Why this location? What is actually being built? And what infrastructure is being created here?
In recent weeks an intense public discussion has arisen around the planned radio-link mast on Falkensteinerweg in Brunn am Gebirge.
In media reports and on the OpenPetition platform it is sometimes described as a “42-metre lattice mast”, a “transmission mast” or a “mobile phone mast”.
In fact it is an infrastructure project that has to be viewed in considerably more specific technical terms.
With this article we therefore want to set out transparently how the location came about, what infrastructure stands behind it, why the height is necessary and which functions the installation is intended to fulfil.
Our aim is expressly not to criticise residents with other interests personally.
The aim is to create a shared factual basis for the discussion.
1. What is actually being built?
A lattice mast around 45 metres high is planned on a plot of land on Falkensteinerweg.
In the public discussion, 42 metres is sometimes mentioned. The current OpenPetition also uses this designation. Public reporting and the project documents, by contrast, refer to a height of around 45 metres. (openPetition)
For assessing the specific project, the submitted planning documents are of course decisive.
The mast is part of a communications infrastructure and is intended in particular for directional radio links.
It is therefore not simply the erection of an isolated mast without existing infrastructure.
The location is rather part of a technical infrastructure that has grown over many years.
2. Is this a “mobile phone mast”?
This term is used again and again in the public discussion.
It does, however, convey a certain image: a classic mobile network site, built above all to supply mobile phones.
That is not the technical description of the project planned here.
The essential purpose of the planned site lies in radio-link connections between defined locations.
With radio links, data is transmitted over tightly focused radio connections between specific remote stations.
The mast thus serves as a technical component of a communications network.
The term “transmission mast” does describe, in principle, a structure with radio antennas, but it says nothing about which radio technology is operated on it and what function the infrastructure behind it fulfils.
3. Why does the mast have to be around 45 metres high?
The height is not a decision along the lines of “the higher, the better”.
With radio links, specific technical requirements have to be met.
These include, among others:
- the position of the remote stations,
- the necessary line of sight,
- terrain and buildings,
- the so-called Fresnel zone,
- the position and height of the antennas,
- frequency and technical characteristics of the radio path,
- and the necessary availability of the connection.
A radio-link path is therefore not simply comparable with any arbitrary radio connection.
The height of the mast results from the necessary positioning of the antennas for the intended radio paths.
4. A special feature: the radio-link antennas radiate very selectively
Another important point has hardly been explained so far in the public discussion.
Radio-link antennas are not omnidirectional radiators.
The antennas used focus the radio energy specifically in the direction of the respective remote station.
For the radio-link antennas envisaged, the beam angle of the main lobe is only about 1 degree.
This means:
The antenna is not meant to serve the immediate surroundings of the mast.
It is meant to reach a defined remote station in the distance.
This is also why the height of the mast plays an important role.
The higher the antenna is mounted, the greater the vertical distance between the main lobe and the area directly below or around the mast.
Put simply:
The mast is not tall so that as much radio energy as possible is radiated into the residential area. The antenna is mounted high so that the desired radio path works technically.
The specific exposure situation naturally depends on frequency, transmitting power, antenna type, antenna gain, orientation and the technical operating parameters.
For a specific assessment, the corresponding technical calculations, expert reports and, where appropriate, measurements are therefore decisive.
5. Why is the site there in the first place?
The current site was not simply chosen unilaterally by Biricon.
As part of the original planning, the specific location was discussed with the directly affected neighbour.
There was even a different proposal on our part.
We would originally have preferred to position the mast further towards our own building.
The neighbour, however, wanted a specific different position.
We took this wish into account and had the desired position drawn up accordingly in the plans.
The submission plan that resulted was subsequently signed by the neighbour and his wife.
On this basis the project was planned further and the approval procedure was finally initiated.
At that point we had no reason to assume that the jointly planned location would later be fundamentally opposed.
6. What happened next?
Only later did the situation change.
After the mast structure had already been delivered and work to prepare the foundation site, or to verify the ground conditions in line with the soil survey, had begun, an express objection to the project was lodged.
Among other things, concern about a considerable loss in value of the neighbouring property was expressed.
Subsequently the citizens' initiative against the project came into being and today's public dispute began.
