National Wireless Antenna Siting Forum - May 1 Ottawa

May 1, 2012, there was a  National Wireless Antenna Sitting Forum held in Ottawa to discuss the effects cell towers have on health. Among the people who attended were Health Canada, Industry Canada,  Mark Mackenzie who is an activist on wifi in schools, and is very active in the Green Party. As well, as representatives and lawyers for the telecom industry.

Below is a list of notes from the forum.

Opened by Bernard Lord:

• we will achieve over 100% access in just 2 years, grateful the industry plays a strong role in public safety, more than half 911 calls are from wireless
• there are only 13,000 sites in Canada, the UK has 52,000 sites
• close to 60% of sites are now shared, over 40% of antenna are located on 'other purpose' structures
• insatiable demand
• 40-50% of mobile data is now consumed in the home (used to be only while on the move)
• holes in coverage appear as users/demands increase. Additional coverage and capacity must both increase when this happens.
• A smart phone uses 35x the bandwidth of traditional mobile phone, a tablet consumes 120x, a laptop 500x
• from time to time aesthetics, property values, and even sometimes health concerns surface (said with incredulity)
• There is no doubt a stronger Canada depends on stronger wireless coverage
• we must continue efforts to work with local authorities in a timely manner
• I will now introduce my dear friend, Mike Lake

Mike Lake, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

• used to work for the Edmonton Oilers, 16 year old son has autism and cannot speak, thank you to the industry for allowing me to stay connected with him when away.
• Every 2 days we put more data online than previous 2 centuries.
• Next spectrum auction 2013
• Seeking comments on tower sharing policy
• highly charged and political issue
• We understand that some communities have objections

Panel Discussion: Moderator Jim Patrick, SVP CWTA

• explains the 2 panellists are there because IC has 'chosen to follow Safety Code 6' (I spoke to IC people privately after and they said yes, this is a choice, we could theoretically choose to set the bar higher, but why would we?)

Fiona Gilfillan, Director General Spectrum Operations Industry Canada

• Respect exclusions of sensitive areas.
• Encourage LUA's - (Land Use Authorities - municipalities) to establish their own protocols, eg whether preference is for industrial land
• siting disputes where it comes to an impasse that IC has to resolve are 'rare', and becoming more so, perhaps 5 x year
• what they will not look at: effect on property values, efficacy of Safety Code 6
• do not engage with the public if they question or dispute coverage, allow the industry to determine the needs.

Beth Pieterson, Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences, Health Canada

• Best available scientific science, not all the studies, but the best science based ones are considered
• they conduct laboratory studies themselves
• Safety Code 6 - review is currently underway, It is not anticipated to have huge (any?) revisions in 2013 when it is scheduled to be revised again.
• non-thermal effects ARE considered
• When developed, ALL effects were considered, including non-thermal effects
• SC6 has 'something like' a 50 fold safety margin, so we do not worry when there is an issue such as when there was a cell phone itself approaching SF6. It is not an issue since there is this 50 fold safety margin.
• IARC Class 2B, decision was made based on epidemiological study. As a result, HC reacted by advising children limit cell call exposure.

Questions from Moderator: pickles and coffee are in the same classification, are they not.

• Yes, possibly carcinogenic, limited evidence.
• we chose SC6, other countries are very similar. Not a lot of variation around the world. Variation based on more socio-economic factors thank scientific evidence.

If a municipality wanted to invite HC to a meeting, how would they do that?

• Regional staff are there to attend on an adhoc basis. We will be attending Oakville. James MacNamee and I are going (HC scientist I had long discussions with). Bernard Lord is trying to attend as well.

Will IC defend their jurisdiction over protocol that go too far?

• Fiona: yes. but IC is not always best positioned to explain or defend. for example in initial court cases. Bernard Lord: What we hear about is the odd case where this issue explodes, for example, Oakville.

Beth: we do not need to use the precautionary principle about wifi as there is enough evidence to prove it is safe. Unlike Bisphenol A in baby bottles where a warning was issued. RF exposures are different. Exposure levels differ.

Wendy Question: Can you pls provide a further explanation as to why we should not be concerned about the RF from cell towers, when when we meter a cell phone, and the RF from towers currently sited in Oakville, the tower RF readings often match or exceed that from a cell phone held 1 inch away from the meter?

 

Beth: I turn that question over to James MacNamee.

 

James: The strength of exposure is different.

 

Wendy: please explain in what way, as the meter is used in both situations I am referring to.

 

James: I will get back to you with an explanation.

