NEWS: Up to 2 years for even small panel cell antennas to be approved in San Francisco
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
Next: NEWS: Motorola Buys Full-Page Slam Ad Against Apple
From: Warren Oates on 29 Jul 2010 07:58 In article <i2r9q0$el1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: > Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are > unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the > architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes > them really really ugly. Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die. It reminds me of the windmill "debates" around here. No one wants coal (dirty dirty), no one wants nuclear (boom bang), there _are_ no waterfalls, and now no one wants wind power either (bad for the birds and probably cause cancer). So what now? We turn off all the lights and move into raw food vegan yurts and hope for the best? -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 09:57 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:34:04 GMT, in <i2ratc$tt7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: > >>Back in the 1980's every little fiefdom from the homeowner's association >>to the city to the county to the state were writing >>ordinances/regulations/laws that virtually said ham operators could only >>have antenna systems THEY approved, no matter if the amateur, who >>provides emergency communications in time of national disaster, could >>communicate with other amateurs or not. They didn't care if your radio >>worked, they cared that noone could see any antenna, at all if they >>could get away with it. > >Antennas are ugly, especially those 40 meter rotating monstrosities. Also, I >think the service hams provide during disasters is very overrated. When you >live among other people you have to get along with other people. This means >complying with local regulations designed to improve the aesthetics of a >neighborhood. > >Signs of a low-class neighborhood include cars parked in front yards and huge >ham antennas. I'm thinking San Leandro just off Davis Street, and most >neighborhoods in Concord and Pittsburg. > >If hams truly want to serve the public that they're always talking about >serving, then they should erect disguised antennas or at least those that are >somewhat pleasing to look at. Amen! >>Amateur Radio Relay League, our national ham radio organization that >>coordinates and lobbies and kisses the bureaucrats' asses to keep us on >>the air and keep commercial interests, like sellphone companies, from >>stealing our frequency bands we've had since 1900, with only partial >>success, [....] > >It is *right* that the FCC should take away some ham bands. Ham radio is >experimental radio. There isn't much to experiment with any longer, and the >remaining bands provide plenty of space for experimentation. Most hams don't >experiment at all. They buy lots of equipment and work QSO's halfway around >the world to talk about their rigs. They collect wallpaper. They don't >provide much of a community service, except in those very rare instances of >disasters, and then I don't see that they do that much that can't otherwise be >done by local disaster folks using conventional VHF and UHF 2-way. Amen on this too! -- John "We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 10:08 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:15:07 +0000, in <Xns9DC429072B37noonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: >Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in >news:v4u15659qncovipl40hutg4iieihmuubtk(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:03:49 -0700, John Navas >> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>>It turns out Steve Jobs wasn't exaggerating all that much when he said >>>it can take three years to get a cell tower approved in San Francisco. >> >> Last year, the FCC approved a "shot clock", which specifies a >> "reasonable" time limit on such procedures. The problem is that San >> Francisco and other cities are using the hearing process to delay >> almost indefinitely the installation of new towers. >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/19/fcc_shot_clock/> >> <http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=1828&format=xml> > >Precisely why FCC needs to expand PRB-1 to INCLUDE all communications >services it licenses, not just ham radio..... > >FCC can stop this nonsense, immediately, if it wants. I don't think the >sellphone carriers WANT it stopped, or it would have already been done. I >think the sellphone carriers are looking for a SCAPEGOAT to blame their >lack of system expansion to fill in the holes in their coverage in less- >than-stellar-profitable areas under their license. FCC can stop all that, >too! It's called "Proof of Performance" and any broadcast engineer can >tell you how expensive THAT can get if his boss tries to turn down the >power to save the company a few bucks in light bill on the big transmitter. This is a kinda sorta democracy, so if the majority would rather have less towers and poorer wireless coverage, then that's what they should be able to get -- there's no right of the few to impose their will on the many in this regard. There's no compelling public interest in good cellular coverage. It's up to cellular carriers (and hams) to sell the public on the benefits of their towers. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 10:09 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:48:06 -0700, in <higgy-B6175C.00480529072010(a)news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: >In article <i2r9q0$el1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: > >> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are >> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the >> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes >> them really really ugly. > >Wires for the trolley buses are probably the most ugly fixture of a big >city that one can see, IMHO. I'll bet no one said a word when that >system went up all over town. And thats not to mention the interference >to radio and television reception they create. > >Quite honestly, I would think good phone service would trump crappy bus >service (and don't get started with me about that: I use the Muni all >the time.) Wish I could use my cell phone in the city! Switch carriers. My T-Mobile phone works everywhere I've tried it. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 10:10
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in <4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >David Kaye wrote: > >> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are >> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the >> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes >> them really really ugly. > >I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop >antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment >(not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused. > >The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have >the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before >neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage >of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz. There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear. >[SNIP pro-Verizon nonsense] -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin |