Some thoughts on potential siting challenges at the State and Federal level. These are my personal thoughts as a City Planner with experience in multiple cities and do not represent a specific agency.

1. While some neighbors may not
“like” a single “macro” wireless
tower hidden in the roof of a church
in a residential neighborhood....
(see next page)
Antennas hidden inside church steeple (made of a type of fiberglass that
allows radio waves to go through but can be painted and textured to
mimic wood/steel/concrete).

2. ……Wireless carriers are currently pushing at the Federal level and
State level for laws that would allow them to be treated as any other
“utility” and put up new cell towers, rent-free, along City streets or
sidewalks.
On average you would need 4 to 12 of these “Small Cells” just to equal
the coverage & capacity of a single macro site (e.g. rooftop of a church)…..
A previously
proposed “Not-So-
Small-Small-Cell”
with multiple
cabinets along a
nicely landscaped
street in South
Orange County
A fairly well-
designed, low-
power and quiet
(no noisy cooling
fans) concept Small
Cell design
(assuming
State/Federal laws
don’t override the
ability of the
City/County to
request a better
design…)
A bulky not-So-
Small-Cell on a
wooden utility
pole in Oakland
Some systems
have noisy cooling
fans

3. So instead of wireless carrier paying 3k to 5K, a month, to put a single macro cell site
on a church, the carrier may pay nothing, or a few hundred a year for
Small Cells in front of your home/bedroom window
 1 of these……or 4 to 12 of these 

4. It appears one wireless carrier
(“Mobilitie” on behalf of Sprint) is
aggressively pushing a two-prong strategy
that may result in more
poles/equipment/antennas right in front of
your home or driveway
1. In some cities/counties Mobilitie has
been proposing 120 foot tall steel poles
along streets and sidewalks
(some in residential neighborhoods).
2. In addition, Mobilitie has been proposing
brand new 20-40 foot tall wooden poles for
Small Cells, even on streets where all the
utilities, like electric wires are underground;
and without proposing “attaching” antennas
and equipment to existing streetlights
nearby 

5. Why so tall?
It appears to save on “fiber backhaul” costs.
Here is how: Most wireless carriers (T-Mobile, AT&T Mobility, Verizon) and their network partners (folks who put antennas
on streetlight or existing utility poles like Extenet Systems or Crown Castle) will setup a network where your phone “talks”
to the cell antennas on either a building, a large tower, or a ”Small Cell” on a 20-40 foot tall light pole or utility pole.
The signal would go from your cell phone to the antennas on the “shorter” pole, and then travel from the computers
mounted on the 20-40 foot light/utility pole through fiber-optic cables (“fiber backhaul”) alongside existing power lines
(under City streets or on existing wooden poles in the neighborhood); and back to the data center and onto the rest of the
network.
Using these 120+ foot poles appear to allow Mobilitie/Sprint to save a lot of money by not running fiber backhaul cables
from Small Cells nearby back to the data center.
It appears Small Cell antennas on multiple
light poles (upper left) in a neighborhood
would “talk” to the Sprint network by sending
your phone signal from the coffee-can shaped
microwave device (above the banner) over to
the 120 foot tall pole. Then the signal would
travel a few miles to a network center.

6. Current Federal Lobbying
Mobilitie is currently asking in a recent proceeding for the FCC to override local control regarding access to the public
right-of-way. This could hypothetically mean:
 Forcing cities/counties to allow carriers to put up brand new wood/steel poles along City sidewalks without any
limits on the number of new poles in a residential or historic neighborhood.
Prohibiting cities from establishing noise or exhaust rules for the noise from cooling fans or backup diesel
generators
 Forcing cities/counties to rent out space on City-owned light poles at rates far below what many cities/counties
charge or feel is appropriate to recoup costs and best represent taxpayers (e.g. $35 a month instead of $150 to
$350 a month)
 Force cities/counties to allow designs with no regard of best available technologies or common sense rules (e.g.
turning off unnecessary equipment indicator lights on equipment cabinets installed on a pole that is a few feet from
a bedroom window).
 Forcing cities/counties to allow carriers to put bulky cabinets (computers or backup batteries or generators) on the
ground with little to no regard for how it may block busy sidewalks or views of historic / iconic buildings or small
business storefronts

7. Current Federal Lobbying
Mobilitie is currently asking in a recent proceeding for the FCC to override local control regarding access to the public
right-of-way. This could hypothetically mean:
Forcing cities/counties to undo nearly 20 years of smart wireless siting that sought to balance robust and competitive
networks while working collaboratively with carriers to pursue the least intrusive means of providing those services
 Least intrusive could mean hiding antennas in fake vent pipes on office buildings instead of building brand new
steel towers.
 In rural areas pushing wireless carriers to share space on a single tower, instead of each new carrier coming and
building a brand new tower down the road (“collocation”).
Or, disguising a tower as a water tank or windmill on private property instead.
 Least intrusive could also mean a balanced approach for an urban area with rooftop cell sites for core coverage and
WELL-DESIGNED (small equipment and antennas with no noisy cooling fans) Small Cells attached to existing (not
new) light poles for robust data coverage at sidewalk user level.

8. Current Federal Lobbying
Mobilitie request of the FCC to override local control regarding access to the public right-of-way could also mean:
 Forcing cities/counties to allow a wireless carrier to rip up a decorative or well-maintained concrete sidewalks (for
new trenching) and replace any broken sidewalks areas with (often bump) patches of asphalt.
 Allowing carriers to pursue poles of any height, even if it means the placement requires new aircraft warning lights.
With no recourse for a City/County to suggest something like moving the pole a few hundred yards away from an
aircraft landing zone to negate the need for the lights).
The Senate may consider a revised version of the MobileNow Act which would gut local review of wireless siting as
well.
For example, the first version (withdrawn last year) would have said a City/County can’t require any review for a diesel
backup generator as long as it is for a wireless site. So even if the generator was proposed on the roof next to a
bedroom window, the City/County could not apply any noise or exhaust rules or even request the generator be moved
to the other side of the roof.

9. California (State) Push
AT&T Mobility appears gearing up to continue pushing for a shutdown of the existing copper telephone (wired
landline) AT&T network.
They’ve begun proposing (in some rural areas) replacing the network with new cell towers accompanied by new
antennas on each home (to talk to the nearby cell tower in lieu of copper wires). The bill that died last year (AB
2395 – Evan Low) will likely be revived in 2017.
The California Public Utilities Commission recommended denial over concerns regarding reliability, consumer
protection, compatibility of hearing aids and home alarms and so on.
The bill was withdrawn in the face of opposition by many counties, especially rural ones, as well as many labor unions
(wireline crews are unionized – while the wireless industry has a comparatively anti-union makeup and a issue of poor
safety issues related to poles falling over causing fires in Malibu, and tower climber deaths).
Blog Link: http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/att-plan-to-scrap-copper-networks-will-widen-digital-divide-say-rural-
reps/

10. California (State) Push
Verizon appears gearing up to revise a bill that failed (withdrawn) last year (AB 2788 by Mike Gatto) to override local
control and allow “Small Cells” along public streets/sidewalks with little to no control over siting/design/noise by a
City/County.