12:00 Panel

• striving for ubiquitous coverage
• can produce a 'heatmap' of traffic, coverage and capacity
• capacity for each antenna is exactly the same, need more sites for capacity, and to add carriers where necessary
• in Montreal cell sites are on hydro poles, 300-500m max coverage
• More in-building, hydro and utility poles, 50% of traffic is now urban residential.
• wifi, trialing wifi off-loading, summer, winter, ski hills, festivals, etc.
• Build-to-suit, a 3rd party tower custom build to share multiple providers specific needs
• Sharing, cannot always go high enough for wide coverage, if best heights are gone on towers, need new
• balance industry desire for tall obtrusive towers vs shorter unobtrusive less coverage.
• monopole towers with multiple carriers
• will overbuild to enable capacity and sharing in the future
• in BC often use BC Hydro for locations. Starting to work more with municipal designers.

Wendy question: please clarify if there are monopoles that house antenna from more than one carrier? Answer: yes, but under 20m we can often only stack them 2 high as it becomes to low after that.

David Townsend

• 29 of 34 policy recommendations made in his report were to IC
• 2008 watershed year, CPC 20 03 certainty, transparency, and specificity
• IC needs to think about the exemption for 15 m towers. Potential for screen out of installations that may have significance, ie Kirkland residential site
• First thing you learn in govt is 'don't embarrass the minister' IC local personnel, citing regional staff in current round of cutbacks, would result in this model having to be changed.
• Tower sharing, in 2003, only 32% of sites were shared, Canada then had unimpressive stats on tower sharing. 2008 - 2012 obligation to share, to respond in a timely manner, enter in to good faith negotiations. 2009 IC 'tough talk' to industry. 2001, industry feedback is still that sharing is being inhibited. 'Compete ferociously for siting purposes' IC is ambivalent and the policy is without consequences. IC does not have the information data base to know the status of the sites. considerable progress,
• concern when a major ntl carrier puts something in someone's back yard, is much greater than over when a ham operator erects a backyard tower.

Michael Buda FCM:

• tensions have gone way down aver the past few years.
• health concern complaints way down
• under 15m towers are a concern.
• partial de-regulation and allowing increased foreign ownership providers will intensify competition
• you may have won the battle finding a loophole in Kirkland, but I think you will find you have lost the war with the backyard siting.
• requires discipline and respect.

Martin Grady

• language is important. Suggest, to 'should or must' not honoured 'preferences' are honoured.
• we rely on the service provider to judge when it is technically possible, to share for example.
• Winnipeg had one contentious one since their protocol, on municipal property, at the end of the day the provider went away as they said they were not interested in angering the municipality.
• urges to adopt a formal council policy. we expect service providers to follow our guidelines and they did. We see it as a dialogue, not a binary process.

Dawood Khan:

• eg Brantford. can work with public service 365 systems as well. using light standards now and co-locating, in city owned parks , golf courses, masked sites, visuals important.

Wendy Question : Oakville was told that a 200 m setback was onerous, is there any case where a physical set back has been honoured?

Answer: No.

Bernard Lord: proud to announce CWTA will be at the FCM meeting in Saskatoon and will take this show on the road.

Program

10am
Opening Remarks
Bernard Lord, President & CEO
Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

10.15am
Keynote Address
Mike Lake, Member of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Industry Canada

10:30am
Panel Discussion – The Role of the Federal Government in the Wireless Antenna Siting Process
Senior officials from Industry Canada and Health Canada discuss their departments’ roles in applying the Government of Canada’s wireless antenna siting policies and process.

Speakers:
Fiona Gilfillan, Director General – Spectrum Operations, Industry Canada
Beth Pieterson, Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada

11.30am
Refreshment Break

12:00pm
Panel Discussion – The Role of Network Planners, Operators and Builders in the Wireless Antenna Siting Process
Wireless network engineers and site acquisition specialists discuss how they approach the need for new wireless antennas across Canada – why are they necessary, and why must they be situated in particular locations?

Speakers:
Kiersten Enemark, Director, Land and Municipal Affairs, Standard Land Company Inc.
Edward Hachey, Vice President – Canada, SBA Communications
Brian O’Shaughnessy, Chief Technology Officer/ Vice President Network and Operations, Public Mobile
Keith Ranney, Director, National Implementation and Infrastructure Management, Bell Mobility

1pm
Lunch Break

2pm
Keynote Address
David A. Townsend, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick

2.30pm
Panel Discussion – The Role of Municipalities in the Wireless Antenna Siting Process
Municipal councillors and planning staff discuss their concerns with wireless antenna siting policies and process.

Speakers:
Michael Buda, Director of Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)
Martin Grady, Zoning and Permits Administrator, Development and Inspections Division, Planning, Property and Development Department, City of Winnipeg
Dawood Khan, Partner, Red Mobile Consulting

3.30pm
Refreshment Break

4pm
Keynote Address
Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General, International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

4.20pm
Closing Remarks
Bernard Lord, President & CEO
Canadian Wireless Telec