Category: General

AGL Denver Conference Update 8:50 AM MDT

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Brian Allen, Business Development Manager – West, TowerCo says the average monthly revenue per cell site is about $52,000; Predicts that the number of tower sites will double over the next 9 years (to about 525,000), but growth could be substantially greater than that based on other published reports. Lots of outstanding industry stats. More during the day.

Jonathan Atkin, RBC Capital Markets gives he AT&T&T merger a 65% chance of gaining all required regulatory approvals.

Mobilitie’s Keith Plaglusch talking about that firm’s expansion into DAS (in building and outdoors).

More to follow.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

When (Wireless) Worlds Collide…Will Site Landlords Get $quashed?

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin carries a buried-lead story about Sprint’s deployment of new, flexible base stations that are multi-modal, multi-band, and potentially multi-user.

Faced with Data Surge, Carriers to ‘Feed the Beast’ with Base Station Innovation

Noting the importance of scale, spectrum and innovation, representatives of Sprint Nextel and Clearwire discussed how the growth of wireless data traffic must result in the complete modernization of cell site equipment on a panel on March 22 in Orlando, Fla. They spoke at the Raymond James Breakfast, which was moderated by Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James & Associates.

“We must keep feeding the beast, or we are just going to turn our customers away. We must innovate around the cost. Technology allows it,” said Iyad Tarazi, vice president, network development and engineering, Sprint Nextel. The carrier expects 10x growth every three years for the foreseeable future.

The challenge for Sprint Nextel is to keep up with the pace in a cost-effective manner. To do so the carrier has unveiled Network Vision, which is a blueprint for enhancing data speeds by consolidating multiple network technologies into one, seamless network.

Today, Sprint uses separate equipment to deploy services at 800 MHz, 1.9 GHz and, through Clearwire, 2.5 GHz. The Network Vision concept features the use of software to bring together multiple spectrum bands on a single, multimode base station.

“The technologies that we are deploying in the Network Vision project allow us to modernize our cell sites in a way that gives us a lot of flexibility with the types of technologies we put on it,” Tarazi said. “In the future, with the Network Vision project, we will build spectrum at 40 megahertz to 60 megahertz at a time, and we will build it once.”

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

In interview with AGL Bulletin, Ted Abrams, president, Abrams Wireless, reacted to statements made at the session, applauding the move toward network sharing saying network operators will be able to increase overall efficiency of bandwidth and infrastructure through the new technology.

“Multi-modal equipment connected to big backhaul pipes can transport payload from end users through the cloud across retail platforms branded differently,” Abrams said. “Most of the attributes of a wireless network are fungible, readily adapted to exchange on par. Antenna physics and other band-specific requirements continue to require consideration. As infrastructure providers are able to increase the density of sites supporting these new technologies, the rate of broadband deployment can be accelerated.”

As an attorney representing wireless site owners (landlords), the question that instantly comes to my mind is this: As Sprint deploys it’s wireless upgrade, how will ‘electronic collocations’ be accounted for in legacy wireless leases?

Huh?

Go back now and carefully reread the following excerpt from the AGL Bulletin report, above:

The Network Vision project will play a role in increased network sharing, according to John Saw, chief technology officer, Clearwire, which has been sharing networks for some time with Sprint Nextel on a limited basis at sites. Saw envisions much more sharing in the future because of the benefits in cost, time, speed and flexibility.

“One of the things we are excited about, looking at network sharing, is that you actually get to leverage all of these capabilities for customers,” Saw said. “That buys us time. That buys us some cost savings with the leases and some of the common services that we share with Sprint. The Network Vision project brings network sharing to a whole new plateau.”

Network sharing, according to Saw, means virtually all of the physical components of the base station can be used by multiple carriers, including the radio, the backhaul, the access equipment, the utilities and other services.

“The key difference with network sharing is being able to share the radio at the network level. In the past, it was mostly cell site sharing. If we are able to share the same floor space, the same common equipment, the same switching, the same backhaul, potentially even the same radio where you can run multiple technologies, that’s what we’re talking about,” Saw said.

Okay, back to reality for landlords.

Historically, savvy landlords have received incremental income from collocations and their tenants sublease to other wireless providers.

