Telecoms Avoid Red Tape For New Cell Towers

March 1st, 2013

new cell towersCities have seen tremendous growth in cell antenna demand as smart phones have increased in popularity over the past few years.  Currently there are over 15,000 cell antenna sites are operating across Canada – many sites with multiple carriers on the property.  The telecoms are scrambling to find new sites to erect new cell towers and rooftop installations.

Cities are looking for additional revenue from cell antenna sites. Up to 25% of urban households now only have cell phones – not land lines. Over half of the population currently have smart phones such as iPhones.  Unfortunately, the cell providers often find that the process of placing cell antennas on city property or city structures such as light and power poles takes a prohibitively long time.  Dealing with condominiums can be just as time consuming.  Cell tower lease consultants know that it is easier to place cell sites on private lands where it is only necessary to get the approval of one landlord.

A major difficulty when attempting top put up a new cell tower on on city lands is local politics. The city may approve an installation but as soon as local (NIMBY) residents get involved with placards and news media – the city then often backs down.   The same problem happens when approaching a condominium or strata complex for new cell towers – a small group of residents will react to the proposed cell antenna installation an emotional rather than rational response.

If cell towers are less than 15 meters in height, no permitting or consultation is required. Even towers more than 15 meters are only required to have one public hearing – generally facilitated by the cell carrier – that has no binding authority to do anything. Industry Canada has the final say and rarely denies the placement of any telecom antennas.

The concerns that the condominium complex or public organizations have about entering into a 20 year contract with a telecom are often valid, but these concerns can often be effectively handled with a properly worded contract that protects the interests of all parties.  For example, the ‘template’ contracts we usually see presented to clients by Telus, Rogers and Bell contain no wording about providing the site owners with copies of the Safety Code 6 test for the site each time a new antenna is added or the power and/or direction of an antenna is altered.  This can create huge liability for the property owners if non-telecom workers (such as HVAC) are exposed to RF Radiation in levels that exceed the limits set out in Safety Code 6.

Unfortunately while Industry Canada is supposed to govern over the telecoms, our experience with representatives of Industry Canada has shown that they are reluctant to get involved. For example, we recently had a property owner with a 20+ meter tower repeatedly request a Safety Code 6 test from Rogers.  After months of requesting a report showing each antennas and certification that the entire antenna site tested as safe under Safety Code 6, the owners received a 1 page ‘compliance letter’ from a Rogers engineer that had seemingly had never visited the site.  When the local Industry Canada office was contacted, they did nothing.

Email from Medallion Land Services RE: Refusal of Safety Code 6 request

When Antenna Management works with cities, condominiums, or other organizations to advise on and negotiate the terms of  new cell towers, we supply the group we are working for with a contract that has been developed with large organizations in mind, and we customize the contract to fit the specific needs and concerns of the group.  We always try to be fair and consistent with both sides, and end up with a contract that is fair for both sides but not so onerous that the telecom seeks to erect their new cell antenna installation elsewhere.

 

Cell Tower Lease Experts Avoid Public Property

January 22nd, 2013

cell tower lease expertCell tower lease experts report that cities are losing out on revenues due to red tape and lack of understanding about cell antenna issues.

Cities like Saskatoon and Regina has seen tremendous growth in cell antenna demand.  Telecom experts report that to 10% of homes in Saskatchewan  now only use cell phones – not land lines. Currently 42 cell sites are operating in Saskatoon – all with multiple antennas according to cell antenna lease experts.

Many Saskatchewan cities like Regina and Saskatoon have cell services provided by SaskTel and Rogers. Cities are looking for additional revenue from cell antenna sites. Unfortunately, the cell providers find that the process of placing cell antennas on city property or city structures such as light and power poles takes a long time. Cell tower lease consultants know that it is easier to place cell sites on private lands (only the owner to deal with) and no city consultation is needed. Cell tower lease consultants advise Rogers and Sasktel to avoid public properties for antenna placement.

Another difficulty in dealing with cities is local politics. The city may approve an installation but as soon as local (NIMBY) residents get involved with placards and news media – the city usually backs down. Rogers and Sasktel know this and generally don’t bother with public sites.

Cell Tower Lease Experts find City Properties Frustrating

As the article states, if cell towers are less than 15 meters in height, no permitting or consultation is required. Even towers more than 15 meters are only required to have one public hearing – generally run by Rogers or Sasktel – that has no binding authority to do anything. Industry Canada has the final say and rarely denies the placement of any telecom antennas.

Cities do have several other areas of influence that are often ignored. To start, if the equipment is to be hooked up to the city power grid then permits and approvals are required. Towers attract lightning but may not be annually certified for grounding. Cities may forget to ask for Safety Code 6 reports every time antenna or power level changes are made. Cities don’t know if installations are kept Safety Code 6 compliant over time.  If towers are on city lands and cannot be proven safe, cities may be liable if named in class actions from local residents, regardless of actual harm done.

Below an article by CTV Saskatoon on a recent concern by the city for consultation about cell towers.  The city has developed a consultation process but may not have any teeth to enforce it because local cell antenna fall under the federal telecommunications act:

A cellphone tower can be an eyesore – that’s why a new policy has been approved to include more public consultation about where new towers are set to go up.

The new policy will allow public consultation for cellular towers that are less than 15 meters tall.

The policy change comes after residents complained to city council after a tower went up in Caswell Hill.

The City of Saskatoon will now consult the public on cell towers less than 15 meters tall.

“We didn’t realize what was going in there until it was already up,” said Bob Challis, Caswell Hill resident. “It’s pretty bad. We have a nice little neighborhood and it’s kind of an eyesore,” he added.

The neighborhood complained about the lack of consultation with the community regarding the tower.

The city’s previous policy was that no consultation was necessary for towers less than 15 meters, but now there will be a clear process for residents to voice their concerns.

The City of Saskatoon doesn’t have the authority to approve or reject cell phone tower construction – the federal minister of industry does – but the city does oversee public consultations and delivers a report to the minister.

Now those consultations will include shorter cell towers.

“If there is a tremendous amount of opposition we accompany that information with a letter from the city saying we do not concur with that location,” said Alan Wallace, the manager for the city’s planning and development branch.

According to Sasktel, between 5 and ten per cent of homes in Saskatoon don’t use landlines anymore and simply rely on wireless devices.

Wireless data usage is growing at a rate of 5 per cent a week, meaning new towers are necessary to providing service.

To view the original CTV article, click here.

Increasing Cell Phone Towers Need

January 16th, 2013

Canadians demand good cell antenna reception from companies such as Rogers, Telus and Bell but cell phone towers are often treated with a “Not In My Backyard” attitude.  

Why is there such a growth in the need for cell phone towers?  Consider this:

cell antenna bandwidth demand growth

Consider an old fashioned cell phone that is only being used for a phone call or sending a text messages as 1 unit of bandwidth.

You may be surprised that the smart phone that is so difficult to pry out of a teenager’s hands uses up 30 times as many units of bandwidth.

An iPad or other tablet computer being used to watch a video on YouTube uses up an astounding 1,300 times as much much bandwidth as the old cell phones that were considered ‘standard” a decade ago.

The cell companies face the challenge of getting their cell antennas close enough to their customers while maintaining good relations with the public.

With an increasingly large segment of the population having no land lines in their residences, it could be argued that having good cell antennas coverage in a residential community actually enhances public safety.

It is also important to remember to carefully review the sources of cell antenna safety information.

Below is a video by CBC discussing cell antennas in residential neighbourhoods:

Cell Tower Regulations Frustrate Homeowners

Towers under 15 metres tall avoid municipal scrutiny

by By Angela Gilbert, CBC News
to view original article on CBC website, please click here.

Homeowners across Canada are discovering  towers popping up in residential neighbourhoods that slip just under height regulations that would require the company to notify those living nearby.

Oakville, Ont., resident Lisa Guglietti was in the midst of building her dream home when the mother of three noticed eight cellular network antennas strapped to the chimney of a Bell Canada building, a short distance from her son’s bedroom.

“We were surprised that we weren’t notified,” she said. “We asked some of the neighbours. None of the neighbours had any clue that these cellular antenna had been put up.”

Under federal regulations, cell phone companies must notify the municipality for towers at least 15 metres high, but many new installations are coming up short of the limit, at just 14.9 metres. Homeowners say the rule undermines their ability to weigh in on installations in the community.

Though the antennas are an eyesore, Guglietti’s primary concern is possible health effects.

Experts disagree on the impact caused by cell towers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, which are emitted by wireless phones and cell towers, as a possible human carcinogen.

Health Canada states that radiofrequency fields given off by cell phone towers are safe as long as the facility adheres to federal regulatory requirements limiting human exposure.

In an email to CBC News, a Bell spokesperson wrote that all its sites, including the Oakville, Ont., one near Guglietti’s house, “meet or exceed all federal safety and other operating requirements.”

City Councillor struggles with Cell Antenna Issue
In June, construction began on a 14.9-metre cell phone tower in a Barrie, Ont. neighbourhood that triggered a backlash over potential health concerns for those living across the street and students walking to nearby schools.

“Telecommunications companies are able to come in and put these things basically wherever they want: as close to any residents, as close to any schools, and as close to any community centre they want,” Barrie, Ont. city councillor John Brassard told CBC News.

“Why not make it 14.99 metres?” he asked.

Since the incident, the Barrie city councillor has begun working to change federal regulations to give Canadians a voice over the placement of cell towers in their neighbourhoods.

“Authority and a large part of that decision making should be made by the municipality and in consultation with Industry Canada. Not just Industry Canada alone.”

Government, company response
CBC News requested government data on the number of towers under 15 metres erected across Canada, but Industry Canada said the department doesn’t keep a database of that information.

In the last year, Ottawa has collected about $582 million in revenue from telecommunications companies rolling out their networks of cell towers.

Industry Canada told CBC News that companies are required to consult with the municipality and public before installing antenna towers, unless the towers fall within a certain height.

“Certain installations, including towers less than 15 metres, generally have minimal local impact and so may be excluded from municipal consultation,” an Industry Canada spokesperson said in a written statement to CBC News.

After discovering the cell antennas on the large brick building next door to her new house, Guglietti contacted the federal agency.

An Industry Canada official responded in an email to Guglietti on June 8, 2012 that “given that the installation at the Bell central office building on Balsam Street complies with all procedural and technical requirements, Industry Canada is not in a position to order Bell to relocate the facility.”

Cell tower antennas were strapped to a chimney that was 13 metres away from the bedroom of Lisa Guglietti’s son.
Guglietti also contacted Bell Canada, which owns the building next door, and says she was initially told it would try to find an alternative location. However, the eight cell antennas remain attached to the chimney next door.

‘Don’t want to be a guinea pig’
The scientific uncertainty over the health impact of cell phone towers doesn’t sit well with Guglietti.

“I’m supposed to be OK with that?” asked Guglietti. “I’m supposed to have my son exposed to these frequencies day in and day out and I have to wait. Maybe in 10 years from now I’m going to find out, ‘Oh yeah there is, there can be health hazards in living so close to a cell tower.’ “

“I don’t want to be a guinea pig,” said Guglietti.

A Bell spokesperson said in an email to CBC News that cell phone towers are being installed to meet customer demand.

Guglietti said she’s certain other homeowners are dealing with similar concerns.

If you have any information on this story, or other cell phone tower stories, please contact us at investigations@cbc.ca.

“I need to protect myself and I need to protect my family. I’m a mother and I’m sure anyone would do the same thing in our situation.”

Church Cell Antenna Towers

January 15th, 2013

The above video by CBC shows some examples of church cell antenna towers.

Church Cell AntennaMany churches benefit from the income that cell antennas can provide. With the growth of popularity of tablet computers such as iPads and Smart phones, the cell companies are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with demand for bandwidth in residential neighborhoods. Church cell antenna towers can benefit the congregation and the neighbourhood.

With a properly structured contract, churches and cell antenna companies can establish long-term mutually beneficial relationships that can strengthen the community.

Click here to see the original article source.

Churches across Canada are erecting massive cellphone towers on their properties as cash-strapped congregations help feed the country’s insatiable desire for cellular coverage, CBC’s John Lancaster reports.

Dartmouth, N.S., Port Sandfield, Ont., Mississauga, Ont., and Calgary are among the communities that have seen the huge towers erected on church property — sometimes disguised as crosses.

At Deer Park United Church in Calgary, Rev. Tom Melvin says the tower there brings in thousands of dollars.

The “lease is $20,000 a year, five-year contract that’s renewable, with a 20 per cent escalator every time it’s renewed,” he says.

Church cell towers have sparked debate in some communities over perceived health concerns or the devaluing of nearby properties.

In Mississauga, Ont., a gleaming white tower disguised as a cross soars 30 metres into the air, dwarfing the tiny church below.

Mississauga Coun. Pat Mullin says she’s seen enough.

“My problem is how many more are going to be parachuted in? This is a residential community, you can see what an eyesore that is. These are huge.”

Bernard Lord, president and CEO of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, says it’s a case of supply and demand.

“Canadians consume more data, voice and text than virtually any other place in the world,” says Lord, a former premier of New Brunswick. “We want that to continue. We want Canada to be at the leading edge of the mobile digital economy, not laggers.”

Chinese Telecom Giant Enters Canada

September 19th, 2012

This was posted by Rita Trichur of The Globe & Mail:

One of China’s largest telecom companies is setting up shop in Canada to capitalize on the flourishing trade relationship between the two countries.

China Unicom announced Tuesday that it has opened an office in Toronto as it embarks on the latest leg of its North American expansion. The Beijing-based company, which operates a global network that covers more than 240 countries, said Canada is a key growth market along with the United States and the Asia-Pacific region.

The company, which booked annual revenues of $33-billion (U.S.) last year, said its goal is to function as a communications “gateway” to Asia. It will provide network backbone support to help Canadian telcos connect to China, while also providing telecom services to Canadian companies expanding to China and to Chinese businesses establishing operations in Canada. Those enterprise clients include financial institutions, executives said.

“Our sole mission and unwavering force of our Toronto operations will be to support the global network infrastructure requirements of our Canadian clients,” said Yitao Wu, president of China Unicom (Americas) Operations Ltd., during a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a Toronto hotel.

China Unicom is pursuing its Canadian expansion at a time of thriving Sino-Canadian relations. China is already Canada’s second-largest merchandise trading partner. In 2011, Canadian exports to China totalled nearly $17-billion, while imports from China totalled $48.1-billion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper led a trade mission to China this year to forge even deeper economic ties.

That budding bilateral relationship, plus Canada’s relatively resilient economy, provided strong incentives for China Unicom to add Toronto to its global footprint, said Mr. Wu. “There are many, many Chinese companies that are coming here, so they need telecom services because they want to expand their business,” he said in an interview.

The company’s Canadian telecom partners include BCE Inc., Telus Corp., Rogers Communications Inc. and Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., added Mr. Wu. Internationally, China Unicom has partnership agreements with over 100 carriers.

In addition to vast global submarine cable systems, China Unicom also operates a terrestrial network that connects Europe to Asia. Within China, the company’s network covers more than 600 cities and includes 320 million subscribers for its wireline and mobile services.

Nonetheless, its North American ambitions are limited to providing wireline services. Although Mr. Wu made it a point to boast that China Unicom has the largest iPhone user base outside the United States, he said the company has no plans to enter the wireless market in either the U.S. or Canada.

“The market is too competitive,” he said, noting that wireless incumbents already have a lock on the mobile market in both countries. Building a new wireless network in Canada would require “a lot of investment,” he added.

TeraGo examines options as foreign restrictions lifted

September 9th, 2012

Rita Trichur, a telecom reporter for The Globe & Mail reported the following on TeraGo Inc:

TeraGo Inc. is embarking on a strategic review to examine a range of options, including an outright sale, now that Ottawa has lifted foreign investment restrictions for small telecom companies.

The Thornhill, Ontario based company, which provides wireless broadband, data and voice services to small and medium-sized businesses in 46 Canadian markets, said Wednesday its board of directors has formed a special committee to shepherd the review process.

It has also hired U.S. investment bank Houlihan Lokey and Canadian-based Canaccord Genuity as financial advisers – moves that whet the appetite of investors for more mergers-and-aquisition activity in the telecom sector.

United States based Primus Telecommunications Group Inc. announced a deal in August to take full control of Canadian-based Globility Communications Corp. Meanwhile, Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. has hired investment bankers in Canada and the United States to drum up interest in its MTS Allstream division, according to sources.

There is also speculation that Globalive Wireless Management Corp., which operates under the Wind Mobile name, could also be in play now that its financial backer, Amsterdam-based VimpelCom Ltd., faces no foreign-investment obstacle to launch a formal takeover. (There are also suggestions that Globalive could pursue a potential merger with Mobilicity or a regional cable company like Quebecor’s Vidéotron Ltée.)

