A recent court decision holds
far-reaching ramifications for wireless moving forward.

In the next few years, the demands for tower space and new cell sites will reach an all-time high. There are new build-outs required for Clearwire/Sprint, for AWS spectrum owners including T-Mobile and a number of cable operators. There will be new sites needed for 700 MHz auction winners and, if the FCC does auction the AWS-2/3 spectrum, more than 80,000 tower sites will be needed to cover 95% of the U.S. population. If TV white space is allocated for unlicensed broadband, it too will need cell sites, towers and poles.

Andy Seybold

Existing network operators will continue to need new sites since the only way they can increase their system capacity is to build new sites closer together, build micro and pico sites and to embrace femtocells inside our homes and offices.

THE VERDICT
In today’s world, obtaining permits for new towers and poles has become expensive and time-consuming, especially after the action from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. While many industry representatives were at the Moscone Center talking about plans for a future that will require more cell sites and backhaul and will provide even better voice and data services, the Ninth Court was reversing the outcome of a lawsuit filed by Sprint (with input from Verizon) against the County of San Diego. It was Sept. 11, 2008, the vote was 11-0 and the outcome could affect every wireless operator in the United States. (See “The Ruling.”)

This vote returns to San Diego County and every city, county and state in the United States the right to “limit the placement, size and design of towers and poles used for cell phone service and wireless Internet connections.” The ruling also states that “local governments can regulate wireless towers and poles as long as they don’t actually prohibit wireless service within their borders or create a “significant gap” in service coverage.”

The ruling goes on to specify that poles be camouflaged in residential areas and gives local government the right to set height limits. It requires the operator to submit a visual impact analysis and permits a zoning board to deny an application if it is inconsistent with the character of the community.

QUESTIONS
One thing not clear in this ruling is that if network operator X already provides coverage in a given area but wants to add sites to increase capacity, can these new sites be turned down because there is already coverage by the network operator?

What impact will this new ruling have? My guess is that it will take even longer, cost even more and cause increased delays in building new networks and adding capacity to existing networks.

It also is unclear if the FCC, CTIA or the industry will challenge this ruling. If they do mount a challenge, will they win? I would like to suggest that the industry start working more closely with local zoning boards and spend more time working together to find ways to make better use of tower sharing as a way to limit the fallout from this ruling.

The industry trends are toward more, not less wireless. At CTIA’s Wireless I.T. and Entertainment show, it was announced that the United States has passed 85% penetration.

A few years ago, it was announced that there were more wireless phones in use than wired and, depending on who you listen to, roughly 20% of the wireless population does not even own a wired phone.

Coverage and capacity are therefore more important than ever, and a ruling like this can only slow things down, even for the development of a new shared public/private network for first responders if it becomes a reality. They will still have to deal with every single city and county in the United States finding cell sites, and where they cannot find an existing tower to share, they will have to go through the same process as the rest of the network operators and work with local officials.

I do not believe the feds should try to usurp the rights of local communities, only that our industry needs to deliver a more concerted, cohesive message across the country to educate those who don’t understand the basics of wireless and why more, not fewer, towers will be needed over the coming years.

Seybold heads Andrew Seybold, Inc., which provides consulting, educational and publishing services. For more information, visit www.andrewseybold.com.