In Sprint’s future world of electronic collocation, site landlords won’t know when Sprint has subleased a portion of the use of the site to another company. Legacy leases don’t usually specify that collocation must be ‘physical’ in nature, so those same savvy landlords (and I assure you, their attorneys, including yours truly) are likely to reasonably take the position that that if Sprint has subleased the electronic use of a wireless site to another, then that revenue should be shared with the site landlord pursuant to the existing lease agreement.

Landlords and their attorneys should be on the lookout for proposed lease amendments for legacy sites and sublease terms in new leases that might try to draft around this $$multimillion dollar issue$$.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AGL Bulletin: With GPS Complications, Short-Term Site Growth May Elude LightSquared

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

From today’s (4/15/11) AGL Bulletin.

With GPS Complications, Short-Term Site Growth May Elude LightSquared

The tower industry’s dreams of being a part of LightSquared’s plans to deploy 40,000 high-power transmitters may have to wait. Given the potential for interference to its spectrum neighbor, GPS, the proposed nationwide broadband network may not trigger significant site leasing activity in the near term, according to RBC Capital Markets.

LightSquared’s system proposes to operate in the 1525-1559 MHz band, right next to the GPS downlink frequencies in the 1559-1610 MHz band.

“Given LightSquared’s current spectrum impairment (GPS interference in one of its L-band slots, and Inmarsat clearing requirements in the other slot that are not slated for resolution until 2013) and the availability of spectrum in other bands, we believe a conservative stance is appropriate with respect to LightSquared actually building out a significant network, even if it were to reach an agreement with Sprint,” RBC Capital Markets wrote in its April Equity Research Industry Comment.

In January, RBC first voiced uncertainties about LightSquared, even though it had its funding in place, because it noticed the carrier was slowing its build out. Then the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration sent a letter to the FCC warning it about possible GPS interference.

“LightSquared significantly slowed its network planning and site acquisition activities near the turn of the year, and we are aware of continuing progress in only three markets,” RBC noted.

The aviation industry is very concerned about the possibility of interference to GPS receivers, which provide planes with navigation, according to Aviation Week. Manufacturers and users are currently testing GPS receivers for susceptibility to interference from the planned nationwide broadband wireless network. The FCC’s waiver grant required LightSquared and the U.S. GPS Industry Council to work together to investigate the possibility of interference and to identify ways to prevent that interference to GPS, if necessary.

However, in an ex parte teleconference presentation to the FCC on Jan. 19, the U.S. GPS Industry Council already presented the potential for LightSquared service to cause severe interference to GPS users.

“Simply put, the U.S. GPS Industry Council’s testing discloses that LightSquared’s very high output power from its planned 40,000 sites, coupled with its proximity in frequency to the very weak GPS downlink band, forms a witch’s brew for catastrophic interference to GPS receivers,” Jonathan Kramer, principal, Kramer Telecom Law Firm, wrote in his blog. “LightSquared has stated that it can take care of the potential interference to GPS users using filters. It’s unclear whether the filters are sufficient, or who would be expected to pay for the cost of the filters.”

All eyes will be on that receiver testing with those filters, which will be completed at the end of May with a final report due to arrive at the FCC on June 15.

If you don’t already subscribe to AGL Magazine and the AGL Bulletin and you’re a wireless professional…you’re not really. Subscribe today.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

More on Substantial Evidence (YAT-MC) (T-Mobile v. City of Margate)

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In T-Mobile South LLC v. City of Margate (Florida) decided on April 4, 2011 (SD FL Case No. 10–cv–60029), District Judge Alan Gold discussed the topic of substantial evidence in several interesting lights.

In granting summary judgment to T-Mobile, Judge Gold said

d. “Substantial Evidence”Looking beyond the text of the written Resolution to the transcript of the December 9 Hearing, T–Mobile argues that the City Commissioners’ ultimate decision denying its Application was not supported by “substantial evidence” as required by 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). T–Mobile asserts that the only opposition voiced against its Application was “purely generalized objection, with no specific evidence or support” and “unqualified, unscientific opinion of the City Commissioners and lay members of the public.” [ECF No. 24, p. 13]. T–Mobile concludes that such generalized opposition may not qualify as “substantial evidence” under the TCA.

