Cellular towers ruining America
To the Editor:
I have two comments regarding
your antenna-siting article. (Antenna siting is hot topic for NACo Crowd, March 8.)
First, it is my understanding
that all calls from cellular phones travel along landline phone wires to the next cell site.
Second, having just
returned from a trip to Switzerland, where unfortunately they are just as enamored of cell phones as Americans-except
it is against the law to drive and talk at the same time-we saw NO cell towers-not one-I am in contact with SwissCom
and other groups to learn how they can do this. Deep valleys, highways, cities-we did not see ONE ugly pole with
antennas on it.
Mr. Moss is wrong. This is not a dead issue. (Sheldon Moss, government relations manager for the
Personal Communications Industry Association, who said in the story antenna siting was not the front-burner issue it
was two years ago.)
Citizens FIRST in Washington state just testified (as we did last year) against a bill that would
have allowed siting in rights of ways in Washington state-but, exempting state rights of ways. This of course, is what
the industry would like in order to overcome opposition from local governments. We pointed out that this decision is
best left to the most local form of government possible, as provided for in the Telecommunications Act. The bill did not
even make it out of committee this year. The ignorance surrounding the telecom act is appalling. The lies the industry
lawyers tell citizens is appalling. The number of city councils and local government officials that either a) believe the
telecom lawyers or b) (more likely) are being paid off to make decisions that favor the wireless industry is
appalling.
We, the people, are working very hard behind the scenes-and visibly-to prevent this multibillion dollar
industry from ruining our country.
The other sad side of this is the number of young people being hired to sell this
story. And, the number of young people selling phones in grocery stores or wireless outlets that spend hours and hours
each day talking on cell phones. Just wait until they all file suit against the industry for not telling them that Motorola
and the FCC recommend keeping the antenna as far from your head as possible by mounting it on the roof of your car
so you are shielded from the radiation. Funny, that information did not come with my cell phone-did it come with
yours?
S.G. Lawrence
Medina, Wash.
Industry: heed warnings on tower-siting atmosphere
To the
Editor:
I wanted you to know that I thought your March 1 editorial, Tower challenges, in RCR was one of the best
you have written since I have been reading your newspaper.
What you have candidly told our industry is what I
have been teaching in my classes for five years and telling our industry trade associations until I no longer have the
energy to do so.
My hope is that since you have given them this warning, the wireless industry will sit up straight
and pay attention. I am not hopeful. The “dumbing down” of our industry has progressed to the point of
where we as contractors are only receiving one-third of the rate for acquisition and permitting services for wireless sites
we were receiving only two years ago. Service providers are going out of business on a daily basis. My 27 years of
relationships and my equal experience in cable has allowed me to survive, but I must work harder and smarter than ever
before.
The carrier’s representatives are green, arrogant and untrained. They are also underpaid, and that is what you
get for your money. Dark clouds are forming on the horizon and 10 cents a minute with no long distance and no
roaming charges doesn’t leave a lot of money for the carriers to address this problem. It would be nice for this industry
to act proactively on a common-sense issue, just once. It is always reactive, which puts you on the defense and in a
mode for damage control for the issues you write about.
My fear is the next big issue to hit us will be when the
planners find out that the build-to-suit companies are not public utilities in any state, and therefore do not apply for
protection of any kind under section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Then we will be in some real
trouble.
Once again, congratulations on an excellent editorial and I hope the industry will finally act on your
recommendations.
Greg Sweet
President
Acquire Telecom Services
