Fourth-quarter financial results for most tower companies have come and gone, and now with NATE Unite wrapped up as well, there’s been a lull on the national/international tower stage. However, that doesn’t mean nothing’s going on. Mobile World Congress has been happening this week in Spain, and of course there’s plenty of action on the local and regional levels. Usually the following story would just be tucked away amongst the smaller news items, but with the available space, it seems compelling to discuss this week.
Firefighters say no to safety network towers at fire stations
Back in November, it was reported that FirstNet would get funding to create a dedicated wireless network for first responders so vital communications would not potentially get lost or bogged down in the usual network traffic. Counties and cities receive government funding to build the network in their respective area. Some of this network is hoping to exist on pre-built commercial towers, but for those that still need to be built, a logical place for erecting the municipal-/county-owned towers would be on their own property, such as police and fire stations, near the people who will be using them.
However, Los Angeles County firefighters are upset about the placement of these towers near their firehouses for their own safety broadcast network.
“We are against the cell towers being around our fire stations. We have issues with the health and safety benchmarks they’re using, saying the [radio frequency] exposure is safe,” said Lew Currier, the health and safety director for L.A. County firefighters.
Where else are these towers supposed to go? In neighborhoods? No, the public already has a problem with the erection of towers that directly benefit them, let alone those that are for use by someone else. In public parks? No, then people would protest they were spoiling nature. With most studies actually saying there are no harmful effects, you’d think the benefits would outweigh the misgivings.
L.A. County firefighters also take issue with the fact that the public wasn’t consulted in the placement of the towers. But why should they be consulted? These towers don’t involve the public. It would seem this concern stems more from a desire to have the anti-tower public in their corner rather than from a logic standpoint.
Firefighters should think about it this way: if Verizon Wireless or AT&T Mobility wanted to put some of their own equipment on the site for coverage, at least in theory some of that money should flow into the firehouse since that’s where the tower is located. They could use the funds for that new pole at the fire station they’ve always wanted.
Tower news quickies
• Feedback from “PCIA setting the wireless training standard”
Regional/local tower news
- Fort Collins, Colo., hangs up on golf course cell tower.
- Murrayville, N.C., cell tower request denied.
- Cell tower OK’d in 3-2 vote in Hernando, Miss.
- Coshocton, Ohio, school board mulls construction of cell tower.
- Verizon Wireless withdraws proposal for cell tower in Gahanna, Ohio.
- ZBA asks for more info on cell tower plan in Middleton, Mass.
- Dartmouth, Mass., zoning board rejects cell tower.
- The Milpitas, Calif., Board of Education postpones vote on extending cell tower contracts.
- Joliet, Ill., council unanimously denies Infantry Drive cell tower.
- Residents upset about proposed cell tower in Spokane, Wash.
- Water tower can’t double as cell tower in Preston, Md.
- Cell tower not going up in Longbrook Park in Stratford, Conn.
- Proposed Cassanova, Va., cell tower critical to safety
