See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:16:59 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon tower denied by Columbia County Commission
Message-ID: <m1j7ob$sfk$1@dont-email.me>
On 10/13/2014 3:01 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <m1gmso$90f$1@dont-email.me> Bill Horne writes:
>> I'm passing this along because, although this particular instance is a
>> local matter, I wonder if the U.S. is getting to a tipping point
>> vis-a-vis cell towers and citizens' tolerance of urban clutter.
>
>> "They said the fall zone was fine for 110-foot tower but they
>> requested a hundred-and-sixty foot tower, which the fall zone is
>> not safe for that...
>
> The fall zone issue is entirely normal -- free standing towers always
> should have enough clear space around them that they won't hit
> something if the guy wires fail and they fall over. The residential
> area thing is a non-starter under Federal law.
As I understand it, free standing towers never fail due to guy wires,
although guyed towers do. ;-)
It is not uncommon for municipalities to ban towers in residential
areas. Here in New England, we have almost no cell phone towers. For
the most part cells are put into the steeples of churches, some of
them still in use and other buildings being former churches now
recycled as offices or apartments. Those are the high sites.
There are also some rooftop antennas on commercial buildings. But
rarely with any elevation. This strikes me as a classic example of
where the obvious things town burghers do in the name of safety are in
fact unsafe. If the antenna were higher up, say 20 feet above the
building, the field strength in the building would be much lower. But
"towers" scare folks, so the antenna ends up one foot above the roof,
or on the side walls, which is of course likely to put more energy
where the people are.
A few years ago American Tower wanted to replace a ~50-year-old
1000-foot TV tower. The new one would be 100 feet higher. They got
resistance from locals who thought that the higher tower would put
more radiation into the city. Idiotic on two grounds. One is that
the higher tower keeps the ground-level radiation down. Two is that
broadcast station power is calculated to reach a given distance, so a
higher tower means lower transmitter power.
> Sounds to me like if Verizon hadn't cheaped out, and had applied for
> two or three 110 foot towers instead, which would probably provide
> better coverage, they'd have had no problem.
That would be less visible, though more costly, and of course have
more energy on the ground. Not that a 100-foot cell tower puts much
power on the ground; any tower is far better than a rooftop.
|
| Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain.remove-this@and-this-too.annsgarden.com>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon tower denied by Columbia County Commission
Message-ID: <ea96124a-c12b-4185-919b-88304148c252@googlegroups.com>
The FCC rules address this issue.
The following page generally describes "Tower and Antenna Siting":
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/tower-and-antenna-siting
This page reads, in relevant part:
| Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act preserves state and
| local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal
| wireless service facilities, but sets forth specific
| limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local
| government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
| functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner
| that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision
| of personal wireless services...
So is the Columbia County board attempting to "regulate in a manner
that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services?
If so, it seem to me that Verizon has a strong case for an appeal to
the FCC.
Neal McLain
|
| Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon tower denied by Columbia County Commission
Message-ID: <b37b38cc-0237-48d8-9abd-3b43f929cd4d@googlegroups.com>
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> It's in Georgia, near Augusta, but I posted the story to ask about
> national trends and whether Columbia County residents are a
> bellwether for "NIMBY" sentiments in other places.
Neighbors do not like cell towers and have been opposing them for
years. But generally, the carriers claim that Federal rules granting
them the right to erect towers exceed local ordinances preventing
them. In our town, they were able put up a big tower for that reason;
a tower the locals didn't want.
One advantage the carriers have is that do this for a living, and know
the laws backwards and forwards, plus have good lawyers on staff. A
small municipality isn't familiar with federal rules nor has the legal
horsepower. Often they do not know what other towns have done to
prevent or least ameliorate a tower's impact.
|
| Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:18:31 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Crown Castle in running to bid on Verizon cell towers
Message-ID: <m1ksil$1pr$1@dont-email.me>
Houston-based company already is the largest cell tower operator in the U.S.
By Sarah Scully
The possible sale of 12,000 cell towers by Verizon could fetch as much
as $6 billion for the carrier. And Houston-based Crown Castle stands to
expand its position as the largest tower operator in the country, were
it to secure a deal.
But if it loses out, Crown Castle could see its competitors narrow the
gap in market share.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/technology/article/Crown-Castle-in-the-running-for-bid-on-Verizon-5820314.php#/0
-or-
http://goo.gl/JxYp4W
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
See the wise and wicked ones
Who feed upon life's sacred fire
See the soldier with his gun
Who must be dead to be admired
- Gordon Lightfoot
|
| Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:29:55 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Maryville MO set to get settlement from Centurylink
Message-ID: <m1kt82$38s$1@dont-email.me>
(Maryville) -- The city of Maryville will soon receive a large amount of
money from a lawsuit settlement.
During Monday night's Maryville City Council meeting, the council
approved a settlement agreement with Centurylink. City Attorney Doug
Thomson says a city near St. Louis, Missouri made the lawsuit against
Centurylink.
http://www.kmaland.com/news/maryville-set-to-get-settlement-from-centurylink/article_5f85452a-53a4-11e4-ba3c-0017a43b2370.html
-or-
http://goo.gl/r1u2c9
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
Who took on the Standard Oil men
And whipped their ass
Just like he promised he'd do?
Ain't no Standard Oil men gonna run this state
Gonna be run by little folks like me and you
- Randy Newman
|
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to
the Internet by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself. Thank you!
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
