The FCC has recently released new rules requiring public notice and and opportunity to comment on new Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) applications. These new rules, released on December 9th, 2011 are explained by the Commission in the following three paragraphs:

1. In this . . . → Read More: FCC’s New Rules Regarding Migratory Birds]]> Turkey Vultures in Pittsburg, California find this CrownCastle tower very pleasant, indeed!

The FCC has recently released new rules requiring public notice and and opportunity to comment on new Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) applications. These new rules, released on December 9th, 2011 are explained by the Commission in the following three paragraphs:

1. In this Order, we take procedural measures to ensure, consistent with the Commission’s obligations under federal environmental statutes, that the environmental effects of proposed communications towers, including their effects on migratory birds, are fully considered prior to construction.  We institute a pre-application notification process so that members of the public will have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the environmental effects of proposed antenna structures that require registration with the Commission.  As an interim measure pending completion of a programmatic environmental analysis and subsequent rulemaking proceeding, we also require that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be prepared for any proposed tower over 450 feet in height.  Through these actions and our related ongoing initiatives, we endeavor to minimize the impact of communications towers on migratory birds while preserving the ability of communications providers rapidly to offer innovative and valuable services to the public.

2. Our actions today respond to the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in American Bird Conservancy v. FCC. 1 In American Bird Conservancy, the court held that our current antenna structure registration (ASR) procedures impermissibly fail to offer members of the public a meaningful opportunity to request an EA for proposed towers that the Commission considers categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The notification process that we adopt today addresses that holding of the court.  In addition, the court held that the Commission must perform a programmatic analysis of the impact on migratory birds of registered antenna structures in the Gulf of Mexico region. The Commission is already responding to this holding by conducting a nationwide environmental assessment of the ASR program.  The Commission has also asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to perform a conservation review of the ASR program under the Endangered Species Act  (ESA).

3. Today’s action also occurs in the context of our ongoing rulemaking proceeding addressing the effects of communications towers on migratory birds.  In 2006, the Commission sought comment on what this impact may be and what requirements, if any, the Commission should adopt to ameliorate it.  Evidence in the record of that proceeding and in the record compiled for the programmatic EA indicates, among other things, that the likely impact of towers on migratory birds increases with tower height.  Consistent with that evidence and with a Memorandum of Understanding among representatives of communications providers, tower companies, and conservation groups,6 we require, as an interim measure, that an EA be prepared for any proposed tower over 450 feet in height.  We expect to take final action in the Migratory Birds proceeding following completion of the programmatic EA and, if necessary, any subsequent programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

As a practical matter, the process required by the FCC is one that occurs only at the federal level.  If someone wants to install a tower that requires an ASR, then their application will go on public record at the Commission with time for interested members of the public to provide their comments.

Please click on the following link to download the FCC’s order (PDF format): FCC-11-181A1-20111209

Faced with Data Surge, Carriers to ‘Feed the Beast’ with Base Station Innovation

Noting the importance of scale, spectrum and innovation, representatives of Sprint Nextel and Clearwire discussed how the growth of . . . → Read More: When (Wireless) Worlds Collide…Will Site Landlords Get $quashed?]]> Today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin carries a buried-lead story about Sprint’s deployment of new, flexible base stations that are multi-modal, multi-band, and potentially multi-user.

Faced with Data Surge, Carriers to ‘Feed the Beast’ with Base Station Innovation

Noting the importance of scale, spectrum and innovation, representatives of Sprint Nextel and Clearwire discussed how the growth of wireless data traffic must result in the complete modernization of cell site equipment on a panel on March 22 in Orlando, Fla. They spoke at the Raymond James Breakfast, which was moderated by Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James & Associates.

“We must keep feeding the beast, or we are just going to turn our customers away. We must innovate around the cost. Technology allows it,” said Iyad Tarazi, vice president, network development and engineering, Sprint Nextel. The carrier expects 10x growth every three years for the foreseeable future.

The challenge for Sprint Nextel is to keep up with the pace in a cost-effective manner. To do so the carrier has unveiled Network Vision, which is a blueprint for enhancing data speeds by consolidating multiple network technologies into one, seamless network.

Today, Sprint uses separate equipment to deploy services at 800 MHz, 1.9 GHz and, through Clearwire, 2.5 GHz. The Network Vision concept features the use of software to bring together multiple spectrum bands on a single, multimode base station.

“The technologies that we are deploying in the Network Vision project allow us to modernize our cell sites in a way that gives us a lot of flexibility with the types of technologies we put on it,” Tarazi said. “In the future, with the Network Vision project, we will build spectrum at 40 megahertz to 60 megahertz at a time, and we will build it once.”

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

In interview with AGL Bulletin, Ted Abrams, president, Abrams Wireless, reacted to statements made at the session, applauding the move toward network sharing saying network operators will be able to increase overall efficiency of bandwidth and infrastructure through the new technology.

“Multi-modal equipment connected to big backhaul pipes can transport payload from end users through the cloud across retail platforms branded differently,” Abrams said. “Most of the attributes of a wireless network are fungible, readily adapted to exchange on par. Antenna physics and other band-specific requirements continue to require consideration. As infrastructure providers are able to increase the density of sites supporting these new technologies, the rate of broadband deployment can be accelerated.”

As an attorney representing wireless site owners (landlords), the question that instantly comes to my mind is this: As Sprint deploys it’s wireless upgrade, how will ‘electronic collocations’ be accounted for in legacy wireless leases?

Huh?

Go back now and carefully reread the following excerpt from the AGL Bulletin report, above:

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

Okay, back to reality for landlords.

Historically, savvy landlords have received incremental income from collocations and their tenants sublease to other wireless providers.

In Sprint’s future world of electronic collocation, site landlords won’t know when Sprint has subleased a portion of the use of the site to another company. Legacy leases don’t usually specify that collocation must be ‘physical’ in nature, so those same savvy landlords (and I assure you, their attorneys, including yours truly) are likely to reasonably take the position that that if Sprint has subleased the electronic use of a wireless site to another, then that revenue should be shared with the site landlord pursuant to the existing lease agreement.

Landlords and their attorneys should be on the lookout for proposed lease amendments for legacy sites and sublease terms in new leases that might try to draft around this $$multimillion dollar issue$$.

Teleconference Highlights:

The wireless industry has built more than 250,000 cell sites in the United States in the past 20 years. But many more cell sites are needed as iPhones, iPads and the like strain existing . . . → Read More: Current Issues in Cell Tower Leases]]> March 3, 2011: 2 hour live teleconference
1 pm ET (12 pm CT, 11 am MT, 10 am PT)

Teleconference Highlights:

The wireless industry has built more than 250,000 cell sites in the United States in the past 20 years. But many more cell sites are needed as iPhones, iPads and the like strain existing network capacity with data, email, computer and video applications, as well as to fill gaps in coverage. New cell sites and significant modifications to existing cell sites will also be needed due to the FCC’s new advanced wireless services and goal of using wireless to increase broadband speeds and coverage.

This audio conference will help level the playing field by providing private and municipal property owners with the expertise of two faculty members highly experienced in cell tower and cell site leases – property owners usually are negotiating such leases for the first time, while the cell companies have teams who work exclusively on such leases.

This audio conference will focus on key business issues in wireless site leases, including lease rates, who gets the revenues from additional antennas or carriers being co-located at a site, potential underpayments by cell companies on existing sites and why rent reduction requests generally should be denied. An emphasis on the industry-specific elements and terms of modern cell site leases, and renewals and modifications of expiring leases, which are important for the property owner, their attorney and the leasing agent involved in these efforts. You will be better able to identify and resolve issues that are unique to wireless siting, including what may be included in a lease that cannot be included in a government-issued permit, site location and value, lease term and terminations, access requirements, interference regulation and mitigation, design and camouflage, and radio frequency emissions issues.

