must faster expected approval times, I think that new siting will slow down for a while as carriers look to do their capacity upgrades at the new low hanging 6409 sites.

As I said at the top of this story, I have many friends who are truly professionals in the wireless siting business. Sadly, I expect that a significant number of them will not be in that line of work come a year from now. I hope I’m wrong, but money talks louder than respect for professionalism and experience.

Wireless Industry Trying Again to Force Unregulated Collocation

Jonathan Kramer — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:02:31 +0000

You might think that the Payroll Tax Bill being hashed out in the Conference Committee would deal with, well, payroll taxes. Alas, you’d be wrong.

The wireless industry is trying very hard to insert language into the final version of the Bill that would strip state and local governments of the ability to control modifications to existing cell sites.

Specifically, the draft conference committee report contains the following provision:

SEC. 6409. WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT.
(a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.

(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST.—For [the] purposes of this subsection, the term “eligible facilities request” means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves—
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.

(3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The language above is terribly flawed as it uses terms that are imprecise at best, and downright confusing at worst: “…substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station…” Huh? This means that a collocation could substantially alter the aesthetics of an existing site outside of local control so long as the collocation does not substantially change to physical dimensions of the tower or or base station.

The proposed language would also remove the ability of a government to deny a collocation on a legal non-conforming site (a site that was legal under local law at the time it was constructed, but would not be permissible today under current local law). Ugly monopoles will get uglier with the addition of new antennas that do not “substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower” and that’s just the way it is.

Would anyone like to bet a law suit on what “substantially change” means?

If you believe that the language in the conference draft is offensive to local control of the rational deployment of wireless facilities designed to promote community aesthetics, now is the time to act. Really, now.

DAS Beware of Bright House’s Bright Idea

Jonathan Kramer — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:08:16 +0000

Bright House, a major cable TV “multiple system operator” (MSO) is joining other cable operators by deploying 2,000 WiFi nodes in its Florida systems. Following the usual MSO model, Bright House is offering its service for fee to its subscribers, and on a paid basis to others. It seems likely that BelAir Networks will be the equipment vendor of choice.

Not so clear is whether Bright House will allow its WiFi customers to roam on the WiFi systems being built by Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

Not only are Cablevision Systems, Time Warner Cable and Comcast all building WiFI networks in high-density areas of their system footprints, but they also have an agreement in place to allow their customers to roam on any of the three WiFi networks.

With CableLabs already working on a common standard for cable system WiFi roaming, its only a matter of (a little) time before the national roll-out of cable’s WiFi, which will then set the stage for cable’s provision of 3G/4G/xG services from these same nodes.

As I’ve already discussed in this bog, the entire DAS sector will be marginalized (or worse) by the national deployment of cable-based wireless services, starting with WiFI and moving to xG contract nodes for wireless carriers.

Bright House’s deployment is just another step along the path of DAS marginalization.

New Photos in Cell Tower Gallery

Jonathan Kramer — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:45:30 +0000

Last month I traveled to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico to participate on a wireless law panel and to visit with friends. While there I had a chance to take a series of new site photos in Santa Fe, and to add to the Twisted Tower photo collection.

Here are a few examples that are available for full size viewing in the celltowersites.com/gallery/

Santa Fe High School Light Standard Site

Two for Fore :: Santa Fe Country Club

The Twisted Tower of Albuquerque

With over 1,400 cell site and cell tower photos, our photo gallery is perhaps the finest online collection available anywhere. To visit the gallery, just CLICK HERE.

Jonathan

DAS All Folks!

Jonathan Kramer — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:10:17 +0000

Published in today’s AGL DAS Bulletin: “Predictions 2012: DAS All Folks!” by yours truly.

If you’re in cable TV industry, the wireless industry, or the DAS industry, you may be surprised by my predictions about the intersection of cable TV and wireless services, and the potential impact on DAS. You may even agree!

http://www.agl-mag.com/newsletter/DB122811_Kramer.htm

Simple Stylish Scottsdale Site

Jonathan Kramer — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 01:35:20 +0000

Camouflaging a wireless site is not simply about hiding the antennas. Sometimes its about designing and locating the panel antenna enclosure to fit the existing architectural surroundings. Here’s an example at the Scottsdale Fashion Square Mall in, of all places, Scottsdale, Arizona (I was in Scottsdale a few days ago on business).

The antenna panels are only easy to spot if you’re a wireless siting expert (like yours truly). What? You don’t see them? Okay…I’ll give you a close up of one of the boxes.

The pop-up box enclosures on either site of the bridge are nicely integrated into the face of the structure.

My only disappointment in the design of this particular site is that the GPS antenna is plainly visible above the panel antenna enclosure. It should have been placed back on the roof so as not to be visible to the public.

As a general note, the City of Scottsdale has a reputation for planning some very creative wireless sites. Sometimes the sites are camo, like above; sometimes the sites incorporate public art; sometimes they use mono-cactus.

Good work, Scottsdale!

TWC Deploys WiFi in SoCal

Jonathan Kramer — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:33:55 +0000

Coming to (or already arrived at) a utility pole really near you in Southern California… Time Warner’s new WiFi system!

