RALEIGH, N.C. -- Without enough towers and transmitters to handle the calls of North Carolina's growing population, cell phone reception sometimes can be poor.

But when it comes to streamlining the process of building those towers and transmitters, the reception among the state's cities and counties isn't much better.

They're actively opposing legislation designed to shorten the application process for building cell phone infrastructure. The proposal would also reduce the amount of information wireless phone providers and cell-tower companies must disclose about their business plan, and cap fees paid to the consultants to evaluate their permit applications.

"We want to get jurisdictions to evaluate our applications for wireless coverage in the same manner as other commercial endeavors," said Brian Hurley, chairman of the Carolinas Wireless Association, a trade group for tower and phone companies in North and South Carolina. "Why are we being singled out and being treated differently?"

But local governments have sent clear signals they want to keep the current system, which they believe balances the needs of residents for reliable phone, e-mail and Internet service while also keeping towers away from unsafe sites and pristine vistas.

"It would severely inhibit the ability of communities to reasonably manage the safety, location and appearance of telecommunications towers and equipment," said Ben Hitchings, planning director for the town of Morrisville. "This comes at the very time when communities most need this capability because the industry is about to undergo a major expansion."

Both sides acknowledge it's an issue that won't go away, as North Carolina's population is projected to grow by one-third by 2030 and obvious tower sites diminish. "Without infrastructure ... you don't have cell phone service period," Hurley said.

Before building a new tower or locating new equipment on an existing tower, a service provider must file an application with a municipality or county. Federal law prohibits local governments from passing rules banning towers but allows them to adopt appearance and location standards.

Lobbyists for both local governments and the industry say the application process generally works well and quickly in most cases. But the providers are upset by the practice of local governments hiring pricey private consultants to evaluate the application, and requiring the providers to pay the consultants' fees.

"This is the only situation I can think of when a customer or a person applying for a permit has to pay fees to someone to be opposed to what they want to do," Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston, the bill's sponsor. "That's what happens here."

Last week, for example, Catawba County told Cingular Wireless officials the company will have to place $8,500 in escrow for each wireless transmission site it is in the process of upgrading. Without the money, the county won't consider approving the changes.

With equipment being modernized at 22 sites, that adds up to $187,000. Clifton Metcalf, a spokesman for AT&T, Cingular's parent company, said that kind of upfront investment is "a disincentive to expanding and upgrading wireless services throughout North Carolina."

"This instance is exactly why this bill is needed," he said.

Hoyle's bill would cap consultant fees at $1,000 or $3,000 per application, depending on the work. It would also require local governments to decide within 90 days whether to issue a new construction permit. They would have only 45 days to consider granting a permit for add-ons to an existing tower. Deadlines could be longer if the government and wireless company agree.

The bill also would prevent local governments from requiring an applicant to justify the need of installing new equipment, or impose signal strength and quality requirements.

Such restrictions would essentially prevent local governments from getting the information needed for an informed decision, said Rusty Monroe of The Center for Municipal Solutions. The company has performed consulting work for more than 500 communities in 23 states.

"It has the effect -- though the words don't say it -- of totally deregulating the issue of the placement of towers," Monroe said.

Opponents also argue the measure could lead to more side-by-side towers instead of requiring competitors to share a single tower. They also point to a tower in Kitty Hawk that collapsed in 2005 as proof that more scrutiny of wireless towers is needed.

The N.C. League of Municipalities, another opponent, says the bill would open the door to more land-use exceptions for other individual industries.

Susan Ballbach, a Catawba County planner, said the escrow fees for consultants help ensure the public gets good cell phone coverage and that towers are used efficiently. The companies should pay costs incurred to show it may do business in the county, she said.

"The taxpayers should not have to bear the expense of (its) overhead," she said.