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: John Navas on 28 Jul 2010 12:03 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. .... A seemingly exasperated Jobs addressed the problem in a July 16 press conference. "When AT&T wants to add a cell tower in, oh, Texas or somewhere, it takes three weeks to get approval in a typical community. To get a cell phone tower in San Francisco, it takes something like three years," he said at the press event to discuss the iPhone 4's antenna issues two weeks ago. .... City records for the past few years show that applications to build new wireless telecommunication stations (the city's term for cell sites) can take a few months or up to a two years or longer before a final action, such as approval to build a new panel antenna is handed down by city officials. And this drawn-out process is well-known in the industry. "San Francisco has one of the most complicated, burdensome, arcane processes in the country, without question," said Patrick Ryan, adjunct professor of telecommunications policy at University of Colorado, Boulder. .... Panel antennas--which measure about one foot by four feet and about 8 or 9 inches thick--are the only practical option wireless carriers have to bulk up their coverage in the city and county of San Francisco. The city does not allow cell towers to be built because the local government considers them an eyesore. So the best option for AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, and others is to build panel antennas onto existing structures--the penthouse of a tall building, the steeple of a church, a utility pole--typically in clumps of three to 12. .... Sometimes carriers will remove their application on their own when they run into too much community opposition, or when the process drags on and drags up the cost, planner Ionin said. A recent example is T-Mobile's attempt to put a new antenna on the steeple of a church in the Mission District to fix what the carrier termed "an identifiable gap in coverage." But after just a few months of applying for the city permit, T-Mobile yanked its application in June because of fierce opposition from the church's neighbors. According to a letter from the carrier to the planning commission, T-Mobile did so in order "to promote harmonious relations and engender community goodwill." MORE: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20011857-260.html>
From: Jeff Liebermann on 28 Jul 2010 23:47 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> -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl(a)cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
From: David Kaye on 29 Jul 2010 03:15 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. With all due respect, I was once involved in a Bernal Heights neighborhood association, and it was amazing how many carriers wanted to put up cell towers, and in how many locations. It seems that at every meeting there was yet another carrier wanting to put up antennda. 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.
From: David Kaye on 29 Jul 2010 03:34 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. I'm speaking as a former ham, though I haven't been active since high school. >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.
From: John Higdon on 29 Jul 2010 03:48
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! -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |