FCC’s order for more backup power at cell sites sparks questions, innovations.

The FCC’s post-Katrina ruling that all U.S. cell sites must be equipped with at least eight hours of backup power is prompting a surge in creative ways to store more power in less space. However, with the creativity, there is a litany of rising concerns about costs, timing and if it can be done at all.

The 8-hour backup power requirement stems from a stinging report by the FCC following Hurricane Katrina, which concluded that “a lack of adequate backup power for communications facilities was a critical problem after Katrina that caused communications network interruptions and hampered recovery efforts.”

As a result, telecom and wireless companies are now expected to provide additional backup power to about 210,000 cell sites and 20,000 telecom central offices by this time next year.

And it won’t be easy. Or cheap.

Industry observers put the cost at about $8,000 to $10,000 per cell site to upgrade, with smaller sites in the $5,000 range. With estimates like that, the price tag for upgrading the huge number of sites to comply with the FCC’s order will be in the multibillion-dollar range.

IMPOSSIBLE EXPECTATIONS
Add to the mix space considerations, renewed leases and environmental concerns, and the road to upgraded cell sites with additional backup power gets even bumpier.

“It’s a very difficult thing to solve (adding backup power) and a complex issue because of the amount of towers and the costs. I think we’re at the point where the FCC didn’t see the ramifications of all this,” says Ronald Gruia, principal analyst for emerging telecommunications at the research group Frost and Sullivan. “Alternatives must now be looked at, and there must be cooperation. It will get interesting.”

It’s about to get even more interesting. The CTIA recently petitioned the FCC to review the mandate, in particular the 8-hour backup power section, essentially bringing a lawsuit against the FCC.

“The concern is the order itself. It’s costly and in some cases impossible to implement eight hours of backup power at all sites. We hope to get a more realistic, workable order and get back to the table. We have the same goal as the FCC of always having service, but we want the goal to be realistic. We felt it didn’t happen here,” says Joe Farren, assistant vice president of public affairs for CTIA-the Wireless Association.

Service providers such as Sprint Nextel are supporting the petition, said Stephanie Walsh, a spokesperson for Sprint Nextel. “This is not a one-size-fits-all issue. We want it left up to us to determine how much backup power and where. We’ll continue to harden our cell sites, and currently are deploying 200 fuel cells with more planned. And, we are using solar power in California and New York, while exploring the use of geothermal energy. It’s in our best interest to keep the networks up and running.”

NEW SOLUTIONS?
The FCC’s ruling has piqued the interest of power supply manufacturers – from traditional sources such as lead-acid batteries to solar energy – each seeing a fertile market for their energy-producing products for cell sites.

“We’re breaking up cell sites into different categories and bundling together backup power solutions like hydrogen fuel cell technology. If this regulation sticks, we’ll have to find more cost-efficient ways of planning the technology,” says Rodger Hyle, category manager for the power systems division at TESSCO Technologies.

“Eight hours is a huge amount of power and just adding generators won’t be feasible. So, alternative solutions must be on our radar. But it’s easier said than done,” Hyle says.

With no easy solution at hand, some companies such as Caterpillar are re-tooling their plants and strategies to help the wireless and telecom industries meet the FCC’s power requirements.

Commscope’s 60 EC and 30 EC cabinets have space for five and two battery shelves, respectively. Several carriers have stacked two of the 30 EC units to have four battery shelves available.

“Last year, we opened a new plant to assemble small generators in the 25 kW-250 kW range, which addresses the cell site business and will help with the FCC’s cell tower initiative. It will have a big impact on our business,” maintains John Vivian, corporate accounts manager for telecommunications at Caterpillar.

One solution Caterpillar is pushing, Vivian notes, is for one generator to manage multiple carriers and tenants, with the use of propane generators. “They are the most cost-effective, practical and the cleanest.”

With wireless fast-becoming the primary means of communications, as evidenced by a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report that forecasts household spending on cell phone services will surpass spending on landlines by next year, the need for additional backup power is becoming more acute, and will only increase.

“There will be a growth in capacity and more players on cell towers, including local 911, ham operators, sheriff’s departments and more. They all want to be hung on cell towers, and that takes more power,” Vivian says.

It also presents some serious challenges. “We can build the generators, but what will slow it down is building the cell sites, grounding and the very precise type of construction unique to cell sites. You can’t harden 40,000 cell sites a year,” Vivian says.

8-HOUR RESERVE JUST THE BEGINNING
Nevertheless, the FCC order is in place, and some in the industry expect the 8-hour backup power mandate to expand. “Cell phones are becoming the primary means of communicating and cell sites are now vital. So, the FCC will continue to turn the screw to make cell systems as reliable as the landline systems. Soon, three days of backup power will be required. We haven’t seen the end,” says Scott Ehrenberg, CTO at Dais-Analytic, a supplier of materials to the fuel cell industry.

The FCC ruling may actually jump-start the fuel cell industry, which for years has shown potential, but gained little traction. “Only generators can handle the future powering needs, but fuel cells have matured into a viable solution and have some strategic advantages over batteries. This could be the turning point for fuel cells,” Ehrenberg says.

Although fuel cells remain a wild card in the backup power game, especially at cell sites, there are still some questions about their value. “They’re still too expensive and there’s no broad deployment yet. But in certain densities, they would make sense,” says Mike Burkhalter, vice president of sales for Argus Technologies, Ltd, a division of Alpha Technologies.

What does make sense, he maintains, is a strategy called load-shedding. “You can turn off certain portions of power distribution while not keeping the entire site on full coverage,” Burkhalter says.

He admits to surprisingly little interest in load-shedding, but points to a quiet period for both the wireless and telecom industries as perhaps the reason, while they determine just how to react to the FCC’s order.

“It’s real and it’s costly, so some clients are telling us they’ll stay quiet until they’re pushed. We don’t see the market jumping in with both feet yet,” he says.

“If you look at AT&T and its hyper-sensitive networks, they have a lot of work to do with outdoor cabinets, etc. and with all of their recent acquisitions, it will be even more difficult.”

AT&T would not comment on its backup power strategies for cell sites.

Yet both industries, Gruia notes, need to address the issue. “They must take a step back and look at it on a case-by-case basis, and look at alternatives to make it work. Even the FCC must concur there are exceptions. It’s more complicated than you may think.”

Maybe so, but in the meantime, manufacturers that provide backup power, particularly to cell sites, are ramping up for what could be a field day of activity.

“Many companies are hoping the ruling will be pushed back. But they’re also thinking seriously about meeting the requirements. The cost is estimated in the hundred of millions of dollars for each top-tier carrier,” says John Baker, vice president of technology marketing for wireless network solutions at Andrew Corporation.

“That’s not a small expense, so we’ll see a number of technologies and strategies, from fuel cells to solar, to even removing some sites. And there are the zoning and environmental issues. We’re asked daily to increase efficiency,” he says.

And the questions about how to cost-effectively address the 8 hours of backup power order aren’t likely to be answered any time soon.