WASHINGTON-If the inside-the-beltway crowd thinks the issue of antenna siting is slowing down-
or perhaps going away altogether-they should have attended a telecommunications forum on Feb. 28, sponsored by the
National Association of Counties (NACo).
Leon County, Fla., has become a “tower farm … there isn’t an area
in the county that a cell tower can’t be seen … Can we ever expect a time where we can have the service without the
eyesore?” said Cliff Thaell of Leon County.
Thaell’s quote was representative of feelings expressed
throughout the question and answer portion of the session titled, “Casualties of the telecommunication
war.”
Indicative of the apparent lack of awareness of the inside-the-beltway crowd to outside-the-beltway
concerns, there was little mention of the antenna siting issue during the opening presentations from two Hill staffers
and a staff member of FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth’s office.
The NACo conference occurred just
days after a jury in Texas awarded $1 million to Adrien and Chantal Pascouet, who claimed a GTE Wireless Inc. tower
near their home in Bunker Hill Village, Texas, decreased their property value and caused them mental
anguish.
Thaell asked the participants whether county governments could enact ordinances requiring systems
similar to the one developed by Sanders, a Lockheed Martin company. Sanders’ PCS-Over-Fiber allows personal
communications services carriers using Code Division Multiple Access technology to transport PCS signals between
distributed antennas and the telephone network. A series of small transceiver units, or Fiber Remote heads, provide the
interface between PCS air frequencies and the fiber network. Each unit contains a transceiver, power amplifiers and a
radio frequency-to-fiber interface. PCS-Over-Fiber is an extension of the PCS-Over-Cable system.
Such an
ordinance is likely to be opposed by the wireless industry. Indeed, Sheldon Moss, government relations manager for the
Personal Communications Industry Association, said it “just flat wouldn’t work … my guess is that if a county
were to adopt an ordinance and a carrier were to be impeded, the carrier would have a case under the
[Telecommunications Act of 1996].”
Moss also believes antenna siting is “not the front-burner issue
that it was two years ago,” but he did concede that he did not attend the NACo conference forum and did not hear
the concerns.
The concerns of the county officials also revolve around what is happening at the state level. For
example, the New York state legislature is considering a bill that would allow towers outside a 500-foot radius of all
scenic and historic areas.
A similar version of this bill was killed last year by concerns that it stepped on local
authority. These same concerns are being raised again this year. “Scenic Hudson is drafting replacement
legislation in New York that will be community-friendly and serves the needs of the industry,” said Jeffrey
Anzevino, waterfront specialist planner for Scenic Hudson Inc.
Antenna siting issues also are in dispute in the
judicial system. At least three federal appeals circuits are considering cases that some industry watchers believe at some
point could be decided by the United States Supreme Court.