We document this chronology not in order to judge the neighbour personally.
It is relevant rather because in the current discussion the impression sometimes arises that we determined the site without prior consultation with those directly affected.
That does not correspond to the history of its origin as we have documented it.
7. How was the project presented publicly?
In the public discussion the project is often referred to in abbreviated form as a “42-metre lattice mast” or a “45-metre transmission mast”.
The citizens' initiative describes the project, among other things, as an additional lattice mast on a private plot in a residential area. The political discussion also takes up this portrayal. (openPetition)
The problem with this abbreviated description is not that the height of the mast would be wrong or that it is not a structure with radio antennas.
The problem is that it hardly makes the actual technical function of the infrastructure visible.
A mast is initially just the visible structure.
What matters is which infrastructure is operated on it and what purpose it serves.
8. The infrastructure behind it has existed for many years
The history of this infrastructure goes back considerably further than the current mast project.
Biricon has supported the construction and operation of FunkFeuer infrastructure in the region since 2006.
According to our documentation, there has been a fibre-optic connection via the ASFINAG infrastructure to the Vienna Internet eXchange since 2015.
Since 2017 the fire brigade tower has been used as an important distribution site for Funkfeuer. An experimental network that provides free internet to all participants/citizens
The fire brigade receives free internet from Biricon via this infrastructure.
In 2025 the backbone connection was expanded further and extended to a 10 Gbit/s dark fibre connection to the E-Shelter/NTT data centre.
Distribution is redundant via the existing infrastructure.
The planned mast is therefore not the beginning of a completely new network.
It is part of the further development of an infrastructure that has come about over many years.
9. What role does FunkFeuer play?
FunkFeuer is a free community network.
Biricon has supported this infrastructure for many years and, among other things, provides technical infrastructure and sites for it.
The planned mast infrastructure is therefore also connected with the further development of this free communications infrastructure.
The project thus does not consist exclusively of supplying individual commercial customers.
10. What does this have to do with blackout preparedness?
Communication is an essential prerequisite for companies, organisations and municipalities to remain able to act even during prolonged outages.
At Biricon's company site, various components for the highest possible resilience are therefore already in place.
These include, among others:
- Photovoltaics
- Battery storage of around 400 kWh
- Diesel emergency power supply
- redundant network connections
- Dark fibre connection
- own server and infrastructure components
- Backup and disaster recovery systems
The technical infrastructure is thus meant to be able to keep operating for as long as possible even during prolonged outages.
The planned mast is part of this larger infrastructure concept.
It is of course not “civil protection”.
But a robust communications infrastructure can be an important technical foundation in a crisis or blackout.
11. What about possible health effects?
We take this question seriously too.
For radio installations, the applicable legal and technical requirements must be observed in each case.
For a radio-link installation, the specific radiation characteristic is moreover decisive.
The directional antennas used focus the radio energy strongly in the direction of the respective remote station. For the envisaged antennas, the beam angle of the main lobe is about 1 degree.
The main lobe therefore does not run vertically downwards to the plot, but is deliberately aimed at the respective remote station.
This is also one of the reasons why the height of the mast is technically relevant.
The fact that a mast is 45 metres high therefore does not mean that a correspondingly high radio exposure arises beneath the mast.
For a specific assessment, however, the antennas actually used, frequencies, transmitting powers, orientations and the corresponding calculations or measurements must always be consulted.
We therefore wish neither to dismiss health concerns across the board nor to make unsubstantiated health claims.
What matters are the technical facts.
12. What about the appearance of the locality?
The appearance of the locality is a legitimate part of the discussion.
A 45-metre lattice mast is visible. We do not dispute that.
However, the consideration of the local appearance should also take into account the actual future surroundings of the site.
Directly behind the planned mast, a noise barrier with a planned height of around 14 metres is envisaged in connection with the A21. According to current planning, it is to be implemented from 2027 or 2028.
The immediate surroundings of the site will thus change considerably in any case.
The noise barrier will itself be a structure around 14 metres high and long, and therefore far more dominant in terms of area.
From our point of view it therefore makes sense to judge the question of the local appearance not on the basis of an isolated depiction of the mast, but on the basis of the entire future surroundings.
