With up to nine wireless carriers in every major U.S. city competing for their share of the wireless telephone market, the recent winners of the C, D, E and F auctions are facing some of the most difficult challenges to date in developing infrastructure for their networks. The number one issue facing the industry is the growing citizen opposition to wireless sites.
As more municipalities impose moratoriums and regulations for wireless sites, it is time to take a close look at what is happening. The dilemma for all wireless carriers is this: Billions have been spent for licenses to operate and billions more will be spent to build out new networks and modify existing ones. Most new carriers must bring their service to market in 18 months to 24 months or they may not survive long enough to compete with existing established carriers.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and the Personal Communications Industry Association have appealed to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission to interpret what relief the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives to wireless carriers when rebuffed by local municipalities and also to grant pre-emption to wireless carriers when they are shut out by moratoriums. Both sides are drawing lines in the sand and preparing to test the act again in court. The outcome promises to be a no-win situation that may make it difficult for all wireless carriers.
Having been directly involved in the acquisition and permitting of wireless sites for nearly 25 years, I have tremendous empathy for the difficulties the wireless industry is experiencing. However, in its quest to obtain instant return on investment, some very basic issues are being overlooked.
I like to compare the placement of a wireless site with the controversy that often surrounds a fast-food restaurant when it is proposed in a community where it does not have a presence, but other restaurants of its type may have preceded it. Most of the time this facility is less than welcome, especially in upper income and influential neighborhoods. The marketing, public relations and site acquisition personnel for the restaurant company visit the targeted community several months in advance and lay the ground work for their facility.
Great effort is made to show the benefits of their proposal and its importance to the community. Local politicians are solicited and free hamburgers and french fries are given away to gain support in the community. This is how organizations like McDonalds and Burger King approach local communities they plan to be a part of for the long term. They work to build valuable relationships locally.
Unfortunately, this is not what most wireless carriers are doing. They typically come to town with little to no preparation, file incomplete zoning applications at the last moment and expect everyone to understand their plight. Little effort is made to help the local community understand what it is the wireless carriers are really trying to do.
The three questions I am asked most by planning and zoning officials are:
1) How many carriers are going to be operating in our community?
2) How many wireless sites are going to be needed in our community now and in the next five years?
3) Why don’t wireless carriers make efforts, without being required, to conceal their sites or work together to collocate and reduce the visual impact?
Future site requirements are considered proprietary information and are shared with the community as a means of last resort. Requests for concealment of wireless sites is often dismissed as too expensive or restrictive before looking at the costs or efforts involved. In many cases the costs of concealment of facilities on existing structures can be less expensive than a monopole and an equipment shelter. Planners and local residents find it difficult to get accurate information they can rely on. All of these factors lead to a distrust of the wireless carriers.
Worse, we are sending inexperienced contractors and personnel into these communities who have not been trained properly in how to do their jobs much less to have empathy for the people who live there. Most of our contractors are here today and gone tomorrow-giving them little incentive to build long- term relationships in the community.
The bottom line is this: If people don’t understand something, they fear it. And if they fear it, they will certainly oppose it.
The good news is there is hope for the wireless industry if we wake up and take action before it is too late. I have made some common sense recommendations that I know will work, because they work for me. Here are the steps I propose we take immediately:
1) Initiate a national education effort through CTIA, PCIA, the FCC and the wireless industry to bring the message of what the wireless carriers are trying to accomplish to the people in the street.
This educational effort should start with a media blitz through TV, radio and printed publications and mass mailings emphasizing the benefits of wireless telephones and services. Emphasis should be placed on public safety. These are two words that will help overcome the most ardent opposition and make any politician I ever knew sit up straight in their chair.
2) Organize wireless workshops in every city throughout the United States for planners and politicians that can be brought to their offices and to public meetings where they can interact informally and ask questions about their concerns and those of the community. Efforts should be made to show the visual impact of these facilities through slides, videos and mock installations. One of my most successful tactics is to show actual antennas to planners, landlords and local residents. This goes a long way toward relieving the perceived fear of them.
The Association of Bay Area Governments in Oakland, Calif., is proactively promoting wireless workshops with the carriers for their members and they sponsor a Web site that provides information on all types of communications issues.
3) Sponsor neighborhood meetings with all carriers in the market and encourage local resident attendance to address questions and concerns about wireless facilities. I would suggest having someone qualified attend these meetings who can answer questions with credibility about the perceived effects of radiation on the body. The wireless industry is convinced there is nothing to fear from wireless radiation but who attempts to educate the people at the grass roots level that live, work and play next to these facilities?
Perception is often reality. And the recent removal of existing wireless facilities from schools in California should be proof of that. Fear of radio frequency radiation was an issue when I started in this industry in 1972 and it will be an issue 20 years from now. We must deal with it openly and with empathy for those who question it, or we shall surely fail, regardless of section 704 of the Telecommunications Act.
4) Encourage and promote cooperation among the wireless carriers to work together on joint new applications and collocations. And I don’t mean just more rhetoric. The time for talking about cooperation is over. These communities want to see action and a lot more of it. Not just four or five towers on the same hill. We need to recognize that one carrier’s community problems translate to all carrier’s problems.
5) Finally, take the time and expense to train personnel and contractors in all aspects of the site development process on the importance of building long-term relationships in the local communities. This will go a long way toward success in building out networks and proving your desire to be a good neighbor.
Think about it! If you have a problem with your neighbor about his or her unsightly fence are you going to call the police to resolve your dispute? Probably not. Ultimately you and your neighbor will have to put your heads together and resolve the issue yourselves. And that is exa
ctly how the wireless telecommunications industry must resolve its siting problems with cities and towns all over this country. They will have to bring their message to the people who live in these communities as they are the ones who will vote to approve or deny the wireless carriers applications for zoning and building permits.
Gregory E. Sweet is vice president of sales at SBA Inc., a full-service project management and wireless site development firm based in Boca Raton, Fla.
