[Editor's Note: The city's Planning & Zoning Commission will at its Jan. 10 meeting. . Read more about mobile phone issues in Albany here, and click the "Keep me posted" button below for alerts when we post about this topic.]
An Albany Patch article on Nov. 28, 2011, pointed out that AT&T has . Some reader comments implied that the reason for the lack of sites is Albany’s zoning code and the way it regulates placement of cellular antennas.
In fact, the lack of AT&T sites in Albany has nothing to do with Albany’s zoning code. The reason AT&T has —and in many other places in the U.S.—is a poor business decision in 2005 to sell a large portion of what would have been AT&T’s network to T-Mobile.
Here’s the history:
What is now AT&T is the result of the former Cingular Wireless's purchase of AT&T Wireless in 2005. At the time of that purchase, Cingular had two sites in Albany: at Town Centre shopping center on San Pablo Ave. and at St. Mary's High School on the southeast side of town. When Cingular bought AT&T, it changed the name of the new combined business to AT&T and sold the former Cingular GSM (global mobile system) network, including the two Albany sites, to T-Mobile for $2.5 billion.
The new AT&T dissolved a pre-existing joint venture between Cingular and T-Mobile in which those two carriers shared sites and divested itself of the Cingular network, which went to T-Mobile. These were among the conditions on which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the Cingular-AT&T merger. The FCC’s stated goal was to preserve competitiveness in the wireless industry and prevent any single carrier from dominating the market.
Subsequently, the new AT&T contracted to provide iPhone wireless service, knowing full well that, without the Cingular network, it did not have the capability to support the demand the iPhone would generate.
So, yes, AT&T coverage in Albany is poor and AT&T has no sites in Albany. Why? Because AT&T gave away to T-Mobile the two sites it would have had in Albany.
Ironically, AT&T has since been trying to buy T-Mobile, presumably in part to get back at least some of the network it sold to T-Mobile at the time of the AT&T-Cingular merger. However, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in 2011 to block this merger, and, in November, AT&T withdrew its FCC application to acquire T-Mobile.
The story of Cingular, AT&T and T-Mobile, and the musical-chairs ownership of cell sites, raises the question of to what extent regulations to preserve an ostensibly "competitive" cell phone industry are actually in the best interests of consumers.
Arguably, a single unified nationwide cell network, similar to our single nationwide landline infrastructure, would provide better service.
With a single network using one technology, instead of the competing networks and sometimes incompatible technologies of Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, MetroPCS and Sprint/Nextel (five companies now, down from what used to be seven major wireless carriers), all customers would get the same access to the physical infrastructure that transmits and receives wireless data.
As this history makes clear, our local regulations are not the reason for AT&T’s lack of cell sites in Albany.
AT&T’s business decision and the FCC’s conditions on the AT&T-Cingular merger resulted in AT&T losing the two Cingular sites in Albany. The result of this combination of bad decision making and FCC mandates results in the city bearing an unfair burden of permitting new AT&T sites in our community, which already has more cell sites per capita than surrounding cities, to make up for the fact that AT&T had sites here and gave them up.
Nan Wishner
Albany Residents for Responsible Oversight of Wireless (ARROW)
Read more about mobile phone issues in Albany here, and click the "Keep me posted" button below for alerts when Patch posts about this topic.
Let me see if I can explain why asking the city to approve new AT&T sites when the city already approved AT&T sites that were then given away is an unfair burden. There are two reasons. One is that Albany already has more cell antenna sites per square mile than any other neighboring city. For example, Albany currently has 7 cell sites within our 1 square mile while Berkeley, which is 18 square miles, has 26 sites. These numbers are quite disproportionate: if the ratio of 7 sites per square mile were applied in Berkeley, Berkeley would have 126 sites. That gives you an idea how many more we have than our fair share. For the second reason: we already gave AT&T (then Cingular) permits for two sites, they gave those sites away without the city having any say in the matter, and now they want permits for more sites. Maybe an analogy can make it clear though it isn't perfect. Let's say Albany wants to restrict the number of fast food restaurants and gives a permit for a MacDonald's; then, MacDonald's sells its site to Burger King and comes back asking for a new permit to build a another MacDonald's. To make the analogy complete, let's say there's a federal law that says we have to allow MacDonald's to have a location in the city. We had no say in the fact that we got a Burger King in place of the first MacDonald's, and now we will be stuck with 2 fast food restaurants even though we might have only wanted 1 in the city.
One factual correction to your post: the previous proposal for AT&T antennas at 1035 San Pablo was not approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission because of a provision of Albany's general zoning ordinance (not the wireless ordinance) that regulates how much of a rooftop can be covered by ancillary structures. I believe there was also a problem with meeting the height regulations specified in that same section of the zoning code.
As for the analogy, it assumes up front that cell towers are something like fast food restaurants--something unhealthy that needs to be restricted. While this probably reflects the pseudoscientific view of the ARROW group, that reality is that Albany would be better off with more cell sites, not fewer. So the analogy is flawed from the start.
Logic dictates that arguments should be free of irrelevant alternatives like telepathy. That is what is fundamentally wrong with Wishner's thinking. All the discussion of FCC policy and a single unified cell network is as irrelevant as telepathy. It ain't gonna happen, so there is no point in discussing it. The fundamental reality here is that Albany needs more realistic cell tower policies.
Your written arguments remind me of Rick Santorum this past week telling a young woman that her view that same sex marriage should be legal was not reasonable (since he equates same sex marriage to polygamy and man on dog marriage,) as he dismissed everything she said. Surely, you can't be serious when you dismiss other people's opinions because they don't match yours.
For those concerned about radiation (I am not, other than verifying compliance), there is some irony in the fact that more cell stations will reduce the transmission power needed at any given station.
The AT&T business that matters in Albany is whether or not the company can provide good service for its many local subscribers. It doesn’t now and the application in front of the P&Z is intended to help alleviate this deficiency. I submit that our city’s decision makers have an obligation to support improvements in public utility services that benefit those of us who are residents. If it were the City’s job to punish AT&T, then the arguments in this editorial would be relevant. But that is not the City’s job and this editorial has no bearing on the application in front of the P&Z on Tuesday.
Which nation has a single landline infrastructure? For over five years, my household has used Vonage (and its Voice Over Internet Protocol) for residential telephone service. It uses the Comcast cable system, not the telephone wires owned by Pac Bell or its successor organizations. Perhaps you mean shared telephone pole instead of shared landline. In which case, you should support the shared use of the structure at 423 San Pablo by Verizon and Metro PCS. But, no, you find some other reason to object to efforts to remedy Albany's inadequate, obsolete cellular service.
If the AT&T antennas are added to the existing Sprint/Nextel antennas at 1035 San Pablo Avenue, the maximum radiated power (EIRP) will be about 12,000 watts, based on AT&T's RF consultant’s calculations. This is far higher than we have seen in a cell tower application. According to the consultant, at the top-floor elevation of any nearby building, the public would be exposed to a maximum of 11 percent of the continuous radio frequency emissions the FCC regulations allow (using some "worst case assumptions"). If your bedroom were on the roof beyond 42 feet directly in front of the antennas, that would be just below the FCC’s limit for permissible exposure. I agree that AT&T's cell phones don't work all that well in parts of Albany. I don’t live across from 1035 San Pablo Avenue, and I wouldn’t want to. Would you? Would you be ok with these antennas across the street from your home?
Also note that EIRP is NOT the same as radiated power. It is the theoretical amount of power that would be radiated if the beam were multiplied to cover all directions. For a typical cell mast EIRP will be many times greater than the true radiated power. It makes no sense to talk about the total EIRP of adding multiple antennas together because they're aimed in different directions. Two 50mph cars is not one 100mph car.
http://www.albanyca.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=18059 Attachment 7 at: http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?recordid=4934&page=311 Each carrier has three sectors of antennas. This is only for one sector. To get EIRP I multiplied the ERP by 1.64, the gain of a dipole, which is the reference for ERP.
It seems to me if you want to restrict the towers on health reasons, the science is not in your favor.
Arguing that it is "because AT&T gave away to T-Mobile the two sites it would have had in Albany" (as required by the FCC) is completely irrelevant. The reason AT&T has such poor coverage TODAY is that their application of May 22, 2008 for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review has not yet been approved. This is almost four years later. The FCC has indicated that "90 days for processing collocation applications and 150 days for processing applications other than collocations are generally reasonable timeframes" If the application had been approved in a timely basis then we'd have had better service a long time ago
I would be more concerned about confirming that the antennae were installed correctly, and that the installation is in compliance with the use permit. Nothing is risk-free. But the 'unknown unknowns' here pose less risk than a dental x-ray or crossing Marin on a daily basis (my opinion).
Let me toss your question back to you--If you would not be OK with antennas like this, the ball is in your court to explain why. Given that the power outputs all well below FCC limits, what credible scientific evidence can you give us that we (not you) should be worried? I spend a lot of time perusing the scientific literature, and I just don't understand the bases of your concerns.
US Code Title 47 5 III Part 1 §332 Mobile Services (c) (7) (B) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof— (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services
http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/FCC_LSGAC_RF_Guide.pdf
Not true. If 100 wireless operators applied to provide wireless service in Albany the City would have to treat them all fairly and could not exclude them. TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part II > § 253 REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO ENTRY "(a) In general No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.
The way our legal system works, there would be massive fortunes to be made by lawyers if there were anything plausible to the notion that the telcos' placement and operation of cell phone towers could lead to meaningful health risks. If the money-grubbing plaintiffs' bar can't drum up a case, that's strong evidence that there likely isn't one. As for 1035 San Pablo -- I live SUPER close to that area and would be THRILLED to have those antennae put in.