Creativity is becoming key for wireless carriers trying to build out their networks amidst resistance from local municipalities that in some cases have gone as far as placing moratoria on new tower sites.
The wireless industry is facing hundreds of moratoria in communities concerned about health and aesthetic issues associated with the placement of towers in non-industrial areas.
Many carriers hoping to win approval for new tower sites are trying to educate communities on the need for seamless wireless service. Maggie Rohr, a spokeswoman for Bell Atlantic Mobile, said, among other things, the company points to the need for reliable coverage in emergency situations.
Rohr said Bell Atlantic relies on drive tests and customer feedback to find holes in its network and then determines ideal sites for towers. Rohr said the company first looks for existing towers, buildings and billboards on which to site towers.
“We don’t get to actual tower building unless it’s absolutely necessary,” she said.
Still, the proliferation of towers, and the prospect that thousands more sites will be needed to build out networks has some communities concerned.
Marion County, Fla., enacted a moratorium this year that expired just recently. Bill Cobb, the county’s zoning site planner, said the county adopted a new ordinance that allows it to get better documentation and information from carriers about proposed sites.
“Carriers have a very small area where they say they can put a tower based upon information they’ve gathered,” said Cobb. “We wanted them to share some of that information with us.”
In some cases, said Cobb, the new ordinance allows the county to have an independent source analyze the carrier’s data. “It’s like asking for a second opinion,” he said.
Cobb said the wireless industry participated in hearings with the county and the two sides were able to come to a better understanding of each other’s position.
Chatham County, N.C., also had a moratorium that it recently lifted after devising a countywide ordinance that requires carriers each year to present all planned tower siting and maintenance activity for the coming year to the planning board, said Keith Megginson, planning director for the county. Megginson said the board asks carriers to place antennas on buildings or collocate and camouflage sites whenever possible.
“We don’t have a lot of tall things around here for people to locate on,” said Megginson. “So collocation is key.”
Many carriers have shown a willingness to examine collocation options, although in some cases carriers have argued about which will have the highest position on an antenna, Megginson said.
The industry has taken steps to facilitate collocation. The Personal Communications Industry Association recently won approval for a collocation clearinghouse designed to arm carriers with the information they need to find existing sites that may be available for collocation.
Wireless carriers also have the opportunity to locate sites on radio towers. Lawrence Behr Associates Inc. earlier this year announced a conversion technology that allows wireless carriers to locate on AM broadcast towers that previously were unsuitable because of grounding difficulties, interference and safety considerations.
Taking collocation to an extreme, Lodestar Towers Inc. has constructed several “megasites,” which are taller than traditional wireless towers but can replace several wireless towers in an area and also can house wireless, radio, TV and paging operators at one site. One such multi-use transmission facility at Mt. Harvard, Calif., which is nearing completion, can cover the entire Los Angeles basin, including parts of Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Santa Barbara.
Communities also are asking carriers to find ways to camouflage sites, although many traditional stealth sites won’t work in all areas. “You can’t have a single pine tree sticking up 180 feet in the middle of nowhere,” said Marin County’s Cobb.
But stealthing companies are becoming more creative in finding ways to hide sites in less-obvious ways.
Towers disguised as flagpoles have become one of Stealth Network Technologies Inc.’s hottest items, said Sharon Bruner, inside sales and marketing manager for the company. The flagpole has become so popular, in fact, that Bruner said it is now a stock item and can be delivered within two weeks of a request.
The company’s Three Sectored Susan Flagpole enables three sets of antennas to be mounted with each set being able to rotate. The initial design is 100 feet tall with antennas at 95 feet, 85 feet and 75 feet. Bruner said a taller flagpole that would support as many as six carriers is in the design phase.
Bruner said the company has experienced increasing demand for custom sites as well, including architectural elements on buildings that can conceal wireless equipment. To conceal such equipment, the company built a false chimney onto a historic house in Colorado and even added an entire floor to a modern glass building in Ohio.
“A lot of municipalities are rewriting zoning laws and asking carriers to hide sites,” said Bruner, who noted the company often acts as a bridge between all interested parties.
The drawback to stealth sites, however, seems to be the increased up-front cost involved with concealing sites. Bruner said its flagpole sites, which are its least expensive product, are still more expensive than traditional monopoles but only by a few thousand dollars. “The point is concealing doesn’t have to be exorbitant. It just depends on the difficulty of the job.”
Carriers need to look at the big picture, said Greg Sweet, president and founder of Acquire Telecom. While carriers may resist spending the extra money it would take to construct a camouflaged site, they lose more money in lost revenues by bickering with local zoning commissions for months on end, said Sweet, who noted each site has the potential to generate between $60,000 and $200,000 per month in revenue.
“They don’t seem to understand that when you look at these other options up front, the communities appreciate it,” said Sweet. “Then when you need to upgrade your towers later, the communities are more accommodating.
“Carriers could buy themselves a world of good will by stealthing,” continued Sweet.
In rural areas, where rooftops aren’t available for stealthing, The Larson Co. has designed sites as trees, cacti and even rock formations. The company’s expertise in the design of artificial environments has been used at Disney theme parks and several zoos and aquariums.
Larson last week completed the installation of a 30-foot Saguaro Cactus in Phoenix that is made more realistic with simulated cactus wren holes and three arms. Harold Schifman, president of Larson, said the company strives to make its sites so realistic that a person walking next to a site would not notice anything unusual about it.
Schifman said the cost for a camouflaged site can run anywhere from three to seven times as much as a noncamouflaged site. Despite the increased cost, Schifman said he thinks carriers are more open to camouflaging sites then they were two years ago.
Other companies are finding ways to hide sites as well. In addition to a flagpole site, FWT Inc. puts sites on existing electrical transmission lines and has disguised sites as palm or pine trees. Berliner Communications Inc. puts sites on billboards. Message Center Management has located sites on water tanks, rooftops and gas-station signs.
“Stealth is more expensive to do,” said Message Center Management Director Maria Scotti, who noted that she thinks 1998 will be the year when carriers and communities really begin to work together on the issue. “But you must take on that expense to get into some of these towns.”
