Wireless Antenna Concealment Association?

"What the wireless concealment industry needs now is its own industry association to set standards and guidelines for design, fabrication and installation. Yes?"

Interesting question. A standard could be set up for material specifications, especially regarding monopine branches. Many of them are atrocious and give the concealment industry a bad name. Some after a period of time look like a lime-colored eyelash brush.

I would imagine that the ones that look good on a structure have a value added cost to them, but unfortunately that's not always the first consideration of a carrier or tower owner.

Some of the legacy trees turn off zoning officials and rightfully so.

When the question comes up at a hearing, "Will your tree lose its branches and UV fade away," the answer will certainly be no.

It would be difficult for the official to ask for a bond of some type to ensure that the installation will mostly maintain its original faux branches and/or bark since that could be seen in conflict with the communications act by adding additional roadblocks.

However, if there was an industry accepted standard, they would be wholly in their right to require the carrier to certify that his - whatever it might be - meets industry standards.

Good comment. Ah the tree, yes that poses a real challenge because there are many pieces to it and they're all exposed to the elements not mention the occasional bird. I think starting with the right materials is essential to longevity, but in a highly competitive market such has ours long term ownership costs are not always a priority. As a result, subsititions are made or as it popular to say these days, "the can gets kicked down the road."

What is the dBm loss maximum allowed for panels? I thought it was 1.5. Isn't there a standard for that like ANSI/TIA? If not, who sets the acceptable limits?

The loss requirements are basically: the lower the better. Our average product material rarely if ever exceeds a .5 db loss between .8 and 2 GHz. In other words, when they say want RF transparent material they mean it so we frequently test new material to drive those numbers as low as they can go.

Also need to consider the shape / location / dielectric constant of anything placed in front of the antenna. I saw a site many years ago where each panel antenna was placed inside a fiberglass tube the size of a small trash can. The dB's loss due to insertion loss and reflection caused by the fiberglass was acceptable. The problem was that the material acted like a lens and changed the radiated beamwidth of the antenna from 65 degrees to 120 degrees! That changed the gain by 3 dB, cutting the effective cell radius in half!

I agree Sean that the lower the better. But carriers will not pay for the cost to keep it lower. You may have a .5db loss, but if it's higher from your competition the buyer is not going to say no. That's why there should be a standard. You're on the right track but who is going to say yes to standards if it will cost them more?