By Scott Etkin
On Tuesday night, the Community Board 7 Land Use Committee held an informational session about the new, public 5G towers that are being deployed around the city. While no towers are expected to be installed in the CB7 district for now, these 30-foot structures have sparked curiosity — and concern — in the neighborhood about what they are, how they work, and what they emit.
Nick Colvin, chief executive officer of CityBridge — the private-public partnership with the City of New York that has the contract for installing and maintaining the 5G towers through 2030 — began by reviewing the LinkNYC program, which was launched in 2014 under the Bill de Blasio administration. Its goal was to close the “digital divide” — the lack of access to broadband among low-income New Yorkers — by replacing defunct payphone booths with free, public WiFi kiosks. Over the years, CityBridge has installed 2,000 kiosks, making them ubiquitous enough that they are no longer noteworthy.
CityBridge’s new 5G towers, however, are getting people’s attention.
Colvin explained that the 5G towers are intended to fulfill the program’s original mission: closing the digital divide with the latest technology. This is an essential service given how reliant we are on internet connectivity and cell service in everyday life. “Demand for cellular data is increasing 20% year over year,” he said.
The 5G towers are 32 feet tall, which is significantly bigger than the original LinkNYC WiFi kiosks, but smaller than 5G towers that have been deployed in other cities, which tend to be 40 to 50 feet tall. They need to be out in the open – as opposed to positioned on a rooftop or buried underground – because the antenna needs “direct line of sight” to the devices in order to make the connection. (5G technology carries more data but across a shorter distance than 4G.)
CityBridge has two versions of the tower – one with digital display screens and one without. So far, they have deployed towers without screens due to supply chain issues.
Each structure has five transmission bays to house the telecoms equipment. This is enough space in the tower to support signals from multiple carriers (for example, AT&T and T-Mobile) and accommodate technology upgrades, making them “future proof.”
CityBridge also installs antennas on top of existing light poles, however, these have less space for equipment, which make them unable to support multiple carriers simultaneously.
Where the towers are installed depends on many factors. The LinkNYC program prioritizes “digital deserts,” meaning areas with spotty network service and where less fiber optic cable has been laid. For this reason, “90% of deployments will be above 96th Street and in the outer boroughs,” said Colvin.
CityBridge’s contract with NYC mandates a minimum of 4,000 installations and a maximum of 7,500. These numbers include the 2,000 WiFi kiosks that have already been installed. So, at least 2,000 5G towers will be installed though the end of 2026, according to the contract.
The siting process begins with CityBridge fielding requests from carriers about where to install new towers. They then submit these proposals to the NYC Office of Technology, which vets the plan. If given approval to move forward, CityBridge must give 60 days notice to the borough president and the local community board. While community board votes are advisory only (in this and all matters), Colvin said sites have already been moved or dropped based on community feedback. “You know your neighborhood better than we do,” he said.
A new tower must meet many detailed requirements, such as its placement relative to the closest building and other infrastructure on a block. There can be no more than one Link5G per block and they must be at least 200 feet apart. In a historic district, the tower is subject to approval by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Once a tower is installed, CityBridge is responsible for maintaining and cleaning it. Colvin said that all structures are monitored remotely and required to be visited for a site inspection once a week.
A topic not addressed in depth on the call was health concerns about 5G technology. This will be the focus of a subsequent Land Use Committee meeting in June. Speaking briefly on the matter, Mr. Colvin said that there has been a lot of misinformation about 5G, and studies that have been cited by critics are not as conclusive as they may seem. He added that the technology has been approved by the FDA and FCC, which have reviewed all the studies over the course of 10 years about cellular radiation.
While Colvin reiterated that there are no plans to install a 5G tower in CB7, he expects there will eventually be some in every district. It is hard to guess how many might be installed, because CityBridge’s proposals follow “carrier need, especially in Manhattan,” he said. There is “no deploying sites ‘just because.’”
Uh-Oh ! Time to dust off those tinfoil hats ! Don’t want them reading my thoughts…then again, I don’t have too many (thoughts, NOT tinfoil hats).
They are more powerful microwaves, it’s well known that MWs heat water. Nothing to do with thought reading, but your body and your pet’s body has a lot of water in it.
If you are concerned about health effects and awareness, see: AmericansForResponsibleTech.org for sane, responsible information, as well as ways to get involved.
Is the added benefit of 5G over 4G really worth having these towers block anyone’s view and sunlight?
if it’s blocking your view, step aside, if it’s blocking sunlight, take your sunglasses off – they’re not much thicker than a couple of lightpoles
I am referring to th views and light inside someone’s apartment. They can’t move their windows
However you can save a hundred bucks a month on your broadband for the trouble. I’d take that trade any day.
There is one located on Amsterdam between 87th & 88th st on the west side of street.
First, the FDA has not approved 5G technology, nor does it have any authority or role regarding cell towers. The FCC is not a health and science agency and has no expertise nor authority in regards to 5G or cell towers.
Second, the FCC and FDA have not reviewed all the studies over the course of 10 years about cellular radiation.
Currently, several scientists conclude that the weight of currently available, peer-reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that radiofrequency radiation is a proven human carcinogen. Read “Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” published in the journal Environmental Research.
A scientific literature review on cell towers base station antennas and human health published in Environmental Research by Alfonzo Balmori documented that the majority of studies found associations with radiofrequency sickness, cancer and changes in biochemical parameters.
Thanks for citing a 2011 study. When 3G was still the dominant tech. LMFAO.
On August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in our case against the FCC that the decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to update it’s 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation (which includes cell tower emissions) was “arbitrary and capricious.”
See the case Environmental Health Trust v the FCC.
One of the most important aspects of the court decision was that the court found the FCC did not adequately explain why it ignored scientific evidence on impacts from long term wireless radiation exposure, especially in regards to children, who the American Academy of Pediatrics states are more vulnerable to wireless radiation.
The court ordered the FCC to examine the record evidence regarding long term exposure to children. So far, the FCC has not responded. The EPA was defunded on this issue decades ago. in fact there is no federal agency ensuring safety or reviewing the science on cell tower radiation. Thus, this landmark ruling highlights how no federal health agency has reviewed the full body of current research to ensure current safety standards are protective.
If you do think that an agency has researched 5G or cell towers, then find the report by the FDA, EPA, CDC, NIH that reviewed the studies on cell towers and on effects such as headaches, memory damage, neurological issues, impacts to reproduction etc.
I have an extra class Ham license and there are definitely MPEs (Maximum Permissible Exposure) limits across the radio spectrum. There is clear math to calculate the MPE for all stations that broadcast radio waves. 5G is a radio wave. Radios transmit in the microwave spectrum. AM, FM, cellular, GPS, TV, public service, all produce radio emissions that everyone who grew up in NYC has been bombarded with since birth.
Whenever a new radio technology like the microwave oven or 5G emerges some people get very afraid. The thing is that you can’t prove a negative. Thus we are stuck with members of society who fear vaccines that are safe, technologies that are safe and of course high tension lines and contrails.
Very few people with entrenched views on this will change there mind on the issue no matter how thoroughly it is explained.
Security of usage is important, I don’t know if this has been addressed Governments want digital returns, medicare, social security, yet the security of these towers is questionable.
Radio wave technology, which is all that 5G is has been studied for a century. Maximum Permissible Exposure Limits are well documented and there are decades of population surveillance data that attests to the veracity of these limits. 5G is just another flavor of radio wave. If you are afraid of it just wear your faraday cage suit and you’ll be find.
PS Your body is already exposed to AM/FM/VHF/Satellite/long wave/short wave radio waves on a 24 hour basis already. If you truly want to avoid the “hazards” of radio signals consider moving to the United States Radio Quiet Zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone
Mr. Colvin seemed inexplicably confused about the actual situation with regard to planning and permitting of Link5G structures in CB 7.
In fact, according to NYC OpenData, Link5G/CityBridge has applied for three construction permits for sites in Manhattan CB7 (107) all marked with status of “PreCx”, including:
715 COLUMBUS AVENUE
2800 BROADWAY
741 COLUMBUS AVENUE
And, Mr. Colvin completely deflected a question on the approvals process by remaining silent regarding April 2023 order issued by FCC, whereby CityBridge must immediately comply with FEDERAL law requiring reviews for potential adverse visual impacts near federally designated historic sites and districts.
The proposed 715 Columbus site is approximately 250 feet (west) from nearest structure in the Federally registered Upper West Side / Central Park West Historic District ( Register #82001189).