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: AES on 29 Jul 2010 11:45 In article <um2356pu3t5t2rm51s39c9o1duntrtalb6(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > 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. Sorry -- have to flatly disagree on this one. Cellular phone service is a form of basic infrastructure that serves everyone, benefits everyone, in innumerable ways; provides benefits that are very hard to obtain in almost other fashion; and that just ought to be available to almost everyone, almost everywhere, as much as is reasonably feasible . . . just like roads and highways, just like plain old POTS once was (but isn't really any more).
From: John Higdon on 29 Jul 2010 15:25 In article <WYg4o.45954$YX3.29653(a)newsfe18.iad>, "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > Honestly, it's not like hams are sitting on any significant amount of really > prime RF real estate. I think it's a worthwhile hobby, (though I've never > really been involved. I used to monitor the long-range ham bands on my > shortwave, but found it amusing that people from across the world, from > different countries and cultures were contacting each other, and all they > ever talked about were their radios!) ;) It also keeps a portion of the > radio spectrum "public" which I think is a good thing. History has already told us that in a REAL disaster, significant amounts of critical communications will likely be carried by amateur radio operators. The cell phone networks will collapse, as well as the wire-line networks. Those with the uninformed, short-sighted view of hams as geeks hogging spectrum which is sorely needed by those sacred "communications companies" need to get a reality check. The first thing to go in our modern society after a major catastrophe will be the commercial communications that we depend upon for everyday existence. The communication facilities that hams employ (which consists mostly of technology of their own creation when it comes to the most sophisticated among them) is head and shoulders above anything that is found in the commercial world. Anyone with the attitude that hams are just kids that are unnecessarily indulged by the FCC and serve no purpose reveals his own lack of depth of understanding of the real world. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: David Kaye on 29 Jul 2010 16:22 John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: >History has already told us that in a REAL disaster, significant amounts >of critical communications will likely be carried by amateur radio >operators. The cell phone networks will collapse, as well as the >wire-line networks. In the 1989 Loma Prieta quake the phone system did not collapse. Remember, I was working in the call center business at the time. Secondly, 2-way did not collapse, either. Now, I'm not making any bets that the trunked systems in use now won't collapse since they're dependent on central coordination that wasn't needed when simple 2-way was the norm. Given that the CHP still uses the "old fashioned" 2-way technology, I'd say that they'd survive just fine, as will small local companies and whatnot. >"communications companies" need to get a reality check. The first thing >to go in our modern society after a major catastrophe will be the >commercial communications that we depend upon for everyday existence. This didn't happen in Loma Prieta, even though the entirety of SF lost power for 36 hours.
From: DevilsPGD on 29 Jul 2010 17:26 In message <3t2356h5420lsqfvhe1h5cp12nnqt9vk59(a)4ax.com> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: >On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in ><4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS ><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >>David Kaye wrote: >> >>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are >>> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the >>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes >>> them really really ugly. >> >>I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop >>antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment >>(not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused. >> >>The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have >>the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before >>neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage >>of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz. > >There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear. So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal and a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures equally?
From: Malcolm Hoar on 29 Jul 2010 19:17
In article <i2sntq$udo$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >This didn't happen in Loma Prieta, even though the entirety of SF lost power >for 36 hours. It may not have collapsed but it wasn't exactly working well either. Yes, of course, something like that provokes a massive surge in call volume at the worst possible time. It took my Bay Area colleages many, many hours to get a message to me overseas; cellphone to NY and then conventional service from NY to London. -- |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | | malch(a)malch.com Gary Player. | | http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |