Broadcast Writer

By Victoria W. Kipp
Site Management & Technology magazine, Aug 1, 2002

Prospects of an obtrusive new tower in the neighborhood can make locals uneasy. This “not in my backyard” response is often the fuel for debate between local communities and telecommunications providers — debates that can be traced to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

This act empowers telecommunications providers to erect towers where they are needed but limits the FCC’s power to intervene when local communities object to a tower location. For some cellular applications, disagreement can be alleviated by construction of a stealth site that conceals a tower and antenna.

Tower use

Classified by their purpose, the industrial towers can generally be divided into the categories of broadcast towers or cellular/PCS towers.

For broadcast towers, greater tower height gives the antenna a larger footprint and increased coverage area. Broadcast towers are typically 500 feet or taller. There isn’t a maximum height for broadcast towers, but the FAA and FCC have established that structures more than 2,000 feet above ground level are inconsistent with the public interest. Applicants with plans for such structures will have the burden of overcoming that strong belief.

Cellular is a two-way system. Each site can handle a limited number of calls. To relay signals from one cellular tower to an adjacent tower, cellular towers must be in sight of each other. Cellular and PCS towers are much smaller and shorter than broadcast towers. Tower industry analysts predict increased frequency of construction for new cellular towers. They will be shorter and will be placed closer together to increase system capacity and control.

Location

Site acquisition specialists travel the country scouting appropriate locations for new towers and antennas. A good site is high and unobstructed by trees or other structures. Few small-to-medium cities have enough high structures — such as building rooftops, water tanks, or communications towers — suitable to meet the needs of a typical wireless grid. Building more towers remedies this shortage.

According to cellular providers’ interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, telecommunications companies are empowered to erect towers where they need them. However, local municipalities frequently challenge this notion.

Some state courts view towers as “utilities.” This label leads wireless providers to argue that wireless communications facilities (towers and antennas) should be treated no differently from other public and private utility structures such as telephone poles, electric transmission-line support structures, traffic signal poles, and expressway light fixtures. Based on this argument, they believe towers should be allowed in residential, institutional, commercial and industrial areas, as well as in public-use areas such as parks, schools and community centers.

Opposition

People often use land-use acronyms to express opposition to having a tower located near their property. Following are some local reactions that occur when an entity is seeking approval for the proposed location of a new tower.

• NIMBY: Not in my back yard is an oft-heard protest from landowners facing the siting of a tower near their home.
• NIMNBY: Not in my neighbor’s back yard, is an alternative to NIMBY. If you had the option to install a tower in your backyard and generate revenue by renting out tower space, you may not be opposed to having a tower located in your back yard. However, your next-door neighbors may not appreciate having a tower located so close to their residences.
• LULU is an anti-tower strategy that is short for locally unwanted land use. Municipalities generally endorse this option to require towers to be built in less desirable, more remote areas.
• BANANA stands for build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. This would suggest that towers be built only in isolated areas. This strategy may make for an ineffective coverage pattern because the signal would be sent over a low population area.

Obstinate citizen boards and neighborhood groups often call for “visual impact studies” and environmental reviews, and inhabitants of affected neighborhoods may hire lawyers to protect their interests. Homeowners believe that towers in full view of their homes lower their property values and the aesthetic appeal of their neighborhoods. The majority of people do not want obtrusive and non-conforming structures in their backyards. (An anti-tower lawyer advised his clients, “Don’t let your cell phone ring during a tower hearing,” hinting that a ringing cell phone demonstrates the usefulness of a cellular tower.)

When overwhelmed by new tower site applications, communities often impose a moratorium to give them time to enact a revised ordinance. Community ordinances typically require a collocation of at least three or four antennas per tower, and they regulate tower height and spacing.

Many broadcasters have successfully handled zoning difficulties by banding together to build one community tower for all users, which zoning boards generally favor.

A frenzy of new tower zoning applications has taken place for construction of cellular towers, and it is not likely to end soon. Although it is possible that a network of low-orbit satellites may someday replace cellular towers, such infrastructure would be tremendously expensive and impractical for now.

FCC’s role

You might wonder what role the FCC takes in tower siting controversies. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, final decisions in tower location cases can be appealed to either state or federal district courts where decisions are to be heard on an expedited basis. The FCC has no jurisdiction under the act to determine issues related to location, except for limited situations where the dispute involves issues related to the environmental effects of RF emissions.

Although the act limits the FCC’s authority, it has not disallowed the FCC from examining its authority to take action on tower site approval. The act requires municipalities to make decisions on applications for wireless facilities within a reasonable time. A reasonable time is the time it would normally take a municipality to make similar development decisions for a non-tower application. Municipalities are barred from taking actions that prohibit wireless service.

In 1997, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Association for Maximum Service Television petitioned the FCC regarding local zoning regulations that make it impossible for many broadcasters to meet the schedule for introduction of DTV.

The FCC has not made any final decisions; comments are still being reviewed.

Tower advocates

Some people can appreciate towers in terms of their useful function, as feats of engineering and as attractive structures. They may find the symmetrical latticework of a tower eye-catching. Many towers have a buoyant pattern of orange and white paint bands.

Some broadcast towers are monuments. Tourists are willing to pay admission and wait in line for the opportunity to ascend the tower. The Eiffel Tower and the Sears Tower are prime examples. The Eiffel Tower houses antennas for the International Time Service and French broadcasting. DTV, NTSC and radio signals are broadcast from the top of the Sears Tower.

Stealth sites

Stealth Network Technologies of North Charleston, S.C., presents an alternative to the standard cellular tower site. The company designs and installs antenna concealment sites. A stealth site is an antenna site that screens, hides or camouflages an antenna with minimal reduction to the system’s performance. Antennas are hidden behind StealthSkin V RF transparent foam panels. Panels can be painted to match any color. Textures include mirrored glass, sprayed or trawled stucco, or a custom-matched brick structure. Panels have a high tolerance to windloading.

Stealth has hidden antennas inside rooftops, flagpoles, bell towers, crosses, clock towers, road signs, silos, water towers, monopoled towers, rooftop parapets, louvers, and artificial chimneys. More than 500 churches nationwide earn income from housing wireless communications antennas in their steeples. To assist wireless carriers in getting zoning approval, Stealth will provide free photo simulations of what the final stealth site will look like in that setting.

Critics of stealth sites point that concealing an antenna can be expensive.

The provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 relating to tower location are the subject of considerable debate. Uniformity in interpretation of these provisions may develop as appellate courts establish opinions. In the meantime, location issues will continue to lead to court battles.

Kipp is a broadcast engineer.

© 2002, PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, redisseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media Inc.