I got to agree with you Marty...
These cell towers are going to accomplish nothing but allow high powered
cell phones to come to town, and likely more of a threat than a help.
They are designed for cell phone equipment, the only ones able to afford the
rent, and likely using broadband as a means to justify what they really
want.
The Loudon hill sides are rolling, and I'd think the answer lies in using
the hills, not the towers.
But whether towers should be allowed or not, for what ever reason, thats a
whole nother topic.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection
Just to clarify this comment- "Instead, what may happen is that "cell
phones will become our competitors; they usually don't deploy on
anything less than
high tower."
I was not quoted exactly correct. My concern is that the cell phone
focused towers would compete with towers that would actually help
broadband providers like Roadstar....after all, how many towers will
they allow?
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection
County Looks To Wireless For Western Connection
By Therese Howe
(Created: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:08 AM EST)
| Text Size | print | e-mail | comment (0)
Focus on the county's broadband debate has shifted westward, where
residents will be asked to answer the question of whether they're
willing to trade their views for high-speed Internet service.
Almost a year after supervisors scrapped a proposal to build a $320
million fiber-optic network that would serve the entire county, the
county is now reframing the broadband access debate to focus on wireless
as the potential answer to increase the availability of high-speed
Internet service, particularly in the west.
Anyone with a stake in the issue-from residents who have been unable to
get broadband to companies offering to build towers from which wireless
service could be provided, to the county's current wireless providers-is
invited to provide input Jan. 23 when the board of supervisors' Economic
Development Committee is scheduled to take up the topic.
At that meeting, county Broadband Services Manager Scott Bashore will
provide a recap of the county's broadband efforts, leading up to why
"wireless makes the most sense for western Loudoun," said Supervisor
Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), who chairs the committee.
The county has set a goal of expanding broadband availability in the
county to 90 percent from its current 86 percent, according to Bashore,
who adds that the service is primarily offered in the east, where the
majority of the county's population resides.
Bashore also is working on updating the county's Strategic Land Use Plan
for Telecommunications Facilities, which was last changed in 2002.
"The original intent was for it to be good for about five years, so
we're on track with updating it," Bashore said, adding that in the past
four years, the market has changed with new towers being built and fewer
national telecommunications carriers offering service.
Part of the impetus behind the county's efforts has been the upswing in
the number of applications for towers and monopoles to provide cellular
and high-speed Internet services.
"I thought it was important to get ahead of the game before dealing with
these applications for individual monopoles. We need to take a look at
the big picture ... and know where it fits in the plan rather than
piecemeal," Waters said.
Among the proposals are two submitted by Community Wireless Structures,
a Falls Church company that builds 100- to 200-foot structures from
which carriers such as Verizon and Cingular can provide cellular and
wireless Internet service.
One proposal, for a 120-foot pole south of Leesburg in Virts Corner, was
forwarded on Tuesday to the board of supervisors' Feb. 6 meeting for
action. Supervisors hope to see the company accede to residents'
requests for a pole disguised as a tree rather than the company's
proposed graduated paint monopole.
The second proposal was filed Dec. 29 and is more expansive, calling for
six sites in northwestern Loudoun that have one or two poles of 100 or
150 feet high. The company has leased locations at White's Ferry,
Taylorstown, Round Hill, on Mountain Road on the east side of Short Hill
Mountain, at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 287, and on the east side of
Rt. 287 near Lovettsville.
"We know whenever solutions are proposed, they encounter local
opposition," said Bob Gordon, an attorney who is a partner in the
company, adding that the concern "all boils down to visual impact."
To provide information to the public and increase public awareness of
the project, the company has created a Web site,
www.getloudounonline.org, that solicits input from residents and offers
information on upcoming public hearings. The company expects the first
to occur in the spring before the county's planning commission, then in
the summer before the board of supervisors.
"We want to hear from people who are still on dial-up and tired of it or
are very frustrated because when they're driving, the cell phone blinks
out," Gordon said. "We feel there's a silent majority, but do they care
enough to get to the public hearings?"
As the county gears up to handle the monopole applications and prepares
to address the broader question of expanding broadband availability,
current wireless providers such as Marty Dougherty's Roadstar and Steve
Acups' Lucketts.net were surprised to hear concerns about service in the
west.
"I've been here three years, and whenever somebody identifies they want
broadband, we get it to them," Acups said, adding that his coverage area
includes Lovettsville and Lucketts, across into Maryland. "I'd be
surprised if there was a business case to be made because if there is,
we've already moved into it."
Both he and Dougherty were surprised to hear about the latest monopole
proposal, with Dougherty saying that although he could potentially use
one of the towers, he couldn't use all of them because they would
interfere with the service.
"I'm disappointed because it's not necessary and it really distracts
from what we'd like to do with broadband, which is low-impact towers,"
Dougherty said. Instead, what may happen is that "cell phones will
become our competitors; they usually don't deploy on anything less than
high tower."
In response, Gordon of CWS indicated that the towers would be available
for all companies to use, on a first come, first served basis, and that
increased competition in the market from other carriers would benefit
consumers.
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