*10 The City responds to this argument with two short paragraphs in which it outlines the definition of “substantial evidence” and notes that T–Mobile bears the initial burden of proof on this issue. [ECF No. 33, p. 8]. This response raises no disputes of material fact and offers no reasons why the Commissioners denied the Application, much less any explanation as to why those justifications for denial should qualify as “substantial evidence” under the TCA. As T–Mobile notes, the City also incorrectly argues that T–Mobile must present “substantial evidence” whereas the TCA actually requires that relevant State or local governmental denial decision be supported by substantial evidence. 47 U.S.C. § 332(7)(B)(iii).

Although I could hold in T–Mobile’s favor alone on the basis of the City’s inadequate response on this point, I am also obligated to consider the record in its entirety when reviewing a dispute governed by § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Thus, I look once more to the transcript from the December 9 Hearing because the City’s official written decision provides no reason for the denial. As reflected in that transcript, the City Commissioners’ votes to deny the Application were not accompanied by any contemporaneous comments from the Commissioners offering reasons for their votes. [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 86:11–87:11]. Elsewhere in the transcript are certain complaints voiced by City residents against T–Mobile’s Application. Some residents indicated that they opposed the plan because they preferred that T–Mobile place the new tower in its neighboring town of Coral Springs.14 But as noted above, the City concedes that a significant coverage gap exists in the City of Margate, and it advances no arguments that the heart of that gap was in Coral Springs, or a neighboring town, or any place else other than Margate. Likewise, the City Attorney responded to these comments by informing the residents that Margate’s ordinances prohibit using residents’ preferences to place the tower in another town as a basis to deny such an application.

Another city resident cited health concerns such as radiation as a reason for his opposition to the Application. [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 64:24–65:22]. Again, the City Attorney responded that the “federal courts have specifically ruled that radiation cannot be the basis for turning this down.” [Id. at 66:2–4].16 It does not appear that the City Commissioners were concerned with the aesthetics of the proposed WCF. When T–Mobile representatives offered to show pictures or designs of their proposed “flag pole” design, at least one City Commissioner responded: “We don’t need to see it. We know what it looks like.” [ECF No. 26–1, p. 24–27]. Likewise, when the City Attorney asked the City’s independent consultant to comment on the proposed idea, a City Commissioner stated “No, I don’t want to hear anymore.” [ECF No. 26–1, pp. 71:25–72:1]. Several other aspects of the December 9 Hearing transcript provide the distinct impression that the City Commissioners denied T–Mobile’s application in order to appease a crowd of local residents who had gathered to attend the hearing and oppose the Application.

*11 Eleventh Circuit case law provides certain guidelines about the types of reasons a State or local government may rely on in order to deny an application under the TCA. For example, a “blanket aesthetic objection does not constitute substantial evidence under § 332.” See Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 761. But aesthetic objections “coupled with evidence of an adverse impact on property values or safety concerns can constitute substantial evidence.” Id. Similarly, denial may be based on testimony of local realtors that the proposed cell tower would adversely impact home resale values or if the site may have a negative effect on nearby air traffic or to the safety of school children. Id. at 760; City of Huntsville, 295 F.3d at 1208–09. But “generalized objections with no articulated reasons” and “rationalizations constructed after the fact” do not constitute “sufficient evidence” under the TCA. Preferred Sites, 296 F.3d at 1219–20 & n. 9.

This case law provides no support for local governments that deny a provider’s Application on the basis of health effects or a preference to place the relevant cell tower in a neighboring town. Construing this evidence in the light most favorable to the City, I can only conclude that there are no disputes of material fact that the City did not provide sufficient evidence for its denial of T–Mobile’s Application, and a reasonable mind could not accept the evidence in the record as adequate to support the City’s denial.

(Emphasis added.) T-Mobile S. LLC v. City of Margate, No. 10–cv–60029, 2011 WL 1303898, 9–10–11, Slip Copy (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2011). 

“YAT-MC” = “Yet another T-Mobile Case”

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Orgonite: The Cure for Cell Towers!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’ve just learned about an amazing but little known homemade compound structure that can protect people from cell towers. It’s called Orgonite, and you can make it at home.

According to the following text I found on the Internet, Orgonite has amazing properties! According to the Orgonite web site:

Orgonite: A proven effective solution.

