Comparing Verizon vs Cingular

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> I would like to see a federal government law that would prevent
> NIMBYs from stopping the placement of cell phone towers.

It's a local issue, Mij, and needs to be treated as such (unless it
needs escalating! <g>).

When several NIMBYs threatened to sue my city; wanting several towers
already built *removed* I was infuriated.

And I fought back.

First, I contacted Sprint and SBA Communications (the builder/owner of
the towers) and asked if I could help. They were happy to suggest that
I, a member of the local CoC, help set up a meeting between the Chamber
and Sprint/SBA (to explain the need for the towers, the benefits to
businesses, etc.). The CoC soon came out in favor of the towers.

I also found out (from SBA) that the NIMBYs were basing their lawsuit on
the fact that they weren't notified. SBA used the county's own tax
records for the required notifications. Turns out the three NIMBYs were
NOT on the report supplied to SBA. Hmmm.

I then contacted the reporter for the local newspaper, who didn't seem
to have a clue as to what he was writing about (he slanted his articles
in favor of the NIMBYs). The only thing he quoted me on, in one of his
later articles, was the answer to his question, "Would you like one of
these towers in your backyard?" I replied, "First, the towers aren't in
anyone's backyard. Second, if offered, YES, I would like one in my
backyard!"

In addition, two of the NIMBYs complained the towers would destroy the
natural beauty of the "equestrian district" where they lived. I took
photos and video of that area, and found out it looked like, and smelled
like, crap--literally. Horse**** was everywhere, manure stacked sky-high
in yards, and the tower in question was barely visible (it was painted
to match the color of the mountains).

After these NIMBYs gave their little speech at the city council meeting,
I showed what the place *really* looked like. I had no Smell-a-Vision
but the pics clearly showed I wasn't lying about it. I further brought
up some of the issues I was told by Sprint and SBA.

SBA and Sprint spoke next, reinforcing my comments with many (many) more
of their own, pretty much blowing the NIMBYs out of the water.

The other NIMBY, a doctor (another one not on the property tax report),
complained about a tower on a high-school football field. A few photos
of the field, with huge bleachers and powerful lighting at night, showed
the tower to be rather insignificant--not to mention a badly-needed
revenue-generator for the school district.

The final blow was the announcement of a countersuit, filed by Sprint
(maybe SBA too), against the NIMBYs. Somehow Sprint or SBA were able to
move the suit into federal court (the towers transmitted RF onto tribal
lands, and those tribal nations had already granted approval for it).

The NIMBYs folded, and the towers stayed.

I say: FIGHT BACK!

BTW: SBA Communications, not SBA (Small Business Administration).


--
Mike

---

› See More: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular

The fake pine trees are funny looking, however they are betting looking than
a cell tower. At least they have some amusement value.

"The Other Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6eRsg.2903$ZI2.2503@trndny06...
> Finding the keyboard operational
> Mij Adyaw entered:
>
>> I would like to see a federal government law that would prevent
>> NIMBYs from stopping the placement of cell phone towers. The damn
>> NIMBYs are interfering with the advancement of technology and they
>> are the first to call customer service and complain when their cell
>> phones do not work or excessively drop calls. Why can't the cellular
>> lobbies stop the damn NIMBYs? Why can't the government make a law to
>> stop the NIMBYs? Our cell phone bills are higher as a result of all
>> of the ongoing litigation to fight the damn NIMBYs. The cell phone
>> companies do a good job regarding disguising towers as palm trees or
>> evergreen trees. Why do the NIMBYs complain about this?
>
> There are such laws. Municipalities must show why a cellular tower can not
> be placedwhere the cellular company wants it and provide alternative
> locations. The cellular companies have the right to appeal any blocking of
> cell tower placements and I believe that the appeal goes to a federal
> court.
> I think that those fake pines are the funnyist things going.
> Bob
> --�
> --�
> Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
> www.moondoggiecoffee.com
>

Yup, I would like to have ten cell towers in my backyard. My job would be
sitting in my backyard with a high power rifle guarding the cell towers from
NIMBYs and admiring their infinite beauty. :-)


"Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nobody wanted a cell tower in my town until they learned that you could
> make about $50,000 a year renting space for it. That made it seem allot
> less ugly.
>
> "The Other Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6eRsg.2903$ZI2.2503@trndny06...
>> Finding the keyboard operational
>> Mij Adyaw entered:
>>
>>> I would like to see a federal government law that would prevent
>>> NIMBYs from stopping the placement of cell phone towers. The damn
>>> NIMBYs are interfering with the advancement of technology and they
>>> are the first to call customer service and complain when their cell
>>> phones do not work or excessively drop calls. Why can't the cellular
>>> lobbies stop the damn NIMBYs? Why can't the government make a law to
>>> stop the NIMBYs? Our cell phone bills are higher as a result of all
>>> of the ongoing litigation to fight the damn NIMBYs. The cell phone
>>> companies do a good job regarding disguising towers as palm trees or
>>> evergreen trees. Why do the NIMBYs complain about this?
>>
>> There are such laws. Municipalities must show why a cellular tower can
>> not be placedwhere the cellular company wants it and provide alternative
>> locations. The cellular companies have the right to appeal any blocking
>> of cell tower placements and I believe that the appeal goes to a federal
>> court.
>> I think that those fake pines are the funnyist things going.
>> Bob
>> --�
>> --�
>> Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
>> www.moondoggiecoffee.com
>>
>
>

I understand that there is a federal law that prohibits the NIMBYs from
citing RF emissions as a cause for rejecting the placement of a cell tower.
Therefore, the only recourse that they have is the aesthetics of the cell
tower. Now if they can only make a law that all cell towers are very
beautiful, that will end this problem.


"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> I would like to see a federal government law that would prevent NIMBYs
>> from stopping the placement of cell phone towers. The damn NIMBYs are
>> interfering with the advancement of technology and they are the first to
>> call customer service and complain when their cell phones do not work or
>> excessively drop calls. Why can't the cellular lobbies stop the damn
>> NIMBYs? Why can't the government make a law to stop the NIMBYs? Our cell
>> phone bills are higher as a result of all of the ongoing litigation to
>> fight the damn NIMBYs. The cell phone companies do a good job regarding
>> disguising towers as palm trees or evergreen trees. Why do the NIMBYs
>> complain about this?
>
> Many of the NIMBYs are concerned about RF emissions.
>
> See: "http://tinyurl.com/hmynq"

In alt.cellular.verizon SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of where the developer is building a complete new
> neighborhood, complete with public areas that could easily house a
> tower. I.e., the neighborhood I'm thinking of in Pleasanton, near
> Cingular's western regional HQ, has several parks, as well as a school,
> that the developer provided the land for as mitigation to get the
> rezoning approved. There would be no additional sale, just a lease to
> the wireless carriers of the space for the tower.

I know what you meant. Most parks in a development are based upon an
association [fee] or are part of the deal with said local/regional/state
councils for this [which as I just indicated, are largely corrupt or
ineffective in many places]. In these cases, the developer's only interest is
to develop a product they can sell. Cell towers aren't a product that is sold
by them, but a service that generates revenue, and will be owned by a
non-government entity. This is not an area that I have seen any developers
dealing with [and in fact, due to FCC regulations, I am quite sure they will
continue to avoid this].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Cell towers aren't a product that is sold by them, but a service that
> generates revenue, and will be owned by a non-government entity.

You could say the same thing about Cable TV, landline telephone, etc. Do
you think they'd sell many houses without those services ready-to-use,
particularly if other neighborhoods in the area are already pre-wired?

I've certainly seen developers touting those lines pre-installed, and
"hidden" (underground utilities). They might want to sell houses, but
they still need to meet the needs of the day.

I don't see it as much of a stretch to include decent cellular service,
via pre-planned and well-hidden cell towers, into the equation. Many
people are cutting the landline cord.

If brand-new neighborhood A and brand-new neighborhood B meet all of a
buyer's needs, I don't see why excellent cellphone reception wouldn't be
an added benefit to sway the decision.


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> Cell towers aren't a product that is sold by them, but a service that
>> generates revenue, and will be owned by a non-government entity.
>
> You could say the same thing about Cable TV, landline telephone, etc. Do
> you think they'd sell many houses without those services ready-to-use,
> particularly if other neighborhoods in the area are already pre-wired?
>
> I've certainly seen developers touting those lines pre-installed, and
> "hidden" (underground utilities). They might want to sell houses, but
> they still need to meet the needs of the day.
>
> I don't see it as much of a stretch to include decent cellular service,
> via pre-planned and well-hidden cell towers, into the equation. Many
> people are cutting the landline cord.
>
> If brand-new neighborhood A and brand-new neighborhood B meet all of a
> buyer's needs, I don't see why excellent cellphone reception wouldn't be
> an added benefit to sway the decision.

I'd happily pay my share of undergrounding the wires that run along my
back yard property line, even though it would cost around $12,000 per
house. I hate looking at them, plus the high voltage line near the pool
makes me nervous.

