How a Key Mobilitie Graphic Spins a Not-so-Tall Tale

This post is part of my contribution to the ongoing public policy debate and discussions regarding the current Mobilitie build for Sprint.  Mobilitie has developed the illustration shown in Figure 1, below, apparently as a way to show local governments and the public Mobilitie’s various pole configurations in at least block form.  Most recently, a week ago, Mobilitie presented this very illustration to a group of local government telecom officials in Southern California at the SCAN NATOA meeting. I attended that meeting.

Take a close look at Figure 1 and then please continue to read on.Mobilitie's unscaled graphic misrepresents the relative heights of their various poles.Figure 1.  Illustration created by Mobilitie. This illustration is presumably copyright by Mobilitie.  Used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.

The problem with Mobilitie’s illustration in Figure 1 is that it grossly misrepresents and under-represents the scale and impact of their proposed facilities.  Mobilitie’s illustration has no indicated scale, and the pole elements are not scaled to each other.  Mobilitie’s illustration is, in my opinion, deceptive and misleading.

I have taken Mobilitie’s illustration and through the magic of Photoshop scaled the poles to each other.  I started with the reasonable assumption that the light standard and equipment/antenna configuration topped out at about 34 feet above ground level. In Figure 2, below, that’s the pole on the left.  Then, knowing that Mobilitie has been promoting 75 foot tall wood utility poles in various communities around the country, I scaled the middle pole in Figure 2 to be approximately 75 feet above ground level.  Finally, I scaled the transmission pole on the right hand side of the illustration to be about 120 feet tall, which is the height that Mobilitie promotes around the country for theses tallest poles.  Here is Figure 2:

Mobilitie's graphic scales to show the relative heights of their various poles.Figure 2.  Illustration created by Mobilitie, which has been annotated and scaled by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer. This illustration is a derivative of an illustration presumably copyright by Mobilitie.  Created and used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.

As you can see from Figure 2, which is now scaled against the street light pole, the height impacts of the utility and transmission poles are substantially greater than one would expect simply relying on Mobilitie’s illustration.   Also, it is my opinion, based on Mobilitie plans I have seen and reports I have reviewed that the widths of all three poles is misrepresented in Mobilitie’s illustrations.  I have not tried to account for those width errors in this analysis, and leave that task for the reader.

Finally, in Figure 3 below, I have prepared an animated graphic that will help to better frame Mobilitie’s illustration against the reality of Mobilitie’s plans.  You may want to download this to better see it on your screen.

Animated graphic showing Mobilitie's unscaled illustration of its pole configurations and a vertically-scaled graphic.Figure 3. Illustration created by Mobilitie, which has been annotated, scaled, and animated by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer. This illustration is a derivative of an illustration presumably copyright by Mobilitie.  Created and used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.

What is the point of all of this? In my mind, the key point is that local governments and their constituents have a fair right to demand a reasonable level of accuracy when asked to consider projects that will impact their communities.  I believe that Mobilitie’s graphic in Figure 1, regardless whatever their intent in presenting it, ends up being quite deceptive by its lack of internal and external scales both for height and width.

If you would like to download Mobilitie’s entire PowerPoint presented last week, click here.

Finally, given the national importance of the ongoing public discussion regarding Mobilitie’s nationwide project for Sprint (and maybe others in the future), I encourage you to share this posting.

Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Mobilitie’s “Walrus” Design

Mobilitie is deploying a variation of what I call its Pox-on-a-Pole™ design in the Los Angeles market.  I call this new variation the Walrus™ design. Here’s a new Walrus recently installed in West Los Angeles on Wilshire Boulevard west of Barrington Avenue:

A Mobilitie "Walrus" design, a variation of the "Pox-on-a-Pole" design.
A Mobilitie “Walrus” design, a variation of the “Pox-on-a-Pole” design.
The Mobilitie "Walrus" in its glory.
The Mobilitie “Walrus” in its glory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The two downward-pointing white signal gain antennas (let’s call them tusks, shall we?) are associated with the backhaul portion of the site. Backhaul is the site-to-switch portion of the network.

Pretty, eh?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Mobilitie’s Increased Transparency is Somewhat Opaque

Back on May 27, 2016 Martha DeGrasse of RCR Wireless published a very interesting article titled, “Mobilitie to increase transparency for jurisdictions”.  It’s well worth going back to (re)read her article about how Mobilitie’s President, Christos Karmis said his firm would use its own corporate name with local jurisdictions.

Huh? Use its own name? Why is this a big deal?

Well, this arose out of Mobilitie’s process of using “<INSERT THE STATE NAME> Utility Pole Authority” names with local governments.  Using the word “Authority” as an entity identification in government filings suggests that the entity is, itself, some sort of governmental agency. That’s made clear in Martha’s article.

With Mr. Karmis’s assurance back in May, many of us on the government side thought the hide-the-ball issue was resolved.

Fast forward two months after Martha’s article to July 28, 2016. That’s the date on a letter from Keenan Adamchak, legal counsel for a nifty new entity called “Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC”, addressed to the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

What did the July letter request on behalf of  the Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC?  The first paragraph of the letter sets out that

On behalf of Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC (“Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME,”
or the “Company”), transmitted herewith is the Company’s Application for Authority to Provide
Intrastate Local Exchange Telecommunications Service in the State of Maine.

I suppose Mobilitie, which set up Pole & Fiber Network Authority ME, LLC back in February, is still enamored with being called an Authority.  Given that local governments commonly ask for proof of state authority to operate in those local jurisdictions when an entity seeks local permits and authorizations, names really do count.

It’s my opinion that the Maine application, filed over two months after Mr. Karmis’s comments about transparency, suggests a parallel with another matter of public concern and interest where the words counted:

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Wall Street Journal on the Mobilitie Build for Sprint

(June 8, 2016) Today the Wall Street Journal is running an article titled, “Sprint’s Wireless Fix: More Telephone Poles” by Ryan Knutson. The subhead is, “Plan to improved network delayed as communities struggle with the unusual antenna requests.”  The article describes Mobilitie’s troubled start building the next Sprint network, including putting in facilities without benefit of, ah, government permits.  My favorite is Baltimore story where Mobilitie dropped a site into the middle of a sidewalk handicap ramp.  The city wasn’t amused and filed Mobilitie $5,000 after they abated that particular public nuisance.

While some industry observers have dubbed Sprint’s plan to decommission many or most of its macrocell sites in favor of pole-top cell sites as “Project Network Suicide,” Sprint claims that it will cost them  60% to 70% less to deploy its new network. This rose-colored view is likely to evaporate rather quickly as these particularly ugly sites are erected and residents rebel over sites like the one pictured below.

_mobilitie_DSC00272
A Mobilitie site in Los Angeles built to serve Sprint.  Photo: Jonathan Kramer

Expect Lawsuits

I foresee Sprint (through it surrogate, Mobilitie) filing many law suits against local governments that object to the disamenity caused by pole top installations like that shown above, or worse, to new 70′ to 120′ wood poles placed next to and even inside residential neighborhoods as Mobilitie proposes in various communities.  Like the lawsuits filed by Crown Castle, I expect that the carrier-in-fact – here, Sprint – will not in the foreground so that they can be insulated from having to report those lawsuits to the financial community.

Read the WSJ article, which I had the privilege of contributing to, including providing the WSJ with the Mobilitie site photograph that accompanied the article.

Jonathan

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

National Conference Call on Mobilitie Scheduled 6/21

This is a hold-the-date announcement that there will be a national government-side conference call regarding Mobilitie scheduled for June 21st at 2-3 p.m. Eastern Time.  More details to follow in just a couple of days, but you’re going to want to have your planning and public works people on this call.

(I might happen to know one of the speakers…ahem…)

(There might be photos…ahem…)

(There might be a test afterwards….naw, just kidding…)

jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Anatomy of a Mobilitie Site for Sprint – Part 2

DSC00282.smallerHere’s another Mobilitie site in Los Angeles marked up by component. This photo also clearly shows the GPS antenna connected to the RRU. As with the prior posted photo, the design of this site leaves lots to be desired, especially given how long it is likely to remain in the right of way (unless, of course, Sprint goes BK and its frequency blocks are sold off).

Thanks to Stephen Wiklus CTO at Spectrum Financial Partners, for suggesting some useful improvements to the text.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Anatomy of a Mobilitie Site for Sprint

With the commencement of the California Utility Pole AuthorityMobilitieInterstate Transport and Broadband build in the City of Los Angeles, this seems like a good time to give you a tour of what [insert your favorite nom de plume here] is actually building on City of Los Angeles street lights.

In words, it goes like this:  From an existing or new Sprint site or Mobilitie somewhere a radio signal is transmitted outwards.  Nearby Mobilitie sites pick up the signal with a device called a UE relay (User Equipment Relay).  From there the signal is sent to a remote radio unit (“RRU”), which converts the incoming signal from the UE Relay to Sprint frequencies.  From the RRU, two coaxial cables connect the RRU to the antenna on Sprint’s frequency, and on to Sprint’s customers.  There is also an electrical power distribution box to power the UE Relay and RRU.  In the case of the City of Los Angeles, electrical power is tapped off of the street lighting power circuit.  Where that’s not an option, Mobilitie may have to install a power company electrical meter somewhere on the light standard, or nearby in a meter pedestal.

Here’s what a newly installed Mobilitie (sorry, Interstate Transport and Broadband) site looks like in Los Angeles, with call-outs to identify what I’ve described above.  If you’d like to see more photos of new Mobilitie sites in Los Angeles, visit CellTowerPhotos.com.

Now on to our show…

mobilitie_componentsPretty, eh?  Naw, I don’t think so, either.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Let the California Utility Pole Authority Games Begin

Let the games begin. The “California Utility Pole Authority” (the alter-ego DBA of Mobilitie”) is showing plans with their DBA in big loud letters. Here’s an example:

"California Utility Pole Authority" Project Cover Page
“California Utility Pole Authority” Project Cover Page

I obtained this public record document from a local government in California and redacted the site-specific identifiable information, including the site identification of the carrier Sprint which remains a secret.  The specific site design proposed in the project was, in my opinion, simply awful. Strapping external conduits on concrete poles? Drip loops? Really? I don’t know of any savvy California governments that would entertain such a design. 

Hopefully, Mobilitie the California Utility Pole Authority will learn quickly that a rather poor site design that may play in other parts of the country won’t play here in California.

By the way, at last count today, Mobilitie has registered DBAs as the following:

Alaska Utility Pole Authority
Arizona Utility Pole Authority
Arkansas Utility Pole Authority
Florida Utility Pole Authority
Georgia Utility Pole Authority
Illinois Utility Pole Authority
Indiana Utility Pole Authority
Minnesota Utility Pole Authority
Missouri Utility Pole Authority
North Dakota Utility Pole Authority
Ohio Utility Pole Authority
Oregon Utility Pole Authority
Pennsylvania Utility Pole Authority
Rhode Island Utility Pole Authority
Vermont Utility Pole Authority
West Virginia Utility Pole Authority
Wisconsin Utility Pole Authority
Wyoming Utility Pole Authority

Now that’s a LOT of Utility Pole Authority, if you ask me!

-Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail