Firm would skirt tower oversights for its tiny transmitters

An Illinois company has asked a state agency to remove itself from the approval process for plans to improve cell-phone service on the Merritt Parkway, indicating its small-scale system renders existing regulatory hurdles unnecessary.

ExteNet Systems Inc. runs what it calls “stealth” wireless networks, attaching 9-inch square transmitters or small canisters to utility poles and other structures. The resulting distributed-antenna system beams signals short distances, with transmitters feeding into fiber-optic networks that connect to centralized hubs.

In the case of the Merritt Parkway, the company plans to dangle transmitters from cables strung above overpasses along a 20-mile stretch of the road from Westport to the New York border. The company says its network would eliminate dead spots where signals weaken between existing towers.

ExteNet has asked the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC), which oversees the installation of cell-phone towers, to cede any jurisdiction in the project, arguing that its transmitters should not be construed as “facilities” under Connecticut law, and that they would not have an impact on the environment. The company”™s plan also requires the installation of seven utility poles, but it maintains CSC”™s authority does not cover poles, only towers.

Tim Asta, ExteNet director of municipal and government relations, offered no concrete explanation for why the company is asking CSC to step aside, although he intimated the process is taking longer than the company expected.

“We knew going into the Merritt Parkway project it would be an uphill battle,” Asta said. “It has been a very lengthy process ”“ any time you have multiple levels (of regulatory jurisdiction), you are going to have delays.”

ExteNet first proposed the network in early 2005, when it was known as ClearLinx Network Corp. In March 2006, CSC granted the company a certificate of public convenience and necessity, the first step in the regulatory process. At the time, CSC indicated the company planned to spend $3 million on its initial installation.

If the regulatory process is expedited, Asta said the company”™s network could be operational by next summer.

The company”™s plan has already won the support of the State Historic Preservation Office, although the office asked ExteNet to contribute $50,000 annually to the Merritt Parkway”™s overall maintenance, a request ExteNet protested.

ExteNet has also apparently won the support of a small spectrum of supporters in the case: AT&T Inc., T-Mobile USA and Verizon Communications Inc., which all stand to gain from improved cell-phone service. Tower operator National Grid Communications Inc., which operates a similar network on Nantucket and other locales, has asked to intervene; as have Clifford Berger and Elizabeth Galt, Greenwich residents fighting a planned cell-phone tower in their neighborhood.

“It”™s our belief that the presence of that system along the Merritt Parkway would justify a change to the configuration or location of the (planned) monopoles,” said Ira Bloom, an attorney with Westport-based Wake, See, Dimes, Bryniczka, Day & Bloom, who represents Berger and Galt.

A San Jose, Calif., competitor called NextG Networks has also obtained an initial certificate of necessity to install similar networks in Connecticut, though NextG has yet to indicate when and where it intends to build a network. NextG is backed by Oak Investment Partners, a venture capital firm with offices in Westport and Palo Alto, Calif.

Before it builds the network, Asta said ExteNet would need to secure service contracts from wireless carriers. ExtreNet recently told Brookline, Mass., officials it would require an extra two months to begin construction of a wireless network there, saying it had yet to receive a written contract from a wireless carrier with which it is in negotiations.

The company has also received approval to build such a network in New York City, but has yet to proceed.