Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutT-MOBILE WTF, 1108 W. VINE DR. - PDP - PDP110013 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (7)The problem is that Verizon Wireless has not only a PCS spectrum, but we also have Cellular, and in most areas 2 blocks of LTE. We can combine 1 LTE block and Cellular together on one antenna. We can also combine PCS and LTE on to one dual -band antenna. This brings us down to 2 cross -pole antennas per sector. As of now, we don't have a way to go below 2 antennas per sector. Also, being at a lower frequency than PCS, the Cellular and LTE antennas are wider, making it much harder to squeeze into an 18" canister. Here are some drawbacks to canisters, and to making the above compromises: PCS works better with 2 antennas separated by 4 or more horizontal feet, instead of 1 cross -pole antenna (less coverage, slower data rates). Cellular works better with 2 antennas separated by 8 or more horizontal feet, instead of 1 cross -pole antenna. Mechanical tilt cannot be added to antennas in a canister. The orientations of the sectors in a canister must be 120 degrees apart which limits a useful tool in optimization of the network. (Optimal azimuths) Antennas in canisters are screened, which adds RF losses. If we combine LTE and Cellular on to one antenna, optimization cannot be done separately If we combine LTE and PCS on to one antenna, optimization cannot be done separately. All of these compromises degrade our system, and result in poorer service, more drops and slower throughput. This can also lead to VZW needing more sites, especially when you take into account the fact that often the canister sites are lower in height, particularly if our antennas must be lower on the pole. To obtain the best coverage and capacity, we need a tower with a height of at least 70', with 3 sectors each with 6 antennas (2 Cellular, 2 PCS and 2 LTE). CONCLUSION: Verizon Wireless has discussed its intentions to develop a site in the area of the proposed Animal House site with the City since January 2011. We have made it known that collocation on a canister at this site is not feasible given our antenna requirements. We object to approval of any communications facility which would: a) not allow for collocation of the required Verizon Wireless equipment; and b) preclude development of a new Verizon Wireless communications site required to maintain and improve coverage and capacity in the north Fort Collins area. Respectfully submitted, Irene Cooke Closser Consulting LLC, Consultants to Verizon Wireless P. O. Box 423, Tabernash, CO 80478 (970) 531-0831 Verizon Wireless Comments RE: T-Mobile Proposal PDP110013 September 26, 2011 Verizon Wireless representatives appear at today's administrative review of the T-Mobile proposal for a new communications site at 1108 West Vine Drive to express concerns about the potential impact of this decision on development of future sites in this vicinity. HISTORY: Verizon Wireless has been investigating possible locations for a new site (FTC Fat Tire) since January 2011. The objectives of the new site are to improve coverage in the vicinity of Vine Drive and Shields Street and to offload capacity from the main downtown Ft. Collins site. RF engineers hoped for a location in the area near Shields St. between Mountain and Laporte. Unfortunately, zoning regulations preclude a new site in that area, as it is densely residential. On February 10, 2011, we met with Courtney Rippy and Bill Whirty at the City -owned tower in City Park. Due to topography issues, engineers determined that this site would not be acceptable. We also met with Art Gallegos, owner of the "Animal House" property and with Mike Rein, owner of property east of Shields on Vine Drive. The Rein property is in the process of being developed as a storage facility. We hoped to work with Mr. Rein to incorporate the communications facility into his site plans. At the suggestion of Courtney Rippy, Verizon Wireless also contacted Barbara and Dick Adams, owners of property at 723 N. Shields St. Mr. and Mrs. Adams are interested in working with T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to develop a communications site on their land. A monopole could be located in the pasture area north of their home that would meet requirements of both Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile. On August 25, 2011 representatives of T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless met with Courtney Rippy to discuss collocation issues. Ms. Rippy felt that the Adams property would provide better screening for a tower site; the planning department would be willing to consider a taller pole that location. T-Mobile stated that Mr. Gallegos would also consider different locations on his property. There were several alternatives for plans that could work for both T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless sent equipment information to T-Mobile the following week, but the proposed canister design was not modified. T-Mobile proceeded with the application as submitted and Ms. Rippy said she could not hold up the application process. CONCERNS: Verizon Wireless has two main concerns about the project being reviewed today: First: the "canister" design of this tower will not allow collocation of the equipment that Verizon Wireless requires under its FCC license. Second: if Verizon Wireless cannot collocate on the proposed "Animal House" site, we will need to develop a separate facility; however, if the "Animal House" site is developed, it will be extremely difficult to obtain zoning approval for another communications site in close proximity to the existing site. CANISTER ISSUES: The following information will explain Verizon Wireless' collocation requirements. Canisters work fairly well for a PCS only carrier (such as Sprint, T-Mobile, Cricket and formerly Qwest). PCS can operate with only one antenna per sector, and because the PCS frequencies are relatively high, the antennas are narrower. This allows them to fit somewhat easily in canisters as small as 18". The PCS carriers began offering these everywhere back in the 90's.