Consultants bear brunt of mobile tower anger

 

Part 3: The 'other' front line.

Daly International knows the "supercharged emotions" that run high on mobile phone tower projects.

The contract property developer is a 20-year veteran at securing leases and planning approvals for new tower sites.

It also often runs community consultation sessions on behalf of the major mobile telcos (like Optus) that it counts as clients.

Community consultation is meant to allay residents' concerns and let telcos and their contractors get on with the job of rolling out network infrastructure.

But it does not always work like that in practice.

Residents action groups are staunch critics of the consultations (or a perceived lack of it) and news reports - such as those out of Sellicks Beach in South Australia - show the sessions can get a little heated.

Daly's development manager Jeremy Bierer told iTnews that the issues surrounding tower placements had not changed.

"It's always been a fairly sensitive type of development," he said.

"People want the services and they don't want the infrastructure that goes with it.

"[Electricity] transmission line towers have the same issues. Everyone expects power but they don't want to see dirty big high-voltage powerlines being mown through a forest."

Bierer suggested that opposition was a fact of life when working in construction.

"No matter what you're building, every council will have some form of action group and every engineer will find some issue with a development proposal," he said.

Bierer is supported on that point by Michael Marom, Telstra's area general manager for the Illawarra region, south of Sydney.

"Every time you propose a mobile tower or any new infrastructure, there's groups that express concern," he said.

"As a general rule there are concerns expressed around aesthetics and the impact on the environment.

"That's why we look to minimise the size of the towers, paint them colours to fit into the background, and look at industrial sites where we can tag onto [existing infrastructure] as an absolute first preference".

Marom has recently been battling perceptions of a tower planned for the community of Jamberoo. He is a strong advocate for community consultation.

"Communities have their concerns and our job is to provide information, which is why we have community consultation and information sessions," he said.

"As a company, we feel it's prudent to engage councils and the local community to provide information and tease out any issues that might be there.

"At the end of the day we want to work with communities, not against them.

"And from a cost consideration [perspective]. it's not a massive cost increase [for us] to have a consultation process. We'd rather provide information and take away any hearsay."

Radiating messages

Marom cited electromagnetic radiation (EMR) as a key source of "misinformation or false concern" among communities.

EMR has already caused some robust debate among readers in earlier parts of this investigation - even without iTnews explicitly referring to it.

Marom raised concerns about the propensity for "unsubstantiated" claims about EMR to be proliferated over the internet.

He made it clear that Telstra operated within World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on EMR.

Emissions at Jamberoo, for example, would be at 1/20,000 "of the acceptable standard", Marom said.

Residents groups argue the studies on EMR are inconclusive and that it is better to err on the side of caution.

Ballina Greens councillor Jeff Johnson told iTnews that Skennars Head - where the council he represents was disputing an Optus tower - was an "area with young families".

"There's already some evidence that prolonged [EMR] exposure on young children has negative health effects," Johnson said.

"While current standards and guidelines may say there's no risk, how long before that's changed?

"The more we learn, the more studies are done, the greater the risk that seems to be about."

Number crunching

Both Telstra and Daly International dispute any rise in the number of battles over mobile antenna placements in Australia.

Marom told iTnews that any perceived rise in tower disputes was in proportion to the larger number of new towers being deployed as carriers expanded their networks.

Insatiable demand for 3G services like mobile broadband was driving telcos to add capacity - which often meant new antennas.

"The thing that has taken a big lift is the amount of infrastructure we're putting in," he said.

"In an 18 month period we're looking to put in 27 new base stations within the Illawarra to increase our coverage and capacity."

Bierer also noted that Daly was working on more tower projects.

He conceded there had been "more publicity" given to placement disputes but, like Marom, did not think the proportion of complaints to projects had risen.

This is the third article in a multi-part iTnews' investigation of a resurgence in mobile phone antenna disputes. You can read the first part and second part here. Stay tuned for more.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Consultants bear brunt of mobile tower anger
"All that fuss over a few mobile phone towers. If the anti-NBN people have there sway, we will need a tower on every corner. See how they like that. BTW, @damian, a micro box on each street corner ..."
By Pilotyoda
 
 
 
Comments: 22
Ice
Jun 16, 2011 8:36 AM
"Insatiable demand for 3G services like mobile broadband was driving telcos to add capacity - which often meant new antennas."

Love this statement I have a land line with an adsl 2 connection, My provider isnt optus ot telstra and I enquired within the last month on getting m a bundle from each of them both said all they can give me is one of their new wireless connections as I cant get adsl2 on my land line seems to me they are forcing the demand for new towers, BTW I am in a major regional center.

The major telcos seem to be forcing people into plans and connections that they dont want and will circumvent any NBN rollouts in the areas. Our area is one that will get fibre under the current plans.

