New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino. Discuss New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino, on Wireless Forums.
New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
AT&T is trying to get approval for a massive new cell tower adjacent to
a neighborhood of $2 million homes in Cupertino. Last night there were
21 residents speaking in opposition to the tower. Ironically, many of
these same residents had opposed a tower located on top of a high
school, which would have been much less intrusive. The new tower would
provide AT&T coverage to a neighborhood where coverage has always been
very poor for all carriers other than Verizon.
In the end, the council did not deny or uphold the appeal by the
residents, but sent it back for more study on other locations. Contrary
to what some people believe, cities do have the right to deny permits
for towers if there are valid reasons and alternative locations. There
are several good locations for this tower that would impact the
neighborhood less, but they would be more costly for various reasons
related to terrain and existing structures. It's only been in process
for two years now. It took T-Mobile/Cingular nearly 10 years to get a
tower in another location for their 1900 MHz PCS network.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/2/2010 12:57 PM, SMS wrote:
> AT&T is trying to get approval for a massive new cell tower adjacent to
> a neighborhood of $2 million homes in Cupertino. Last night there were
> 21 residents speaking in opposition to the tower. Ironically, many of
> these same residents had opposed a tower located on top of a high
> school, which would have been much less intrusive. The new tower would
> provide AT&T coverage to a neighborhood where coverage has always been
> very poor for all carriers other than Verizon.
>
> In the end, the council did not deny or uphold the appeal by the
> residents, but sent it back for more study on other locations. Contrary
> to what some people believe, cities do have the right to deny permits
> for towers if there are valid reasons and alternative locations. There
> are several good locations for this tower that would impact the
> neighborhood less, but they would be more costly for various reasons
> related to terrain and existing structures. It's only been in process
> for two years now. It took T-Mobile/Cingular nearly 10 years to get a
> tower in another location for their 1900 MHz PCS network.
>
> AT&T should have had Steve Jobs come and speak.
....to address the same group whinging about AT&T service and antennagate.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/2/2010 11:59 AM, QN wrote:
> luddites
Not really, the problem is there is a much less intrusive location that
AT&T didn't want to look at because of extra expense. They chose a
location directly adjacent to a residential area rather than a site in
the center of the industrial park.
"http://i55.tinypic.com/sm8574.jpg"
They've got to do something as coverage in that part of town on AT&T is
very poor. They need more capacity and more coverage. It's embarrassing
that in Apple's home city the iPhone can't be used in large areas.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
In article <4cd0a3c4$0$22100$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/2010 11:59 AM, QN wrote:
> > luddites
>
> Not really, the problem is there is a much less intrusive location that
> AT&T didn't want to look at because of extra expense. They chose a
> location directly adjacent to a residential area rather than a site in
> the center of the industrial park.
>
> "http://i55.tinypic.com/sm8574.jpg"
>
> They've got to do something as coverage in that part of town on AT&T is
> very poor. They need more capacity and more coverage. It's embarrassing
> that in Apple's home city the iPhone can't be used in large areas.
$2 million homes by 85?
Usually there is good signal on the big roads and freeways. Good on De
Anza, good on 280 and good on Foothill Expressway.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/3/2010 7:06 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<4cd0431b$0$22167$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> AT&T is trying to get approval for a massive new cell tower adjacent to
>> a neighborhood of $2 million homes in Cupertino. Last night there were
>> 21 residents speaking in opposition to the tower.
>
> If you want a tower there, you need to refocus the moonbats' attention
> on the evil TV and telecom satellites that are beaming radio waves down
> into their houses RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE. I mean, the NERVE--don't they
> know people can DIE from EMR?
>
> Make the moonbats go crazy just trying to live day to day.
Not to mention Google Streetview vans nabbing their open APs.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 2010-11-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/2010 11:59 AM, QN wrote:
>> luddites
>
> Not really, the problem is there is a much less intrusive location that
> AT&T didn't want to look at because of extra expense. They chose a
> location directly adjacent to a residential area rather than a site in
> the center of the industrial park.
