PRINCETON: Borough mulls wireless firm’s request

By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer
   After a length discussion last week, Princeton Borough Council has deferred action on a specialty wireless services provider’s request for a borough right of way use and license agreement.
   NextG Networks, a San Jose, Calif.-based niche provider of utility-pole-mounted wireless antenna systems which eliminate localized dead zones of larger wireless carriers, sought the approval at Borough Council’s meeting on Feb. 24.
   Peter Broy, NextG’s director of network real estate, told Borough Council the company had been contracted by a larger wireless service provider — which he would not name — to “design, permit, build and operate one DAS (distributed antenna system) node system” in the borough, on a wooden utility pole on Elm Road.
   Mr. Broy said each NextG node site consisted of a small antenna on top of the utility pole and a cabinet of equipment mounted part way up the pole.
   Asked by Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman what the likelihood was that in six months NextG would be contracted to put up equipment at another site, Mr. Broy replied there was “some chance” but he couldn’t make any predictions.
   ”In Princeton Township we are working to permit and design 17 such facilities,” Mr. Broy said. He said NextG has installed 420 similar nodes in Philadelphia, and 1,178 of its DAS nodes are on-air in New York City. “We have DAS nodes installed on-the-air from Boston to San Diego. We are the largest provider in the U.S.,” he said.
   As part of the agreement, Mr. Broy said NextG “is offering to pay you five percent of what we earn and that is about $300 per year,” for the single node on Elm Road. In addition, the company would install fiber-optic cable along Elm Road near the node site and would reserve bandwidth on the fiber for the borough’s use, he said.
   Borough Attorney Karen Cayci said the right-of-way use agreement the company was seeking also stipulated that it would pay the borough $500 annually for each borough-owned streetlight or traffic-signal pole it installed its equipment on.
   Councilman David Goldfarb noted that utility poles around the borough still have wireless modems hanging off them from a previous company which installed them and then went bankrupt. He asked what would happen to the node if NextG found it “no longer economically viable or you are out of business?”
   Patrick Ryan, NextG’s outside counsel, responded that “we are willing to provide a bond for removal” under those circumstances.
   Councilman Kevin Wilkes questioned Mr. Broy’s assertion that the equipment was silent when the equipment box contained two fans, according to renderings provided by NextG. Noting the equipment appeared to be approximately 8.5 inches wide and four feet tall, Mr. Wilkes said “these are large boxes, I am concerned about them being used as billboards for NextG.”
   Mr. Ryan said the fans only ran during peak usage and warm temperatures, and were as silent as the fans in computers. He said language could be put in the agreement barring any use of the boxes as signs.
   Mr. Wilkes said that although the company is currently proposing only one installation, under the agreement they could put countless others on borough poles.
   Mr. Ryan noted that the wooden utility poles are owned by the utility companies which contract with NextG and “NextG does not have to come to the borough” for permission to install its equipment on utility poles within the borough. “It is a partnership we are proposing,” he said, with the company not seeking “a blanket authority” but willing to submit any installation plans on borough poles for borough approval first.
   ”I think that’s a bad idea, the use of borough street lamps and flagpoles in addition to utility poles,” Mr. Wilkes said, noting the borough has a historic downtown.
   Mr. Wilkes also said the offer of bandwidth on NextG fiber was “a useless gift, it is a valueless gift” because of its limited length.
   Mr. Ryan agreed to have the borough attorney go over the agreement further at NextG’s expense in order to address the concerns raised.
   Following the discussion, Elm Road resident Anton Lahnston told Borough Council the utility wiring on Elm Road was “a mess.”
   ”Adding another piece of equipment there would be an injustice to the neighborhood,” Mr. Lahnston said.
   Mayor Trotman said that the decision was out of the borough’s hands because it was the utility’s decision what equipment to install on its poles.