I personally dont like the looks of mobile towers but can see a reason for them in areas that need them and not being used to replace landlines as they the major telcos are doing in the towm where i live.
adavion
Jun 16, 2011 8:54 AM
Bottom line on mobile phone towers is if you want lower phone emissions you need to build more towers.... Counter intuitive yes but unequivocally true (well unless you see shutting off the mobile phone network as an option)

Field strengths follow the inverse square law - that the strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

All phones also have a minimum Signal to Noise ratio requiring a certain level of emissions from the base station in order for them to work [this is what the bars on the phone indicates].

If you halve the number of phone towers, the cell area doubles and the distance between cells increases by around root 2 depending on the cell geometry.

Then, in order to ensure minimum signal strength at the cell edge, the maximum power emitted by each base station must increase by root 2 times the previous maximum. The new minimum power is identical to the previous minimum power [in order to minimise total emissions (and cost) and still ensure phones will work at the cell edge], so overall reducing cell towers increases emission levels.

Pete Matt
Jun 16, 2011 9:27 AM
"All phones also have a minimum Signal to Noise ratio requiring a certain level of emissions from the base station in order for them to work..." so with better technology handsets could operate on lower emissions and everybody would be comfortable. That would require investment from the telcos of course.
Dr. Wom Bhatt
Jun 16, 2011 9:35 AM
Mr. Marom repeats the mantra chanted by many corpseoration ( dead speak ) representatives and GovCo hacks, namely "that Telstra operated within World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on EMR".
Dr. Neil Cherry, recently deceased ( R.I.P.) had quite a bit to say about that ( e.g. http://cprnews.com/articles/EMRissues/CPR-News--New-Zealand-expert-discusses-EMR-issues.html ). He pointed out that " When independent scientists look at the ICNIRP and WHO scientific assessments these assessments are obviously and demonstrably selective, biased and methodologically wrong by inappropriately dismissing epidemiological evidence."
Students of History would point out that Dr. Josef Mengele employed sound empirical methodology and enjoyed legal sanction in his work. The politicians of the time said that his work was of benefit to the people. etc, etc.
So let me say it again. The premise underlying the use of mobile phone and microwave technology in close proximity to "flesh and blood" beings ( humans and non-humans) is flawed. No chorus of sycophants and sophists can make it otherwise. A loud voice is not necessarily a true voice. A lie told by many is still a lie.

The "Precautionary Approach" is the default. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

This is but one point I have time to comment on. That is in contrast to the contractors who actually earn a living from generating and disseminating the spin. ( How many who are reading this comments are being paid while they read it ? ) Perhaps that's why Mr.Bierer "did not think the proportion of complaints to projects had risen". Maybe the "flesh and bloods" did not have time to make complaints. Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that this is the case.

My compliments to the journos at itnews for publishing these articles. They are the most comprehensive that I have seen, EVER ! Keep it coming.
Damian
Jun 16, 2011 9:42 AM
The problem with the whole tower debate is, many communities understand the need for towers, but the ACMA code that is supposed to govern the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure does not force the telco to choose a nearby location that will not impact residents as much, it simply suggests that.

Telco's will always go for the cheapest option, where there is no need for council approval and if that means that an antenna is metres from a child's bedroom then too bad for the residents as far as they're concerned. Other solutions that are proposed are shut down for "technical" reasons that are not verified independently so the loser is always the community.

The consulation process is not genuine and is simply a "tick the box" requirement in the ACMA code so the community can voice concern, the telco's will say "thanks for that input" and then proceed as they were always going to from the start.

The telco's arrogance all stems from the outrageously high Australian standard for EMR that is based on thermal effects. Any tower is going to comply well under this - anything short of sticking your head in a microwave oven is going to comply! Obviously, with the WHO's classification that radiofrequency radiation is "possibly carcinigenic" that basically renders the standard as obselete and useless, although no one in a position of power will ever do anything to change that standard.

I have consulted ARPANSA regarding the review of the standard, and before the committee has even met, I have been told that the numbers won't change.

You wonder why communities treat telco's and their consultants with contempt. The community is an afterthought and is a distant last in the telco's and government's priority list.
MerariSchroeder
Jun 16, 2011 10:23 AM
Very well explained [adavion].

[Pete Matt] "so with better technology handsets could operate on lower emissions and everybody would be comfortable."

You mustn't have comprehended adavions spot on comments. Firstly, there is little remaining scope to improve handsets further apart from beam forming which is already on the way. Couple this with more towers and you remove all the supposed dangerous spikes near the towers, and your head (next to the mobile phone).

[damian] "possibly carcinigenic" to me means they don't know but want to be cautious. Putting in more towers is being cautious.

For goodness sake, most people have WiFi in their homes operating in the 2.4Ghz band, which attenuates very well with moisture (hence the use in microwave) - much worse than mobile phones. People are so limited to the visual and blinded to facts. The see a dirty big tower which factually isn't dangerous and yet use WiFi in the homes.

Even if EMR is dangerous, more towers is both good for customers and less dangerous for residents, given that all towers can be lower powered hotspots.
Damian
Jun 16, 2011 10:35 AM
MerariSchroeder - I actually agree with your logic that we need more towers operating at much lower levels than the existing ones today.

If there were a microcell in my street instead of the existing tower eyesore, it would have more visual appeal and much lower levels of EMR.

Alcatel Lucent has recent launched a product called "LightRadio" http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/features/light_radio/index.html

This solution reduces the antenna and basestation to a tiny box that can be mounted to an existing power pole or anywhere with a fibre connection. I'd rather many of these little things emitting low amounts of EMR to what we have today. It apprently dramatically reduces running costs so there is an incentive there for telco's.

The main question is whether they bother to abandon the current solution for a smarter, smaller solution.
adavion
Jun 16, 2011 4:13 PM
Hmm learns me to not post before drinking coffee.... or not to hack the post to pieces and submit before reading over.... :D

"Then, in order to ensure minimum signal strength at the cell edge, the maximum power emitted by each base station must increase by root 2 times the previous maximum."

That should have been increase by 2 times the previous maximum not root 2... This is the whole point of an inverse square law - distance increases by root 2, power required increases by 2.
adavion
Jun 16, 2011 4:17 PM
@Damian Agree - totally there should be femto cells all over the place... and the Alcatel Cube is pretty cool.... The tech issue is authorising connections and handling billing etc- all solvable.

Although of course we need a FTTP network to backhaul them all!
Pete Matt
Jun 16, 2011 4:22 PM
All right! So if you people can come up with suggestions surely the technology could be improved. But it will never will be if the community does not demand it. So think of them before you slam action groups.

- edited to remove name calling.

Edited by rycrozier: 16/6/2011 04:36:24 PM
Dr. Wom Bhatt
Jun 16, 2011 7:22 PM
My impression, after two days of discussion on this forum, is that there are some very technically savvy folk and some very community minded folk dancing in the dialectic of this forum. Given that such interplay can, and does exist I wonder why it is that we are being forced to live with such sub-optimal technical outcomes for overcoming hurdles that we need to clear to realise our potentials as individuals and as a community. It's not just about the money. ( After all THEY print it ). It's more about the decision making process being commandeered by either airheads or agents compliant to an agenda that is set by incumbent gatekeepers.
Whatever, "things are not going good"
One thing is sure though. Silence is no help. And restricting your opinions to forums like this one is all very well but as the saying goes "You need to step out more". Democracy is not happening without participants.
Om Shantih !
MerariSchroeder
Jun 16, 2011 8:43 PM
@adavion, "of course we need a FTTP network to backhaul them all"

Woh nellie! Of course I'm not going to agree with that! Let's not be hasty - we don't need a femtocell per house. If anything FTTN would be handy (and more affordable)...


@Bhatt, " It's more about the decision making process being commandeered by either airheads or agents compliant to an agenda that is set by incumbent gatekeepers. "

I don't think you understand, most here agree that there is no problem with more towers. So those "air heads" are out of the picture, they're just doing their job.
anonymous
Jun 16, 2011 9:19 PM

Matty and Batty - Yes, there are technically savvy folk here, and it's a matter for regret that after just two days here you still do not seem to have learnt much, and continue your frequent and somewhat unfortunate references to a series of unsubstantiated opinions on the Net.

The reality that has to be pointed out to you is that after two days of frequent posting here, you have failed to make good any part of your campaign. You naturally have every right to express your opinions - and we have every right to point out that they are a load of tosh, if/where that is the case.
deepthroat
Jun 17, 2011 9:50 AM
Once upon a time smoking used to be good for you. Only time will tell whether we have killed ourselves with mobile phone radiation. Its quite clear that excessive use of technology has had a dire effect on the current crop of youngsters as they get fat, lazy and lose basic social skills.
Damian
Jun 17, 2011 11:15 AM
The idea of a solution like LightRadio is not based on the femtocell approach but is built on miniturising the current towers down to a small box that sits on a light pole, not in the home. So the fibre connection would be on the street.
If we got rid of the BIG towers and replaced them with much smaller, more frequent but much less powerful antenna's, I think that would be a win/win situation for all parties involved. You don't eliminate EMR, but you reduce it significantly while distributing it more evenly.

To anyone with an understanding about RF - does anyone know if adaptive beamforming is something that is planning to be adopted to towers in the future? Will this method reduce EMR to surrounding homes, both while users are downloading and while sitting idle, as the radiation beam is focused on the devices actually using the service?
Pete Matt
Jun 17, 2011 11:40 AM
From what I understand today's antennas already adjust they emissions according to demand. So when you look at their individual report you see the estimated max emission.
Damian
Jun 17, 2011 12:14 PM
Yes, I understand that once a call is established it adjusts the power down. Although I thought that adaptive beamforming targets the signal to the user on demand rather than saturating an area regardless if I understand correctly
Dr. Wom Bhatt
Jun 17, 2011 3:02 PM
@MeraiSchroeder

I'll refer you to Shelly Gare ( "Triumph of he Airheads and the Retreat from Commonsense" ) for an exposition of the notion of what constitutes an "Airhead". Technically savvy folk can qualify when they steadfastly refuse to adopt a dialetic approach to technology. The line you support appears to totally discount possible adverse effects of EMR exposure. When you can substantiate such a position with vigour then you cay "more towers" is the way to go. Until then you will be on a densely settled "limb" but a "limb" nevertheless.

@anonymous
"frequent and somewhat unfortunate references to a series of unsubstantiated opinions on the Net"

Again - Dr. Neil Cherry http://cprnews.com/articles/EMRissues/CPR-News--New-Zealand-expert-discusses-EMR-issues.html

Unsubstantiated? How so?



@deepthroat

With respect no-one has ever said smoking was good for you.

And on the same point no-one has ever said mobile towers are good for you. The industry says that they are not bad for you ( if you don't count non-thermal effects). Everyone agrees that they facilitate a technology which facilitates communication.

"your campaign"

I thought this was a forum where we sought to inform and challenge each other. I wasn't aware that there was any kind of "binary division" into a "you vs us" competition. Have you heard the aphorism about " The whole is something else than the sum of its parts" ?
@damian

No EMF is definitely the best outcome. Realistically and ideally society will compromise and learn how to best manage it and provide optimal safety while applying the technology; similar to procedures ( hopefully ) applied in Nuclear medicine. As with nuclear technology a precautionary approach will be followed.

Light radio, femtocells sound like a great idea. So why isn't there more discussion of them amongst the tech savs? Why is there such support for more towers as the only viable solution ? Money ?

Have a great weekend everyone. I'm going outside for some birdsong. Tweet! Tweet! I'll be watching out for broken limbs though :-)
anonymous
Jun 17, 2011 7:16 PM

@Batty, thank you for further confirming that you only cite references that are saying what you want to hear. The URL in question appears to be one of the OMG-the-sky-is-falling sites that create and repeat opinion as fact, but without any facts.

And you respond to deepthroat with "no-one has ever said smoking was good for you." Oh yes they have; before they got stopped, Big Tobacco was fond of running ads and planting oped pieces saying just that. Such as "Smoke Philip Morris - you've nothing to lose but your smoker's cough."

But none of the alleged EMR gurus want to address the core issue: with over a billion mobiles in constant use, and with some people now having a long history of frequent operation, any significant malignant effect would certainly have become apparent by now.
Ace
Jun 17, 2011 9:42 PM
....and god knows @anonymous, there are hordes out there looking for such a case. Fearmongers are keen on 'I know someone...' unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence. So in that vein, I saw some TV thing where they got an egg, surrounded it with a bunch of mobile phones (50? 100?) and rang them all, all at once, for 1 minute. Of course, there was no perceptible change to the egg.

However, I have discovered a fairly reliable way to cook an egg using just 2 mobile phones.
1. Get your partner to hold one mobile phone.
2. Call your partner from your own mobile phone.
3. Politely ask your partner to cook an egg.
4. Blame the cell tower if it doesn't come out right.
Pete Matt
Jun 18, 2011 11:40 AM
That's right Ace! As we now know mobile phones are totally safe. (That is if you have an egg for a head.) Just like mobile towers. They continually research their effects just for something to do. They haven't got to any research on the effects on kids, but I'm sure they are all perfectly safe for them too. I have a great paint in my garage full of lead for a reasonable price anyone interested?
Pilotyoda
Jun 18, 2011 1:53 PM
All that fuss over a few mobile phone towers. If the anti-NBN people have there sway, we will need a tower on every corner. See how they like that.

BTW, @damian, a micro box on each street corner or every pole - fed by fibre - will still result in the same overall radiation as the phones (or broadband devices) still need a minimum S/N level to work. The noise includes the signal from the next transmitter. You would need even more sophisticated and faster switching systems to move the signal from one small cell to the next.

Oh, and with fibre strung to almost every pole, lets finish the job and do the NBN properly.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
CommBank suppliers compete for portable workloads
Multi-sourcing deals yield $100m savings.
 
Australia turns to homegrown drones
Debating the finer points of unmanned aerial vehicle design.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 529

Vote