Free Newsletter
Seybold's take: cell site expansion is necessary for growth
Free newsletter via e-mail
Tools
We all know by now that we need to have cell sites in order to have cell coverage. As of January 2009, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association, in the United States there were over 245,000 cell sites. This represents coverage of 89 percent of the U.S. population, and wireless customers numbering more than 277 million. Also according to the CTIA, the number of wireless-only households is over 20 percent up from under 8 percent in 2005.
But in the next five years the number of cell sites is going to double. First, the existing network operators need additional cell sites in order to increase capacity (capacity can only be increased two ways in wireless--add more spectrum to sites or build sites closer together), provide better coverage, and stay competitive. New network operators such as Clearwire are building additional sites, and there are a number of spectrum holders that have not started building yet, most notably the cable companies.
Many existing sites will be shared but we are still going to need more, and, of course we are going to see femtocells and hand-offs to WiFi becoming increasingly important in order to provide even more capacity. If the FCC is successful in finding additional spectrum that can be taken out of service and re-purposed for commercial wireless networks, we will have another 50-300 MHz of spectrum available within the five-year time frame as well, and as we move toward building out broadband in rural America. The most economical way to do that is to use wireless.
At issue here is the fact that many news articles are surfacing about harmful radiation and the effects of wireless on humans. Most of the articles are not based on fact but they live on, and community leaders are using them to push back on new cell sites. Of course the federal government pre-empts state and local governments from using health reasons as an excuse to deny new tower sites, but the fact remains that when the citizens raise the issue in protest many of the local agencies are backing down and trying to find other ways to block tower sites.
In a community near where I live they have never permitted cell sites. They are an upscale community and they don't want cell sites destroying their views or causing potential health problems. Last fall a large portion of this area was destroyed by a massive wild fire. More than 200 houses were lost and one of the biggest complaints we heard was that there was no cell coverage so that residents who were fleeing just minutes ahead of the fast moving fire could not get in touch with their family or friends, and could not, therefore, coordinate their escape and make sure that the entire family was safe.
I assumed that after the embers cooled down and the residents started to rebuild the wireless network operators would be welcomed and could get on with planning stealth cell sites to finally cover the area. I was wrong, however. Instead of working with the network operators, the residents are as adamant as ever that they don't want cell sites, or even small picocells in their neighborhood. One contractor is planning to run fiber on the existing poles in this city and install picocells to provide coverage for one or more of the networks. This is a logical plan that has been implemented in many different communities. Meanwhile other network operators are proposing sites that will provide coverage and cannot be seen.
All of these attempts have been met with public outrage--to see it in the newspaper you would think that every resident of the area was opposed instead of the vocal few. But the vocal few are the ones who show up at the planning and Council meetings, not those who want coverage and will accept the fact that this requires cell sites to be built. One of the most controversial picocell sites that has been chosen is about 30 feet from a school. This is unacceptable, according to the vocal few, and will endanger the children at play. No manner of logic, no diagrams of coverage, no engineering reports will satisfy people and therefore, the powers that be are looking at ways to block this project. No one seems concerned that while over two hundred houses burned to the ground last year, there are many more homes in this area which could burn in the next major fire, and there still won't be any wireless coverage.
As an aside, when the network operators all brought COWs into the area during the fire to help the first responders communicate their non-emergency traffic, the residents were thrilled with the fact that they could, finally, use their phones in their neighborhood. The fire was extinguished, the fireman and the COWs went home, the town is still without coverage.
There is nothing that we can do about the vocal few except to continue to try and educate them, however there are some things we can do to help those residents who want the service to voice their support, and there are ways to let local governments know that sites on government property can be a good source of income in these hard economic times. The network operators need to be more pro-active in the community and ask for support from those who want the service. If all that is heard are the nays, then it is going to take a lot longer than five years to double the cell site count, and the networks won't be able to keep up with the demand for video, audio, graphics and the Internet, let alone voice.
If you work in wireless and you know that there are new sites being proposed in your city or county then you should get your neighbors to do something very simple: Send the planning commission an email supporting the new cell sites. This is all that is required, and it will make a difference.
Andrew Seybold is an authority on technology and trends shaping the world of wireless mobility. A respected analyst, consultant, commentator, author and active participant in industry trade organizations, his views have influenced strategies and shaped initiatives for telecom, mobile computing and wireless industry leaders worldwide. For more, see www.andrewseybold.com
Comments
Posted by Anonymous | November 10, 2009 - 2:23pm
I agree it is absolutely necessary for citizens to support new cell sites. Clearly there is an issue folks glom onto however during these new site hearings: safety of the technology. Can't we find a way to encourage the building of new sites while finally addressing the safety concerns of folks, not to mention the workers who need to be around those things while they are on. Check out rfcheck.com as they seem to have the answer.
Posted by Alistair Davidson | November 10, 2009 - 2:47pm
Increasing the number of cell sites, increasing the capacity of cell sites and increasing cellular spectrum availability is in fact only one way of increasing capacity.
Given that roughly 50% of phone calls occur within the home or office, fixed mobile convergence or the diversion of voice and data traffic to indoor femto cells or unlicensed mobile access (UMA i.e. WiFi) provides a cost attractive way of expanding network capacity with cell phone or dual mode cell phones respectively.
