2003-07-18 tnextel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

geographic area is determined by basically holes in our network. And, so, in this particular case we have a hole in our network between the town of Paauilo and the town of Ninole. And the search ring was centered in the town of Ookala, and itÓs called the Ookala search ring. And the particular area that we have chosen is one that is right along the highway, offers a great view from an RF perspective towards the Paauilo site, and then back down towards the Ninole site, and gives us the optimum coverage in an 80-foot configuration. WeÓve looked at other candidates in the area. I think the AT&T tower which is on the ridge outside of Ookala is certainly a good RF consideration as far as a candidate goes; and we would be applying for that if we had the opportunity to secure that property. We have a co-location agreement, a master agreement, with AT&T, so itÓs very easy for us to kind of co-locate on their towers. But, in this particular case, that tower is not available to us. FUJIKAWA:The other testifier, are you ready to testify, also, pertaining to this? What is your name? CHUN:I was just going -. IÓm sorry, Calvert Chun with Nextel Partners. FUJIKAWA:Okay, Mr. Chun. CHUN:Yeah, Calvert Chun. I actually was going to expand a little bit more on Ms. KubotaÓs question about the 80-foot tower and the fact that we will have a design and engineer to accommodate one more carrier at the 60-foot level. But itÓs true, weÓre trying to, that Nextel is trying to strike a balance here between the visual impact and co-location. Because if we attempt to accommodate three carriers, for example, this pole is going to have to be taller than 80 feet, obviously. And itÓs going to be sticking up, right? So another carrier, I mean, to strike that balance, 80 feet is about where it should be and just have a second carrier at 60 feet; and thatÓs all it can do because of the physical limits and conditions surrounding the property. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:I read somewhere in your application that because of the choice in your conscious effort to reduce the height of the tower itself, the efficiency is not at its optimum. Now, youÓre giving up efficiency for height visibility, I guess. And, I guess, my question is, are you, what is the consumer getting for that? If youÓre not offering optimum service, or what do you call that, conductivity or transmission, then the consumer is not getting its moneyÓs worth. And, I guess thatÓs the philosophical conceptual concern that I have when we talk about co-location visibility, and such, and so. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Chun, Mr. Jaeger? 9