With $15M of new strand-mounted WiFi access point equipment supplied by BelAir Networks, this new network is apparently intended to provided wide area WiFi coverage in TWC’s service areas.

Presently, TWC’s SoCal deployment is spotty at best, but this is just the beginning:

So, you’d like to see what the BelAir wireless access points look like installed in SoCal? Here are two photos taken in Santa Monica by yours truly:

TWC WiFi Access Point on Montana Avenue in Santa Monica

TWC WiFi Access Point on Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica

Belair Networks web site points to an interesting piece on the new network posted at FierceWireless: it’s worth reading.

Of course, a few tiny technicalities pop into my head with this deployment.

First, since this is not a cable service, and this is not a personal wireless service, under what regulatory authority does a statewide cable TV franchisee (like, for example, Time Warner) install these wireless access points in the public right-of-way?

Another interesting issue is that I’ve been saying for years that cable operators have to do away with subscriber drop cables. Is this the door-opener for a last mile (really, last 100 feet) drop cable replacement? Given that the node locations only cover a couple of blocks around the access point (I’ve checked by measuring signal strength on the SSID “TWCWifi”), the coverage v. capacity trade off looks favorable.

Wireless drops mean no more…well, fewer at least…truck rolls. This is because in a wireless drop environment most new service installs and disconnects will required the subscriber to pick up and return the box to the cable office. And without aging cables inside walls going bad, cable service quality should/may should be enhanced.

But wireless drops also require a switched channel selection process for most channels, especially for the lesser viewed channels, coupled with multicasting for the most commonly viewed non-premium channels.

It’ll be interesting to see the reactions of those who are concerned about or opposed to ANY wireless site RF proliferation given the signal strength involved versus the fact that these radios will be in installed residential area front yards, back yards, and side yards just feet from occupied structures.

The cable world is certainly changing…it’s becoming wireless, too.

When (Wireless) Worlds Collide…Will Site Landlords Get $quashed?

Jonathan Kramer — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:52:47 +0000

Today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin carries a buried-lead story about Sprint’s deployment of new, flexible base stations that are multi-modal, multi-band, and potentially multi-user.

Faced with Data Surge, Carriers to ‘Feed the Beast’ with Base Station Innovation

Noting the importance of scale, spectrum and innovation, representatives of Sprint Nextel and Clearwire discussed how the growth of wireless data traffic must result in the complete modernization of cell site equipment on a panel on March 22 in Orlando, Fla. They spoke at the Raymond James Breakfast, which was moderated by Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James & Associates.

“We must keep feeding the beast, or we are just going to turn our customers away. We must innovate around the cost. Technology allows it,” said Iyad Tarazi, vice president, network development and engineering, Sprint Nextel. The carrier expects 10x growth every three years for the foreseeable future.

The challenge for Sprint Nextel is to keep up with the pace in a cost-effective manner. To do so the carrier has unveiled Network Vision, which is a blueprint for enhancing data speeds by consolidating multiple network technologies into one, seamless network.

Today, Sprint uses separate equipment to deploy services at 800 MHz, 1.9 GHz and, through Clearwire, 2.5 GHz. The Network Vision concept features the use of software to bring together multiple spectrum bands on a single, multimode base station.

“The technologies that we are deploying in the Network Vision project allow us to modernize our cell sites in a way that gives us a lot of flexibility with the types of technologies we put on it,” Tarazi said. “In the future, with the Network Vision project, we will build spectrum at 40 megahertz to 60 megahertz at a time, and we will build it once.”

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

In interview with AGL Bulletin, Ted Abrams, president, Abrams Wireless, reacted to statements made at the session, applauding the move toward network sharing saying network operators will be able to increase overall efficiency of bandwidth and infrastructure through the new technology.

“Multi-modal equipment connected to big backhaul pipes can transport payload from end users through the cloud across retail platforms branded differently,” Abrams said. “Most of the attributes of a wireless network are fungible, readily adapted to exchange on par. Antenna physics and other band-specific requirements continue to require consideration. As infrastructure providers are able to increase the density of sites supporting these new technologies, the rate of broadband deployment can be accelerated.”

As an attorney representing wireless site owners (landlords), the question that instantly comes to my mind is this: As Sprint deploys it’s wireless upgrade, how will ‘electronic collocations’ be accounted for in legacy wireless leases?

Huh?

Go back now and carefully reread the following excerpt from the AGL Bulletin report, above:

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

Okay, back to reality for landlords.

Historically, savvy landlords have received incremental income from collocations and their tenants sublease to other wireless providers.

In Sprint’s future world of electronic collocation, site landlords won’t know when Sprint has subleased a portion of the use of the site to another company. Legacy leases don’t usually specify that collocation must be ‘physical’ in nature, so those same savvy landlords (and I assure you, their attorneys, including yours truly) are likely to reasonably take the position that that if Sprint has subleased the electronic use of a wireless site to another, then that revenue should be shared with the site landlord pursuant to the existing lease agreement.

Landlords and their attorneys should be on the lookout for proposed lease amendments for legacy sites and sublease terms in new leases that might try to draft around this $$multimillion dollar issue$$.