Your tower zoning and siting news indicates that more and more communities are trying to get the carrier or tower company to build their site on town property so that they can capture the added income. This is commendable because it typically will allow the town fathers to be a little more acceptable to a new tower in the community. One of the problems is that town treasury-types see the various lease rates that are being shared with the property owner and they want to get a bigger share although they haven?t a clue about the business model for the tower site. There clearly is a portion of the tenant?s lease rates that can be shared based upon the cost of the tower and a necessary return on investment. DAS infrastructures are completely different. Public officials expect these networks to be excellent revenue sources for their municipality. Not! The cost can almost be prohibitive just to put it in place and exorbitant rents will only guarantee that the system will not be built. These communities should look at it from the perspective of providing additional networks to their community to keep it in the forefront of technology, instead of instituting onerous permitting fees and anticipating inflated rentals. Unfortunately, cottage-industry businesses were formed overnight of ?experts? who can assist the community in getting a better shake in their revenue projections for a communications tower in addition to requiring the applicant to provide a multi-thousand-dollar upfront fee so that they can hire a consultant to review the process ? a process that oftentimes sees the consultant jumping into that role as well. I believe we?ll see the same thing happening with DAS. They?ll try to bleed a stone and the stone will get legs and head down the highway to a town that?s more accommodating and will benefit long-term from relationships that are fully funded by the network provider.