Not-in-my-backyard movement against cell towers reflects increasing demand, construction

As wireless carriers construct new towers to meet growing demands, more and more communities across Canada are expressing concerns about the health, aesthetic and financial repercussions of towers in their backyards. Between November 2010 and February 2011, The Wire Report identified at least 12 communities across Canada that have opposed the construction of new cellphone towers in their areas. Community news stories also show a growing trend of cities adopting new bylaws to fight the deployment of telecommunications antennas and towers. In January, the town of St. Albert, Alta., adopted a municipal policy that outlines steps telcos must follow to find a location for a new cell site in the city. The same month, the municipality of Longueuil, Que., adopted a bylaw requiring all telcos wishing to build a tower in the area to now go through the city's executive committee. Longueuil's move came following a disagreement over the construction of a new tower in a fellow Quebec municipality. The city of Châteauguay ended up in the Quebec Superior Court last fall in an attempt to get Rogers Communications Inc. to build a new tower in the city's industrial park instead of at the edge of a residential neighbourhood. The city hit a snag when the owner of the industrial land objected to an expropriation bid and refused to sell the land to the city. The case eventually ended up in court. In January, Rogers and CTVglobemedia Inc. also went to the B.C. Supreme Court in an attempt to get a Colwood, B.C., nuisance bylaw thrown out. The bylaw states that telecommunications equipment cannot interfere with a person's reasonable use, security and enjoyment of their land. But Rogers and CTV said the bylaw was an unconstitutional attempt to regulate tower signals. On the surface, all of these cases would appear to be something of a backlash against towers. But a spike in news stories showing community concerns about the placement of new towers can be linked to growing wireless data consumption and a move to faster mobile speeds, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) says. “I don't think we should be surprised by the number of stories that have appeared. We need to remember that the vast majority of sites are not controversial,” Keith McIntosh, the CWTA's director of regulatory affairs, said by phone. “There are a couple of things that are adding up to the demand for new sites ... higher speeds and higher data capacity require new sites for denser networks.” Although municipalities can adopt bylaws relating to cell towers, final authority rests with the federal government. Cellphone towers fall under federal jurisdiction, meaning municipal bylaws and building code requirements ultimately have no say over a company's decision to build a new tower. Communities may raise concerns about the construction of a new tower, but Industry Canada has the authority to approve a telco's plans under the Department of Industry Act and the Radiocommunication Act. Under the department's guidelines, a company planning to install or modify a tower must consult with the community or the local land-use authority. The consultation process usually takes about 120 days and allows community members to raise concerns with the carrier. Michel Cimpaye, a spokesman for Industry Canada, said by email that every proponent of a radiocommunication tower must follow the department's siting procedures. “The company must consult with the local community as required and address relevant concerns. It must also satisfy Industry Canada's general and technical requirements, including Health Canada's Safety Code 6, aeronautical safety, interference protection and environmental requirements,” he said. Safety Code 6 is a series of guidelines Health Canada enforces to ensure the safe use of devices that produce radiation. Cimpaye said that, when a community and a carrier cannot reach a solution for a site, the department can make a determination based on the facts presented. “In general, our procedures work well, and in most cases there is no need for direct departmental intervention,” he said. Cimpaye added that Industry Canada does not maintain a database of areas where cellphone towers or other telecom infrastructure has led to disputes and cannot say how many complaints it has received. Rogers was unavailable for comment Thursday, but Sébastien Bouchard, a spokesman for the company, told Montreal newspaper The Gazette in November that the company has gone to Industry Canada “only a few times” since the department introduced its policy to resolve tower disagreements in 2008. Bell Canada spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said by email that the company has a community consultation process in place for new tower constructions. “Bell always follows the community consultation policy set forth by Industry Canada when looking at new sites,” she said. McIntosh said news stories about the negative health effects of cellphones and towers may also be contributing to community concerns. In November, Environmental Reviews, a Canadian journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific papers, released a report that said radiation from cell signals can have negative effects on human health, including headaches, rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, concentration problems and dizziness. The report recommended that towers be stationed at least 450 metres away from homes. But Health Canada disputed the report's findings, saying there is no scientific reason to believe exposure to low-level frequencies emitted by cell towers are dangerous to the public. McIntosh said Industry Canada will not block the construction of a new tower based on health concerns if the structure respects its guidelines. He added that the media coverage of disagreements about towers can be attributed to the fact that carriers are deploying more towers to meet increasing demand. “Demand for service is significantly increasing,” he said. “The technology that drives that capacity and speed requires small cell sites. There's no way to get around that. Most of the use of mobile phones is in the home. If you combine those two things, then you require service near homes.” The CWTA website says one of the issues surrounding wireless towers is that people often don't realize that carriers need the sites to continue offering wireless services. “People often take the availability of wireless service for granted and expect that their wireless carrier will provide coverage anywhere and everywhere they live, work or play,” the website says. “As more users access the network and use up the capacity of each existing antenna site, 'holes' begin to appear in the network that become 'dead zones' for users. The only way to overcome this problem is to fill-in these holes with additional antennas.” New tower sites, which can be rented or purchased by the carriers, are located based on field measurements and customer requirements. All towers must meet Industry Canada, Health Canada and Transport Canada guidelines. Mark Goldberg, head of telecom consultancy Mark H. Goldberg & Associates Inc., said by phone that wireless companies design their networks for wireless coverage and then follow up by deploying new structures to fill in coverage holes. Goldberg said that, as demand grows, there will be a need for more wireless infrastructure, but that could simply mean antennas on buildings or new antennas on existing towers. “There's a balance that has to be maintained between the need to build a reliable network and trying to accommodate the needs of communities for aesthetics,” he said. One of the solutions to solve tower disputes between companies and communities can be a shift from a tall, robust tower to the deployment of several, smaller individual towers spread over an area. Towers can also be painted to meet aesthetic concerns. Carriers may also enter agreements to share towers. On Feb. 9, at a broadband acceleration conference, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Julius Genachowski expressed concern that regulation has gotten in the way of deploying new towers in the United States. “Companies have routinely had to wait for more than a year to get their applications approved—leaving workers and investment dollars sitting idle, and consumers stuck dealing with dropped calls and dead spots,” he said. “We can’t let unnecessary barriers to broadband expansion keep us from leading the global economy.” Genachowski said expediting approval processes could generate $11.5 billion US in broadband investment over two years for the country. Along with the growth in data and voice, the need for towers in Canada is also being driven by new entrants in the telecom market that are building their own networks, McIntosh said. Calgary, for example, currently has five service providers operating in the area, and three more are expected to enter the market this year. In 2011, 700 new wireless antenna devices are expected to be deployed in the city—550 more than were built last year. McIntosh said Canada saw a similar wave of concerns from communities over tower construction after the 2001 spectrum auction. kfournier@thewirereport.ca

Not-in-my-backyard movement against cell towers reflects increasing demand, construction

News | February 24, 2011

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us