quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
quote:
Originally posted by Radio
quote:
I will reiterate again. Most celltowers regardless of location do not use white strobes at night. Saying a strobe is a strobe is the same as saying a lightbulb is a lightbulb. In the tower industry, the words strobe and beacon are used for describing night and day useage (did you know that?). I work with several vendors who do repair and relamping and celltowers are something I deal with every day here in Tulsa. Someone mentioned cellular providers and their complaints on their white strobes at night and I simply stated that for the most part, it isn't a cellular provider flashing a white strobe at night.
All carriers lease space. A leased space could be anything from a rooftop on a building to a farmer's pasture or a water tower. It doesn't matter. Most outlying areas use pastures. Carriers do not look for a tower to throw their antennas on. Network Planners look for location first that serves that particular area whether it be poor coverage or a handoff issue. If at that time a Planner sees an ability to co-locate with other carriers, then they will look at that. I have hardly seen any cellular providers locate with another non cellular communication tower.
Like I stated before, a carrier is totally responsible for the tower. Only those who co-locate do not have the responsibility of lighting issues and safety of said tower. There are a large and sizeable number of celltowers in Oklahoma that are serving one provider only and these towers are erected for the sole purpose of cellular useage. This is actually the norm for cellular carriers. You paint a picture of cellular companies parasiting off of existing comm towers and that simply is not true.
Parasiting? Never said that. It is business.
Chuckle. I have been in the tower industry
for many years, and presently am the VP for operations in a tower company with holdings from Maine to Colorado, Michigan to Alabama. It is obvious that I am in the presence of someone who is much more knowledgable than
I could ever be.
Network planners produce what is called "search rings" on maps. Site acquisition people (Which is another service we do for a number of carriers) are instructed to first look for existing structures. If no towers or other elevated platforms are available, then they are instructed to look for raw land on which to build. Often, a site just outside of the "search rings" is found that already has a tower, and the network folks decide if that will work instead of building.
The business model of having towers to lease to Cell Carriers is sound - look at American Towers, (www.americantowers.com) Global Signal (www.gsignal.com) Global Towers (www.Gtpsite.com) Vangard Wireless (www.vangardwireless.com) All these companies are doing it. Notice that each and every one advertises "Build To Suit" sites - where the carrier says "we could use a site in this search ring" and the tower company says we will build you one if you commit to leasing space on it.
AAT Communications presently has their "book" on the market - offering to sell their towers, about 1930 of them that they own, and 5 thousand or so that they just manage or sublease on, for 1 billion dollars. They will end up selling for that also. Their biggest market has always been, Cellular or PCS carriers.
While there is as you say, a large number of towers built in the Oklahoma area specifically for Cellular use, the majority have been built on a build to suit basis for cellular companies, and are owned by tower companies.
ATC has 50 towers in Tulsa alone, (with tulsa
addresses) and their primary business is Cellular. There are over 3200 rental sites
across Oklahoma.
Where are all these towers going if not for Cellular/PCS?
Mr Vice Prez-I can see you are ecstatic with your credentials-good for you! May I refer you to the very beginning of this conversation concerning celltowers because you are not grasping the topic at hand. Someone mentioned that they blamed cellular carriers as the ones with white strobes at night. I replied that it is not true and it isn't. Then you went off on night beacons are really strobes like that was some sort of $500,00 trivia question on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
You stated, "Remember, the carriers lease a lot of space on rental towers, and have no control over how those towers are lit, unless the tower is being built on a build to suit basis for that tower company."
Huh? How would a tower company build on a build to suit basis for a tower company? Your statement is baffling Mr VP. I am not arguing that cellular providers lease or do not lease towers. You portray a picture of cellular providers leasing existing, erected towers. That is not how it works. Sure planning would love to save some dough on an already-existing tower, but otherwise they will lease some property and have a tower erected there. You will not find however a comm tower that serves other purposes besides cellular and see cellular antennas/MWs on them as a common occurance.
Most towers are build to suit for carriers. I can guarantee you that ATT, Dobson, Cricket and US Cellular for the most part have towers on a build to suit basis and are held responsible for control over grounding, anchoring and lighting/visibility responsibilities.
Most cellular carriers do not write out a check each month to a tower company for the property it sits on. Those carriers write out a check to the actual property owner who owns the land. It is not the tower owning or leasing the land and the carrier paying the tower company. I am not sure what you are VP of but your facts are incorrect. I know of at least one major carrier who has their own site aquisition people and do not pay for a tower company's service.
In Tulsa, it's typically the cellular carriers that build new cellular towers.
Representative notice of a proposed cellular tower:
PUBLISHED in the Tulsa World, March 13, 2006, Tulsa, OK
PUBLIC NOTICE
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless proposes to build a 130 foot tall monopole telecommunications tower at 8140 East 27th St., Tulsa, OK. Interested parties wishing to comment regarding any effects the project may have on historic properties may contact S. Cates (refer to project no. 168370B) at Aarcher, Inc. 200 Rufe Snow N., Suite 108, Keller, TX 76248, (817) 980-0056. Typical exceptions sought by cellular carriers:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins, Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception of required 110% tower setback (88') from adjoining OL district to 46' to permit a U.S. Cellular 80' monopole wireless telephone transmission tower in a CH-zoned district, with six-foot screening fence; and with landscaping per plan, finding all the factors required would be met, and that it will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Codehttp://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20BOA/Approved%20Minutes/2001/04-24-01.htm
Applicant US Cellular
http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20BOA/Approved%20Minutes/2004/11-09-04.pdf
"Mr. Brightmire noted that other cellular companies may have good service in this area, but Cricket needs the tower to provide good service."
"On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY the request for a Special Exception to allow a 100' cell tower in an RS-2 zoned district; Special Exception of the required 110% setback, finding the proposed tower to meet factors required: 100' galvanized steel monopole; 125' from nearest residential structure"http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20BOA/Approved%20Minutes/2001/04-10-01.htm
(Cell towers seem to be an energetic subject, but maybe we can also get the Wal-Mart discussion back on track)