Verizon’s cost to build a modern MTSO: $31M

While individual cell sites cost somewhere in the range of $250,000 to $400,000 to construct, it’s interesting to learn the cost of building a new Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTS0).  Thanks to Verizon Wireless for helping to illuminate the answer.

Verizon Wireless Completes $31 Million Investment In New Omaha Network Facility

10/09/2008

OMAHA, NE — Verizon Wireless announced today it has completed the company’s new Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) in Omaha. The MTSO, which represents a $31 million investment, processes all Verizon Wireless calls and data transmissions within eastern Nebraska and portions of western Iowa. Construction on the facility started in the fall of 2006, and full operation of the new switch will begin this month.

The switching center, which is housed in a 26,000-square-foot building, is a large digital computer center that controls all aspects of wireless calls and data applications. Currently the Omaha MTSO handles more than 4 million data connections and 2 million voice calls a month. The new facility has room to expand for projected increases in voice and data network capacity for the next 25 years.

Verizon Wireless’ network capacity requirements increase each year as the company grows its customer base and offers increasingly sophisticated wireless products and services such as navigation systems, multimedia services and Internet access.

“This new MTSO prepares our network for a substantial increase in usage by our existing and new customers,” said Brian Mecum, executive director of network – Great Plains region, Verizon Wireless. “This state-of-the-art facility also brings the latest wireless technology to Nebraska and western Iowa.”

Redundancy is built into the MTSO facility for reliability in the event of an unplanned event or power outage. Within 15 seconds of a power loss to the facility, the MTSO’s generator assumes the network power needs with no interruption to customers’ service.

The 1.5 megawatt diesel generator is stocked with 10,000 gallons of fuel that can provide days of uninterrupted service. The MTSO is also equipped with enough back-up battery power to keep the building operational for an additional eight hours, giving Verizon Wireless’ network team ample time to refuel and maintain the generator and continue providing customers with uninterrupted service. The MTSO also houses 262 tons of air conditioners needed to cool the entire system.

“As the backbone of our wireless network, this MTSO ensures that Verizon Wireless has the capacity to accommodate our customer needs — both in times of normalcy and in the event of an emergency or natural disaster,” Mecum said. “We are committed to delivering the most reliable wireless network, and the redundancy features that are built-in throughout our network system help us do just that.”

This new MTSO is part of Verizon Wireless’ continuous effort to augment the quality of its wireless voice and data network in Nebraska and across the country. Verizon Wireless has invested more than $45 billion since it was formed — more than $5.5 billion on average every year — to increase the coverage and capacity of its national network and to add new services. From January 2005 through September 2008, more than $95 million of this investment were spent in Nebraska on network improvements.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Thinking about Sprint v. County of San Diego

By now many/most/all? of you know that on September 11th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Sprint Telephony PCS, L. P. v. County of San Diego case.  The court held 11-0 that the ‘Auburn’ decision standard announced by the same court eight years ago was wrong, and reversed itself.

The now-discredited Auburn permitted a telecom carrier to facially attack a zoning ordinance.  A facial attack is one where the underlying facts of a particular case don’t really matter.  The court only looks at the face of the ordinance.  As applied to telecom ordinances, the Auburn facial attack meant that if a court could read an ordinance on its face and find that it may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecom service in a community, the court would strike down the law.  The facts giving rise to the court challenge were, frankly, irrevelant.

In most court cases, the courts look at a law “as-applied” (in a particular case and with a particular set of facts) to determine whether it is legal.  Facial attacks, such as those that were applied using the Auburn standard, never get to the facts as applied.

As the en banc panel of the 9th Circuit found, and as Judge Graber wrote (in small part) for the entire panel:

We find persuasive the Eighth Circuit’s and district courts’ critique of Auburn. Section 253(a) provides that “[n]o State or local statute or regulation . . . may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting. . . provision of . . . telecommunications service.” In context, it is clear that Congress’ use of the word “may” works in tandem with the negative modifier“[n]o” to convey the meaning that “state and local regulations shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications service.” Our previous interpretation of the word “may” as meaning “might possibly” is incorrect. We therefore overrule Auburn and join the Eighth Circuit in holding that “a plaintiff suing a municipality under section 253(a) must show actual or effective prohibition, rather than the mere possibility of prohibition.”

*   *   *
Please click here to download the full decision.
*   *   *

I expect that Sprint will ask the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, and I also expect that the request will not be successful. Ultimately, I believe this ruling will mark a return to (more) common sense in wireless siting cases and hearings.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Choosing a Municipal Wireless Consultant – A Wireless Industry View

Wireless Industry attorney Scott Olson of Cooper Erving & Savage LLP (Albany, NY) has written a very interesting blog essay on his “Cell Tower Siting Blog” offering hiring suggestions to governments looking to employ wireless advisers.  The title of his essay is, “Choosing a Wireless Consultant.”

Scott Olsen, Esq.
Scott Olson, Esq.

While it may seen like Scott (on the wireless industry side) and I (a leading wireless adviser to local governments in multiple states) might not have a lot to agree on, I’m happy to report that nearly all of Scott’s suggestions and comments could have as easily been written by me.

