Cell tower placement restrictions lessened in WI budget

[jreuschl]

http://www.jsonline.com/business/towers17-b9955333z1-215771691.html

 

I'm trying not to turn this into a political discussion.  I'm wondering how this compares to restrictions in other states.

[aackmann]

I feel pretty mixed on the subject. I want to see more wireless coverage, and we all know that if each municipality creates their own set of rules, it can take forever to get things accomplished. But we don't want to give companies too much power to do as they please, and put cell towers right next to someone's house. 

 

I would support measures that "encourage" cell companies to share towers as much as possible. I think it's stupid to see like 4 or 5 cell towers within a half mile of each other, all from different cellular providers. It makes alot of sense to consolidate cell sites from different companies. As long as there is a mechanism in place that the "owner" of the tower couldn't gouge it's customers. I'm sure it's a very complicated issue with many different variables. I would just like to see more tower sharing going on I guess. Less wasted space. 

 

I think Sprint does a good job of slapping cell sites on the tops of buildings and water towers and existing structures in the Milwaukee area though. 

[jreuschl]

I agree.  There should be a balance.  The carriers probably shouldn't be allowed to put them up wherever they want.  Maybe a different set of rules for city vs. rural?

 

It shouldn't take 2 years for a tower to get through an approval process though.  Agree with your comments about sharing towers.

[Calvin200]

1.  "Not in my backyard" is still alive and well.  2. What? No public hearings?  . 3  May not impose ANY environmental testing or monitor radio frequencies.  I do not know much about radio frequencies,  but when I see such a blanket rule it naturally puts up red flags.

[aackmann]

1.  "Not in my backyard" is still alive and well.  2. What? No public hearings?  . 3  May not impose ANY environmental testing or monitor radio frequencies.  I do not know much about radio frequencies,  but when I see such a blanket rule it naturally puts up red flags.

 

 

Well as for the radio frequencies thing, the FCC is in charge of setting acceptable rules and making sure RF antennas are at a safe level and all that jazz. So for that part, it really doesn't make sense for each municipality to do their own testing...

 

But yes, the not in my back yard thing is a big deal, which is why tower sharing would cut down on the total amount of towers. I always envisioned, if I were the mayor of a city, it would make sense for the city to hire a specialist and do RF design for the entire city, map out what points of the city would be best for cell tower placement, and cover the entire city, then let tower rental companies bid on those spots, then let those tower companies lease the towers to all the carriers. I know that's too simple and there are inherent downsides, but I like that idea. Then you could have a city with great coverage, and minimal cell sites.

[mmark27]

I think that the regulatory process needs to move quicker for towers as people need cell coverage, however, I think this makes it a little too easy.  Recently, we fought and won to make sure that ATC power lines didn't run right next to our neighborhood (as they now run down the center of the Beltline) and believe me I didn't want those towers humming that close to my house.  So I am sympathetic to the need for hearings and appropriate procedures for structures.  It seems like there are always Target or Walmart Parking lots around that would be better suited for towers than people's backyards.  I don't mind the "visual pollution" as long as I can get data/signal everywhere I go.  It's part of life.    

 

As you said, you don't want it to get political, but the current Governor doesn't really care for his citizens if it slows down financial interests of businesses. This also takes a revenue stream away from local municipalities...but it does make everyone compete harder for those leases instead of the municipality monopolizing it. There are positives and negatives for sure.

[JeffDTD]

I hate to be so cold, but ive never been able to sympathize with the "I can see it clearly, its destroying us" crowd. I wouldnt want to live within a few yards of the structure or have it literally on my property line, but a unison of NIMBY's are drawn together by sensationalism, not literally because they can touch it from their property line.

 

Our "sensitivity" towards the topic is also baffling.

 

Sent from my Note II. Its so big.

 

 

[digiblur]

I would want that puppy right on my property.  Less grass to mow, the coolness of the equipment and the hum would wear off after a few months but that monthly lease payment would never get old!

[Mobilesolutions]

Girlfriend has a tower in her back yard. I wouldn't mind having one in mine one day, especially If I ever build a house out on our land.

[S4GRU]

I wouldnt want to live within a few yards of the structure or have it literally on my property line,

 

I would want that puppy right on my property.  Less grass to mow, the coolness of the equipment and the hum would wear off after a few months but that monthly lease payment would never get old!

 

Girlfriend has a tower in her back yard. I wouldn't mind having one in mine one day, especially If I ever build a house out on our land.

 

As most of you know, I have a Sprint/Verizon/Tmo/Cricket/Commnet site right next to my house.  The tower is 250' tall, and if it fell the right direction it would hit my house.  It has been all good living so close to the site.  No downside whatsoever.

 

If I ever move, I want to be within 500' - 750' of a site.

 

Robert

[tommym65]

As most of you know, I have a Sprint/Verizon/Tmo/Cricket/Commnet site right next to my house.  The tower is 250' tall, and if it fell the right direction it would hit my house.  It has been all good living so close to the site.  No downside whatsoever.

 

If I ever move, I want to be within 500' - 750' of a site.

 

Robert

Except that all those raging radio waves have driven you into an outrageous obsession with mobile telephony and data!

[Mobilesolutions]

As most of you know, I have a Sprint/Verizon/Tmo/Cricket/Commnet site right next to my house.  The tower is 250' tall, and if it fell the right direction it would hit my house.  It has been all good living so close to the site.  No downside whatsoever.

 

If I ever move, I want to be within 500' - 750' of a site.

 

Robert

I'm sure American tower will accommodate your request. When I lived in San Francisco I had the 977 foot "Twin peaks" tower just a cross the hill (2 football fields) away. We are as far from the tin hat wearing folks as it gets Robert, wireless is in maaaa blood.

 

Also I vote your next home be in Oklahoma...if you want some good chicken.

[S4GRU]

I'm sure American tower will accommodate your request. When I lived in San Francisco I had the 977 foot "Twin peaks" tower just a cross the hill (2 football fields) away. We are as far from the tin hat wearing folks as it gets Robert, wireless is in maaaa blood.

 

Also I vote your next home be in Oklahoma...if you want some good chicken.

 

I would live in Oklahoma...for the right pay rate.  Know any government agencies hiring construction managers?  

 

Robert

 

EDIT:  I did look at a job with the Oklahoma Historical Society managing their projects.  However, I missed the closing date of the job by one day!  DOH!

[Mobilesolutions]

I would live in Oklahoma...for the right pay rate.  Know any government agencies hiring construction managers?  

 

Robert

 

EDIT:  I did look at a job with the Oklahoma Historical Society managing their projects.  However, I missed the closing date of the job by one day!  DOH!

I know the Aries group in Tulsa is looking for a senior project manager in the $60-80k range. I'll keep an ear out, I'm well connected.