|
| |
Home >
The Trouble With "Towers" >
"Towers" Aren't Necessary
How Will the Cell Sites be Deployed Over Time?
First will come the coverage sites: they are the subject of the applications currently
being submitted to cities and counties. It suits the industry to call these
"wireless towers" because they need to be high. The higher the "wireless tower," the
more coverage it gets.
Think about it every time you use the words "wireless tower." You are
predisposing yourself and those around you to the foregone conclusion that you must accept
"wireless towers" in order to deploy personal wireless facilities. Every time the
industry or the FCC speak on this subject, they say "think
wireless towers."
What would happen if you and those around you said, "We don't want any
wireless towers. Put
them on roofs. Put them within trees. Get them lower, even if it means there are more of
them."
 

|
That's exactly what happened in California in the late 1980s.
Now, with PCS, over 50% of all "wireless towers" are less than 50 feet AGL (above ground
level). Your community could do that too, if you accepted more cell sites in easily hidden
locations. But "wireless towers" will only be popular for a little while. In the next
phase will come the capacity sites: when the coverage sites become overloaded, the spaces
between them will be "infilled" with shorter sites. The service radii or
"cells" become smaller and this is what the industry calls "cell
splitting." Each "wireless
tower" could give birth to two or three small cell sites
for reduced coverage due to greater demand.
Finally, the "microcell" will enter the neighborhood environment. No one
wants to talk about them because the industry doesn't know how high they will be. But they
will be short, and they will be everywhere as the residential market becomes more
important. So, why not start building short now, like they do in California? |
|