This is a purely informational site about orgonite, a simple compound anyone can create in their backyard with fairly inexpensive, widely-available materials which balances ambient energy by turning the negative energy into positive energy, with many easily-confirmed effects. Orgonite does this continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without electricity.

Quick Facts About Orgonite:

* Simple. Easy to make. Works continuously.
* Turns negative energy into positive energy.
* Purifies the atmosphere, detoxifies water, ends drought.
* Helps plants grow better, repel pests & require less water.
* Mitigates harmful effects of EMF radiation.
* Disarms and repels predatory forms of life.
* Inspires a pleasant demeanor and balanced, happier moods.
* Frequently remedies insomnia and chronic nightmares.
* Helps awaken your innate psychic senses.

The Orgonite web site goes on to describe the apparent magical properties of this homemade compound in connection with suppressing the negativity associated with cell towers:

It has been the experience of many chembuster enthusiasts that the widespread deployment of digital cellular communications towers across the populated areas of the world in the last several years has created a thick blanket of DOR/negative energy which saturates our homes and communities, promotes drought, negativity, fear, etc., and significantly hinders chembuster operation (among many other detrimental effects).

However, it has been widely experienced that these negative effects can be disabled and chembusters can be made to start working properly again simply by tossing or burying small muffin-sized chunks of orgonite called TowerBusters (TB’s) near all the cellphone towers in their area, an increasingly-popular activity which has become known as “gifting”, and is conducted literally all over the world now by thousands of selfless and highly-dedicated individuals and Internet-organized groups.

This site is intended to provide a basic, accurate, efficient introduction to orgonite for those interested in learning more about it. If you wish to perform further research, we have a comprehensive list of informational resources in our Further Reading section.

The positive, self-empowering effects of working with orgonite quickly become obvious to those who choose to make and use it. If you are interested in seeking your own confirmations of it’s effectiveness, please visit our section on How to Make Orgonite to find out how you can begin to improve the energy and create real beneficial changes in your home and community.

Here’s a video of someone “gifting” a cell tower:

So, now that you know about the amazing benefits that are achieved with Orgonite,would you like to make your own Orgonite Tower Buster? It’s so easy, and requires only the least amount of brainpower. When you see how Orgonite is made you’ll understand what makes these pucks so effective, especially if you inhale the fumes while mixing up a batch! (Which I certainly DO NOT recommend!)

You can visit the ‘how to make it page’ at the Orgonite web site by clicking here. It has step-by-step photo-illustrated instructions that you’ll find to be infinitely valuable, and oh-so-detailed!

To see a short video on how to mix up a batch of Orgonite ‘muffins’ to place around cell towers, click watch video below!

Okay, now you know all you need to cure yourself of the fear of cell towers!

Jonathan

PS: I had intended to post this message exactly two days ago, but I was too busy out shopping for magnetic bracelets and magical amulets. I found both, so now I’m feeling even better! jlk

PPS: Remember, if you read it on the Internet, it has to be true. jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AT&T&T Likely to Have to Divest Portions of Networks

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Reuters is reporting that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson believes that his company will have to divest portions of its existing wireless network to secure federal permissions to acquire T-Mobile.  Stephenson’s comments were made in New York at a Council on Foreign Relations event held on March 30, 2011

My suspicion is that T-Mobile will be similarly required to divest portions of its existing wireless network in the same or adjoining areas as those assets that AT&T will shed to make the deal work for the Feds.

The shed assets will help strengthen the remaining, small competitors, who will then become known as current take-over targets for other major players.

Stephenson also said at the same event that he expected consumer prices for wireless services to continue drop as a result of the proposed merger.  His comments came just hours before April Fools Day.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The GPS World Lines Up Against LightSquared

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

In yet another bold step to block LightSquared from initiating its high-powered terrestrial wireless service on a band adjacent to the GPS weak signal downlink band, a consortium of GPS manufacturers and industry users have formed the “Coalition to Save Our GPS” (on the web at SaveOurGPS.org).

This site has various news clipping and documents related to the anticipated interference to GPS from LightSquared’s planned operations.

Presently, the consortium members include:

Aeronautical Repair Stations Association
Air Transport Association
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
American Rental Association
Associated Equipment Distributors
Association of Equipment Manufacturers
Case New Holland
Caterpillar Inc.
Deere & Company
Edison Electric Institute
Esri
Garmin
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
National Association of Manufacturers
OmniSTAR
Trimble

This is a very public ‘front’ for this fight.  Can print ads and radio spots be far behind?  I think not!

LightSquared has a report due to the FCC tomorrow (March 15). That was a particularly bad day for Julius Caesar; how will it turn out for LightSquared?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

LightSquared v. GPS Users: We’ll know on June 15, 2011

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

At the direction of the FCC on January26, 2011 (See: http://tinyurl.com/lightsquared-fcc-file for all of the filings), LightSquared and the GPS Industry Council have formed a working group. The working group will conduct tests of LightSquared’s transmission system to determine whether LightSquared’s proposed filter solution will resolve the demonstrated potential for interference to GPS users within miles of each proposed LightSquared site.

The potential for LightSquared service to cause severe interference to GPS users was made clear in an ex parte teleconference presentation made on January 19, 2011 to the FCC by members of the GPS Industry Council.

Simply put, the GPS Industry Council’s testing discloses that LightSquared’s very high output power from its planned 40,000 sites, coupled with its proximity in frequency to the very weak GPS downlink band, forms a witch’s brew for catastrophic interference to GPS receivers. LightSquared’s system is to operate in the 1525-1559 MHz band, while the GPS downlink frequencies are in the 1559-1610 MHz band. You can read the ex parte notice and the presentation by clicking here.

LightSquared has stated that it take care of the potential interference to GPS users using filters. It’s unclear whether the filters are sufficient, or who would be expected to pay for the cost of the filters.

On February 25, 2011, Light squared submitted its first report to the Commission regarding its work with the GPS Industry Council. That report is linked here. The group’s next report is due on the Ides of March. The final report showing the results of the filter testing is due to the FCC on June 15, 2011.

To frame the uses and users who could be negatively affected by GPS interference, or the outright loss of GPS coverage, here’s an abbreviated list of users and uses:

Military: Locations; targeting; timing; network synchronization; stuff we don’t know about

Aviation: Precision landing systems; aircraft location; timing; network synchronization

Transportation: Vehicle location; timing; network synchronization

Local Governments E911; Vehicle location; timing; network synchronization

Industry E911; Vehicle location; timing; network synchronization; precision measurements; stuff we don’t know about

Non-Government Users Location; rescue; timing; network synchronization

Yeah, this is a big deal

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

lightRadio? Really?!

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Bell Labs has unveiled its lightRadio cell site in a cube system.  It’s received a lot of press from around the world over the past few weeks about it being ‘THE NEXT BIG THINK TO KILL OFF TRADITIONAL CELL SITES.’

Well,  maybe not.

Digging a bit deeper into the apparent technology underpinning the system produces some interesting things to ponder.   To set the stage for what I think this lightRadio thing is all about, and how it fits into the grand scheme, first watch the video below of Tod Sizer, the head of the wireless group at Bell Labs, as he talks about developing the lightRadio antenna module. Then look at the chart below the video. When you’ve done that, then I’ll ‘resume’ this conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As they say on TV, “Okay, we’re back…”

So what’s Mr. Sizer’s video tell us, and what does the chart mean?

Let’s start with Mr. Sizer’s video…  He talks about how the cubes can be stacked to provide directional signal control, similar to a macrocell site.  What’s not too clear is that each cube requires a backhaul connection using Internet Protocol (IP) back to…somewhere.  See the chart just above.

The deployment scheme is not too clear, but it sure looks like it has elements of DAS within it, or at least it seems closer to a DAS than it is to a self-contained macrocell or even a microcell.

Attention NextG, competition cleanup on aisle 5…

Given NextG’s history of suing where they believe someone is infringing on any shred of their DAS patents for network technology and deployment, I’ll just wait to see if they also think along the same lines I do regarding the possibility that the cube is really a micro DAS implementation.

This should be interesting, but it doesn’t appear to be the game-changer that the manufacturer would have us believe.

With apologies to Mr. Clemens, ‘Reports of macrocells’ deaths are greatly exaggerated.’

jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail