Hey Joe, What happened when you went before the city council and lined out the fee's vs. your expected income?
Is there possibly a DSL or cable competitor already there that didn't want any competition etc.? laters, marlon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem > My first question is, where is this taking place? > > I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time we > had been classified as a "telecommunications facility", and been require > to > go through the extensive permitting process. > > The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had experienced > in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction made > between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems to be > coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower giants > act > as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive as > their piece of the pie. > > In this new world order everyone gets to "eat". And we are the ones they > expect to provide the meals. > > First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the municipality > could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the > permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers, or > any other costs they incur for "experts" to testify at our hearings. > > As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell > below > $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business days. > That > was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new facility, > or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do with > building or construction permits. > > After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at least > $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available > funds > to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to assure > our > continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their > discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they wish > and > there was no means to appeal the action. > > All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being placed > on > a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property that we > were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. > > Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain the > quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a structure, > A > visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking photos of > it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than 58 > photos be taken. > > In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own > engineering > report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good > enough. > It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to keep his > fees as close to $10,000 as possible. > > They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each > antenna > both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF emissions, > and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb to > place > the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion control > plan. > > Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up until > now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically included > that > spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like "cellular, > SMR, paging, broadcast", or some other specific descriptors. > > One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control over > who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically calls > for > us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality the > right to determine who collocates and what their "fair value" is for > collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from setting up > a > LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his > operation > at our site for $10 per month. > > You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom > facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed > store > that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a WISP, > or > a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or operator. > > In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It > included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That > means > if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain > permits > for each and every node you place. > > With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it over > the > years. I have challenged CC&R's from condos and townhomes as well as > township ordinances for anything from yagi antennas for 2-way clients to > reach a repeater, to 10 foot satellite dishes, to DBS and even satellite > Internet services. Each was successfully resolved because of the strength > of OTARD. > > However, OTARD does nothing for you and I as the operator of a commercial > antenna, no matter it's size or intent. OTARD applies only to the end > user. > > Now that this has reared its ugly head for the second time to me I see a > trend. We solved the issue by not building in that location. We moved > outside of town and received a county level permit with no questions > asked. > > For the record, this was not NY, Chicago or LA. It was a small town of > less > than 4000 on the Ohio River that covers less than 1.2 square miles of > land. > > I think we, as a group, need to be proactive in this area before we are > shut > out of locations. Even existing sites could become untouchable with > exorbitant fees and unduly restrictive requirements. It may be time to > approach the FCC, in conjunction with other industries such as 2-way radio > retailers, to assure that low impact telecommunications facilities are not > painted with the same brush as the monoliths built by the cellular > companies. > > > > Joe > > Joe Fiero > CEO > > NuTel Broadband Corporation > 769 Basque Way Suite 650 > Carson City, Nevada 89706 > > Direct-732-364-4161 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Isp Operator > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem > > Hi Gang, > > We recently received notice that one of our locations has received the > interest of our county planning department, who has determined that the > location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location > (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this > determination. > > The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out of > view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most > basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni > and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no > resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what > most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with slightly > larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT cite > any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be > 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the > determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless repeater > and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind > generator, weather station or other application. > > The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go thru > is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty > application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole nine > yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would then > also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including fire > access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we > would not be able to comply. > > Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal > guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only > imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other > uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 in > our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine > that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to get > cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to > these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common sense > here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly > refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. > > Thanks all. > > > (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us for > some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme views > which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not > share detailed system information with anybody....) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