The mast does not stand in an unchanged landscape.
It is located in the immediate vicinity of the existing motorway infrastructure and in front of a planned large-scale noise protection measure.
A realistic visualisation should therefore show not only the mast today, but also the surroundings planned for the future.
13. “Why not simply choose a different site?”
This question is understandable.
An alternative site is not automatically technically suitable, however, just because it lies outside a residential area.
For a functioning radio-link path, the following requirements, among others, must be met:
- sufficient radio line of sight
- suitable height
- suitable remote station
- sufficient Fresnel zone
- suitable frequency planning
- Power supply
- Network or fibre-optic connection
- Resilience
- technical serviceability
- Approvability
A site can therefore look attractive on a map and still be technically unsuitable.
In addition, an alternative plot would have to be developed completely from scratch.
The current infrastructure at the planned site already meets essential prerequisites for highly available operation.
The OpenPetition itself cites as a pro argument that an alternative site would involve considerable additional development costs. (openPetition)
14. “But there is already internet and mobile coverage”
Yes.
But the question is not whether Brunn am Gebirge has internet and mobile coverage in general.
The question is:
Which communication routes are available in the specific case, how redundant are they, and which additional radio paths are needed for the existing and future infrastructure?
An existing mobile network, for example, does not automatically replace a dedicated radio-link connection between two specific sites.
Likewise, a single fibre-optic connection does not automatically replace a redundant radio path.
Different technologies fulfil different tasks.
15. What about the claim that this is merely a commercial project?
Biricon is a company and of course provides commercial communication services.
At the same time, the existing infrastructure serves further functions.
These include, among others:
- Support for FunkFeuer
- Internet supply for the fire brigade site
- redundant communication routes
- Infrastructure for customers
- planned networking of further sites
- Resilience and emergency power supply
Commercial and infrastructural functions therefore do not exclude one another.
16. What do the petition's figures actually tell us?
The current OpenPetition shows 309 signatures.
Of these, 219 are attributed to Brunn am Gebirge, 65 come from other regions and 25 are listed as secret. The statistics also attribute 201 signatures directly to Brunn am Gebirge; others come, for example, from Perchtoldsdorf, Liesing, Maria Enzersdorf and Mödling. (openPetition)
These figures show that the topic arouses interest beyond the immediate site as well.
However, they say nothing about whether individual supporters fully understand the technical function of the project, or what personal motivation lies behind a signature.
This is another reason why we consider factual information about the project to be worthwhile.
17. We take residents' concerns seriously
We do not expect every resident to welcome a 45-metre mast in their surroundings.
Such a structure changes the immediate environment.
The question of the local appearance is also legitimate.
What we do wish for, however, is a discussion in which all the essential information is taken into account.
That includes more than just the height of the mast.
It also includes:
- the actual technical function,
- the history of how the site came about,
- the infrastructure that already exists,
- the requirements of the radio-link paths,
- the resilience,
- the future surroundings,
- the planned noise barrier,
- and the question of which alternatives actually work technically.
18. Our aim
We do not want to persuade anyone to give up personal concerns.
We do, however, want to prevent a complex technical infrastructure from being judged solely on the basis of the image of a “45-metre mobile phone mast in the garden”.
The planned mast is a visible component of a much larger infrastructure project.
The infrastructure behind it has grown over many years.
FunkFeuer, fibre optics, radio links, redundancy, emergency power supply and the possibility of more crisis-resilient communication are part of this overall context.
At the same time we accept that questions will be asked about the local appearance, the immediate neighbourhood and the specific execution.
These questions should be answered on the basis of the planning documents, technical data and expert reports – and not on the basis of conjecture.
Transparency instead of buzzwords
The public discussion has shown how quickly a complex technical project can be reduced to a few terms.
“42-metre mast.”
“45-metre transmission mast.”
“Mobile phone mast.”
“Residential area.”
Each of these terms describes only a small part of the overall picture.
We therefore want to disclose the complete story and the technical background.
This article is to be supplemented on an ongoing basis as new verifiable information becomes available.
Questions about the project are expressly welcome.
Our aim is a factual discussion based on the actual technical and planning circumstances.
Biricon IT Services GmbH
Brunn am Gebirge