TeraGo’s announcement, however, has been widely anticipated for months. As a result, the company’s shares increased by 9.5 per cent, or 95 cents, to close at $10.95 on the Toronto Stock Exchange – gains that give the company a market cap of roughly $123.9-million.

“There can be no assurance that the strategic review process will result in any change in the operation or ownership of the Company and TeraGo does not intend to make any further announcements with respect to its strategic review until such time as it deems appropriate,” the company said.

In June, chief executive officer Bryan Boyd told The Globe and Mail that TeraGo would be open to considering a variety of strategic options, including a possible sale or joint venture, once new foreign investment rules took effect. The legislation, which allows for 100-per-cent foreign ownership of telcos with a market share of 10 per cent or less, received royal assent earlier this summer.

“As soon as these laws are changed, one of the very first things we will do is to increase our awareness in these other markets outside of Canada so that we can attract new investors and just raise the profile of the company. Steps beyond that – joint ventures, interest from foreign players in buying the company – we can’t control these things, but these are all possibilities, for sure,” Mr. Boyd said in an interview at the time.

Analysts have already suggested that U.S. companies like Towerstream Corp. and Airband Communications Inc. could be potential buyers, given that both have similar business models to TeraGo.

But Greg MacDonald, an analyst with Macquarie Capital Markets Canada Ltd., said TeraGo could also generate interest here at home. “Within Canada we suggest cablecos could be interested in owning or partnering with a company like TeraGo,” he wrote in a note to clients.

Mr. MacDonald has long suggested that Rogers and Cogeco could be logical acquirers given that both have been eager to gain a bigger share of the small and medium-sized business market – a customer segment that is providing a new growth opportunity for cable companies.

In his note on Wednesday, Mr. MacDonald said that “precedent deals” such as Cogeco’s acquisition of MTO Telecom or QuietTouch or Rogers’s purchase of Atria could value TeraGo at $16 to $19 a share based on 2013 estimates.

Cellular Antenna Liability & Tower Accidents

June 7th, 2012

Below is a good article that appeared on PBD Frontline talking about cellular antenna liability.

In Race For Better Cell Service, Men Who Climb Cellular Towers Pay With Their Lives

By Ryan Knutson and Liz Day, PBS Frontline and ProPublica

Between 2003 and 2011, 50 climbers died working on cellular antennas in U.S.

In the spring of 2008, AT&T was racing to roll out a new cell phone network to deliver music, video and online games at faster speeds.

The network, known as 3G, was crucial to the company’s fortunes. AT&T’s cell service had been criticized by customers for its propensity to drop calls, a problem compounded when the company became the sole carrier for the iPhone.

Jay Guilford was a tiny but vital cog in the carrier’s plans.

On a clear evening in May, Guilford was dangling, 150 feet in the air, from a cell tower in southwest Indiana. He had been sent aloft to take pictures of AT&T antennas soon to be replaced by 3G equipment.

Work complete, Guilford sped his descent by rappelling on a rope. Safety standards required him to step down the metal pole, peg by peg, using a special line that would catch automatically if he fell. But tower climbing is a field in which such rules are routinely ignored.

“Bouncy, bouncy,” Guilford, 25, called jovially to men on the ground.

Then, in an instant, the hook attaching the rope to the tower 2013 broken and missing its safety latch 2013 came loose. Guilford plummeted to the gravel below, landing feet first. The impact shattered his legs and burst his aorta. He bled to death in minutes.

Cell phones are our era’s ubiquitous technology device. There are more active cell phones in the U.S. than people.

An investigation by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” shows that the convenience of mobile phones has come at a hefty price: Between 2003 and 2011, 50 climbers died working on cell sites, more than half of the nearly 100 who were killed on communications towers.

Yet cell phone carriers’ connection to tower climbing deaths has remained invisible. They outsource this dangerous work to subcontractors, a practice increasingly common in risky businesses from coal mining to trucking to nuclear waste removal. If you look up the major cell carriers in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s database of workplace accident investigations, you will not find a single tower climber fatality listed.

Guilford didn’t work for AT&T 2013 he worked for a subcontracting outfit affiliated with a bigger subcontractor hired by a construction management firm working for AT&T.

For each tower-related fatality since 2003, ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” traced the contracting chain from bottom to top, reviewing thousands of pages of government records and interviewing climbers, industry executives and labor experts.

We found that in accident after accident, deadly missteps often resulted because climbers were shoddily equipped or received little training before being sent up hundreds of feet. To satisfy demands from carriers or large contractors, tower hands sometimes worked overnight or in dangerous conditions.

One carrier, AT&T, had more fatalities on its jobs than its three closest competitors combined, our reporting revealed. Fifteen climbers died on jobs for AT&T since 2003. Over the same period, five climbers died on T-Mobile jobs, two died on Verizon jobs and one died on a job for Sprint.

The death toll peaked between 2006 and 2008, as AT&T merged its network with Cingular’s and scrambled to handle traffic generated by the iPhone. Eleven climbers died on AT&T jobs in those three years, including Guilford.

“I don’t think there’s any question that the pressure to build out the network has been a contributing factor to fatalities,” said Steve Watts, who worked as a risk manager at AT&T until 2007.

Current AT&T officials would not comment on the Guilford case and declined requests to be interviewed for this story, as did officials at the other major cell carriers.

In a written statement, AT&T said it required its contractors to follow safety regulations and that cell tower fatalities had decreased in recent years even as carriers have continued to make expensive improvements to their wireless networks. There were no fatalities on AT&T jobs last year, the statement noted.

“Worker safety has always been a hallmark of AT&T,” the statement said.

The carrier and its construction management firm, General Dynamics, had no employees on site when Guilford died 2013 only subcontractors. Neither was sanctioned in OSHA’s investigation after the accident.

OSHA cited just one company for safety violations in the case: Nashville-based Phoenix of Tennessee, the parent company of All Around Towers, the subcontractor that had managed the climbing crew. Inspectors concluded that Phoenix of Tennessee had not removed broken equipment from the site or addressed unsafe work conditions in plain view. The company paid a fine of $2,500.

All Around Towers went out of business soon after the accident. Two of its owners, who started a new tower company called ETA Systems, declined to answer questions from ProPublica and PBS “Frontline.”

Kyle Waites, the owner of Phoenix of Tennessee and part-owner of All Around Towers, said he sent climbers for retraining and purchased new safety equipment after Guilford’s fall.

“Do I feel responsible to a degree? I think everybody does that was involved with it,” Waites said. “What caused Jay’s death was a chain of events that all could have, and should have, been prevented.”

But Waites said that those off site, like himself, could only do so much to ensure climbers’ safety 2013 it had been up to All Around Towers, and Guilford himself, to follow the rules.

“Once you leave men alone, the men have to police themselves,” he said.

Guilford left behind a fiancée, Bridget Pierce, and two young children, Emily, now 7, and Aidan, now 5.

Under policies provided by Phoenix of Tennessee, Pierce received $200,000 in life insurance, but was denied worker’s compensation because an autopsy showed Guilford had recently smoked marijuana. Lawyers advised Pierce not to sue because of the drugs.

In her house on the outskirts of Murfreesboro, Tenn., Pierce keeps a framed picture of Guilford posing atop a cell tower. He’s smiling, his fists pumping in the air. After years of moving furniture and delivering pizza, he had loved his $10-an-hour climbing job, she said.

Still, Pierce cannot escape the sense that Guilford had been a disposable part to the companies that rely on men like him to go up cell towers.

“It’s like he didn’t exist,” she said. “They just pass the ball off to the next person. Everybody in this process should be held accountable.”

* * *

Until the 1990s, most tower work involved radio and television towers, which can be more than 1,000 feet high. Some phone companies employed staff climbers to work on microwave towers used for long-distance calling.

With the proliferation of cell phones, the pace and volume of tower work spiked.

Carriers blanketed the country with cell sites to extend service to the most remote areas. There are now more than 280,000 sites nationwide, up from 5,000 in 1990. Many advances in service require switching out antennas and doing other upgrades.

The surge of cell work forever altered tower climbing, an obscure field of no more than 10,000 workers. It attracted newcomers, including outfits known within the business as “two guys and a rope.” It also exacerbated the industry’s transient, high-flying culture.

Climbers live out of motel rooms, installing antennas in Oklahoma one day, building a tower in Tennessee the next. The work attracts risk-takers and rebels. Of the 33 tower fatalities for which autopsy records were available, 10 showed climbers had drugs or alcohol in their systems.

“It’s the wild, wild west of the technology industry,” said Victor Guerrero, a construction project manager and former climber. “You’ve got to have a problem to hang 150 feet in the air on an 8-inch strap. You’ve got to be insane.”

Since 2003, an analysis of OSHA records show, tower climbing has had a death rate roughly 10 times that of construction. In 2008, the agency’s top administrator, Edwin Foulke, called tower climbing “the most dangerous job in America” at an industry conference.

“That’s an alarming incidence of fatalities,” said John Henshaw, who preceded Foulke as OSHA’s administrator from 2001 to 2004. “It shouldn’t be tolerated.”

The same handful of factors crop up again and again in agency investigations of worker deaths, our reporting found. In two dozen cases, for example, inspectors found that workers on sites where fatalities occurred had received inadequate training, records show.

Climbers typically earn $10 or $11 an hour, yet some subcontracting companies demand they pay for their own safety gear, deducting money from their paychecks.

Faulty or misused equipment was identified in almost one-third of the tower-related deaths since 2003, OSHA records show. In April 2008, after 46-year-old William Bernard died in a 75-foot fall, an inspector found that his safety harness, rusty with wear, had a defective hook.

Carriers sometimes power down cell sites when climbers are on them, so subcontractors often work overnight, when fewer customers will notice disruptions. Jeremy Combs, 33, fell to his death just before midnight in September 2008, on a job where the crew wore headlamps and raced to meet an accelerated timetable, OSHA inspectors found.

Time pressure often leads tower hands to use a technique called free-climbing, in which workers don’t connect their safety harnesses to the tower. This allows them to move up, down and around more quickly, but leaves them without fall protection. In more than half of the tower fatalities we examined, workers were free-climbing, even though government safety regulations strictly prohibit it.

Wally Reardon, a veteran climber who quit in 2002, takes photos and video whenever he spots workers free-climbing to raise awareness about the practice. It often occurs within clear view of on-site supervisors and has their tacit approval, he said.

“Even the safest people I’ve worked with in the industry eventually will cave to it,” he said of the pressure to use such shortcuts.

After 32-year-old William Knorr died in a 2004 fall, OSHA found that his supervisors had “completely disregarded” safety regulations to save “Time, Work, Money,” an investigation report said. “Was there a motive? Faster and easier.”

No one knows better than Ray Hull how time pressure can lead to injuries.

In November 2003, Hull, then 35, was hired by a subcontractor to help build a 350-foot cell tower for Nextel in a cornfield near Fremont, Neb. The job needed to be done by midnight on Thanksgiving, just seven days away.

The project ran into a series of problems. The crane operator, deciding it was too windy to work, took his crane and left. Hull found replacement equipment, but it was in Texas, more than 15 hours away. Setting out to retrieve it, Hull and another tower hand, Frankie Ketchens, drove nonstop, taking turns behind the wheel.

When they arrived back at the site two days later, there was a Nextel truck near the tower’s base. Hull assumed the carrier wanted to make sure the job was on time. He was mistaken 2013 the driver was just a technician 2013 but instead of returning to their motel to sleep, Hull and Ketchens immediately went to work.

When Hull had climbed 240 feet to add a section to the tower, Ketchens pulled the wrong lever on equipment hoisting a huge piece of steel. The equipment broke away from the tower and fell to the ground 2013 with Hull attached. His safety harness broke his fall momentarily, then snapped.

Hull has no memory of falling or hitting the ground. When he came to, he saw Ketchens above him. “I said, 2018Frankie, I can’t live through this 2026 You need to tell my family I love them,” Hull recalled.

According to court records, Hull suffered massive internal injuries. He sued three companies involved with the project, and received a settlement from the subcontractor that hired his firm.

His case against Nextel was dismissed, however. In court documents, the carrier argued that its final project deadline was actually a month later and hadn’t compelled the climbers to take undue risks.

The carrier also said it wasn’t responsible for Hull, who, as a subcontractor, was “three entities removed from any relationship with a NEXTEL entity.” (Nextel merged with Sprint in 2005. Sprint declined to comment on the case.)

Hull’s injuries left him unable to climb towers. He started climbing at 14, following his father and grandfather into the business. Nearly nine years after the accident, he still misses it horribly. “There’s probably not a human being alive that loved their job as much as I did,” he said. “Everything that I could do was taken from me.”

Watching an OSHA video of the accident scene for the first time late last year, his eyes welled with tears.

“It was a bad day. Or a good day depending on which way you look at it,’ he said. “I walked away from it.”

* * *

Cell carriers give several reasons for why they outsource tower work: Building and maintaining towers, though crucial to cell service, isn’t part of their core business. Contractors have greater expertise with construction. It’s more economical to hire workers where and when needed, given the up-and-down volume of work.

“It makes good business sense for them to contract it out,” Watts said.

But handling tower work this way also insulates companies atop the contracting chain from legal and regulatory consequences when there are accidents, industry insiders say.

OSHA has the authority to cite carriers if it can prove they had direct control over work or knew of safety violations. Yet, even though some carriers set prices and timetables for tower jobs 2013 and many of their technical specifications, down to how to color code coaxial cables 2013 their supervisors typically stay off-site and do not manage jobs directly.

The oversight system provides an incentive for them not to know too much about what’s happening on work sites, labor experts say.

“Information that there are unsafe practices makes you responsible for fixing those practices,” said Thomas Kochan, a professor of management at MIT.

AT&T contracts spell out precisely what level of responsibility it wishes to have over each aspect of tower projects. In a table called the Division of Responsibilities Matrix, the carrier lists more than 100 tasks and, for each one, indicates if AT&T wants responsibility for it, to be consulted on it, or to be informed about it.

In three-year contracts issued in 2008 that were examined by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline,” the matrices were blank for safety-related items, such as ensuring that OSHA standards were met. Contractors told us they understood this to mean the carrier wanted no involvement with them at all. AT&T declined to answer questions about the matrix.

In addition to outsourcing tower work, some cell phone companies funnel jobs through middlemen known as turf vendors. AT&T does this on almost all tower jobs; in 2010, Sprint moved toward a similar system.

Turf vendors 2013 typically large construction management firms such as General Dynamics, Bechtel and Nsoro 2013 oversee batches of tower projects, subcontracting out the climbing work to smaller companies.

Ed Reynolds, AT&T’s president of network services until 2007, said middlemen lessened the administrative burden on carriers, giving them one big contractor to deal with instead of dozens of little ones.

“You got one throat to choke,” he said.

But subcontractors often contract out jobs to other subcontractors. As jobs are passed down from one company to the next, there’s less ability to control who’s actually doing the work, said Mark Hein, who has worked for several turf vendors as a construction manager.

When he was sent to check on cell sites last year, Hein discovered many subcontractors that hadn’t been approved by the turf vendor.

“I’d show up on site and expect to find Company A and instead find Company Z,” he said.

Many of the crews he came across weren’t taking the most rudimentary safety precautions.

“They didn’t have their hardhats, they didn’t have safety glasses, they didn’t have safety gear,” he said. Many of the climbers lacked training certificates.

Hein did not have time to visit every site he was assigned to supervise 2013 there were just too many, he said, a common lament among other construction managers for turf vendors.

Turf vendors also take a cut of what carriers pay for tower work 2013 sometimes 40 percent or more 2013 so subcontractors say they make less on these jobs.

In AT&T contracts examined by ProPublica and PBS “Frontline,” the carrier requires turf vendors to reduce their prices 5 percent each year over the three-year term of the contract. These reductions are typically passed through to subcontractors, industry insiders said.

“Guess who takes the hit? The next level [down],” said a construction manager for a turf vendor. “I’m not going to reduce the amount of money I take.”

Chris Deckrow, who owns a small climbing company in Michigan, showed ProPublica and PBS “Frontline” the price sheet for AT&T jobs. For the task of installing a remote radio head, the price sheet said, the carrier would pay the turf vendor $187 and the turf vendor would pay the subcontractor $93.

Deckrow said his company 2013 which often works as a subcontractor of a subcontractor 2013 has been paid as little as $40 for installing remote radio heads. Overall, he said, he makes less than half the money working for a turf vendor that he would make working directly for a carrier.

Hein said the difference in pay dictates which companies take jobs involving turf vendors.

“Rather than paying this amount to this guy, who’s really qualified and 2026 has a great reputation, they hire this person over here because he’s available right now and he’ll do it for what we want him to do it for,” he said.

Verizon, which hires subcontractors directly, tends to work with the same select group of climbing companies over and over, paying them more, subcontractors say. David Coleman, an industry analyst at RBC Capital Markets, described becoming a Verizon subcontractor as the “golden ticket.”

Several subcontractors complained that they had to cut corners to turn a profit on turfing jobs, using three-man crews instead of four, putting in 18-hour days, hiring less experienced men and working through inclement weather.

Reynolds, who now works as an industry consultant, dismissed such gripes. “There’s enough subcontractors out there willing to work,” he said. Those that don’t like the prices, he said, will “do something else.”

Buckling on a harness before mounting a 300-foot tower last March to check out a broken light, Deckrow described how tight margins erode safety.

He said he’s struggled to pay insurance premiums, cut back on training programs and delayed buying new safety gear for his men.

“This is stuff they have to wear every day in order to live through the day,” he said. “We would love to replace it every year, every two years 2026 It’s not in the budget.”

Deckrow said earlier this month that he had decided to close his company rather than making further cuts.

“I want to be able to not worry about my guys not coming home,” he said. Throughout the industry, companies are choosing between safety and staying in business, he added. “If we’re not properly maintained or trained, then people will die. It’s only a matter of time.”

* * *

The worst years for cell site fatalities in the last decade were 2006 and 2008.

There is no way to correlate these figures with workloads or to compare one carrier’s tower work to another’s because such information is proprietary. As of mid-2011, the four major carriers had varying numbers of cell sites: Verizon had 44,250, T-Mobile had 50,143, AT&T had 56,070 and Sprint had 67,500, according to data from US Wireless 411, a report by UBS.

Most inside the industry agree, however, that AT&T faced unique challenges and pressure to build out its network.

After Cingular merged with AT&T in 2004, the combined company (which later took the AT&T name) had to join its network systems, adjusting virtually every single cell site. Reynolds compared it to replacing the engines of a 747 in mid-flight.

In 2006, when the bulk of this work was done, 10 climbers died on cell site projects, including four on jobs for AT&T within two months.

William “Bubba” Cotton, 43, was the first, crushed to death on March 10 when a rope snapped, dropping a 50-pound antenna on him. According to OSHA documents and court records, the accident occurred as two crews – one aloft and one on the ground – rushed to complete work on a tower in Talladega, Ala., before an upcoming NASCAR race. AT&T would not extend the deadline for the job despite a request from a crew leader, two workers testified in sworn depositions. (The company declined to comment on the case.)

The pressure ratcheted up again when AT&T became the exclusive carrier for the iPhone.

After the phone debuted in summer 2007, triggering a tsunami of data usage, customers began complaining about dropped calls and spotty service. According to a report in Wired, AT&T went to Apple, asking for help in limiting traffic to buy time for tower upgrades. Instead, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs explored switching to Verizon, the report said.

To prepare for the iPhone 3G’s introduction in summer 2008, AT&T poured billions of dollars into wireless capital expenditures. The push meant work on an unprecedented scale for tower climbers.

“It was nuts,” said Dan MacRae, a project manager who has worked on cell site projects for several turf vendors. “We were working in the field for 40 hours straight. They had crews in rain, sleet, snow.”

The building boom was accompanied by a string of accidents.

After two climbers died on AT&T jobs within a five-day period in April 2008, the carrier sent a letter to turf vendors calling for a construction stand down to discuss safety procedures and hold half-day courses to retrain workers.

But Guilford died just three and a half weeks after the work stoppage. Two more climbers died on AT&T jobs within the next four months.

AT&T would not answer questions about the stand down. In its statement, the carrier said that fatalities have decreased in the years since the stand down, aided by a safety initiative by OSHA and the tower industry.

Craig Lekutis 2013 the founder of WirelessEstimator.com, a trade publication for the tower climbing industry 2013 said the stand down turned out to be “more lip service” and not a long-term commitment.

Lekutis has tracked tower fatalities since 2004 and memorializes each lost climber on his website.

“Sadly, the major players know it’s happening and know that they are contributors to it,” he said, “but they don’t do anything.”

* * *

Tower-climbing fatalities have dropped considerably since the end of 2008.

Nine climbers died on cell site projects between 2009 and 2011, less than half as many as in the three previous years. There has been only one fatality on an AT&T job since 2009. Ethan “Little Britches” Hutchinson, 18, died in May 2010 after falling from a tower in Arkansas when his safety gear malfunctioned.

Some in the industry point to improved safety practices to explain the smaller death toll. Others say the recession cut into the volume of tower work and that, after finishing 3G upgrades, much of what carriers needed could be done on the ground.

With the next big push 2013 building out 4G LTE networks 2013 just getting underway in major markets, some veteran climbers worry that the fatality numbers will rise again.

“If not this year, another bad year is going to come,” said Reardon, the tower industry veteran. “It’s all about trying to do things faster and cheaper.”

The subcontracting system remains much as it was during the worst years, climbers say.

There are also many young men like Jay Guilford, with few prospects and no experience, willing to climb towers if it means a steady paycheck.

Years later, the horror of Guilford’s death remains fresh to Pierce, who was engaged to him at the time. She remembers receiving the phone call from his father as she arrived home from shopping for an upcoming trip to Disney World.

“I freaked out and screamed and just screamed and screamed,” she said.

Yet, about a year and a half later, when her current boyfriend was out of work, Pierce approached Phoenix of Tennessee to ask if he could apply to be a tower climber.

In retrospect, she regretted doing so, she said, but it was the only company she knew that had work. Ultimately, he found a job at Jack in the Box.

Guilford’s stepbrother, Anthony Acker, also sometimes works as a tower climber. The family tried to talk him out of returning to it about a year ago.

“He said, Don’t worry about me, old man, I’m being careful,” said Gary Hart, Acker’s father and Guilford’s stepfather. “I just hope it all works out for him because I don’t want to go through all this again.”

Read more: http://www.propublica.org/article/cell-tower-fatalities/single#ixzz1x8zW7gdc

DAS Used to improve cellular reception at Boston stadium

May 25th, 2012

Below is an article about AT&T using DAS to improve cellular reception at Boston`s TD Garden.  Roy Bennett from Antenna Management recently visited BC Place in Vancouver to view their cellular antenna installations. Stadiums pose a fairly unique challenge in terms of cellular network design – huge amounts of concrete, huge numbers of people attempting to use cell phone as they walk around corners and through concrete barriers, and the challenges posed when something such as an intermission or exciting goal triggers a massive number of people attempting to use their phones at once.

It took 66 antennas divided into 11 groups to ensure Celtics and Bruins fans could get LTE coverage inside the arena

The carrier hosted a handful of media representatives and AT&T executives on Monday for a tour of the system.

The DAS improves mobile network coverage throughout the 700,000-square-foot TD Garden thanks to 66 strategically placed antennas that form 11 separate “zones.” These zones help AT&T evenly distribute its cellular signal, which is piped into the arena via fiber optic cables and then beamed to the individual antennas from the data-center-like DAS on the tenth floor of the TD Garden. (Check out the video below for a look at DAS at TD Garden.)
AT&T’s New LTE-Capable DAS at Boston’s TD Garden

“At AT&T, we’re huge sports fans in Boston,” Steve Krom, VP and general manager, AT&T New England, told reporters. “We’re excited that our customers [at TD Garden] are going to be able to make calls, send text messages, surf the Web and even post a picture to their favorite social media websites, and they’ll be able to do that on both of AT&T’s 4G networks.”

Krom said the carrier has been working on the DAS at TD Garden for almost three years. TD Garden’s total capacity is just under 20,000, and AT&T says the new DAS should help provide significantly faster data (EDGE, HSPA+ and LTE) transfers and improve voice and text reliability for a full house of Celtics or Bruins fans.

“We’re working to enhance the building,” said Amy Latimer, SVP of sales and marketing, TD Garden. “We’re almost 17 years old this year, and as you can imagine cell phone coverage and the demand from our clients, and even internally, has increased. There have been times in the past when we haven’t been able to connect with people. We want customers coming in here to not only experience great events and great sporting events, but also be able to share with their friends and families.”

Krom wouldn’t talk specifics when it comes to cost, but AT&T says it spent more than US$475 million in Massachusetts on both its wired and wireless networks between 2009 and 2011. AT&T also says it made nearly 745 wireless-network upgrades in the greater Boston area in 2011, including the addition of seven new cell sites and/or towers.

The TD Garden is not the only Boston sports venue that’s home to an AT&T DAS; both Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox, and Gillette Stadium, home field of the New England Patriots, also have AT&T DAS centers.

However, the TD Garden system is unique because it’s completely indoors, and the facility, which is composed of many thick concert walls, presents a number of unique wireless challenges, according to Krom.

To view the original article, visit: http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/how-cell-coverage-was-boosted-at-bostons-td-garden/145469#ixzz1vv4L33dA
or visit http://www.itworldcanada.com for more Canadian IT News

Wind Mobile win comes amid continued dominance of Rogers, Bell and Telus

April 27th, 2012

 

A ruling that confirms Wind Mobile’s compliance with Canadian ownership rules clears the way for the company to focus on growth, but is not expected to trigger a rush of buyouts or foreign investment in the wireless industry.

On Thursday the Supreme Court denied rival Public Mobile leave to appeal a Federal Court of Appeal decision that had upheld Globalive Wireless Management Corp.’s right to offer a national cellular service under the Wind brand.

The court, which did not release reasons for the decision, denied a complaint by Public Mobile that alleged Wind violated rules governing foreign ownership of telecom service companies because it is effectively foreign owned.

The SCC ruling is largely moot, however, given the Conservative government’s move in March to ease foreign investment limits on small telecom firms to foster competition and consumer choice in the cellphone service sector.

And while the SCC decision clears the way for firms to prepare for a federal auction of wireless spectrum expected early next year, Bob Boron, Public Mobile’s general counsel, said “we may not see the floodgates opening.”

He said the limits on foreign investments that remain and the chance that the more established wireless providers will grab most of the new spectrum may continue to discourage new investment.

Boron said some consolidation remains possible in the industry, which could occur before the spectrum auction, but said it would likely happen among the newer entrants.

Still, he said opening Canada’s wireless market and the settlement of the Wind Mobile legal issues create a level playing field for the upstart competitors.

“Although it is unfortunate that the SCC has chosen not to resolve the confusion over cabinet’s authority in varying the decisions of administrative bodies, Public Mobile has been successful on the issue that really matters,” he said.

“The core issue in this case has always been the uneven playing field created by the cabinet’s Globalive decision — a decision which gave special treatment to a single foreign investor.”

Anthony Lacavera, Wind’s chief executive, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. “We are interested in fighting in the marketplace, not in fighting in courtrooms.

“I feel really good now about approaching our investors and new potential investors that can back us now with confidence that all of our regulatory and legal issues are fully and finally behind us.”

In a report this month, Moody’s Investors Service said the new wireless players created after the auction of spectrum in 2008 continue to struggle to grab market share from the three major providers, Bell, Rogers and Telus, which it said account for more than 90 per cent of the market.

Bill Wolfe, a wireless industry analyst for the ratings agency, said the three upstarts have been constrained by a lack of capital and could eventually be acquired by a company such as Shaw Communications Inc., Quebecor Inc., Bragg Communications Inc., or regional telecom companies SaskTel or Manitoba Telecom Services.

He called it unlikely new wireless companies would merge because the move would not add wireless infrastructure or increase their access to capital.

Wolfe also downplayed the likelihood of Rogers, Bell or Telus buying one of the new entrants, saying such a development would run counter to Ottawa’s aim of promoting competition to benefit consumers.

He said consolidation likely won’t begin until after August 2013 when major wireless carriers will be allowed to buy smaller rivals under government rules.

UBS analyst Phillip Huang in a note to investors said changes to foreign ownership limits that allow more offshore investment buy the newer entrants time, arguing the consolidation in the cellphone industry is “not necessarily imminent.”

Article written by Alastair Sharp.

Maple Ridge Telus Tower

April 18th, 2012

The property owner who lives where Alcatel-Lucent Canada wants to put a 60-metre tower on 110th Avenue in east Maple Ridge understands that her neighbours are worried.

“I don’t blame them for having concern,” says Janine Brooker.

But base your concern on the facts, she adds.

The Lower Mainland is covered with cellphone towers, including residential areas.

“If you’re really concerned about your safety, throw away your computer, your cellphone, your microwave,” she said.

“If you don’t want to be near a cellphone tower, don’t go into Maple Ridge. I would strongly suggest that you move away if you’re that concerned.”

Nearby residents in the Whonnock Against Cellphone Tower group, based in the 276th Street area ,are worried about dropping real estate values near cell towers, health risks and possible environmental damage from a tower built next to a stream.

They’ve circulated a petition, collecting 100 names opposing the project, and spoke to Maple Ridge council on Monday.

Brooker, though, counters by noting that her realtor says there’s a minimal effect on home prices, while good cellphone reception could be an asset, and if you’re lucky enough to own the land on which a cell tower is created, your property could be particularly prized.

Brooker, a business agent with the Hospital Employees Union, said she wasn’t interested when Telus first approached and asked to lease a piece of her land for the tower.

“I walked away from them many times because I wasn’t satisfied with what they were offering. I told them many times to go away, but they kept coming after me.”

Alcatel-Lucent is constructing the tower for Telus.

She then hired a consultant, Antenna Management Corp., to help her with the negotiations.

Eventually she hammered out an agreement that offers better money, more information and a safety inspection after the first month of operation to ensure the tower is meeting Industry Canada safety standards.

It’s part of her retirement plan, she adds, noting she has two children living on the property, while grand kids also visit.

Brooker added that her consultant will get information on cell towers, which will be passed on to concerned residents, though she doesn’t want to attend the meetings.

Antenna Management Corp. president Roy Bennett said, generally, communications companies present homeowners with a template agreement, on which he tries to improve to the benefit of the homeowner.

The average annual lease for cell towers ranges between $1,000 and $3,000 a year for each antenna that’s attached to the tower. Ideally, the homeowner will be able to have control of any future antennas that go on to the tower and, thus, get the lease money. But often cellphone companies want to control that.

Sometimes, depending on a tower location, property owners can earn up to $75,000 a year.

Bennett wouldn’t say how much Brooker is getting.

“She has a fair rate.”

Bennett said Vancouver now has more than 500 cellphone towers. Previously, they were located in non-residential areas, but now consumer demand is forcing those towers into residential areas.

An iPod now uses 1,300 times more band with than a voice-only cellphone, he pointed out. Concerns about health effects are diminishing. It’s similar to when television came in – people were worried about X-rays from the tube.

He added that more radio frequency waves are given off from fluorescent lights than cellphone towers.

Heather McNeill of Whonnock ACT told council that a World Health Organization study points to high radio frequency waves as possibly carcinogenic. She pointed out that while towers are supposed to meet Industry Canada’s Safety Code 6, that’s currently under review.

She told council that the petition asked that cellphone towers not be located in residential areas or near schools and said that a study done in Colwood, near Victoria, showed that property values near cell towers dropped seven per cent.

The group also wants Maple Ridge to create a policy on cellphone tower placement and not to endorse Alcatel’s proposal.

However, according to the American Cancer Society, there’s “little evidence” to support that cell towers are a health risk.

MP Randy Kamp told council that it should develop a policy on cellphone towers rather than use the default policy of Industry Canada, which requires notification of all residents living within a radius that’s three times the height of the tower, as well as newspaper advertising.

Cell towers are under federal jurisdiction and municipalities cannot decide their locations.

However, a staff report says there’s “some flexibility” in siting the towers and that applicants have to consult with Maple Ridge. That consultation is still ongoing.

If the district had its own policy, the issue would be clearer for residents, Kamp added.

But Coun. Judy Dueck said that could be creating a false sense of hope when the district has no say in whether a cell tower is built within its borders.

However, the district could express where it would like towers to go and the proponent could consider that, Kamp said.

While the tower wouldn’t have to meet local bylaws, it would have to comply with the Fisheries Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The district then can say whether it concurs with the project or not.

More Cellular Antennas Needed as Cell Data Use Grows

March 28th, 2012

Canadian cell companies need more cellular antennas to keep up demand, but are bottlenecked by the limitations of the cellular frequencies they use. A new scrambler is on to control spectrum in the 700 MHz band (old TV channels 51 to 62). This fall the CRTC spectrum auction is expected to be pretty hot. In some respects, critical to each cell provider’s survival. Rogers, Telus and Bell are expected to obtain the lion’s share of the new frequencies. Lobbying is at full speed.

Rogers, Telus and Bell are busy converting existing antennas and adding new and antennas to carry the new LTE system. With a small number of usable frequencies for providing cell service, each cell carrier has to squeeze all of its capacity down the narrow tube of each frequency. With the advent of cell television viewing, capacities are being used up very quickly. Cell carriers are scrambling to increase information transfer through compression and other technologies.

One technology called multiple input multiple output or MIMO allows carriers to squeeze more data without additional bandwidth or jacking up the power. Another technology that is being tried in Québec City and Calgary is Distributed Antenna Systems. Distributed Antenna Systems are multiple smaller antennas that are put on existing lamp posts, traffic lights, hydro polls and other common structures along roads. The technology uses one connection to multiple antennas allowing many carriers to plug-in at once site and share the distributed antenna system.

Distributed Antenna Systems are especially attractive to residential areas where there is considerably more resistance to 15 m plus cellular antenna towers in neighborhoods. As cellular data use increases, pushed by the distribution of television signals, grabs more and more capacity, cell antennas will need to be placed closer and closer together. From 5 km in rural areas, to 1 km in urban areas, to every block downtown, to every floor in the building (New York) – that is the future.

Antenna Management Corp. expects considerably more use of distributed antenna systems across Canada in the near future. We expect that the number of cell antennas will double over the next 36 months. This creates opportunities for property owners that wish to generate additional revenue from cell antennas. Without the addition of new antennas at some point, wireless networks will have to choke data speeds of wireless subscribers. Compression technologies only work so far, many more antennas will be needed.

Rhombic Consulting Group

March 27th, 2012

Rhombic Consulting GroupIn regards to Rhombic Consulting Group started by Sidney Kemp in Vancouver, B.C. in 2011:

Please be advised that Rhombic Consulting group has no current affiliation to Antenna Management Corp (AMC).  Rhombic has never had an affiliation to AMC.

For greater clarity, AMC terminated it’s relationship with Sidney Kemp.

Any associations made by Sid Kemp, Rhombic Consulting Group or its associates using AMC as a reference should be treated with caution.

See also “Sidney Kemp Termination”: http://www.antennamgt.com/sidney-kemp

See also “Law Society of British Columbia – Unauthorized Practice of Law”: http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2566&t=Unauthorized-practice-of-law

Wind Mobile Claims Plan to Boycott Auction

March 16th, 2012

Wind Mobile, a Canadian wireless telecommunications provider operated by Globalive Communications Corporation, will likely boycott an upcoming auction of wireless spectrum because they claim the rules do not give smaller players enough bandwidth to build the most advanced cellular networks.

UPDATE: As of 18 January 2013, Wind Mobile has over 600,000 active subscribers, making it tied with SaskTel Mobility for the fourth largest Canadian mobile operator.

Canada’s Conservative government said on Wednesday it would loosen curbs on foreign investment in the telecommunications sector and also presented rules for a government auction of prized 700 MHz wireless spectrum.

The rules cap how much spectrum Canada’s three biggest wireless carriers — BCE Inc’s Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Inc and Telus Corp — will be able to buy.

“As I understand that cap system, we will not bid,” Wind Mobile chief executive officer Anthony Lacavera told Reuters. He said that proposed 10 MHz blocks of spectrum would not be enough for his company to build a long-term evolution (LTE) network to compete with dominant industry players.

Each of the three main players are using existing spectrum to build out LTE networks, which promise faster mobile Internet speeds.
“I don’t know how we’re going to be able to successfully raise the financing. We’re going to make our best efforts, but I don’t know how we’re going to raise the financing when there’s technically no way for us to roll out LTE,” he said.

Wind Mobile forced the issue of foreign ownership onto centre stage with its backing from Egypt’s Orascom Telecom, which has since sold assets including Wind to Russia’s VimpelCom.

The auction of the low-frequency 700 MHz airwaves — which travels longer distances and penetrate walls more easily than other spectrum — will take place in early 2013, five years after an auction of the same frequency spectrum took place in the United States.

“This is a classically Canadian solution, which on the surface looks like they gave all market players an opportunity, but at the end of the day what they’ve actually done is hurt the Canadian wireless industry and therefore hurt Canadian consumers,” Lacavera said. Wind Mobile launched after a 2008 spectrum auction in which the government blocked established players from bidding on some airwaves so as to encourage more competition.

Another company that bought set-aside spectrum in that auction, Mobilicity, welcomed the rules for the 2013 auction.
“We’ll be there, we’ll be bidding 100 per cent and we’ll be bidding aggressively,” said Stewart Lyons, Mobilicity’s chief operating officer.
“It’s good news for the Canadian wireless consumer, that’s for sure. It’s a real strong indication of their (the government’s) commitment to maintaining a competitive environment, which means lower prices, greater availability of technology, proliferation of devices.”
He said it was possible to build an LTE service on just 10 MHz, although he acknowledged it would not be optimal.

Changes Needed to Cellular Antenna Rules, Say Rural Councillors

March 12th, 2012

Stittsville’s Shad Qadri would rather see the policy scrapped

OTTAWA – A proposed policy outlining the city’s involvement in situating cell-phone towers and antennas didn’t pass muster at the city’s agriculture and rural affairs committee recently.

The city doesn’t have any authority over where the towers will be placed – that’s the responsibility of Industry Canada, a federal agency. But the city can put together a protocol for how it will advise Industry Canada on proposed towers and that policy is something two city committees considered last week.

The planning committee found little fault with the strategy, which provides a mechanism for residents and the city to provide comments to Industry Canada. But later in the week, on March 1, rural councillors brought up issues that would affect their wards.

The agriculture and rural affairs committee directed the city’s top planner to go back and make some changes to the protocol that would make it easier for amateur radio enthusiasts to continue to put up small antennas to be used for HAM radios.

The draft city policy would have exempted antennas of less than 15 metres in height, as long as they are installed at the back of homes.

But that leaves little room for the antennas many radio operators install in their homes, often in rural areas, said members of the Ottawa Amateur Radio Club.

Glenn MacDonnell, president of the club, pointed out that the city’s proposed policy would cover any antennas on the front or sides of buildings, including satellite dishes.

City planner John Smit agreed to go back and see if any changes could be made to relax the consultation process when it comes to small installations.

But at least one rural councillor thought the entire discussion was unnecessary.

Stittsville Coun. Shad Qadri was the lone councillor to vote against the proposed protocol during the March 1 meeting.

“Are we creating a policy that’s enforceable or are we just creating a formality?” Qadri said.

“I am a proponent of public consultation. The more, the better,” Qadri said. “But when the public consultation in this particular case really is a formality, then why have it?”

Instead, Qadri said the city should tell residents to direct their comments to the area of government that will actually make the decision: Industry Canada.

Including a token method of consultation at the city level won’t change the outcome because the city doesn’t have any decision-making power in the matter, Qadri said, but it will require the city to pay for public meetings and to send notifications to neighbours.

It also gives residents the impression that their comments to the city will have an impact, Qadri said, but Industry Canada isn’t required to take comments from the city into consideration.

To view original article by Laura Mueller click here.

The Growth of Smartphones.

October 31st, 2011

According to analysts at IDC and ComScore the smartphone industry is expected to grow fifty percent by the end of 2011. This itself is a drop from the seventy four percent growth of last year, but will still see with vendors shipping four hundred and seventy-two million smartphones in contrast to the three hundred and two million shipped in 2010. At this rate of growth, Smartphones are expected to control more than fifty percent of the mobile market by 2015.

Of these, according to some estimates, forty percent are to run Google’s Android OS, continuing their rise in the market, with Apple’s iOS at a twenty seven percent market share, RIM’s Blackberry at a twenty two percent and Microsoft’s Windows Mobile bringing up the tail with six percent, give or take. In terms of Mobile equipment, Samsung is projected to hold the largest market share with twenty five percent, LG with twenty, Motorola with fifteen and Apple and RIM both hovering above eight.

Two things are driving this growth, cheaper hardware and improving networks. In 2010 the cheapest non-contract smartphones sold for around 200 dollars. Today many of the lower cost smartphone models are being sold for 175 dollars or less, with development further lowering the prices. This will lower the need for contract subsidies and improve competition between network providers. Worldwide, Smartphones and tablets are set to surpass traditional computers as browsers as they move into emerging markets, where the relatively cheaper hardware would be easier to acquire than PCs or laptops.

This could potentially become a problem for carriers, as the flood of traffic increases the need for Cell Antenna. Along with the number of smartphones increasing, Data usage is increasing as well. From the first quarter of 2010 to 2011, the average smartphone data usage went up from 230 MB to 435 MB monthly, while data usage for the top 10 percent of smartphone users went up 109 percent while the top 1 percent has grown their usage by 155 percent from 1.8GB in 2010 to over 4.6GB in 2011.

‘Unauthorized’ cell antennas placed atop Ambleside high-rise: West Vancouver planning dept.

October 20th, 2011

West Vancouver district was unaware of cellular antennas being added to building as no work permit was obtained from city hall.

An eagle-eyed Ambleside senior is being credited with alerting the District of West Vancouver to the “unauthorized” construction of cell phone antennas on top of a high-rise on Bellevue Avenue.

Brian Merth lives in an apartment building adjacent to the West Van Library on Marine Drive that overlooks the surrounding Ambleside area. Over the years, he has noticed construction workers adding components to an existing bundle of cell antennas on the penthouse elevator shaft at Hollyburn Plaza at 1775 Bellevue Ave.

“It’s looking rather busy at the moment,” said Merth, in an interview last Friday (Oct. 7).

When contacted by The Outlook, Bob Sokol, West Van director of planning, said the district was unaware that a set of cellular antennas was being added to Hollyburn Plaza as no work permit was obtained from city hall.

“We can’t be everywhere all the time,” said Sokol. “Thank you to whoever brought this to our attention.”

A stop work order has now been issued to the wireless company.

Hollyburn communications director Peter Louwe confirmed Hollyburn Plaza has Rogers Communications cell antennas on it.

“With high-rises, it is quite common for [wireless communications companies] to approach us,” said Louwe.

Early last week, Merth noticed a construction crane blocking traffic on Bellevue Avenue for a good part of the day and says he believes that it was being used to add component parts to the cellular antenna structure.

“So somebody must have been aware of it,” said Merth.

Sokol believes the crane was most likely unrelated to the Hollyburn Plaza construction. He said at a minimum there would need to be a building permit in place for this type of cellular antenna installation.

“Our current policy is [the company] would need to come to us and depending on the type of antenna there would need to be a public consultation process,” said Sokol.

When asked how the original antennas were placed on the high-rise, Sokol said they had probably gone in years ago. He also suggested that a number of cellular antennas may have been placed on taller buildings in West Van under the district’s radar.

Rogers Communications spokesperson Marina Guy said the company’s cell antennas have been located on Hollyburn Plaza since 1996 after a consultation process with the DWV and Industry Canada.

“We are upgrading the existing facility equipment at Hollyburn Plaza so we can continue to meet the evolving needs of our customers by providing a more reliable mobile service,” said Guy. “For this upgrade we acquired the necessary electrical permit from the District of West Vancouver.”

She adds that Rogers is reaching out to the DWV to determine why the stop work order was issued.

Guy also notes that it is a “co-build” site meaning that other wireless carriers use the same antennas.

“Once we have more information, we will decide on next steps,” said Guy.

Proposed Rogers cell phone towers have sparked outcry from two North Shore communities in the past year.

In February a group of City of North Vancouver residents in Tempe Heights were concerned when Rogers announced they were looking at placing a 41-metre monopole in their neighbourhood. A 313-signature petition was submitted to the wireless company.

Rogers responded by saying they have heard the concerns and will work with CNV to discuss alternative locations.

And in West Van, in June, Rogers held an open house to highlight five possible locations for a new cell phone tower. Originally, Rogers wanted to build a 29.5-metre tower on provincial land on a grassy median at the westbound Taylor Way off-ramp from Highway 1.

“We don’t have any updates and we are still deciding our next step,” Guy said, when asked where Rogers is at with the two cell tower proposals.

Back in West Van, Merth is disheartened by the cell antennas that are in plain view from Marine Drive.

“I told the city you are changing the aesthetics of Ambleside,” he said.

reporter@northshoreoutlook.com
twitter.com/nsoutlook.com

Shaw to Service Wi-fi

September 7th, 2011

Shaw has cancelled plans to build a cell network in favour for Wi-fi.

The company came to the decision as the Canadian wireless market, formerly dominated by companies like Rogers and Telus, has opened to a number of new upstarts like Wind Mobile and Mobilicity, lowering potential profit margins as companies lower prices to compete.

With Data use increasing with the popularity of smartphones, tablets and other such devices, Shaw’s plan is to use its already extensive network of cables to extend wi-fi coverage to heavily trafficked areas, and offering a data plan to customers.

Shaw’s decision saw mixed reactions.

Iain Grant a telecommunications consultants for Seaboard Group, sees potential in for Shaw’s Wi-Fi plan. The speed of the connection would be faster than that offered by cell companies, allowing customers to move to a smaller cellular plans with Shaw providing data coverage.

Others, like Dvai Ghose, an analyst for Canaccord Genuity, don’t believe the change could benefit the company.

The change keeps the company from spending $1 billion on the development of a network but Ghose doesn’t see money spent on Wi-Fi  generating revenue,  pointing to companies such as Cablevision who are using this strategy.

But Bissonnette maintains that the direction allows Shaw to better utilize the systems Shaw has in place, while providing shareholders a solid revenue.

The costs of further upgrading and expanding a cell network would have further increased the initial one billion dollar build and would deplete profit margins.

Wi-Fi network can be based from buildings or lamp posts while a cell networks use towers, which require approvals.

Shaw spent around $200 million to acquire cell spectrum at auction in 2008, and had invested $180 million before cancelling their cell network program earlier this year, but CEO Brad Shaw told analysts that about $50 million of the investment will be recovered.

They will hold onto the spectrum they own, which he believes will increase in value.

Brad Shaw also didn’t rule out trying to compete in the 2012 spectrum auction.

PEI Residents Oppose Proposed Cell Tower

August 9th, 2011

Neal Emery’s family wanted to make some money leasing their land to EastLink for its new cellular antenna tower. Local residents complained the site was too close to homes, and Emery’s worried he’s going to lose out.

“We should have the right to do what we want to on our land without people saying that we can’t,” Emery told CBC News.

A public meeting regarding the cell antenna tower location in March heard complaints the cell tower would ruin the landscape along the Confederation Trail and affect property values.

“We heard what the community had to say,” said company spokeswoman Jill Laing.

“The new proposed site is one of the suggestions.”

Two kilometers away from the old site, the new site is next to an old quarry and an existing 20-metre internet tower. The cell antenna tower will be 76 metres high.

The company is now looking at two cell antenna sites in the Belfast area. It proposed a second cell tower site and sent out a letter informing people of the new proposal after facing opposition from locals. Part of which suggested the support of the Belfast council.

“Eastlink has shared the proposed location of the new site with the municipality who have indicated their support based on Eastlink’s cooperative consideration of alternatives.”, it read.

Norman Gillis, The chair of Belfast community council, told CBC News the council has not discussed the issue.

Jill Laing says the company is going to send out a written clarification to residents, along with information about what happens next.

Three homeowners close to the new proposed cell antenna site are worried about the health implications of the cell tower. Residents have proposed a location, but Laing said the company won’t build on that location because it is on an environmentally sensitive wetland.

Stadium Cell Network Overloaded During Concert

August 8th, 2011

On June 1, 2011 an estimated 65,000 U2 fans at Commonwealth Stadium overloaded cell antennas with calls, texts and tweets, underlining a potentially serious problem with network capacity.

“Very soon, it’s going to be a problem not only for a concert night,” said Dhiaa Hussen, a telecommunications engineering technology instructor at NAIT.

“This was a very good example for [telecommunications companies] to understand the limitation of their capacity. It was an opportunity for them to see what will happen if we have this kind of explosion in the use of cellphones. The demand is going to be much, much larger.”

Demand for service is growing exponentially across Canada, as data heavy Smartphone continue to take up more and more of the market.

“The number of text messages sent last year doubled,” said Telus spokesman Shawn Hall “With the introduction of the iPhone 4, Android devices, new consumer-oriented BlackBerrys and tablets, wireless data use just exploded.”

Telus is investing to keep up with demand. The company will install 80 wireless site across Alberta this year and spend $650 million in the province, Hall said.

“As a result of our ongoing investment in wireless, events like this are rare where we see network congestion,” he said.

“There was two events going on at the same time — the Vancouver Canucks game with the big goal that happened just before the concert began, as well as the huge number of people gathered at the concert, taking photos and videos and e-mailing them, sending text messages and using social media all at the same time. On a smartphone, that’s all data use, so it really pushed the network because you had so many people jumping on at the same time and using up a lot of bandwidth.”

Telus will look at what happened during the concert and factor it into ongoing planning, Hall said. “This was a pretty spectacularly unique event. That said, there are lots of events happening in Commonwealth. We just recently increased our capacity and have plans to increase it further within the next few months.”

Telus has built-in antennas in buildings for such events and two weeks before the concert Telus added to the antenna system inside Commonwealth Stadium. More work is scheduled.

“We made sure that we had additional capacity, and in time for the U2 concert — that was actually part of our planning. Even with that capacity that we added just in the past couple of weeks, it wasn’t enough and we are adding more,” Hall said

The Telus network prioritizes 911 calls, he added.

St. John Ambulance had no problems related to cell service, said Sandi Misselbrook, manager of community services for St. John Ambulance. “We have hand-held radios we use to communicate.”

Numerous cellphone customers, served by different phone companies, wrote messages and posted comments on Twitter about poor cell coverage during the concert.

Fiona Pynn said she and her husband, Darin, had service on their Telus phones when they first got into the stadiun, but when they moved two sections over and both their phones stopped working.

“Then we heard some people a couple rows behind us saying their phones weren’t working either, but yet the person sitting next to us who was also on Telus, her phone was working fine,” Pynn said.

“After we were coming out of Commonwealth, I fell off a curb and really scraped up my knee so we were contemplating calling a taxi but, obviously, we wouldn’t have been able to.”

“I wasn’t impressed,” she said.

Rick Lee, 30, said he was pleased at the lack of service while he was on the floor during the show as it eliminated distractions, Lee said.

“I just thought it was awesome,” Lee said. “We could all focus on the show. I didn’t mind it at all.”

 

Rogers and Telus Cell Antenna Network Expansion

August 8th, 2011

Have you received a letter from Rogers or Telus to add more antennas to your existing cellular installation?  What is the best way to negotiate with Rogers or Telus to assist in the expansion of the cellular networks while maintaining a safe, visually appealing, and profitable rooftop or cell tower?

Rogers and Telus have announced a massive expansion into LT networks that will accommodate the higher data rates demanded by cell users of video and data.  The existing systems are quickly reaching capacity with existing G3 and LT networks – a single iPad uses up as much capacity as 1,300 cell phone conversations.  Both Rogers and Telus have are positioning to grab the lion’s share of this new market.  The immediate consequence is the need to install of many more microwave antennas to beef up the backbone for these high data needs and many more cell antennas.

Telus recently stated that in the last 10 years they installed 1,000 antennas in BC, and that over the next 18 months, they were aiming to install 1,000 more.  Roger is not far behind.  The consequence to property owners with cell antenna installations are additional antennas to be installed on rooftops and on cell towers.

If you have received a letter from Rogers or Telus informing you that they are going to install more antennas, give us a call.  Most cell agreements provide for more revenue for additional antennas.  The addition of microwave antennas is often a change of use – also providing more opportunities for additional revenue.  Property owners also need to sign for the municipal permits required for antenna additions and electrical hook ups.  Beware that cell companies often ignore these permitting requirements.  Municipalities require that the property owners obtain these permits.  Antenna Management Corp. works to insure the property owner’s interests are protected by obtaining and maintaining all need permits and safety reports.

We expect that other carriers such as Shaw, Globalive (Wind), Mobilicity (DAVE), Public Mobile, and Bell will quickly move to obtain more antennas to match the growth needs of cell users of video and streaming data.

There are many exciting opportunities for property owners with cell sites.   Contact Antenna Management to find out your options before you sign anything.  Antenna Management aims to protect your long-term interests while facilitating a positive and profitable relationship with the cellular carriers.

You need those unsightly towers to use your cellphone

July 23rd, 2011

There is a fascinating dynamic tension between wireless telephone service providers and the governments that regulate their activities — particularly local governments that find themselves up close and personal with voters.

Right now both Rogers and Telus are proposing new cell tower sites in response to complaints from their subscribers that there are gaps in the quality of service — Telus in Mill Bay and Rogers in Saltair. While local governments don’t have an ultimate veto on the siting of these towers, they do have a large measure of influence over the final decisions made by federal regulators.

Here’s the story: tens of thousands of cell users in the Cowichan Valley demand and expect smooth and seamless cellphone coverage where they live, work and travel. Let’s not forget we are not talking simply cellphones; we are also including smart phones, which are essentially small computers. These gobble up band width or capacity in the existing system.

By one estimate there are about 32,000 cellphones in use in the Cowichan Valley. That number seems huge but it comes from an outfit called NationMaster, a firm that collects international statistics. It estimates there are roughly 38 cellphones in use in Canada for every 100 people.

If that’s true, there are an awful lot of people — otherwise known as voters — who might not take it too kindly if the CVRD makes it too hard to locate cellphone towers where they can assure smooth and seamless coverage for cellphone users.

On the other hand, members of the public — also known as voters — can be appalled at the gigantic steel girder structures being proposed by the cellphone companies. In Mill Bay the tower is proposed to be sited next to the Island Highway just north of Kilmalu intersection.

The CVRD is already formally on the record as opposing the Mill Bay Telus site.

In Saltair, CVRD director Mel Dory is responding to local resident concerns about the proposed Rogers tower by helping to scout alternate locations that would have less impact on populated areas.

I’m no expert on the fine details of cell tower locations but I do understand that topography and geography are pretty critical issues when locating them. Tower design is also a factor in providing the capacity that cellphones users are demanding.

There is the option of what is called a monopole cell tower that is much less visually obtrusive than the girder towers, but they apparently cannot provide the same capacity to meet the service demands of cellphone users in the current circumstances.

The assurance of reliable coverage is becoming increasingly important as more people opt for cellphone-only for their telephone connectivity — particularly young people.

Cellphones, and smart phones, are a fact of life and it is reasonable for users to expect seamless and reliable coverage. On the other hand, aesthetics are also a real issue and this is where the dynamic tension between the cellphone companies and local government will play out.

To view original article, click here.

Locals, CVRD Opposing Cobble Hill Cell Tower

July 2nd, 2011

Telus: Structure needed to maintain service

By Sarah Simpson, The Citizen

Concerned Cobble Hill resident Nelsy Elliott is being backed by the Cowichan Valley Regional District in her opposition to a Telus-proposed cell phone transmission tower in the South End.

“It’s a 200-foot tower that they’re going to plunk on the corner of Sheppard Road and the Trans Canada Highway and that’s right behind École Mill Bay,” Elliott said Tuesday. “You could almost throw a rock from one position to the other, and Bonner is kitty-corner to that,” she continued. “With these schools right in the area, to put these children at risk so people can have cell phone reception is just ridiculous.”

Potential health risks aside, the tower would not only sit on ALR land but would sit alongside the highway and provide an unsightly view, according to CVRD board chair Gerry Giles.

“I think once people see what it’s going to look like, they’ll go ‘oh my goodness,’” Giles said, noting that while cell phone service and its related infrastructure are a welcome part of life in the Valley, the location of the proposed tower is not.

“People are going ‘there’s got to be a better location than this,’” Giles said.

Tom Anderson, the CVRD’s planning and development general manager, confirmed Wednesday that the regional district has sent a letter in opposition to Alcatel-Lucent’s Bruce McFarlane, a representative of the technology company hired by Telus to find a location for the tower.

“Actually it just went out yesterday via regular mail,” he said. “It’s been also sent to our local MP and also the school district.”

Anderson said since the board requested the letter on June 22, the CVRD’s received emails from adjacent property owners voicing their opposition to the project.

“Some of them have forwarded them on to the applicant and we’ll see what they do.”

The CVRD’s letter also urged the applicant to have a public meeting to discuss the issue with local residents, who have been mustering.

An email campaign by South End residents has urged people to contact McFarlane to voice their displeasure. McFarlane said Wednesday that he couldn’t comment on the matter and that Telus was now taking all questions.

Spokesman Shawn Hall said Telus wants to make a $750,000 investment in the South End wireless system.

“We’ve been looking for a site in this area for some time now,” he said Thursday, noting Telus receives “dozens of calls every year and emails” from people asking them to fill in coverage gaps around the highway and along Mill Bay Ferry route.

Telus, he said, will soon run out of capacity in the area.

“Within a very short time, were we not to proceed with this site, people will start to see more dropped calls, spotty reception and the like because the demand for wireless service is exploding and we’re dedicated to meeting that increased demand.”

What’s more, he said, the tower “will probably” save lives.

“More than half of all 911 calls come in on wireless phones now.”

Ultimately, Elliott believes it could end up putting lives in jeopardy.

That’s why she’s on a mission to get the word out for her neighbours to make their voices heard before the July 7 deadline.

“I don’t want it here. I think that people should have a say. I don’t think that big organizations like that should be able to just drop things down in the midst of people,” she said. “It’s our community not their community. We should have a say.”

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Sidney Kemp

June 28th, 2011

 Sidney Kemp

Sidney Kemp

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Antenna Management Corp announces the termination of Sidney W. Kemp as VP Legal.

Sid Kemp was formally engaged by Antenna Management on June 10, 2011.

Sid Kemp’s termination by Antenna Management was effective June 27, 2011.

Any association to Antenna Management after this period should be treated with caution.

See also Rhombic Consulting Group -  http://www.antennamgt.com/rhombic-consulting-group

See also “Law Society of British Columbia – Unauthorized Practice of Law”: http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2566&t=Unauthorized-practice-of-law

What Cell Carriers Look For in a Cell Antenna Site

June 14th, 2011

If you are reading this, it is likely that you own or know someone owns a building with a spacious rooftop and/or a piece of land that you think is a potential cellular antenna site. While it is true that having your property leased by a cellular phone carrier can be worthwhile in terms of revenues, it is best to keep your expectations within reasonable level because not all sites pass the requirements set by cellular phone carriers. It is a good thing that you decided to research first before jumping into action unarmed with the knowledge on how cellular phone carriers select their cellular antenna sites.

Listed below are items that cellular phone carriers look for when selecting a property for a cellular antenna installation. This can help you evaluate your property for its potential worth in terms of cellular antenna site, as well as to guide you in getting the best deal from future lease agreement.

1) Location, location, location – A property in a location that is surrounded by a populated urban or suburban area is always a potential site. Similarly, if a potential site is located near a busy roadway or highway it is attractive to cell companies. In Rural areas, a property that is situated on the highest point of the area or near a major roadway is ideal. If the property is a farmland bounded by other farms then it will usually not be selected for a cellular antenna site.

2) There is already a cell installation within view – If the area where your property is located has an existing cellular antenna tower nearby, the possibility of building another tower is reduced. Why? Many local zoning bylaws require first utilizing space on the tower existing in the area, thus prohibiting construction of another cellular antenna tower.

3) Height and size matter – Always bear in mind that cellular carriers consider first and foremost your rooftop and land portfolio. Cellular companies look for rooftop sites that are at least 30 feet tall. Ideal sites have a flat roof that can carry a 150-pound per square meter load. Ideal sites also allocate a 20’x30’ area on the roof for equipment or it should have ample space on the ground immediately next to the building for the purpose.

For land properties, foremost, it should be within the defined zone. The best sites can provide an area of approximately 20’x20’ and should be close a major road or highway.

4) Observing the zone – There are zoning ordinances in every towns or cities that cellular carriers have to observe before they can put cellular antenna towers. If the site of your property is located in an industrial area or if your property is classified as an industrial zone and is surrounded by residential properties or residentially zoned areas then your property’s potential as a cellular antenna site increases. If it were the other way around, e.g. your property is under a residential zone and bordered by industrially zoned properties then it has less potential.

The Worst Cell Site in the City

June 12th, 2011

Got the worst site in the city ?  Bell, Telus, Rogers, Globalive Dave and Shaw may want to know about it.  You may be surprised.   Cell antennas have changing needs especially as wireless is rapidly evolving.  Small building owners and municipalities have a new opportunity to lease cellular sites. Antenna Management has a free antenna listing service for all property owners.

If you are negotiating a renewal or new cell site with Bell, Telus, Rogers, Globalive Dave or Shaw, you may not have “the best site in town” to locate a cellular antenna. If it is not the only tower in the area, not the tallest building, or not the office building on  Bloor or Granville, or only a bare lot away from the city core – your site may be optimal to their needs.  Why?  Cellular networks are become more specialized with the move to data and video.  One iPad is equivalent to 1,300 cell phones in network demand – networks are getting clogged.

 

As wireless moves to 4G and beyond, so does the definition of “the best site in town.”   In the past site of 10 stories or more were preferred.  Now, a higher site can’t handle the millions of calls made each day in Toronto or Vancouver, nor does it have the bandwidth to run video, web and music, apps and more. In other words, taller is no longer necessary. Today’s network relies on a greater number of low elevation sites closer together to accommodate the growing number of users and the bigger bandwidth requirements necessary to meet video and data demands.  The new 700 MHz auction in the fall of 2012 will be critical to carry enough data to meet the growing video demands.  Video is expected to dominate cell traffic to the tune of 60% of all traffic by 2015 worldwide.  Current antennas will not work for the new 700 MHz traffic – all new antennas will need to be situated in addition to the existing ones.

Owners may assume that their site is less valuable because it is not the tallest, or in a high-traffic area, or central. Technology is redefining what makes a good cell site. Cell sites are getting lower to the ground and closer to each other, carriers are less particular about their location. This flexibility, combined with an increasing ability to use non-typical cell sites (such as light, hydro, and telephone poles) creates new opportunities for property owners and municipalities.  Vancouver City is exploring combining street light poles with cell antennas and electrical outlets for electric cars.  Property owners that never considered their small sites for cell revenue may now actively be sought out. The largest landowners – the cities and municipalities – have a stunning opportunity to organize their property and land inventory to compete with the private sector for cell sites.  AMC is active in the municipal sector to capitalize on these revenue generating opportunities.

Antenna Management now provides all property owners a free antenna listing service (like the MLS) that can maximize the exposure of both small and large sites to all the cell companies.  Our database makes available sites much easier to acquire for the cell providers.

Court victory clears way for Globalive

June 9th, 2011

By IAIN MARLOW, Globe and Mail

Appeal court declares wireless upstart is ‘Canadian owned and controlled,’ backs cabinet decision to approve licence

Upstart wireless company Globalive Wireless Management Corp. has won the right to compete with its bigger rivals, after a stunning court ruling upheld the federal government’s move to allow the foreign-backed company into the regulated sector.

Globalive’s executives were jubilant after the unanimous decision by the Federal Court of Appeal on Wednesday, convinced the ruling will dissuade rivals from taking their concerns about Globalive’s foreign financing to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judges wrote that Globalive was a “a Canadian owned and controlled company” and upheld cabinet’s decision to allow it to operate.

Ever since a federal regulator blocked Globalive from launching cellular brand Wind Mobile in October of 2009, the company has been on a roller-coaster ride to prove its compliance with Canada’s strict foreign ownership restrictions. The process has involved endless court battles, thrown the sector into a period of prolonged uncertainty, and involved everyone from Canada’s biggest wireless companies to the federal cabinet. Wednesday’s court ruling appears to resolve that confusion.

It has also done much to resolve an awkward problem for the federal government, which was accused of trying to alter Canada’s foreign-ownership laws by decree, outside Parliament, when it intervened on Globalive’s behalf.

Anthony Lacavera, Globalive’s chairman, had been speaking to investors in Toronto on Wednesday when he got the news. “Now we can actually fight in the market,” he said in an interview.

The saga has been a distraction for Globalive, starting in the fall of 2009 with a ruling by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

The regulator ruled that a foreign backer – originally Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris and now Russian carrier VimpelCom – exerted too much control. But the federal cabinet, eager to boost competition in a sector where three large players – BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp. – had 95 per cent of the market, overturned that CRTC ruling with a dramatic order-in-council, allowing Globalive to launch Wind Mobile in December, 2009.

Shortly after that, however, Public Mobile, another new wireless player, appealed to the Federal Court for clarity on the cabinet decision. Public Mobile was backed in that process by Telus Corp., and they succeeded in having the court strike down the original decision, which threw Globalive – and the entire $40-billion sector – into a tailspin of uncertainty and confusion.

Opponents of Globalive’s approval had argued the government was changing foreign-ownership restrictions in the sector by stealth, without the backing of Parliament. Many in the executive suites of BCE Inc., Telus and Rogers supported this view, and argued that Globalive was effectively foreign-owned.

Mr. Lacavera said the regulatory and legal confusion has been a distraction. “It’s one thing to have three of the most powerful companies in the country end up in a symphony against you, but it’s another thing to also then have regulatory and legal issues,” he said. “It’s been an immense challenge.”

The formal appeals are still not over, however: Late on Wednesday, Public Mobile said it plans to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

The appeal court decision also appears to have given breathing room to the federal government, which pledged in a previous Throne Speech to loosen foreign-ownership restrictions in the sector, but has been more ambivalent about the issue since.

Tony Clement, who heads the Treasury Board but was Industry Minister when cabinet overturned the CRTC ruling, took to Twitter on Wednesday to voice his satisfaction with the court’s decision.

“Well, well,” wrote Mr. Clement, who was at times criticized for governing the multibillion-dollar sector by Tweets instead of bold, long-term policy. “I certainly feel vindicated.”

Rogers Cell Tower Upsets Oaksville Residents

May 21st, 2011

Residents are upset about a Rogers tower that is being built to enhance service customers in the Oakville, Ontario area.

Despite assurances from Health Canada, Industry Canada, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization saying that there is no scientific reason to consider cell phone towers dangerous to the public, some residents remain concerned about the health effects of cell antennas and their effects on property values.

With the increased use of smart phones such as iPhones, and other devices that are reliant on cell antennas such as iPads (1 iPad requires the cellular bandwidth of 1300 standard cell phones), cellular providers are scrambling to meet the demands of data plan subscribers and putting up additional cellular antennas to meet market demand.

Residents Upset Over Cell Tower Location

by David Lea

It’s no 900-megawatt gas-fired power plant, but it’s still got a number of residents hopping mad and scared for their health.

Rogers Canada is preparing to begin construction of a 29-metre high cell tower near the intersection of Rebecca Street and Third Line.

Rogers Regional Communications Senior Manager Sara Holland said both Industry Canada and the Town of Oakville have approved the project, which will greatly enhance wireless communications within Oakville.

“This investment in the town will enhance outdated technology and improve wireless coverage, particularly inside Hopedale Mall,” she said.

“Our customer needs are growing and changing. They want to be connected any time, any place and on any device. We want to ensure they can do that now, as well as with future technology growth. In addition, this site will help ensure access to 911 emergency services. This is particularly important as so many of these calls are made on mobile devices.”

Various residents living near the future site of the cell tower, however, are not impressed. They have voiced a number of concerns about the tower, which range from aesthetic and noise concerns to health concerns and worries about what having a cell tower in close proximity of their homes will do to their property values.

Rogers said the cell tower will be 85 metres from the nearest home.

“We did buy properties that are beside the mall. We understand that, but we don’t want industry,” said Sharon Clark-Gamus, president of the Hopedale Residents’ Association.

“It’s one thing to be commercially zoned. It’s a hell of another thing to have an industry next to you. Shouldn’t these things be on industrially-zoned land? Apparently no.”

Ward 2 Town and Regional Councillor Cathy Duddeck also criticized the cell tower’s location.

“I think it’s horrible. Absolutely horrible,” said Duddeck.

“For one thing, you’ve got this beautiful plaza they’re trying to enrich and make it much more viable and you’re going to have this great big tower out front. I’m also worried about the health of the residents in the area. I’ve read a lot of for and against in terms of the health hazard and there are a lot of families in that area that are concerned about being in such close proximity to it.”

Duddeck also attacked Rogers’ claim that the Town had approved the tower.

‘Approval,’ she said, implies the Town had a choice.

“When it comes to the placement of these cell towers, the municipality does not have any authorization or right to stop it,” she said.

“We’re asked to comment, which is so lame, and then what they do is take that into consideration and then nine times out of 10 they go ahead and install it anyway. They don’t need a building permit. They don’t have zoning restrictions and they don’t have site plans. So anything that we would normally have that would allow us to withhold a permit, until such time as the issues and concerns are addressed, we don’t have here.”

Cell towers do emit radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy, which must adhere to Health Canada exposure guidelines. Through research, Health Canada has set general public exposure limits 50 times lower than the threshold for potentially adverse health effects.

As long as these guidelines are respected, Health Canada says there is no scientific reason to consider cell phone towers dangerous to the public.

The Health Canada website also points out Industry Canada, which oversees the licensing and placement of cell phone towers, has adopted part of Health Canada’s RF exposure guidelines for protecting the general public and ensuring exposures from cell phones and cell phone towers do not exceed the specified limits.

The American Cancer Society has also said there is very little evidence, at this time, to support the idea cell phone towers cause cancer or other health problems.

One reason given for this is that RF waves given off by cell towers are not strong enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.

Holland said the site will be fully compliant with government requirements regarding health and safety.

Despite these assurances, Clark-Gamus said the residents near the mall don’t feel any better.

They question whether Health Canada is taking enough factors into consideration when they call cell towers harmless.

“According to Health Canada and the World Health Organization there are no health issues related to living next to a cell tower, but they will continue to do research,” said Clark-Gamus. “So there’s a sense that they just don’t know yet.”

Clark-Gamus said Health Canada is not the only one with an opinion on cell towers.

On her website, Trent University’s Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies Dr. Magda Havas, directs readers to a Swedish study, which has found that cumulative cell phone use increases a person’s risk of developing a brain tumor. She then questions the health effects of living near a cell tower.

“If a cell phone alters your brain, what is the radiation from a nearby cell phone base station antenna doing to your body,” she asked. “The cell phone and the antenna mounted on the towers and building rooftops use the same frequencies to communicate. The major difference is that if you live near a cell phone tower, with multiple antennas, your body (and not just your head) is going to be exposed to this radiation.”

Havas also said those living near a cell tower will be exposed to the radiation longer than those exposed to radiation through cell phone use.

Health Canada says that, so far, the weight of evidence from animal, cell culture and human studies does not indicate that the energy emitted by cell phones is strong enough to cause serious health effects.

Clark-Gamus also has an issue with the way the cell tower has been brought into the community with no notice given.

Rogers said notice was given.

“As always, we carefully followed the Industry Canada process with a community consultation that included an open house and information packages distributed in the community,” said Holland. “Consultation packages were sent to residences and businesses in a radius from the tower. This was following the protocols of Industry Canada and the Town of Oakville.”

Clark-Gamus said when the cell tower is complete she will be able to see it out her living room window. She said no notifications were sent to her home nor the homes of those living closest to the cell tower.

Duddeck said the ward councillors did not receive notification about the tower. She said many people were not aware of the tower until Rogers began preparing the area for construction.

Duddeck hopes to hold a meeting in the near future with Rogers, Industry Canada, Oakville MP Terence Young, and residents’ association leaders to reach some kind of solution to address the concerns of the residents.

Click to view article source.

Burnaby Cell Tower Proposed

April 20th, 2011

A cell tower proposed for the Lake City Way area is going to public hearing.

A rezoning request for the property at 8020 Enterprise St. was forwarded to a public hearing by council at Monday night’s meeting.

Vanessa Cartwright appeared on behalf Scott Telecom Services and SBA Canada, an owner and operator of wireless communications infrastructure, at a council meeting at the end of January about the project. Ryan Scott, of Scott Telecom Services Inc., appeared with her.

City staff worked with the applicants to develop a plan for the site to present at a public hearing. The proposal is for a 45.7 metre cell tower.

Cartwright described it as a “stealth tower,” a tall metal pole with four metal cabinets beside it to contain additional equipment.

The tower would be in the southwest corner of the property, over an area of 119 square metres.

The proposal includes 15 panel antennas and 12 microwave dishes mounted on the pole, according to a report from the city’s planning and building department.

It was the company’s fourth attempt to come up with an unobtrusive design that the city would be willing to approve, Cartwright said at the Jan. 31 meeting.

The area around the pole and cabinets would be screened with a 1.83 metre tall wood fence and landscaping.

The proposed antenna would look like a tall metal flagpole, according to the report.

Scott Telecom’s client, Mobilicity, has identified Burnaby as needing more infrastructure for its network, Cartwright said. Mobilicity would have first rights to the tower, with use being offered to three or four other carriers – such as Shaw, Rogers and Telus – afterwards.

The visual impact of the tower’s antenna is minimized because the area is not a residential one, Cartwright said.

She added that the tower would emit about one to five per cent of allowable radio frequency emissions.

To read the original article, click here

Telus Antenna Tower Expansion in BC

April 19th, 2011

By Rachel Stern

A proposed cell tower in the Cedar area hasn’t met the same public outcry that made the Regional District of Nanaimo reject a proposed site earlier this year.

Telus intends to build a 60-metre wireless communication tower at 1710 Woobank Rd.

Shawn Hall, a Telus spokesman, said the company sent letters to residents in the area in late March inform them of the plans.

“It’s a very rural area, so we are not planning on a public hearing at this point,” he said.

Hall said there have been no complaints about the tower location. Only a few questions were received.

“There is a growing demand for wireless services in the community,” said Hall. “It is a routine installation to fill in a coverage gap.”

A similar Telus proposal to build a tower at the RDN’s Greater Nanaimo Pollution Control Centre was rejected after residents and parents of students at the nearby Hammond Bay Elementary School voiced concerns in late February.

Residents didn’t want the tower within 500 metres of a school, with concerns raised about the long-term health effects of cellular radiation.

That proposed tower is a $500,000 to $2-million investment and the agreement with the RDN would have paid the district $24,500 annually. Telus is now looking at a handful of private property sites for the tower, which would fill in cellular coverage gaps in the Hammond Bay area.

Both proposed towers are part of the company’s plan to expand and enhance wireless and line networks in the city. Hall said they are the only two planned for Nanaimo this year. expansion

The company plans to invest $21.5 million is various infrastructure projects this year in Nanaimo, and a total of $670 million province wide. The company is looking to construct about 80 cell towers across B.C. this year.

Hall said the big push in Nanaimo is to lay lines for Optik TV, which is expected to be available later this year, and for Internet services. Hall said it will give internet customers faster speeds and more television choices. The new line is expected to offer customers speeds up to 25 megabits per second.

Optik TV is rolling out to neighbourhoods gradually, with some in Nanaimo already receiving the service. Once a large number of households have the service, Telus will announce the official launch of the service.

Church Steeple Doubles as Cell Antenna

March 16th, 2011

Cellular antennas have become a pesky source of mayhem to architectural landscapes in nearly every city across the nation.

As cell phone use grows, cellular providers are scrambling to throw up antenna towers on every available rooftop and chimney to meet demand for expanded service areas and better reception.

Very few communities have any sort of restriction against the location and design of cell towers. Consequently, most cellular companies end up installing unsightly structures with little regard to the surrounding landscape.

In the Chicago suburb of Winnetka, Ill., a cellular company and a local church devised a novel solution to this dilemma that involved concealing a cellular antenna within a church steeple. Completed last summer, the project not only enhances cell phone reception in the community, but also provides a much need facelift to the Evangelical Covenant Church of Winnetka, while accommodating the village’s restrictive zoning ordinances.

The plan was realized when VelociTel, an Irvine, Calif.-based provider of outsourced wireless services, came into contact with the Winnetka church while scouting the area for potential cellular antenna locations for Cingular Wireless.

The church property had long been a highly desired location by cellular carriers because of its high elevation, but local zoning ordinances restricted the erection of telecommunication towers on the property because of its residential zoning. As a result, portions of the surrounding community experienced gaps in cell phone service.

VelociTel struck a deal with church officials that involved replacing the building’s deteriorated steeple and roof and installing a new spire that would house the antennas. The spire was part of architect John Breidenbach’s original design for the church, but was never realized due to lack of funding.

Village officials initially hesitated granting an amendment to the zoning code, but eventually approved a special use permit for telecom use and height variance for the steeple after learning that the project would restore the church to Breidenbach’s original design.

The project involved raising the steeple from 90 to 120 feet in height, on top of which the new spire was placed. Four wireless carrier antennas are attached to a pole inside the spire, which is manufactured of a radio-conducive material.

To see more examples of regular and stealth cell antennas, click here.

Class action suits generate business uncertainty

February 9th, 2011

From Buinsness in Vancouver, February 1-7, Issue 1110

The legislation that governs class action lawsuits in B.C. is more liberal than the U.S., and legal experts say that’s increased the risks for the business community.

“There are three broad areas of concerns that we have for Canadian business, and all of this leads to uncertainty, which is bad for business, and I think most people would say if it’s bad for bu Vancouver office.

Class actions are a form of lawsuit in which a number of people collectively deliver a claim to court. These types of legal actions were once thought to be more prevalent in the U.S., with many claims focused on mass-produced products, price fixing, arrangements between franchisees and franchisors and securities investigations.

Although Canadian class action law was enacted a number of years ago, Dixon said these types of lawsuits take so long to work their way through the system that it’s still a “developing” area of law.

He also said the legislation that governs these actions was “deliberately intended” to be more liberal than U.S. rules.

“What you have to understand about these things is they’re driven … by plaintiffs’ council because they’re designed to have this entrepreneurial role,” Dixon said.

In other words, the rules have actually fuelled a new breed of class action lawyers that announce investigations into companies via a press release and then seek out members to form a class and support the action.

Tony Merchant’s Merchant Law Group LLP claims to have more active class action lawsuits than any other firm in Canada.

Merchant has concluded suits against Conrad Black’s Hollinger Inc., Maple Leaf Foods and Molson-Coors Brewing Co. (NYSE:TAP).

His firm recently issued a press release searching for shareholders to sue Vancouver’s Taseko Mines Ltd. (TSX:TKO) regarding its Prosperity project (see “Lawyers seeks support for Taseko Mines class action suit” – issue 1107; January 11-17).

“The whole class action world allows people who are taken advantage of to get compensation, but better than that the fact that we’re here doing these kinds of things means corporations and government are more fair because they know that somebody is watching them,” said Merchant.

The consequence, said Dixon, is that B.C.’s class action rules have created a new tension between private and public regulators, forcing businesses to worry about the risk of class action investigations and regulatory investigations.

“Often that gives rise to undue settlement pressures because a business is trying to control risks and costs that they face,” said Dixon.

On top of that, plaintiffs are bringing more waiver of tort claims to Canadian courts, which seek disgorgement of revenue or profit from businesses.

Waiver of tort cases turn on whether or not the plaintiffs’ lawyer can show the defendant commit ted wrongful conduct in its business practices.

“What they don’t have to then prove is that the individual people suffered a loss, and that used to be the focus of these kinds of cases,” Dixon said.

That means a lawyer might have an easier time certifying the class action suit, advancing its status in court and placing more pressure on businesses.

It also means that businesses need to take a closer look at their practices, because “conduct that you might have thought didn’t cause anyone any harm might still be the subject of scrutiny in a class action.”

But what can businesses do to protect themselves?

Warren Milman, a partner with McCarthy Tetrault’s Vancouver office and a class action expert, said businesses need to focus on risk management strategies and be on top of issues or complaints that could come back to haunt them.

“There’s something to be said for keeping your eye on the exposure a problem creates and thinking about ways to diffuse that even if in the short term it creates an expense. In the long term, it can give you peace of mind and save you a bill,” Milman said.

Dixon said that if a class action claim shows up, businesses first need to decide if the claim has any merit.

Milman said businesses can also use the “cloak of privilege” with lawyers to conduct internal investigations without handing over information that could be used against them.

Dixon also said public relations experts can help businesses weather the media storm should news of the class action hit the press.

Finally, Milman has one simple piece of advice: “It’s important not to panic … once you have a plaintiffs’ lawyer smelling blood in the water it’s usually not a good idea to jump in.”

View original article here (BIV Subscription required)

New Cell Antennas – Smaller & More Efficient

February 7th, 2011

Alcatel-Lucent has developed a magical radio antenna that can transmit 2G, 3G and 4G in a two-inch cube, remove unsightly antennas, reduce network costs enormously, and apparently save the planet too.

Alcatel Lucent is calling the technology “lightRadio”, actually comprises two developments – the software radio with integral antenna mounted in a fist-sized cube, with minimal intelligence, and a cloud-based processing system for relocating the radio network to a data centre where it can be managed dynamically.

Nate Anderson of Ars Technica explains:

lightRadio: hideous cell towers to get smaller, lose the “hut”

By Nate Anderson

Alcatel-Lucent is making a bold claim today: its new line of lightRadio cellular hardware can double the bits flying through the air to your smartphone, and it can do so at half the cost. Oh, and cell towers might be able to ditch the hideous “hut” that squats at the base of most sites.

Lightening the load

Even when they’re disguised like fake trees or church steeples, cell towers are ugly. Most have a hut at the bottom, stuffed with baseband processing gear that does the hard work of creating and decoding, say, an LTE signal. These huts often contain signal amplifiers, big units that push power up the tower to the actual antennas—and half the signal is lost just moving through the tower’s wiring. At the top, rectangular antennas bristle from the tower. One set might be for 2G support, one for 3G, and another for 4G.

Alcatel-Lucent, one of the world’s biggest wireless gear makers, turned to its Bell Labs research division to rethink this aging architecture. First step: apply the “data center” model of centralization to baseband processing and consolidate all that rack-mounted hardware into a few locations per city, each connected to the towers it serves by fiber optic cable.

Right now, a cell tower fault might require a truck roll and a drive through traffic. When the tech gets to the tower site, it might turn out to be at the top of a hotel, and permission to access it must be obtained from the site manager. Put all the processing gear in a single remote location, however, and repairs to it get cheaper and faster.

Clustering the baseband units also makes it easier to do load balancing across a region. When commuters are driving into work, for instance, the baseband cluster can turn its combined energy to handling the signal load coming from towers along the highways and train lines. During the day, processing could handle heavy downtown traffic, while it shifts focus to the suburbs in the evening. Such load-balancing doesn’t produce any additional spectrum or data throughput, but it does mean that a carrier can operate fewer baseband processors, saving the carrier cash.

The third advantage to centralizing the baseband processors is that the interconnection fabric between them can operate at high speeds, fast enough to support a standard called CoMP, or Co-ordinated Multipoint. CoMP, which is currently moving through standardization, relies on the fact that, in many locations, a user’s wireless gadget is in range of multiple towers (the closer one comes to the edge of each cell, the more towers can typically see the device).

This is usually a waste, since multiple towers spend bandwidth contacting the gadget but can’t independently deliver different data. CoMP turns it into a bonus by dividing up requested download data and using all cells in the area to deliver a different slice of it at once—akin to the way BitTorrent operates. The phone then combines the data from all the towers in the proper order. This additive approach to using different towers means that a user’s total throughput can go up substantially, but it requires centralized baseband to function.

Finally, the new lightRadio baseband bear can do software-defined protocols. Upgrading to LTE? Just upgrade the software on the baseband processor. (Traditional rack-mounted baseband processors required dedicated units for each protocol.) A new baseband chip from Freescale makes it possible, but it gets even cooler when used in conjunction with the new wideband antennas.

Antenna cubes

LightRadio uses a new antenna that, in Alcatel-Lucent’s words, collapses three radios into one. The radios are tiny cubes of 2.5 inches square, and each can operate between 1.8GHz and 2.6GHz. They use tiny amps that can be located atop the tower, built into the antenna enclosure, which keeps the amp size down and dramatically cuts down on the power loss.

These radio cubes are stacked in groups of 8 to 10 in order to make an antenna element, and when one cube in the array goes down, the others remain unaffected. (In a traditional system, the whole antenna unit would fail.) The amps cover enough different frequencies that, in many cases, simply changing the software configuration on the baseband unit can control whether each antenna offers a 2G, 3G, or 4G signal.

The antennas also do “beam forming”—fine-grained directional control over the radio signal—in both the horizontal and vertical dimension to better connect with local wireless devices. Alcatel-Lucent claims capacity improvements of 30 percent through the use of vertical beam-forming alone.

The end result of the system: lightRadio cell towers don’t need huts, they don’t need air conditioners and heaters, big amps, fans, or even local processing gear. Baseband processing moves closer to the data center model and gets cool new capabilities like CoMP and load-balancing. The system’s cost savings come from power (Alcatel-Lucent claims a 50 percent reduction), along with lower construction and site rental fees. The total macro capacity of the system should double while cutting operator costs dramatically.

Though it will take months for any carrier to roll out this or similar gear, advances like lightRadio are crucial as wireless usage continues to soar and smartphones break out of the enterprise and the technorati and into the mainstream. And by making cell infrastructure smaller, cheaper, and less power-hungry, this sort of gear brings wireless networking into reach of more people, especially in rural areas and developing countries.

To read the full article, click here.

Rogers and CTV fight Colwood Bylaws

February 7th, 2011

Two broadcasters want the B.C. Supreme Court to throw out a nuisance bylaw in Colwood, saying it’s an unconstitutional attempt to regulate Triangle Mountain transmission tower signals.

But the municipality says the towers emit electromagnet radiation and broadcasting signals that interfere with everything from residents’ telephones to electronics to garagedoor openers and do constitute a nuisance -something the municipality has the statutory authority to regulate.

CTV and Rogers Broadcasting Ltd., along with Triangle Mountain property owner Constance Christina Gibson, filed a civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court this month seeking to have Colwood’s nuisance bylaw on electronic signals -which was passed last February -declared unconstitutional and set aside as null and void.

The broadcasters’ statement of claim says: “The subject matter of radiocommunications and broadcasting lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

This exclusive jurisdiction includes the location, licensing and regulation of the operations of radio transmitters and the towers on which they are located.”

When contacted, Scott Henderson, CTV vice-president communications, issued the following statement on behalf of Rogers and CTV: “The bylaw enacted by the City of Colwood is beyond the powers of the municipality. It has the effect of regulating the operation of radio broadcasting towers, a regulatory right that lies solely within the jurisdiction of Industry Canada.

“Our towers have always been, and will continue to be, operated in compliance with all statutory and regulatory permits and licences, including those set by Industry Canada. Additionally, the site has been designed, constructed and maintained to meet Safety Code 6 standards set by Health Canada.”

The city maintains the bylaw “is not directed to the regulation of radio communications, but to nuisances,” according to its response to civil claim filed this week

The bylaw states: “No person shall permit telecommunications equipment on their property be used, knowingly or unknowingly, in a manner that interferes with a person’s reasonable use, security and enjoyment of his/her land.

“No person shall allow electronic signals to emanate from his property that interfere with the operation of another person’s electronic equipment.”

The city says the bylaw was enacted specifically for the purpose of preventing nuisance -something within its powers under the Community Charter.

Neither the statements in the notice of claim nor the city’s response have been proven in court.

Colwood chief administrative officer Ross McPhee said there has been no attempt by the municipality to enforce the bylaw.

Mayor David Saunders said he was not fully briefed on the civil suit and could not comment.

Two Colwood councillors, both members of the municipality’s EMR (electromagnetic radiation) Transmitters Task Force, expressed frustration that they had not even been briefed on the situation.

Councillors Ernie Robertson and Brian Tucknott said they have been kept in the dark, which, they said, is typical of the municipality’s over-secretive manner of conducting business.

“I feel that my role as an elected official has been totally circumvented by unelected people. How can I be accountable to my constituents if I’m not in the know?” Robertson said.

“This is the culture that pervades the way information is communicated to council today. So many things are being done in camera, so many things are being done in a way that doesn’t meet the test of public input and council involvement. Decisions are being made in the office and not in the council chamber, and that is of serious concern to me.” bcleverley@timescolonist.com

To view the original article, Click Here.

[gview file="http://www.antennamgt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Rogers-and-CTV-vs-City-of-Colwood-Supreme-Court-of-British-Columbia-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-2011-01-04.pdf"]

Safety Code 6

February 7th, 2011

With the increased public awareness of potential health hazards associated with radio frequency (RF) emission, many are questioning whether these changes on roof tops are safe.

Industry Canada and Health Canada regulate the maximum allowable exposure to RF emissions in Safety Code 6 (SC6.) As part of SC6, the last licensed RF operator making antenna changes is responsible to certify to enure that aggregate of all RF emissions from the site are safe. This includes the emissions from their antennas plus emissions from those of co-located third parties. On roof tops where multiple antenna arrays from multiple operators exist, the SC6 site certification is on-going activity especially given the number of changes to antenna systems to optimize RF coverage.

SC6 is a set of specification developed by Health Canada to define limits for the safe exposure of humans to radio frequency emissions. The Code distinguishes safe limits for those trained individuals working on RF systems and those with no training, the ‘general public.’ Exposure limits set for the general public are five times lower than that for the RF worker. SC6 define anyone without adequate RF training as the general public. Exposure limits on roof tops where non-telecommunication workers such as HVAC and building maintenance people may work default to maximum sets for the general public.

The degree of radiation hazard is defined by signs. Health Canada requires three levels of warning signs: ‘notice’ where exposure levels are below limits set for the general public, ‘warning’ where exposures exceed limits for the general public but are less than limits set for RF workers; and ‘hazard’ where limits exceed exposures for RF workers. At the third level, strict safety procedures are implemented for everyone accessing the roof top.

Industry Canada requires new operators meet SC6 as part of the initial site licensing process. Beyond this stage, all safety code 6 reporting is honor based. The roof top managers are ultimately responsible to ensure that the top is safe for all accessing it. Fall arrest procedures are common place. The same argument can be made for RF safety. Roof top management best practice recommend: (i) mandating RF tenants design installations to the general public limits; (ii) requiring their roof top be tested to C6; (iii) requiring tenants to produce an updated SC6 certificate every time the tenant applies to change antennas; and (iv) posting the current SC6 certificate at the entrance to each roof top (similar to fall arrest practices today). Safety risks should always be assessed by accredited professional engineers. The certificate itself should be stamped and date.

Read more on RF Roof top Safety at www.planetworks.ca/articles/sc6.

How To Get a Fair Lease Rate for Your Cell Antenna Site

January 8th, 2011

Canadian antenna companies such as Rogers, Bell, Telus, Wind, Shaw, Mobilicity & Dave are very aggressive in the lease pricing.

For most property owners,  very little information exists on lease rate comparables paid by cell companies.  Most leases have a confidentiality clause which limits rate information getting to other owners.  As a result, most owners lease out their properties at very low rates, with few rate increases and for long term periods.  A typical antenna in an urban site with good traffic densities can generate $1 – $2 million annually for the cell carrier.  If several microwave antennas are included as well, the site has even more value.  Cell leases are typically less than $30,000 annually.

Determining antenna  income also depends on how it fits into the cell network and how many sites are available in that area of the network for installations.  Topography is also critical – cell antennas work on “line of site” and are usually spaced every 1.5 km.  Generally , municipalities frown on adding more antenna sites until existing sites have been used up.   Existing site with incumbents such as Rogers, Telus and Bell are usually prime targets for new cell entrants like Dave,  Wind and Shaw as adding new antennas is generally easier with owners that have existing antennas.  Incumbants also resist new entrants and make access to their sits difficult.  Municipal, permitting is also much easier although surprisingly often not obtained for additional installations.  This also creates additional owner insurance risk.  It is the owners responsibility – not the cell carriers – to ensure that all permits and approvals are obtained.   If not, site insurance is at risk.  Thus, existing sites can carry a premium as installations are often much faster.  Cell providers are usually in a hurry to set up cell antennas.  They typically hire outside consultants that specialize in aggressive site acquisition that push leases that are very one sided. Few owners enjoy these negotiations – they are full of high pressure sales tactics.

Getting specialized help is essential in understanding your site and any lease offers.  Often offers can be limited by previous leases that are currently in place.  Often these leases hand over all future income from the site to the first cell carrier.  Small access fees may be paid but that’s all.

Similarly, telecommunication leases involve more risks such as RF, battery hazards, roof penetration, grounding and environmental factors that are not found in simple commercial leases.  Antenna Management Corp. specializes in helping property managers and owner in improving existing leases and new leases for their properties.  We move liabilities onto the cell carriers from the owners.

Cell antenna income can be more than offset by liabilities.  Know what they are and protect yourself.

Mobilicity aka Dave Wireless Announces Launch

October 25th, 2010

Mobilicity, formerly Dave Wireless, a recent entrant in the wireless sector of Canada, is stretching out from its Toronto base to launch networks in Ottawa, Vancouver and Edmonton in November, its chief executive said on Friday.

“We’re really busy these days,” Dave Dobbin, said in an interview. “We’re targeting Canadians who are looking for a better deal on their wireless.” The privately held company aims to challenge Canada’s dominant telecom companies after buying ten spectrum licenses in a 2008 government auction for C$243 million.

Mobilicity will compete with established wireless players such as Telus and is banking on a no-contract, pay-in-advance unlimited-use model, CEO Dave Dobbin said in an interview Tuesday during a visit to Vancouver.

“The number one customer irritant, with a bullet, is what we call bill surprise, which is opening the bill and not knowing what you’re going to get,” Dobbin said.

So for example, Mobilicity will not charge 911 emergency access fees or system access fees, Dobbin said.

The private company, has licenses to operate in 13 of the 16 largest Canadian cities, and has been building up its network in recent months, with a licensing agreement with Bell Mobility for wireless cell antenna site sharing, and coverage will include all cities within Metro Vancouver. They have signed a roaming agreement with T-Mobile and an exclusive multi-year contract with Ericsson to build their 3G UMTS network.

Dobbin said customer dissatisfaction with their wireless providers is sending customers his way, citing a 2009 J.D. Power and Associates study that found only 20 per cent of Canadian wireless customers would recommend their wireless provider to friends and family.

“That’s abysmal,” he said.

But while Canada has some of the highest wireless charges in the world, prices nationally have come down in recent years.  The federal government is considering ways to ease foreign ownership restrictions in telecoms to spark further competition, and Dobbin said he supports an option that would drop all limits for companies with less than 10 percent of the market but keep the rules in place for incumbents, who control roughly 95 percent.

Mobilicity’s plans will range from $25 for unlimited local calling to $65 for unlimited data, North American talk and global text, and will also have pay-per use offerings like roaming, downloads and global long-distance.

Rooftop Cell Antennas – Money on Your Rooftop

October 3rd, 2010

It’s almost impossible to walk a city block without passing someone busily chatting away on a cellular phone. Over 8,000 cell sites currently exist in Canada and cell data use is expected to double in the next four years.  Many more antennas sites will be needed in the coming years.

Beyond collecting monthly maintenance payments, stratas, property managers, and property owners are always searching for new methods to generate extra income. Cell antennas create a growing opportunity for owners to enhance the value of their property without undue risk.  Renting out excess parking areas and installing storage lockers for rental are two ways to boost the reserve fund, but the proliferation of cell antennas makes leasing rooftop space for antenna installation another highly profitable option.

Any agreements made between a cell company and a site owner should include a number of key clauses.  For example, the carrier should be required to make sure that all zoning and permit issues are approved. Antenna equipment requires utility usage so Antenna Management Corp recommends that the contract specify who pays the bill.  In most contracts that we have seen, the carrier has been responsible for an agreed amount of the bill. Anything additional, including future increases in rates or other unexpected increases should be negotiated within the contract.

A roof access schedule is also an important part of a lease agreement. Carriers provide may ask for 24-hour access to any rooftop equipment but standard hours should be requested for routine maintenance. In the event of a power outage, equipment malfunction or other emergency, they will need quick access to the antenna equipment.

Antenna Management Corp also recommends that property owners have adequate insurance coverage to protect the roof.  Our consultants review contracts and recommend what the minimum policy amount a cellular provider should provide the rooftop owner in a cell antenna contract.  AMC recommends that the contract address contingencies for situations including roof repair, remodelling, and contractor safety.  Other details, like what would happen if the carrier needed to relocate their equipment, must also be ironed out within the contract.

A properly structured lease agreement should provide the cell provider the option of keeping the income at Fair Market Value (“FMV”). In determining FMV a building owner is at a decided disadvantage. The cell provider has negotiated many Telecommunication leases.  It is difficult for the owner to verifying local FMV rates as most leases contain confidentiality clauses.

At AMC we maintain a database of cell lease rates, locations and terms. This database plus our extensive industry experience allows owners to obtain above market rates.  We level the playing field for you. Knowledge is power.

A Canadian rooftop antenna can generate between $200 and $5000 monthly.  The value largely depends on location. Properties located near a major thoroughfare or high traffic area will usually generate the most revenue.  If a property owner is not satisfied with the deal AMC negotiates, they retain the right to decline the offer.

Telecommunications contracts are uniquely different from commercial leases and require specialized handling to properly capture profits and reduce exposures.  Without specialty advice, even experienced negotiators can end up with one sided contracts.  Since the majority of property owners, property managers, and even real estate lawyers are not knowledgeable about the wireless industry, they are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating rental rates. AMC works with property owner to get the greatest financial return on their rooftop. We ensure that all proper protocol has been followed and that the rooftop antenna installed is aesthetically.

Cell antennas create a growing opportunity for owners to enhance the value of their property without undue. Contact AMC today to help maximize your revenue from your rooftop.

Potential Problems of Cell Phone Installations

September 10th, 2010

Have you been contacted by a cellular phone company wanting lease space on your rooftop to put up a cell phone antenna? With Dave Wireless, Globalive, and Shaw entering the cell phone industry and aiming to create a strong network of cell antennas across Canada, there is currently a land grab going on. If you have a property with existing cell phone antennas or you have a building that is well suited for rooftop cell phone antennas, it is only a matter of time before your phone starts ringing with requests from these companies to send over rooftop cell antenna leases agreement for your review.

For the property owner, the advantages of having a cell phone antenna on your property are primarily financial. When you have been contacted by a cellular company, they will have already done a study of your area and determined that your building lies within a small radius of viable rooftop options. (Contact Antenna Management Corp for a free consultation about the viability of your location to the cellular networks and we will help to determine what your asking price should be. ) The consultants that are contacting you will have been given a radius of only a few hundred meters with height and blockage guidelines. Knowledge is power when negotiating a cell antenna lease – learn as much as you can about the feasibility of your rooftop for cell phone antennas before agreeing to cell antenna lease contracts and terms.

Allowing cellular antenna installations to be mounted on your building can be a win-win situation provided that the installation and maintenance is properly preformed. Ideally the building owner should have periodic site visits to verify that the cell antenna installation is being preformed properly though out the entire installation process. Typical items requiring independent evaluation should include the proper installation of antennas, brackets, and related conduit; removal of weld spatter; proper surface preparation and coating applications, and quality of welds. A final cell antenna site visit should be preformed to check the entire cell installation against the plans and drawings.

There are several contractual items that should be addressed when considering a cell antenna contract. A few items to address with the cellular antenna leasing agents are:

  • What happens if another cellular carrier wants to up antennas on the rooftop?
  • Will the design of the antenna brackets accommodate more than one carrier, or will it limit the number of carriers on the rooftop?
  • What parties are responsible for damage that is a result from Acts of God?
  • What party is responsible for on-site safety?
  • What party if responsible for making sure that the appropriate permits are not only applied for and approved?
  • What amount of accessibility to the rooftop and equipment rooms are afforded to the building owner?
  • What aesthetic upgrades are available?

Sanitary or safety deficiencies caused by improper cell antenna installations can prevent or impede future maintenance of your rooftop and prevent future revenues from additional carriers on your site. Some factors to consider:

  • Cables, cell antennas, and cellular mounting devices placed improperly can make it difficult or impossible to perform routine maintenance to your rooftop
  • Certain structural problems may be caused by cellular antenna installations
  • Improper cable penetrations can cause damage to your rooftop
  • Improperly mounted brackets or cell antennas can create a potential liability should high winds, ice loading, seismic activity, or other events cause the installation to fail
  • Improper or unperformed touch-up paint to a cellular antenna issues

The goal of a proper cell antenna installation is to provide financial benefits that outweigh the potential problems of the cell phone installation on your building. Consulting with independent experts to negotiate contracts and monitor and manage the cell antenna installation is always good practice and will provide long term benefits.

Dave Wireless Expands Across Canada

August 24th, 2010

DAVE Wireless becomes Mobilicity: Chairman John Bitove (left) and President Dave Dobbin unveil Mobilicity, the company's go-to-market consumer brand name, at a press conference in Toronto, Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Dave Wireless or Mobilicity, a new Canadian cell provider is currently busy in site acquisition for new cell antennas in Vancouver. Dave Wireless is expanding from Toronto to Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa. Mobilicity is aggressively negotiating new cell antenna leases with property owners and property managers. Mobilicity is squeezing into the G3 market dominated by Rogers, Fido, Bell, Telus Virgin and Wind with a focus on smart phones. It is estimated that 66 percent of transmission will be video within five years – this is where Mobilicity is focused. Antenna Management Corp. is busily assisting landlords in negotiating new leases with Dave Wireless ( Mobilicity) and other carriers. Cell antenna leases are a specialized area and carriers such as Dave Wireless generally end up with the advantage unless landlords use a service such as Antenna Management Corp. in their negotiations with Dave Wireless. Mobilicity cell site leases are expected to grow dramatically in number to compete and meet demand. Antennas on rooftops are preferred negotiation sites for Dave Wireless as it minimizes costs and maximizes setup speed. Landlords need to be careful of liabilities of rooftop antennas and the associated electronics.. Dave Wireless (Data& Audio-Visual Enterprises Ltd.) seeks to negotiate as many leases as possible to fill their cell antenna network needs.

Dave Wireless or Mobilicity typically looks for buildings at least 30 meters high that are well situated to provide line of sight exposure to cell customers.  Mobilicity negotiates long term leases with renewal terms.  Dave Wireless leases can be structured to provide many advantages to Mobilicity and significant liabilities to the landlord.  It is important to get specialized help in negotiating cell antenna leases with Dave Wireless.  Mobilicity has negotiated many more leases than individual landlords and are usually at an advantage.  Landlords can be pressured into leases that have minimal income and significant liabilities that can alter their building insurance.  If you are approached by Dave Wireless or Mobilicity, get help in your negotiations to achieve better income and less liability.

What Does a Cell Antenna Lease Pay?

August 6th, 2010

What a cellular company will pay to install a cell antenna on a property depends on many factors. Antenna Management Corp (“AMC”) has seen figures that vary between $250/month to $10,000/month. Learning about the factors or seeking the opinion of Cellular Lease Consultants will help in your cell antenna lease contract negotiations to get your company the best lease rates and terms possible.

For a typical raw land builds, we’ve found that $600-$1500 is the standard starting offer to lease a location to build a cell antenna pole or cell antenna tower. If building conditions are difficult – for example the cell company has to build a trench to bring in electricity and phone fiber connections for the cell antenna tower – they will want a lower rate. Other factors that bring value to your property are height of the antenna, surrounding topography, nearby buildings and other obstacles, the population density of cell phone users in the area, proximity to major roads, the location of other cellular antennas in the area, and the likelihood that they can find another suitable cell antenna site nearby.

Our experience is that the rooftop antenna lease offers very even more widely than cell antenna towers. On the low end of the cell antenna lease amount offers we have see monthly payments as low as $250/month for old leases in less densely populated areas. Typically in these cases the owner of the building with the rooftop cell antenna installation were told by the cell antenna leasing agents that the company would take their antennas elsewhere if they did not agree to the low rate. Rather than seeking an outside opinion the potential cell site owner accepted the cell antenna lease offer thinking that some money was better than no money. Fortunately in several of these cases, conducting a Cellular Lease Audit gave the cell antenna site property owners leverage and they were able to renegotiate their cellular antenna leases to receive a better income stream from the antennas on their property.

The best cellular antenna property lease rates we have seen have been as high as $10,000 a month in prime urban areas. These have been negotiated by consultants that are knowledgeable about the cell phone antenna industry, the particular market that the cellular company is trying to service with the cell antenna installation, the viability of the surrounding buildings for rooftop antenna installations. Specialized knowledge about how to structure the cell antenna lease is critical for property owners and property managers so that as the cellular company needs to add more bandwidth or other cellular antenna tenants, the property owner receives appropriate increases in lease income. If you would like a free no obligation telephone consultation, fill out the contact us form with the best time for an Antenna Management consultant to call and we will be happy to contact you for a confidential discussion about your cellular antenna lease options.

Cellular companies may claim that if you don’t accept the terms offered they will go to your neighbors, but if they specifically contacted you – there is usually a reason. Cellular leasing agents are typically given a very small radius (only a few hundred meters) and told to find a property within that meets the cellular antenna company’s needs. Knowledge about your potential cellular antenna site and the cell network is your best bargaining chip. Contact Antenna Management today to learn about your cell antenna lease options.

Globalive: Your Next Cell Phone Provider?

July 28th, 2010

From The Insider, http://www.insidermediagroup.com/features/globalive-your-next-cell-phone-provider
Written by Nihal Mahmood

Rogers Wireless, Bell Mobility and Telus Corp control 95% of the Canadian wireless market, forming an impenetrable oligopoly where escalated prices and unacceptable service go unpunished. However, things are starting to change in the industry as several new entrants enter the market. One promising player is Globalive, a result of Ottawa’s auction of a new wireless spectrum last year. The hope for consumers is that the increased competition will drive down prices while still being able to talk for hours, and text 80 words a minute.

Globalive Communications, Canada’s newest wireless carrier, is seeking a several hundred million dollar credit loan from the bank to finance its expansion in Western Canada and Ontario. They have already entered the market in Toronto and Calgary with much success.

Globalive recently surpassed 5,000 subscribers and has set a benchmark of signing 1.5 million people within the next three years. Globealive’s Wind Mobile service is backed by an Egyptian billionaire, Naguib Sawiris. In 2008, the company bid $442 million to obtain the right to mobile phone airwaves across Canada (excluding Quebec). They have a series of loans and have estimated a ten-year operating budget of $1.5 to $1.6 billion. This is a serious operation, and they have no intent to slow down.

Globalive is being challenged by Rogers, Bell and Telus Corp, who will be facing increased competition with the introduction of five new mobile phone operators in addition to Wind.

Wind currently offers three monthly voice plans at $15, $35, and $45, as well as a $35 monthly data plan. By not charging system access fees or a 911 fee, Wind creates a competitive advantage in a market saturated with hidden fees. In addition, Wind offers the latest cell phone models, including RIM’s BlackBerry Bold 9700 and Google’s Nexus One. This will result in direct competition with the iPhone, which is currently being offered by BCE, Telus and Rogers.

Globalive has indicated that the company will be considering an initial public offering (IPO) in the future, in addition to seeking more equity investors. To put it simply, they intend on growing their market share quickly, but also strategically, to ensure long-term sustainability.

There are high expectations for Globalive to have a positive impact on the overall economy. Nonetheless, there are several critics that question the government’s approval of the company. It is required that the company be Canadian-owned. However, considering that the majority of Globalive’s equity is owned by Orascam, an Egyptian telecom provider, the federal government has been accused of re-writing foreign ownership rules by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission.

Tony Clement, the Industry Minister in Canada, considers Globalive to be Canadian-owned, as most of the company’s voting shares are owned by Canadians. Observers are speculating that a similar trend, which occurred in the broadcasting industry, will also occur in the telecom industry. Maybe in the near future, when people are asked who their cell provider is, the answer may not be as predictable.

Rogers’ Wireless Data Earnings on Fire… 40% Growth

June 6th, 2010

Quarterly Report:

Rogers Communications Inc. spent less on advertising in the first quarter, helping to lead to lower-than-expected subscriber additions in its all-important wireless division, but profit surged relative to a year ago as the economy improved.

With a direct rival spending heavily to sponsor the Vancouver Olympics and smaller, new wireless entrants burning cash to get the remaining attention of consumers, Toronto-based Rogers held back in the first quarter of 2010.

Instead, the country’s biggest wireless provider focused on migrating its existing cellphone customer base up to smartphones, which generate more revenue than traditional mobile phones by enabling Web surfing, email usage and other higher-value data functions. As a result, more than a third of Rogers 8.5 million mobile customers tote an iPhone, BlackBerry or other 3G device.

Rogers said it activated roughly 348,000 more smartphones in the quarter, helping to fuel revenue growth for wireless data.

Wireless data revenues grew by 40% compared to a year earlier, leading to a 7% overall rise in wireless revenues, to $1.662-billion for the quarter ended March 31. Wireless is Rogers’ most important business segment, accounting for more than 55% of its $2.89-billion consolidated revenues.

Rogers is relying on smart-phone and wireless broadband growth to counter price erosion from new competition as well as slowing growth overall in Canada’s $16-billion cellphone market. It added 47,000 wireless subscribers last quarter, well below the consensus among analysts of about 60,000.

But the strategy of upgrading customers to more data-hungry devices seems to be working: Average monthly revenue earned per subscriber, or ARPU, among postpaid accounts was roughly flat at $72.14. ARPU is a key metric used to assess a wireless provider’s earnings power.

Rogers has managed to keep overall ARPU among contract and non-contract customers above rivals Telus Corp. and BCE Inc., but it too continued to see the headline figure fall 55¢ in the quarter, to $62.02.

An improving economy helped lift all boats at Rogers, as its cable operations and media properties saw operating profits climb. Cable, which includes television, Internet and residential phone, saw operating profits leap 10% from a year ago to $344-million, while Rogers Media, which owns the Citytv conventional network and Sportsnet specialty channels, returned to the black for the first time in two years, posting an $8-million operating profit.

Overall, Rogers earned a better-than-expected $380-million, or 64¢ a share, in the first three months of the year, compared with $309-million (49¢) in the year-earlier quarter. Analysts were looking for profits of about 55¢ a share.

Ericsson to Manage Mobilicity Network

May 7th, 2010

Wireless upstart signs five-year contract

Jamie Sturgeon, Financial Post Published: Wednesday, April 28, 2010

In the fight against industry behemoths, wireless upstart Mobilicity knows it must be nimble.

And in a business where the cost of acquiring customers can be punishing, combined with relatively puny marketing muscle compared to Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc. and Telus Corp., cutting costs is the priority.

Yesterday, the soon-to-launch carrier pared back perhaps the biggest operating expense of all: managing its network, announcing a long-term agreement with Ericsson AB, the Swedish network maker that took over Nortel Networks Corp.’s wireless business last year. The agreement will see day-to-day operations handled by Ericsson for the next five years.

Financial terms were not disclosed. However, Ronald Gruia, telecoms analyst at Frost & Sullivan said Mobilicity, the brand name that Data & Audio-Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc. plans to go to market with this spring, has cut 15% to 20% from its operating expenses with the move.

“This deal allows us to stay on strategy, lower our operating costs and at the same time, bring scale, scope and experience to the operation,” chief executive Dave Dobbin said in an interview.

The partnership with Ericsson, the company selected last year to build Mobilicity’s new 3G network, furthers an outsourcing model being pursued by the startup, which is billing itself as a “low-cost mobile operator.” Last fall, U.S. customer-services provider Amdocs Ltd. was brought in to handle billing and customer relations duties.

The approach is a marked departure from what other new wireless entrants such as Wind Mobile and Public Mobile are doing. The other newcomers, as well as cable companies Shaw Communications Inc. and Videotron Ltee, are or are expected to keep wireless network management and other functions in-house.

Ericsson has similar deals with carriers around the world, the most well-known being its US$5-billion seven-year partnership with U.S. giant Sprint Nextel.

Mobilicity plans to launch before the summer. The company, backed by private capital from Canadian firm Obelysk and U.S. private-equity player Quadrangle Capital Partners, paid about $240-million during the 2008 spectrum auction to acquire licences that allow it to operate wireless services in 10 of Canada’s 13 biggest markets. It plans to launch in Toronto initially.

Not surprisingly, the carrier has been mum on pricing ahead of the launch.

However, many observers expect Mobilicity to aggressively undercut market prices to gain share against Rogers, Telus, Bell and Wind Mobile. Yesterday’s deal reinforces the strategy, Mr. Gruia said. “All this outsourcing activity indicates that they’re going to compete on price.”

jasturgeon@nationalpost.com

Alcatel-Lucent Awarded Three Year Globalive Wireless Contract

December 29th, 2009

Alcatel-Lucent has been awarded a multi-million dollar, three-year contract to help build Globalive Wireless’ new nationwide 3G mobile network in Canada.

Globalive is focused on launching a new national wireless operation, serving consumers across Canada. In 2009 Globalive was awarded spectrum licenses by Industry Canada after successfully bidding more than CDN $442 million in the government’s Advanced Wireless Services auction.

“Our commitment is to provide Canadian consumers with unmatched value. For that we need future-ready technology that enables the delivery of high-capacity, cost-effective IP-based services,” said Ken Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of Globalive Wireless. “We look to the experience, expertise and forward-thinking technology of Alcatel-Lucent to support our commitment to building an advanced, high-speed mobile network that will support economic development and jobs creation throughout Canada.”

Alcatel-Lucent is providing an end-to-end solution and comprehensive network integration support to ensure the rapid rollout of Globalive’s commercial voice, mobile broadband and multimedia service offerings. Under the agreement Alcatel-Lucent will supply Globalive with its industry-leading, LTE-ready 3G radio access network offering — based on its multi-standard radio access solution — including radio network controllers, node Bs (base stations) and a flexible wireless network management system. For the project Alcatel-Lucent also will provide a variety of professional services including site acquisition and construction, radio frequency network design and optimization as well as overall network planning and design.

To address Globalive’s mobile backhaul requirements, Alcatel-Lucent will deploy its IP service routers, service aggregation routers and microwave packet radios, which will support the highly reliable, secure and cost-effective transport of 3G traffic and will give Globalive the ability to smoothly transition to LTE to address evolving market demands.

“Alcatel-Lucent has a proven track record for delivering high-speed wireless networks in Canada and globally. Our new 3G mobile networking solutions provide the innovation, operational excellence and cost efficiency Globalive needs to quickly build out its network and offer Canadians innovative mobile services,” said Alex Giosa, President of Alcatel-Lucent business in Canada. “This contract highlights Globalive’s confidence in our comprehensive solutions and local support capabilities.”

Giosa noted that the Globalive deployment will leverage technology developed at Alcatel-Lucent’s Ottawa research facility, which employs a large team of experienced engineers and technologists working on advanced wireless and IP technologies.

Alcatel-Lucent is a leading player in the wireless infrastructure market having deployed 350 commercial wireless networks worldwide, including 56 W-CDMA commercial networks in 37 countries. With more than 600,000 multi-standard cabinets shipped since 1999, Alcatel-Lucent’s pioneering multi-standard technology base station is designed to support IP transformation and is part of our unique converged radio access network (RAN) strategy that enables operators to smoothly evolve towards future mobile broadband technologies. The company is a world leader in the design, deployment, management and integration of networks.

About Globalive Wireless Management Corp.

Globalive Wireless is a subsidiary of Globalive Holdings. Globalive is a leading provider of telecommunications solutions in Canada and internationally to the consumer and business market segments. The Globalive companies include Globalive Wireless, Yak Communications, One Connect, Canopco and Globalive Carrier Services. For more information www.globalive.com.

About Alcatel-Lucent

Alcatel-Lucent (Euronext Paris and NYSE: ALU) is the trusted partner of service providers, enterprises and governments worldwide, providing solutions to deliver voice, data and video communication services to end-users. A leader in fixed, mobile and converged broadband networking, IP technologies, applications and services, Alcatel-Lucent leverages the unrivalled technical and scientific expertise of Bell Labs, one of the largest innovation powerhouses in the communications industry. With operations in more than 130 countries and the most experienced global services organization in the industry, Alcatel-Lucent is a local partner with a global reach. Alcatel-Lucent achieved revenues of Euro 16.98 billion in 2008 and is incorporated in France, with executive offices located in Paris. For more information, visit Alcatel-Lucent on the Internet: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com.