[Scan-DC] Re: FCC Gets Into Dispute With Landlord Over Their NextelAntennas.

[Marcel]

Oh I agree with the building owner too. Actually, $1,000 a month is cheap for prime roof
top space. If you read the document
the fight was not over aesthetics but over $$$$$$. The owner originally wanted $18K+  for
the BDA antenna on the roof and
antennas mounted in the plenum on every floor (13 total @ $1,400).

You are correct some owners are terrible. Helmsley-Spear in Manhattan is the absolute
worse. If we want to raise/move/ adjust our antennas it would cost us $500.  They bill us
overtime for the Bldg Eng, Freight car operator and a Porter. At the prevailing union wage
that adds up quickly.

Roof Top installs are a RF Engineers dream. A non-penetrating sled and a few cinder blocks
and you are on the air. Optimization is easy just slide the sled around for the optimum
position.

You are correct some owners are terrible. Helmsley-Spear  in Manhattan is the absolute
worse. If we want to raise/move/ adjust our antennas it would cost us $500.  They bill us
overtime for the Bldg Eng, Freight car operator and a Porter. At the prevailing union wage
that adds up quickly.

Roof Top installs are a RF Engineers dream. A non-penetrating sled and a few cinder blocks
and you are on the air.
Optimization is easy just slide the sled around for the optimum position.


Steve Rigby wrote:

> Marcel wrote:
>
> > The landlord took the FCC & GSA  to the Board of Contract Appeals
> >  of the General Services Administration. The FCC / GSA
> > (Taxpayers, us, we) was ordered to pay their landlord of $1,000
> > per month for a Nextel  BDA on the roof of the FCC building.
> >
> > Amazing, Simply Amazing!
>
>    $1,000 per month for an antenna is a high figure.  However, I do
> understand why some building owners would not want to see antennas
> on their roof.  A tenant in a building that is not owned by said
> tenant does not have the right to install equipment such as antennas.
>
>    On the issue of cell phone antennas, it has long been said by the
> phone industry that they would prefer to place antennas on rooftops
> of buildings as opposed to entering into the battles that erupt when
> they propose antenna towers as an alternative.  Well, sometimes a
> building owner will simply not allow for antennas to be installed.
> Sometimes, simple aesthetics are at play.  Many building owners have
> paid handsomely for the execution of a building design that would be
> eroded were antennas to sprout up on the roof.  Wireless users and
> providers do not, as yet, have domain over the private property of
> others as hard as they have tried to achieve that goal.
>
>    Steve