>
> "http://i55.tinypic.com/sm8574.jpg"
According to the report I saw the tower site proposed is actually
at Results Way which is in the industrial park and inside the
circle you drew on your picture, not at your dot. They are also
apparently disguising the monopole as a pine tree, and locating it
beside a grove of other trees in the industrial park, so they seem
to be sparing no expense to avoid the aesthetic issues which are
generally the basis for tower rejections. Here are some references
google found:
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/3/2010 10:26 AM, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2010-11-02, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/2010 11:59 AM, QN wrote:
>>> luddites
>>
>> Not really, the problem is there is a much less intrusive location that
>> AT&T didn't want to look at because of extra expense. They chose a
>> location directly adjacent to a residential area rather than a site in
>> the center of the industrial park.
>>
>> "http://i55.tinypic.com/sm8574.jpg"
>
> According to the report I saw the tower site proposed is actually
> at Results Way which is in the industrial park and inside the
> circle you drew on your picture, not at your dot.
Those reports are incorrect, or at least incomplete.
You can look at the webcast of the Nov 1 city council meeting and see
the actual map of proposed locations and actual location. Or just go to
<http://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=1037&meta_id=531 89>.
The tower is in the back of the property up against Imperial Avenue, as
shown on the map.
The residents in that neighborhood would obviously like the tower moved
away from their houses and over close to Bubb Road where it would not be
near any homes. Of course the property owner would like it in the back
and they are not really concerned about the nearby residences. Apple has
several facilities on Bubb Road, but I think they are leased not owned,
so they would not be able to agree to a tower.
There's actually a bit more to this whole thing as well. Several years
ago the property owner where the tower is proposed tried to get this
parcel rezoned from commercial to residential which would have netted a
profit of tens of millions of dollars. The developer pushing for the
rezoning hired (or somehow persuaded) a local politician, Paul Fong, to
push for the rezoning and Fong sent out a series of highly misleading
mailers to residents. The rezoning attempt failed, amazingly, since
usually the developers "encourage" the city council members to vote for
rezoning, but one council member recused himself from the vote because
he lived in the neighborhood that would be negatively impacted by the
new development.
The local residents fiercely opposed the rezoning, and I expect that
putting the tower up against their property is a little payback for
killing the rezoning deal.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:4cd1d4ac$0$22162$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> On 11/3/2010 10:26 AM, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2010-11-02, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2010 11:59 AM, QN wrote:
>>>> luddites
>>>
>>> Not really, the problem is there is a much less intrusive location
>>> that AT&T didn't want to look at because of extra expense. They
>>> chose a location directly adjacent to a residential area rather than
>>> a site in the center of the industrial park.
>>>
>>> "http://i55.tinypic.com/sm8574.jpg"
>>
>> According to the report I saw the tower site proposed is actually
>> at Results Way which is in the industrial park and inside the
>> circle you drew on your picture, not at your dot.
>
> Those reports are incorrect, or at least incomplete.
>
> You can look at the webcast of the Nov 1 city council meeting and see
> the actual map of proposed locations and actual location. Or just go
> to
> <http://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaVi...4&clip_id=1037
&m
> eta_id=53189>. The tower is in the back of the property up against
> Imperial Avenue, as shown on the map.
>
> The residents in that neighborhood would obviously like the tower
> moved away from their houses and over close to Bubb Road where it
> would not be near any homes. Of course the property owner would like
> it in the back and they are not really concerned about the nearby
> residences. Apple has several facilities on Bubb Road, but I think
> they are leased not owned, so they would not be able to agree to a
> tower.
>
> There's actually a bit more to this whole thing as well. Several years
> ago the property owner where the tower is proposed tried to get this
> parcel rezoned from commercial to residential which would have netted
> a profit of tens of millions of dollars. The developer pushing for the
> rezoning hired (or somehow persuaded) a local politician, Paul Fong,
> to push for the rezoning and Fong sent out a series of highly
> misleading mailers to residents. The rezoning attempt failed,
> amazingly, since usually the developers "encourage" the city council
> members to vote for rezoning, but one council member recused himself
> from the vote because he lived in the neighborhood that would be
> negatively impacted by the new development.
>
> "http://missioncitylantern.blogspot.com/2008/03/cupertino-courier-
lette
> r-concerning.html"
>
> The local residents fiercely opposed the rezoning, and I expect that
> putting the tower up against their property is a little payback for
> killing the rezoning deal.
>
Seems like Jobs would have his own 500 ft monster on the Apple campus,
doesn't it?
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4cd50ffa$0$22162
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> On 11/5/2010 9:57 PM, Fred wrote:
>
>> Seems like Jobs would have his own 500 ft monster on the Apple campus,
>> doesn't it?
>
> There may be, but the main Apple campus is about a mile away.
>
We flatlanders can't imagine the problems those living in mountainous
terrain have with multipath and signal blocking....
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 06/11/10 9:26 AM, Fred wrote:
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4cd50ffa$0$22162
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> On 11/5/2010 9:57 PM, Fred wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like Jobs would have his own 500 ft monster on the Apple campus,
>>> doesn't it?
>>
>> There may be, but the main Apple campus is about a mile away.
>>
>
> We flatlanders can't imagine the problems those living in mountainous
> terrain have with multipath and signal blocking....
It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and hills. With
GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's challenging to
cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the area in question but
Verizon has no iPhone.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/6/2010 7:26 PM, SMS wrote:
> [...]
> It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and hills. With
> GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's challenging to
> cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the area in question but
> Verizon has no iPhone.
If you're curious where the towers are located, visit:
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:26:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and hills. With
>GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's challenging to
>cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the area in question but
>Verizon has no iPhone.
Steve Jobs mumbled something about the Apple campus having strong
signals from both Verizon and AT&T.
<http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/16/verizon-cell-towers-on-apples-campus-likely-mean-little/>
You can checkout the tower infestation around 1 Infinite Loop (Apple
campus in Cupertino) and 5 Results Way (proposed new tower) at:
<http://www.antennasearch.com>
Not everything listed are cell towers. If you click on one of the
Google map objects, it will display the owner and services. The
transmitter list spreadsheet for the Apple area shows 7 transmitters.
4 are for paging and security. 3 are 22GHz point to point links to
off campus Apple buildings. No cell *TOWERS* listed for the Apple
campus. However, the list may not include all building mounted sites,
microcellular, RoF (radio over fiber), and other mutations. Note that
Verizon sites are also listed as GTE.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 20:00:52 -0700, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
wrote:
>On 11/6/2010 7:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and hills. With
>> GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's challenging to
>> cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the area in question but
>If you're curious where the towers are located, visit:
><http://sfocellsites.com/mappageA.htm>
>and wait until all the pushpins are drawn.
Thanks, but it only shows T-Mobile and AT&T cell sites:
I now have about 1,550 cell sites in the greater SF Bay Area
for T-Mobile, and about 1,150 sites for AT&T. T-Mobile cell
sites are in pink, or brown if they require more research.
AT&T sites are in blue, or green if they require more research.
Checking 1 Infinite Loop, it shows both T-Mobile (2559) and AT&T
(1039) cell sites on the Apple campus. There are other sites nearby.
I also checked:
<http://www.cellumap.com>
<http://www.americantower.com>
<http://www.crowncastle.com/tower-rental-services/tower-locator.aspx>
etc... which didn't show anything more than:
<http://www.antennasearch.com>
>> Verizon has no iPhone.
Verizon now has the Wi-Fi only version of the iPad:
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/ipad.shtml>
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
"Thad Floryan" <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
news:4CD61664.7030402@thadlabs.com...
> On 11/6/2010 7:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and hills.
>> With
>> GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's challenging to
>> cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the area in question
>> but
>> Verizon has no iPhone.
>
> If you're curious where the towers are located, visit:
>
> <http://sfocellsites.com/mappageA.htm>
>
> and wait until all the pushpins are drawn.
In the guy's blog he mentions that AT&T is rather secretive about its
new tower locations ("AT&T data is only partially updated these last few
years, so some areas are current and some may be missing a few new cell
sites. It's hard to keep up with AT&T because, unlike T-Mobile, they
are not so proud of their new coverage and therefore keep their new
sites secret"), and his map proves it... AT&T has significantly upgraded
its capabilities along Skyline and the coastal areas but that doesn't
show on the map.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/7/2010 8:54 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
<snip>
> In the guy's blog he mentions that AT&T is rather secretive about its
> new tower locations ("AT&T data is only partially updated these last few
> years, so some areas are current and some may be missing a few new cell
> sites. It's hard to keep up with AT&T because, unlike T-Mobile, they
> are not so proud of their new coverage and therefore keep their new
> sites secret"), and his map proves it... AT&T has significantly upgraded
> its capabilities along Skyline and the coastal areas but that doesn't
> show on the map.
