Do I want a cellphone tower on my property?

ar their house.

like I have)

Modern carrier networks do not use cryo-cooled equipment. One reason the costs are high is good old "supply and demand". Periodically, the FCC will auction off chunks of spectrum, and there will b e a mad dash to construct those towers. (More true in the early days, of c ourse). Often, new spectrum & technologies are simply placed on existing l egacy structures. That said, 2.5 GHz doesn't propagate like 850 MHz, so mo re tower nodes are needed.

Laypersons seem to think the average cell site makes tons of money from "da y-one".

While it's true that some tower cash flow spectacularly, the majority take a long time to earn a return on investment. (That's why the carriers want

30 year leases.) That also explains why 3G (or until recently 2G) hang aro und so long after they are by far and away technologically obsolete -- ther e's still money to be made! There are always handsets that can't handle th e latest technologies, so the older ones just chug along making money -- un til the economics (and spectrum scarcity / demand) say otherwise. Eventual ly, the carriers will be forced (economic of competitive pressure) to turn off the older technologies (sometimes, with the FCC having a say), in favor of higher performing radio bearers (like 4G LTE).

The "average" cell site is at least a $400k-500k proposition (minimum) to b uild it. (land/lease, shelter, equipment, tower). A lot more if it has to be a beefier tower.

Reply to
mpm
Loading thread data ...

Pitiful? That's like having $250,000 in your nest egg earning you money. That could be 20% or 25% of a retired persons total income for doing basically nothing, I don't see that as pitiful. That said, I would look at what would prevent them from paying more, and if possible negotiate for more. Mikek

Reply to
amdx

Pitiful? That's like having $250,000 in your nest egg earning you money. That could be 20% or 25% of a retired persons total income for doing basically nothing, I don't see that as pitiful. That said, I would look at what would prevent them from paying more, and if possible negotiate for more. Mikek

Reply to
amdx

Are they also negotiating with your neighbours? perhaps not yet.

Can't evolve into "anything" also newer technologies are typically lower power than old tech.

see if you can get it indexed for inflation.

--
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Reply to
Jasen Betts

Given what it costs to install a new tower and the kind of profit margin there'd have to be to justify the expense yeah, it is a pitiful amount compared to the money they'll be making off it.

But as someone mentioned they're probably already talking to a neighbor who'll do it for $600.

Reply to
bitrex

The 30 year offer wasn't even inflation/CPI adjusted lol.

I will gladly f*ck their sister for an $800 flat fee.

Reply to
bitrex

In the UK, some people have had "free" solar cells put on their roof in exchange for money based on the electricity generated. The company that does that effectively leases their roof for

30 years.

That has been a problem with mortgage providers, that don't like lending on properties where other entities have a claim on the property.

So, consider the /next/ purchaser of the property: how would a tower affect them and their ability to get a mortgage.

Such considerations, plus a general dislike/fear of cellular towers may mean the property value is reduced when you sell it.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Banders wrote in news:qdgo8r$d9p$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:

That's good money. You can start a CD and get taxed very little on it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.

Yeah... that'll do it.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

Reply to
bitrex

yeah it's a shit deal with a lot of assumptions that may not be true in

5 years much less 30.

When a billion-dollar corporation builds a bunch of shit on your property then IMO they now effectively own the property, not you. Yeah that's not what the documents say but who decides what the documents say? The courts do. What determines what the courts say? Who can throw enough money at them and the lawyers...

Reply to
bitrex

Do you have a lot of money saved? Mikek

Reply to
amdx

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:49:54 -0700 (PDT), mpm wrote: (...) Very nice summary of the situation. Thanks. Permit me to add my usual drivel.

I agree. That's too low for a monopole, with or without camouflage. However, even without a regular escalation rate to pay for inflation, that's $244,000 over the 30 year term.

In my area, the typical land lease for macrocell tower or monopole, equipment shelter, power transformer, and underground wiring, runs about $1,200/month. Much depends on whether At&T will be leasing a tiny DAS (distributed antenna system) site, small fill-in site, macrocell monster tower, or something in between. Some site owners also negotiate having the cellular company pay for their electric use, which is usually very small compared to what a multi-vendor radio site will draw.

I'm rather surprised that you were approached by AT&T directly for the site lease. Usually, they go through a property manager such as Crown Castle to negotiate the lease. I guess AT&T really is cutting their costs.

If you're concerned about your ability to later sell the property, you might consider having AT&T locate the tower and shelter in a corner or side of the property. When it's time to sell, you might be able to arrange a lot split separating the house and tower properties.

You might want to get some legal help. I know nothing about this company, but the articles on their site look interesting (even though they're mostly out of date):

In the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz California, tower owners are required to attempt to co-locate at an existing cell site before the county will consider a building permit for a new site: See 13.10.663(A)(2) and 13.10.663(B)(12) at: I helped scribble that mess in 2002 when it was about 1/5th the current size. It grew considerably over the last 17 years as special interests became involved. I haven't checked lately, but it's my understanding that sharing a site or tower is generally a requirement to avoid excessive tower proliferation. Please not that at least locally, the cellular companies operate by variances and exemptions, which sometimes provide them convenient ways to work around the code requirements.

Sharing has also created a weird situation where sites are intentionally built as small as possible. The cellular provider then claims that the tower won't handle the load, there's not enough space, or the utility power is insufficient, to avoid having a competitor at the same site. You should probably check with the local government planners as to what is customary or acceptable in your area.

Incidentally, if the proposed tower is rather large or potentially obtrusive, be prepared for you and/or your attorney to spend many hours in meetings and hearings ironing out a compromise with neighborhood aesthetic committees, advisory committees, planning boards, county/city elected representatives, historical societies, environmental groups, and other interested parties. These meetings have a tendency to attract the lunatic fringe and NIMBY hordes. Radio waves have turned my brain to mush and such. At least you'll be suitably entertained during the proceedings.

Also, you might want to talk to whomever is in charge of building permits for cell site in your county. They should have a complete list of sites, owners, lot numbers, and contact information. Talk to the land owners of existing cell sites to get a clue how things worked, what needed to be done, whether it was worth the effort, and which promises were broken.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

More like $457,000 if one includes a 3% annual inflation increase in the lease:

Probably because the size of the tower, shelter, and site improvement have not been disclosed. For very small fill-in site, $800/mo is in the ballpark. For a macrocell monster, far too little.

Also, don't forget that lease payments are all taxable income. Also, income generating assets on the property are fully taxable. There might also be an increase in assessed valuation of the property. Without a suitable clauses specifying that the cellular company pay the tax increases, the property owner would pay this part of the property taxes.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

For larger broadcast tower parcels, we used to entice the local cattlemen t o graze their stock with sweetheart deals, then lower the tax base to agric ultural. Occasionally, we might even "let" Georgia Pacific or whomever far m trees on the excess property. (You need lots of land for the dreaded tow er fall radius, these days.)

Of course, that approach wouldn't work for the postage-stamp sized cellular lot.

Reply to
mpm

A good policy in life, in general, is when you notice someone has approached you with the "offer of a lifetime" like it is your "lucky day" but there are many other people around you that superficially seem not so different than yourself, probably, who have not been approached with the same offer of a lifetime, to consider why that should be so.

The gullible tend to assume they are just that fortunate and it was bound to happen because they're them.

The not so gullible take a little time to think if they might, for some reason, seem like the most gullible person in their local area...

Reply to
bitrex

What's the 'high power' all about? Interconnect links are beamed, not much power at ground level nearby, and cell communication to a phone is pretty much symmetric: the phone (battery powered) needs as much power to transmit to the tower as the tower needs to transmit to the phone. Maybe the phonea need more, because their antennae aren't aimed, or directional.

Reply to
whit3rd

Look for nearby cellular towers.

- How close are they ?

- How high are these towers ?

- How may potential customers are in the area, both residential and travelers on a road ?

This will help determining the cell size as well as total power needed.

As log as the antennas on the tower are much higher than your house this is true. A low tower or a high building and the beam is directed directly into your window will cause a strong RF field.

This is true for ordinary telephone conversations, thus the number of simultaneous phone conversations in the cell will determine the total required cell site power.

To reduce the handset power radiating into your head, a short distance and preferably line-of-sight view of the cellular tower, will minimize both handset transmission power and battery usage.

Antenna reciprocity ?

The situation with smart phone (3G/4G/5G) access is different, the download speed is typically much higher than the upload speed, this requires more base station transmission power. Due to bandwidth restrictions multiple bits are needs to be packed into each symbol, which requires higher SNR on reception and hence even higher downlink power than handset uplink power.

With a large number of users close to the tower or other good RF path, the full downlink speed can be obtained with less than full power. At larger distances or words RF paths, the full base power is needed and at even larger distances less bits/symbols can be used with lower SNR requirement and hence the maximum download speed even at full power is reduced,

It should be noted that cellular companies try to avoid excessive transmission powers, since this would cause leakage to nearby cells, thus reducing the usability of some frequencies in the vicinity and hence, reducing the total network capacity.

Reply to
upsidedown

On a sunny day (Sat, 8 Jun 2019 23:03:02 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd wrote in :

Yes it is the interconnect links I am most worried about some towers here have those dishes,,, all microwave. Sure beamed, but what if your bedroom is on the third floor? That would be 8 hours for the next 30 years of microwave exposure. The other reason, but that is personal, is that I do not want all those fields around in my (home) lab! I already pick up some radar here...

It is difficult, if you read papers on the subject of RF radiation some are disaster stories some say it makes no difference. All that said, I have WiFi permanently switched off here, Of course I have been exposed to RF all my life, and lots of power, but at much lower frequencies. That does not bother me, but anything near 2.4 GHz you better watch out for.

At least some people seem to not being able to take it. There is a lot on google. What is right? Sure industry needs to sell, and they could not care less if it shortens peoples lifespan or causes all sorts of problems. Same as those Monsanto lawsuits were it was found their stuff causes cancer, but they would not tell you. Plenty of data with google available. Why take the risk?

And I was also thinking, if you allow them to build the thing it will be building work, a new road will be made, starting 8 in the morning and all day long big machines, cranes,

I once went up the Eifel tower (as a tourist) in Paris. On the high floor there are many of those dishes, I had a bad headache after being there.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

The dish half power beamwidth in degrees is something like

60 x lambda / Diameter so a 1 m dish at 3 GHz would have a 6 degree beamwidth and 3 degrees on 6 GHz.

Perhaps the rapid air pressure loss due to the elevator caused the headache ?

Anyway, why would a metallic paraboloid have any significant back lobe?

The interesting thing is that people seem to be more afraid the larger the dish is. With constant transmitter power, the larger the dish, the lower the near filed power density. Admittedly, the near field extends a few wavelengths further out. The most dangerous part of a big dish antenna is the feedhorn at the focal point. Never look into the waveguide, unless you are absolutely sure (remove mains fuses :-) that there are no RF-power or you might loose your sight.

Reply to
upsidedown

Why are you worried by 2.4GHz?

piglet

Reply to
Piglet

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.