Between a DAS and a Hard Place: Chilmark’s Difficult Legal Reality

The current situation on Martha’s Vineyard is a textbook example of what happens when an ODAS (Outdoor Distributed Antenna System) reaches the end of its useful life. According to a recent report, the town of Chilmark is considering cell service improvements, but currently faces a difficult legal and economic position: it wants better service. Still, residents appear to oppose deploying both new towers and small cells. Meanwhile, American Tower (AMT) appears unwilling to invest in a new DAS, yet unwilling to relinquish the cell service monopoly it has held in the area since 2013. Complicating matters further, Verizon plans to deploy its own small cells in the Rights-of-Way (ROW) and discontinue using AMT’s DAS.

Here is the reality of the situation.

The Legal Reality of Rights of Way (ROW)

First, carriers generally already have the legal right to deploy small cells in the public ROW. That ship has sailed in most communities. Legally, the town has very little leverage to prevent the deployment of individual small-cell nodes if it denies other options.

The Economic Disconnect

Second, carriers have no incentive to pay American Tower to materially upgrade an existing DAS when the FCC caps what municipalities can charge for ROW access at approximately $270 per year. Why subsidize a third-party system and pay rent when you can deploy your own infrastructure at a fraction of the cost?

The Inevitable Outcome

Third, residents understandably don’t want each carrier installing its own small cells on poles throughout town. However, that is exactly where this heads when there is no neutral, cost-effective alternative. If a macro tower is off the table, the “next best” option for carriers is densification through small cells or more DAS nodes—creating the very visual clutter the town hopes to avoid.

The Uncomfortable Solution

There is a solution that solves the coverage issue while minimizing infrastructure: Allow one or more properly sited macro towers.

This approach offers distinct advantages over a “small cell sprawl” scenario:

• Fewer total structures
• Better overall coverage
• Lower long-term cost
• Less visual clutter overall

The Bottom Line

This is not a technical problem. It’s a land-use and expectations problem. Until the expectation (better service) aligns with the land-use reality (choosing between macro towers or a high volume of small cells), this remains a no-win situation.