Tinman wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> Cell towers aren't a product that is sold by them, but a service that
>> generates revenue, and will be owned by a non-government entity.
>
> You could say the same thing about Cable TV, landline telephone, etc. Do
> you think they'd sell many houses without those services ready-to-use,
> particularly if other neighborhoods in the area are already pre-wired?
>
> I've certainly seen developers touting those lines pre-installed, and
> "hidden" (underground utilities). They might want to sell houses, but
> they still need to meet the needs of the day.
>
> I don't see it as much of a stretch to include decent cellular service,
> via pre-planned and well-hidden cell towers, into the equation. Many
> people are cutting the landline cord.
>
> If brand-new neighborhood A and brand-new neighborhood B meet all of a
> buyer's needs, I don't see why excellent cellphone reception wouldn't be
> an added benefit to sway the decision.

Well stated. You might even add included 802.11 transceivers for
wireless Internet, at least the infrastructure for it. They've added it
to my neighborhood.

In alt.cellular.cingular Tinman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> Cell towers aren't a product that is sold by them, but a service that
>> generates revenue, and will be owned by a non-government entity.
>
> You could say the same thing about Cable TV, landline telephone, etc. Do
> you think they'd sell many houses without those services ready-to-use,
> particularly if other neighborhoods in the area are already pre-wired?
>

They are listed as public utilities or common carriers and thus are planned
in. Cellular towers require salable plots of land and are not a utility or
common carrier [or other similar designation].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:28:16 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> Not when you factor in the tri-mode phones that support D-AMPS. In
>> that case, carriers that support it (e.g., Verizon and Sprint) "edge
>> out" Cingular.
>
>Even with all-digital, Cingular has some big gaps in the tri-valley area
>where Verizon has good coverage. Verizon has gotten a lot of new
>customers in that area from people that I know, that can't get Cingular
>coverage at their houses (though there is coverage in the business and
>shopping areas of the towns that they live in). It's actually similar to
>what Sprint and T-Mobile struggle with down the Peninsula and in the
>South Bay, though since the AT&T acquisition, and the 800 Mhz spectrum,
>Cingular coverage is much improved on this side of the bay.

My yardstick is the route from Prescott Arizona to Las Vegas Nevada.
The road takes 89 to Ashfork, I-40 to Kingman and 93 to Las Vegas
across Hoover Dam. Only a couple of years ago, coverage on that route
was spotty at best. Ever so often you would have enough signal to
make a quick call. Now, it is a completely different story. There
are cell phone towers on nearly every mountain top. Cingular coverage
is excellent now, except for a few miles south of Hoover Dam. Also
where I live was serviced by Verizon only. Now, that too has been
corrected. What I am seeing is cell towers being added at an amazing
pace. I don't think we will have those huge dead spots much longer.
And I am no longer sorry I switched from Verizon to Cingular.

Dick

Dick <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:28:16 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>>
> My yardstick is the route from Prescott Arizona to Las Vegas Nevada.
> The road takes 89 to Ashfork, I-40 to Kingman and 93 to Las Vegas
> across Hoover Dam. Only a couple of years ago, coverage on that route
> was spotty at best. Ever so often you would have enough signal to
> make a quick call. Now, it is a completely different story. There
> are cell phone towers on nearly every mountain top. Cingular coverage
> is excellent now, except for a few miles south of Hoover Dam. Also
> where I live was serviced by Verizon only. Now, that too has been
> corrected. What I am seeing is cell towers being added at an amazing
> pace. I don't think we will have those huge dead spots much longer.
> And I am no longer sorry I switched from Verizon to Cingular.
>

I took that route from Las Vegas to the West Rim of the Grand Canyon during
the spring of last year. I had some digital coverage via Sprint and some
roaming coverage on digital, but the vast majority in that area was analog.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Dick wrote:

> My yardstick is the route from Prescott Arizona to Las Vegas Nevada.
> The road takes 89 to Ashfork, I-40 to Kingman and 93 to Las Vegas
> across Hoover Dam. Only a couple of years ago, coverage on that route
> was spotty at best. Ever so often you would have enough signal to
> make a quick call. Now, it is a completely different story. There
> are cell phone towers on nearly every mountain top. Cingular coverage
> is excellent now, except for a few miles south of Hoover Dam. Also
> where I live was serviced by Verizon only. Now, that too has been
> corrected. What I am seeing is cell towers being added at an amazing
> pace. I don't think we will have those huge dead spots much longer.
> And I am no longer sorry I switched from Verizon to Cingular.

Cingular does seem to be adding towers at a rapid pace, but
unfortunately there are a lot of places where it isn't possible to add
towers.

