To the average consumer, wireless communication towers are not pretty. Therein lies the main argument from communities opposed to new local tower builds. But many in that camp are learning there are ways to conceal those steel structures, and industry should be prepared to deal with increased requests for stealth tower solutions.
In fact, several companies are busy designing and constructing solutions to hide towers, and those companies are waiting in the wings for consumer demand for stealth towers to become so great that carriers cannot ignore it.
For now, concealment is typically “the last choice of the tower builder and the first choice of the zoning board,” explained Jim Fryer, president of Fryer’s Tower Source. Why? The answer isn’t surprising: money.
For wireless carriers, concealment solutions are viewed as yet another cost, said Sean McLernon, chief executive officer of Stealth Concealment Solutions Inc., a provider of stealth tower designs. And carriers are concerned, McLernon believes, that if they propose a concealment solution in one zoning case, consumers will demand concealment for everything-which would mean a lot of money from the carrier’s pocket.
Technically speaking, concealed solutions may not be the answer for all tower sites, added Fryer. Colocated sites, which have gained increased popularity among both tower owner companies and carriers, are hard to disguise because of their height requirements, for example.
But according to McLernon, Stealth has yet to be deterred by physical limitations in its concealment designs. Last year, the company designed a tower that houses the equipment of six carriers and has plans to build another this coming year, he said. He does admit that concealment is not necessary on every tower site.
Currently, concealment solutions are implemented as an afterthought, a last-resort option for tower builders facing stringent zoning boards, which according to McLernon, makes the solutions even more costly. In fact, Stealth estimates a cost differential of 30 to 40 percent for carriers that implement concealment solutions as an afterthought.
By planning for concealment ahead of time, carriers can save money and reduce time to market by avoiding additional planning necessary to alter or re-engineer a site for concealment, as well as legal battles with communities opposed to non-concealed towers, McLernon explained. “Our goal is to convince carriers to look at us as a partner rather than a vendor,” said McLernon.
The carrier that embraces stealth tower designs as a strategic solution rather than a forced add-on will be a step ahead of its competitors, according to McLernon. At the least, he said they will save money, and at best they will get online at sites before their competitors.
Another concern regarding concealed towers is the potential for more required maintenance at the site. After all, someone has to take care of re-shingling a tower disguised as a cupola on a rooftop or fixing chipped paint on a church steeple-covered tower. McLernon’s company typically offers a one-year warranty on its designs. In addition, the company does what it can to minimize the need for additional aesthetic work in the future, but acknowledges wear and tear is something to consider.
According to Fryer, most carriers today will only use a stealth solution if they are given an ultimatum by a zoning board. Monopole towers still represent a favorite solution for carriers to pitch to communities, emphasizing that they are ideal for colocation and therefore prevent the need for multiple towers.
But carriers may soon face a challenge-and concealment companies a gold mine-if communities continue to pursue the stealth route, which has been hyped in national media.
That wouldn’t be a worst-case scenario, according to Fryer. After all, he said, “If they’re talking stealth, at least they’re not saying `no’ to a tower.”
