|
areas. But itÓs not, you know, like gillck, gillck (sound), those kind of sound but it will
<br />not mean that you would not have that full optimum coverage as though youÓre right here
<br />in Hilo. But theyÓre willing to make that slight compromise in the interest of trying to
<br />maintain, out of respect for the visual considerations.
<br />Now this is like the, this is NextelÓs network. Now you have like another carrier which
<br />maybe like AT&T and then their locations are a little bit different again. And so where, I
<br />donÓt know what, you know, they may have another carrier which has, they may jump on
<br />the same poles but on the other hand they may have different poles that may not, you
<br />know, Nextel may have certain poles that may not service AT&TÓs needs, more like
<br />another one, for SprintÓs needs, for example, because they all have different locations for
<br />their networks. And thatÓs the reason why like the U.S. Cellular-AT&T tower on the
<br />Ookala side would have been ideal, but the unconstructed tower that the Commission
<br />approved in the Laupahoehoe site would not have worked for Nexte
<br />KUBOTA:Okay. To bring this to, my questions to closure, thank you for the
<br />long explanation. I guess -. WeÓve been talking about co-location for so many years, I
<br />mean, I have as long as IÓve been on the Commission and telecomm
<br />have been in discussion. I guess, I have a note to myself that says, ÐFor co-location to be
<br />brought to fruition, the many, many variables need to mesh tightly,Ñ and weÓre finding
<br />the meshing to be very, very difficult.
<br />FUJIKAWA:Any other questions?
<br />YUEN:If I could jump in on this.
<br />FUJIKAWA:Go ahead.
<br />YUEN:First, the failure to co-locate on the existing towers, particularly the
<br />Ookala one, was a red flag in the application. So we did, and as Sidney said that Ookala
<br />tower would have been ideal, so we did make inquiries with them of what the problem
<br />was. If the problem had been the unwillingness of AT&T which has the tower permit
<br />from the Planning Department to allow co-location or to negotiate on an agreement like
<br />that, then we would have stepped in because our condition with AT&T does require them
<br />to allow co-location. Without getting into what the problems were, it was not that. It was
<br />not a problem with either the original permittee, U.S. Cellular, or the current holder of
<br />that site, AT&T. So we were satisfied with that point.
<br />On the question of the height of a tower, when this originally came in the office, frankly,
<br />I was extremely skeptical and somewhat hostile because the, itÓs not the kind of location
<br />generally that I would favor from a visual point of view because it is at the edge, it is at
<br />the rim of the gulch, it is a scenic location for drivers in the area, the Laupahoehoe Gulch,
<br />as a point, as a scenic point. The visual, they did put up the tower, a simulation of the
<br />tower and I went to look at it. And it really, it wasnÓt that bad; and the things that make it
<br />not that bad are itÓs not that high, itÓs a fairly low profile in that they just have, rather than
<br />having big dish antennas, itÓs just these poles, these stick-type antennas. I donÓt know
<br />11
<br />
<br />
|