Posted by Anonymous | November 10, 2009 - 2:55pm
The wireless siting process throughout the US is a mess. A standardize siting process which includes a system to ensure that workers are not needlessly and unknowingly over-exposed to the RF radiation while working in close proximity to wireless antennas would address the public's fears, reduce the siting costs and address the capacity needs of the industry.
Posted by Anonymous | November 10, 2009 - 4:46pm
Very true, but just as in the same way the residents in the fire ravaged areas does not want new sites, regular consumers are thinking we are joking when we want them to buy and install equipment in their homes to overcome OUR poor service.
Education is needed, as well as good $$$ incentives (more than free calls when on "home" network, etc, etc).
Posted by Anonymous | November 10, 2009 - 9:57pm
We only have 300 million people in the U.S. -Where are all these new customers going to come from? Wait let's ask AT&T and Verizon that question. They don't seem to have any problems taking customers from their rivals or smaller carriers. And to think over 270 million cellular customers and 245,000 cell sites. And you think we need more sites? No wonder Americans get antsy with local town boards over cellular tower proposals...My hair is standing off the top of my head....I thought it was the attorney generals job to fine or sanction companies for false or deceptive advertising. I hope they are not intimidated by big red. This is what the S.E.C did in Madoff's case - look the other way. No wonder Sprint is cost cutting.
Posted by Anonymous | November 10, 2009 - 10:28pm
The more they improve coverage or bandwith: the more costly cellular bills get along with annual increases in telco, cable and satellite bills..It doesn't get cheaper it gets more expensive. The consumer pays the ultimate price. Be wary when the sale rep calls you to sell you big reds fancy new tv services.It maybe for the better but we get stuck with the bill.
Posted by Simon | November 11, 2009 - 5:31am
My experience has been that where consultation has occured with the general public we have never had an application refused, despite some bitter and aggresive opposition from a small vocal minority.
The two key lessons I have learnt are as follows:
Radiation from a telecommunications mast is 100's of thousands times smaller than the electro-magnetic radiation you get from household domestic appliances such as your TV, vaccum cleaner and fridge! If we don't communicate with our prospective customers they will never have the chance to make a balanced decision.
Proactive discussion with residents PRIOR to submission of a planning application helps the community to understand the issues and the facts, the saftey aspects (including personal safety when out and about in the community) and the benefits of any time, any place, anywhere. Furthermore they don't feel that they are being steamrollered or that communicatiosn are being installed along stealth lines.
Openess and transparency always seem to win out in the end.
Posted by Anonymous | November 11, 2009 - 11:19am
Did the author actually write the last sentence himself?
"Andrew Seybold is an authority on technology and trends shaping the world of wireless mobility. A respected analyst, consultant, commentator, author and active participant in industry trade organizations, his views have influenced strategies and shaped initiatives for telecom, mobile computing and wireless industry leaders worldwide. For more, see www.andrewseybold.com"
wow......
Also there are more ways to increase capacity and coverage with some of the existing base stations, through more efficient use of codecs and compression, and optimizing deficient cells/sectors, and optimizing re-use.
The Evil Spawn of some baby bells is an authority on technology and trends shaping the world of wireless mobility. A respected analyst, consultant, commentator, author and active participant in industry trade organizations, his views have influenced strategies and shaped initiatives for telecom, mobile computing and wireless industry leaders worldwide. (HA HA HA HA!!)
Posted by Sue Marek | November 11, 2009 - 11:23am
It's standard procedure for FierceWireless to put a description of every contributing author at the end of their column. -- Sue
Posted by The eveil spawn of some baby bells | November 11, 2009 - 12:20pm
then I'll put the same thing at the end of all my user submissions.
Posted by clarketelecom | November 11, 2009 - 2:11pm
Agreed. The mWA's that actually hit your head during a call are far exceeded by everything else emitting EM around us. The not-so-educated public doesn't realize EM is EM, no matter what the source. That being said, the wavelength determines cellular (biological) interference/destruction/alteration. If it's too big the body simply "conducts" the wave, too small and it simply passes through. Just right and cells resonate/absorb - bad. I would like a definitive test on whether or not 700 to 4900 MHz is harmful and in what doses/ proximity etc.
Posted by Jorge' | November 11, 2009 - 2:19pm
Simon...openess and transparency? How about honesty and accuracy? Your posting underscores that wireless service providers cannot be trusted with the health and safety of the public. The FCC does not have RF radiation human exposure limits for a "fridge," but it sure does for cellular telecommunication masts and wireless antennas that are clearly health and safety hazards. Consider AT&T Alascom v. Orchitt.
Posted by The evil Spawn of some baby bells | November 11, 2009 - 2:26pm
If you want info on RF Exposure, start here:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/
the 100MHz-300MHz (VHF) are the most damaging to humans as the frequency wavelength is near our size.
ALL RF or ANY ERP can be harmful, but I agree, especially when it's people who sit around smoking cigarettes or pot all day cough the word "radiation" in my face, while they sit in front of a TV or computer all day....
"The Evil Spawn of some baby bells is an authority on technology and trends shaping the world of wireless mobility. A respected analyst, consultant, commentator, author and active participant in industry trade organizations, his views have influenced strategies and shaped initiatives for telecom, mobile computing and wireless industry leaders worldwide."
Comments (13) | Post a comment