EXHIBIT 1 <br />‘MANIPULATED’ PROPAGATION MAP <br />(Oops. Busted!) <br />SS,SH,SSS,DC. <br />AME ITEAME EIGHTAME IGNAL TRENGTHIFFERENTOVERAGE <br />Original submittal showing large gaps at 120’ Later submittal, after an analysisshowed that <br />the original map was ‘manipulated’ to try to <br />prove that120’ would notfill a significant gap <br />when trying to get a 199’ tower approved. <br />Note: Large gaps ‘miraculously’ disappeared <br />after analysis. <br />This is the bottom-line or underlying issue in most applications for a new facility, as it determines i) the <br />technicalneedfor a proposed new facility in the first place; ii) the need for the proposed location; and iii) <br />the visualintrusiveness(e.g. the need for a tower versus a co-location and the needed heightof the <br />tower). <br />‘Proof-of-TechnicalNeed’ <br />The basic underlying issue is , which the 1996 Telecommunications Act <br />allows a community to require proof of. The point of this is to demonstrate that without the modeling <br />information (i.e. inputted variables) used to produce the maps, the map is uselessand should not be <br />relied upon, as it can easily be manipulated to show a pre-determined (desired) outcome, as the original <br />submittal above did. <br />10 <br />