Learning Objectives

• You will be able to maintain and increase the revenues the property owner receives, and discuss the common elements of private wireless site leases on developed and undeveloped land.
• You will be able to utilize practice pointers, including key concepts, for owners of private property and their attorneys, as well as municipalities and municipal attorneys.
• You will be able to understand the basics of wireless technology and the real property, technical and technology issues that drive a wireless carrier’s siting and leasing process.
• You will be able to review insurance and indemnity provisions to protect the property owner.

Faculty Information

John W. Pestle, Esq., Varnum LLP
Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq., FSCTE, BTS, BDS, BPS, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, P.C.

MCLE/Educational Credit Information

• AIA
• AICP (Pending)
• CC
• CLE
• ENG
• PMI

Who Should Attend?

This audio conference is designed for attorneys, planners, directors of development, project managers, government administrators, council and board members, land use officials, public works and utilities directors, municipal government officials, engineers, architects, surveyors and real estate professionals.

This uniquely designed multi-carrier cell tower constructed in the Mesa del Sol area in Albuquerque, New Mexico, just south of the airport.

The architect for this site is Dekker/Perich/Sabatini.

This site isn’t quite . . . → Read More: A Truly Twisted Cell Tower]]> Attention creative wireless site planners:  A truly twisted cell tower has risen from a mesa in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

This uniquely designed multi-carrier cell tower constructed in the Mesa del Sol area in Albuquerque, New Mexico, just south of the airport.

The architect for this site is Dekker/Perich/Sabatini.

This site isn’t quite complete, but it should raise the level of the discussion regarding turning cell sites into artistic visions.

The anchor tenant at the site is Verizon Wireless.  The site can handle up to seven carriers.

I have placed over 100 photos of this site in a dedicated gallery at CellularPCS.com/gallery/

Here’s a gem of a cell tower that literally towers over an otherwise beautiful desert and mountain landscape along I-25 south of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

This tower is 150 feet tall, and completely towers over everything in the view of the drivers along this stretch of I-25. For those of you who . . . → Read More: How to Spoil A New Mexico View]]>

Here’s a gem of a cell tower that literally towers over an otherwise beautiful desert and mountain landscape along I-25 south of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

This tower is 150 feet tall, and completely towers over everything in the view of the drivers along this stretch of I-25.  For those of you who want more information on this gem, visit this FCC web site.

<soap box>Sites like this are a black-eye on the wireless industry, and the planners who permit them. </soap box>

(This post is another entry in an occasional series on Wireless Siting Design Style by Jonathan L. Kramer, Wireless attorney, planner, and advisor to hundreds of local governments in the U.S. )

In wireless planning, it’s often the little things that can make a big difference to the visual outcome of a . . . → Read More: Elements of (Wireless) Style]]>

(This post is another entry in an occasional series on Wireless Siting Design Style by Jonathan L. Kramer, Wireless attorney, planner, and advisor to hundreds of local governments in the U.S. )

In wireless planning, it’s often the little things that can make a big difference to the visual outcome of a project.  Above is an animated photo (and simulation) of a church in Santa Fe, New Mexico that contains a cell site in the bell tower.

The bell tower, however, does not contain a bell, but rather only an exhaust fan and three panel antennas.

Merely adding inexpensive RF transparent (FRP) material covers to three of the four bell tower openings would have effectively obscured the antennas and the exhaust fan cover, while still maintaining the ventilation and RF transmission functions of the structure.

Thanks to Julian Quattlebaum III of the Channel Law Group for sending this along!

Cell sites everywhere, but virtually none are camouflaged. Found only one today.

I’ll be posting photos in the gallery soon after returning back to the U.S. Maybe sooner.

-Jonathan (at 3:30 P.M. Sunday 10/11/09 . . . → Read More: G’day from Down Under]]> Report from Melbourne (pronounced “Mel-Bun”) Australia. Day 2 (since day 1 was mostly travel from L.A. to Brisbane (pronounced “Bris-Bun”).

Cell sites everywhere, but virtually none are camouflaged. Found only one today.

I’ll be posting photos in the gallery soon after returning back to the U.S. Maybe sooner.

-Jonathan (at 3:30 P.M. Sunday 10/11/09 Local)