And ironically, T-Mobile has significantly _degraded_ their capabilities
along Skyline and the coastal areas by removing AT&T roaming
capabilities. Verizon coverage is still good in those areas, but it got
degraded when AT&T and Verizon turned off AMPS in those areas (of course
not many people had phones that could use AMPS, but I kept an AMPS
capable phone specifically because of the coverage in rural San Mateo,
Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties).
Ironically, Sprint coverage is better in those areas than in the urban
areas because you roam on Verizon where there is no Sprint coverage (in
areas with Sprint coverage, no matter how weak and unusable the Sprint
signal, a Sprint phone won't roam onto Verizon). Also, MetroPCS now
allows extra-cost off-network roaming onto Verizon, so its coverage,
which was non-existent in those areas, is now very good.
I'm not sure how secretive AT&T can be, since new towers require
approval of some government body, whether they're in a city or not.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4cd79a1d$0$22099
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> I'm not sure how secretive AT&T can be, since new towers require
> approval of some government body, whether they're in a city or not.
>
>
All the towers and all the systems are in the FCC wireless bureau's
database of licenses. Noone operates cellular or PCS without an FCC
license and THAT puts them on the map with lat/long to the foot.
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...on.jsp?regKey=
117529
Here's an AT&T tower on San Clemente Island, CA, as an example. It even
gives you Michael Richno and his address and PO Box to contact about this
tower. Ol' Mike's email address at ATT.com is also provided. Drop him
an email if your service sucks on San Clemente at the beach mansion.
This tower is HIS responsibility to the FCC enforcement bureau....(c;]
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If you
have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State to
list all the towers in the state to find them.
Licensees can't hide. Verizon's system isn't Verizon. It's called
Cellco Partnership and has 1170 towers listed.
What's shocking with ATT is the number of CANCELLED/TERMINATED towers. I
think this isn't related to ATT turning off towers. I think this is
related to ATT changing the name of its system operator branch, now
called AT&T (statename here). AT&T California must be a different
company from AT&T Oregon for some legal or tax reason.
Listed are also all the modifications to a particular tower on its
record. If they move the antennas, change the equipment or power or
anything, FCC requires them to change their license for that tower, too.
It's a great resource. The bureaucrats at the stores are always shocked
if you say, "I see here" (showing them the most recent printout of the
change), "that you've moved the antennas and lowered the power on the
tower that services my neighborhood." Then, go on as if your knowledge
is normal, "This change has dropped my signal at home from 2 bars to NO
SERVICE. When are you going to correct this atrocity and restore our
service or add a new tower to properly service this portion of your FCC
licensed area?"
Be gentle. He had no idea you can easily find out what "they" are doing,
which is supposed to be a big secret. FCC thinks otherwise.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/8/2010 7:50 AM, Fred wrote:
> ...
>
> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
> This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
> Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
> code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If you
> have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State to
> list all the towers in the state to find them.
>
>...
According to this database there is one tower in Gilroy, CA??
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
news:Pu6dnVhvXciL1EXRnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@posted.south valleyinternet:
> On 11/8/2010 7:50 AM, Fred wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
>> This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
>> Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
>> code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If
you
>> have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State
to
>> list all the towers in the state to find them.
>>
>>...
>
> According to this database there is one tower in Gilroy, CA??
>
I know nothing of the topography or political divisions around Gilroy.
There may be other towers, but they are located across the city line by
80 feet in the next bureaucratic fiefdom over. The city name depends on
its lat/long. Too bad the database isn't connected to Google Earth by a
KML entry making it easier to find. Maybe someday FCC will get past the
reel-to-reel 9-track tape drives and join the 21st century.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Fred wrote:
> Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
> news:Pu6dnVhvXciL1EXRnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@posted.south valleyinternet:
>
>> On 11/8/2010 7:50 AM, Fred wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
>>> This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
>>> Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
>>> code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If
> you
>>> have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State
> to
>>> list all the towers in the state to find them.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> According to this database there is one tower in Gilroy, CA??
>>
>
> I know nothing of the topography or political divisions around Gilroy.
> There may be other towers, but they are located across the city line by
> 80 feet in the next bureaucratic fiefdom over. The city name depends on
> its lat/long. Too bad the database isn't connected to Google Earth by a
> KML entry making it easier to find. Maybe someday FCC will get past the
> reel-to-reel 9-track tape drives and join the 21st century.
One of the two towers is several miles outside the city.