The bullet points of Scott’s blog essay are:

1. Be wary of a consultant who preaches fear.

2. Carefully scrutinize a consutant’s draft tower law.

3. Be cautious about a consultant that demands to take control of the review process away from the municipal board with permitting jurisdiction.

4. Question the length of review of a typical application.

5. Municipalities, don’t be fooled by a lengthy review.

6. Be cautious with a consultant who emphasizes that his/her services will not cost the community anything; that the carrier will pay for everything.

7. Excessive application fees for tower applications present potential legal issues, especially when the application fees for other uses are substantially less.

To read his full blog essay, please visit THIS LINK.

Recommended!

=Jonathan=

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

CPUC Investigates Allegations of T-Mobile Sites Without Permits

As reported by staff writer Seth Rosenfeld in the San Francisco Chronicle (Aug 30, 2008, Page C-1), the California Public Utiltiies Commission is investigating whether T-Mobile has been constructing cell sites in Northern California without following local building laws.

The article quotes Susan Carothers, a CPUC spokesperson who said, “CPUC staff is looking into allegations concerning T-Mobile cell siting.”

This isn’t the first time the CPUC has investigated wireless carriers for putting up sites sans all required local permits.  In 1993, the Commission levied fines of up to $4,370,000 against other carriers for violating the terms of city building permits.

It appears that Glotel, the London-based international technology staffing and projects company with U.S. headquarters in Chicago, will be a target of the CPUC’s investigation.  Two former employees of Glotel were quoted in the Chronicle article, one of whom said that the activities being investigated by the CPUC “…happened every day” and specifically identified these activities occurring in Marin, San Franicsco, San Matel, and Santa Clara counties.   Brian Lynch, the other Glotel employee quoted in the article, said he was fired when he told Glotel that they were not following the proper process.

Stay tuned…this should be interesting!  Here is a link to the original story at SFGATE.com.

=Jonathan=

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

It’s all about the iPhone, baby!

Okay, there, I’ve created a post about the iPhone 3G.  I guess I had to.

Alright, it’s great technology.

Yeah, it’s a hip device.

Sure, the new one is cheaper than the original, but isn’t that always the case?

Uh, huh, there are many new features (including what appears to be a very smart GPS integration).

Okay, so many I want one, and wish I weren’t happy being on Verizon’s network.

We’ll see how 3G AT&T’s 3G network really is.  Maybe if it actually works under load I’ll breakdown and, ah, join the kids.

Maybe.

-Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

T-Mobile’s Plan to Construct A Cemetery Cell Dies

T-Mobile’s plans to construct a new cell site at an old cemetery in Stoneham, MA have died.  Omnipoint Communications, T-Mobile’s parent proposed an 80-foot tower in St. Patrick Parish’s cemetery at Broadway and MacArthur Road.  See the Google Street View map below for a photo.
View a Google Street Map of the Site

According to a printed report, T-Mobile’s project was opposed by some of the neighbors who were “concerned about the appropriateness of a tower near graves and about possible health risks for children at a neighboring sports field.”

At least there’s no fear of ghosts.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Hands Free Comes to the Golden State

Welcome to California.  Now put down the cell phone when Use A Cell Phone Get A Ticketyou’re driving.  That law is now in effect here in the Golden State.  No warning period; just get a ticket.

Now that this law is in effect, if you are in a fatal accident (with other than you being the fatality), you can be charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter.  That’s good for up to a year in jail, on top of everything else that will happen.

Think about safety when you’re driving and talking.

…speaking of which, the new law doesn’t prohibit you from DIALING or TEXTING while driving; only talking on a handset while driving.  Those loopholes should be closed fairly quickly when the California Legislature comes back from recess.

Finally, if you’re under 18, don’t worry about what I wrote above.  You’re prohibited from using a cell phone while driving, regardless of whether you’re using a handset OR a handsfree device.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Elements of Bad Wireless Site Design

And now, another entry into Kramer’s “Elements of Bad Wireless Site Design.” T-Mobile constructed a wireless site at a church in Milton, Mass.  The antennas are installed so that they are visible in the church’s T-Mobile in Milton MAtower.  The photo here, taken by my colleague, Claude shows the antenna as visibly installed, and then I’ve overlaid a photo simulation of a simple and inexpensive RF transparent screen that would have greatly enhanced the aesthetics of this project.  Planners should remember that the simple ‘last steps’ can make all the difference to a project.

=Jonathan=

PS: Claude is a member of WirelessAdvisor.com, and I use his photograph here with his kind permission.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

New California Wireless Bill is DEAD

As first discussed in THIS POST, T-Mobile wanted to fling open the doors to public property for temporary cell sites during/after certain emergencies.  The bill was as drafted and later modified was riddled with problems and inconsistencies, and would have damaged Homeland Security.

I’m pleased to report that last week, SB 1252 was gutted by its author and swapped for some vehicle code section changes.  Same bill number; different bill text.

You can read more about the problems the bill would have caused by visiting http://www.TelecomLawFirm.com.

Score one for the good guys and gals.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail