FCC approves radio mast 'shot clock' rule The FCC has agreed that local authorities must approve or deny applications for new radio towers within 150 days, or 90 days for additional kit on existing towers. The new rule, widely known as a "shot clock" in reference to sporting time limits, means that state and municipal authorities will have to respond to applications …
Often times, the delay is due to many local authorities being besieged by the NIMBYs who want cell phones, BUT NOT THE MASTS. Can't have one WITHOUT the other.
A local school board had to give up on a mast at the edge of a school site, one that would put over $50,000 a year as rent into its coffers due to the NIMBY crowd.
As long as these lemmings exist, they will cause nothing but grief in trying to site a cell phone mast.
Flames - because I feel that some of these NIMBYs ought to burn in hell.
to watch the Cancer rates spiral out of control over there.
thats gonna put a serious dent in the Medicare /private medical profits.
well, USA is off my holiday iternary, like 4ever!
im off to eastern europe, to live somewhere at the bottom of a valley with no mobile phone conectivity :)
mines the tin-foil one, i got a ferry to catch..
Base stations are blooming expensive in any country.
And if each of the major telco's needs to sling one on every street corner we're suddenly going to see nothing but the damn things cluttering the skyline as they all complete for prime estate.
why is there no hurdles in place to stop this hidge-podge deployment ... instead force some co-operation by limiting the number of people who can apply for a base station permit within a certain area... heck, mandate that only a specific independant non-profit is allowed to place these towers and the telcos have to lease capacity ... then the base station provider can focus on optimal placement and efficient usage of resources and the telcos can stick to ripping off consumers with overly complicated tarrifs and horrible call quality
This post has been deleted by its author
You can blame the FCC and being bought off by the telcos for this mess. Since there are multiple - conflicting transmission systems and no requirement to share towers and hand off calls, the idiot telcos have to blanket areas with double or triple (or more antennas). 2 Km from where I live there are 7 towers along a highway. where I live, I get crap reception because of topography. Too bad money talks in such bad ways.
This flame is for them...not for you :-)
@AC 1747. That was meant to be ironic, right? Sorry to ask but there are nut jobs out there who really believe that stuff. Wouldn't expect to find them in these parts though.
@Bazza. With you most of the way but if you think that we don't get charged for receiving calls you should see my Vodafone bill when I get back from a trip across the Channel. And Paris is a lot closer to London than Seattle is to Miami. The US phone system developed its charging systems differently to ours and has had free local calls for decades. Since they use local area codes for cell phones too that pushed them in the direction of charging for inbound calls. Not better or worse than what we have. Just different.
>ironic...
Although there is beginning to be some evidence that having a rf generator jammed against your brain may not be that clever an idea in the very long term...
Obviously it would have no effect on the nimbys at all, who aren't interested in evidence, but I would be interested to see how much of the radiation at given points is generated by the base station and how much by the clients. I wonder if the kids in the class with mobile phones might not be generating as much radiation as the base station...
Its funny: the obvious way to avoid having a transmitter in your area is to organise a campaign to have everyone in the area throw away their mobile phones, at which point a base station would become pointless and the hardware would be moved elsewhere. Strangely though I've never seen it suggested, which does somewhat smack of hypocrisy.
Easy for me to say of course, as a determined non user of mobile phones. Its not that I am particularly bothered about the health scares, just that I don't need the extra complication in my lifestyle.
The radiation from a phone held up to the ear is always going to be many times greater than anybody will get from a mast, unless they climb it and put their ear in contact with the antenna. DECT and similar cordless phones have substantially higher outputs than most mobiles so not using mobiles does not protect you if you use cordless handsets...
Most masts and handsets use adaptive power control so if they are close to each other and getting good reception they both reduce power. Thus the safest place to have the mast from a child's point of view is on top of the school building.
Most of the mast signal will pass overhead and whats left will be attenuated by the building's structure
The child's own mobile will operate at minimum power reducing their exposure to the minimum (provided they are on the network using that mast of course!)
The mast itself will be at minimum power when the kids in the schoolyard talk to it.
The school gets income from the mast provider.
The UK could do with listening a lot less to the NIMBY's before they manage to turn the place into an open air museum, they have turned planning processes into farce not only on mobile sites but anything that looks like a useful bit of contruction. It sounds like the US is going the same way.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