I did do a search by Lat/Lon and came up with the same two towers. I
know of at least five others within the city limits.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/8/2010 6:03 PM, Fred wrote:
> Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
> news:MpadnRZE1sq44UXRnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@posted.south valleyinternet:
>
>> I
>> know of at least five others within the city limits.
>>
>>
>
> Obviously not licensed for ATTWS. Must be someone else's systems, like
> Motorola Trunk Radios, cops, etc.
Actually the search I did showed NO towers for AT&T within six miles.
All the other towers are owned by someone else. The city's towers don't
appear either.
I suspect that older towers aren't in the database. I think towers
attached to other structures don't appear either
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
news:BuOdnUkB3OrZdkXRnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@posted.south valleyinternet:
> I suspect that older towers aren't in the database. I think towers
> attached to other structures don't appear either
>
Close. If a cell is located on an "existing structure", such as a tall
building or broadcast tower or a tower also used for other purposes, not
a new tower just for the licensed cell, I think you are correct. It has
no need for an FCC tower permit as there is no tower to permit.
So, now you need another license database, the cell licenses themselves:
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> And ironically, T-Mobile has significantly _degraded_ their capabilities
> along Skyline and the coastal areas by removing AT&T roaming
> capabilities.
It seems that the inverse is true, that AT&T doesn't roam onto T-Mobile,
either.
I now have an "SOS" symbol in some parts of Santa Rosa,
and checking the Mobile Network shows that it is T-Mobile.
> Ironically, Sprint coverage is better in those areas than in the urban
> areas because you roam on Verizon where there is no Sprint coverage (in
I thought Sprint folks around here roamed onto US Cellular, although if
they do roam onto both US Cellular and Verizon, that would explain why
Sprint has the best coverage.
> I'm not sure how secretive AT&T can be, since new towers require
> approval of some government body, whether they're in a city or not.
Security through obscurity. It is not easy to tell who is renting tower
space on a third party tower.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
Fred <nobody@here.net> wrote:
> Licensees can't hide. Verizon's system isn't Verizon. It's called
> Cellco Partnership and has 1170 towers listed.
Cellco partnership might be several entities.
One tower that is used by AT&T in this area is listed as American Towers,
Inc. I suppose that you might construe that as being covert for AT&T, I
think it is a multi-use tower.
I also don't see which of these are cellular.
I am quite disappointed that the towers that I see atop Mt. St. Helena,
with Pacific Bell emblazoned on the fences and buildings, don't seem to be
cellular, at least not judging by signal strength when they are in easy
view. 38.669871,-122.633028
Cellular One had printed maps in their offices, but they wouldn't give you
coordinates over the phone.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 09/11/10 1:09 PM, dold@16.usenet.us.com wrote:
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> And ironically, T-Mobile has significantly _degraded_ their capabilities
>> along Skyline and the coastal areas by removing AT&T roaming
>> capabilities.
>
> It seems that the inverse is true, that AT&T doesn't roam onto T-Mobile,
> either.
Yes, the inverse is also true, but there are very few areas where
T-Mobile has coverage but AT&T doesn't.
> I now have an "SOS" symbol in some parts of Santa Rosa,
> and checking the Mobile Network shows that it is T-Mobile.
>
>> Ironically, Sprint coverage is better in those areas than in the urban
>> areas because you roam on Verizon where there is no Sprint coverage (in
>
> I thought Sprint folks around here roamed onto US Cellular, although if
> they do roam onto both US Cellular and Verizon, that would explain why
> Sprint has the best coverage.
Yes, both Sprint and Verizon can roam onto U.S. Cellular. In areas with
no Sprint coverage, Sprint has very good coverage.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
All comparisons aside (AT&T sucks so who cares, Verizon is better and
this is yet another example, 10 years for T-Mobile (which I have and
is also superior to AT&T) is more than 2 years for AT&T, etc.), this
whole anti-cell tower crap should be retilted. Now that we know
microwaves are bad but to much less extent than the wackadoos claim,
we should change the law to make the onus of power for pro-vs-anti
citing to favor citing parties more, i.e., make it easier to place
antennas. I think there should definitely still be the possibility of
government input, but at the same time, not this byzantine horrendous
anti-antenna lopsided power. The people actually deserve easier
antenna citing, not harder, and that is the wave of the future for
anyplace that has any reasonable future.
Since this is probably a case of lubricated nutcases, we need to get
lube-firmers and anti-nutcase powers to help right this balance.
New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino 
Linear Mode