I have several yardsticks with which I measure coverage, places we go to
frequently that are outside the urban area. CA Hwy 88 to Kirkwood and on
to Lake Tahoe, Marin Headlands, CA Hwy 25 to Pinnacles National Park,
Yosemite, Santa Cruz mountains, and the non-populated areas of the San
Mateo and Santa Cruz coastline. No, I'm not just intentionally choosing
places with no GSM coverage, these are places we go to a lot.

OTOH, I do know a lot of people that never go anywhere, and for them
there is no yardstick that matters other than their immediate home area.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:10:40 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:53:02 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:15:57 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:36:54 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>>wrote in <[email protected]>:

[snip]

>>>In fact Cingular has the best coverage in that area of any carrier.
>>
>>Not when you factor in the tri-mode phones that support D-AMPS. In
>>that case, carriers that support it (e.g., Verizon and Sprint) "edge
>>out" Cingular.
>
>1. Verizon and Sprint don't support D-AMPS (aka "TDMA"). Perhaps you're
>thinking of AMPS?

Sorry, I meant AMPS.

As of 07/2006, in my experience, GSM coverage is still a subset of
AMPS coverage.

IOW, there is nowhere I have been where I could get GSM, but not an
AMPS signal.

I do realize AMPS is a dead-end as far as a future-moving technology.
Even Verizon is looking to shut down their AMPS service as quickly as
possibly. And OnStar is discontinuing thei AMPS-based service in
02/2008.

The problem for a lot of us is that when the AMPS towers get shut
down, there is gonna be a lot of area in the US where we won't be able
to get service where we did before because the cellphone companies are
unwilling to fill in all those areas in with digital service.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular Tinman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>> Cell towers aren't a product that is sold by them, but a service
>>> that generates revenue, and will be owned by a non-government
>>> entity.
>>
>> You could say the same thing about Cable TV, landline telephone,
>> etc. Do you think they'd sell many houses without those services
>> ready-to-use, particularly if other neighborhoods in the area are
>> already pre-wired?
>>
>
> They are listed as public utilities or common carriers and thus are
> planned in.

Now they do, but it wasn't always the case. And AFAIK, there is no
mandate to supply utility-grade cable TV to a neighborhood. Is there?


> Cellular towers require salable plots of land and are
> not a utility or common carrier [or other similar designation].

Both cable and landline telco services require land too (I don't mean
for poles). Right in my neighborhood is a small, unobtrusive, switching
station. Doesn't take up anymore "land" than a cell tower would. The
telco paid for that land. I see no reason why a mobile provider, or
tower leasing company, wouldn't do likewise in order to better serve
their clients.

I have seen instances where developers were forced to supply land--yep,
"salable plots" of land--to be used for *public* parks. Happened right
in the neighborhood behind mine. It's not always about private parks.

That said, private gated community parks are also used as selling
points--they aren't always forced on the developer by a planning
commission. I wouldn't want to live in a sterile, cookie-cutter,
environment and I would imagine there are others who wouldn't either.

Finally, you seem hung-up on "salable land" when speaking about
developers. Their goal isn't to sell land; it's to make money by
_developing_ that land into something that is financially more
attractive (e.g., usually involving "buildings"). A tiny percentage
set-aside for a tower or two--that will be purchased anyway--is not
going have a huge effect (heck, if they lease the tower, it could very
well be a profit center).


--
Mike

In alt.cellular.cingular Tinman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now they do, but it wasn't always the case. And AFAIK, there is no
> mandate to supply utility-grade cable TV to a neighborhood. Is there?
>

No, but the telephone lines are. Cable can use the same real estate and
usually does. There was talk of forcing the cable companies to make their
cable infrastructure a common carrier in an attempt to open up cable internet
to competition (i.e. a choice of ISP), but there was no lobby that could beat
the cable lobby.


>> Cellular towers require salable plots of land and are
>> not a utility or common carrier [or other similar designation].
>
> Both cable and landline telco services require land too (I don't mean
> for poles). Right in my neighborhood is a small, unobtrusive, switching
> station. Doesn't take up anymore "land" than a cell tower would. The
> telco paid for that land. I see no reason why a mobile provider, or
> tower leasing company, wouldn't do likewise in order to better serve
> their clients.

They fit on the easement where other utility plants go. I have never scene a
cellular tower fit on an easement before.

>
> I have seen instances where developers were forced to supply land--yep,
> "salable plots" of land--to be used for *public* parks. Happened right
> in the neighborhood behind mine. It's not always about private parks.
>

Indeed, that is what I am saying. The land is turned over to the public. In
the case of a cellular tower, the land would be business owned, and it is
pretty tough to mandate that they sell their land to a business ... especially
in what is otherwise residential zoned areas. You know, if cellular companies
could build a cell in an unobtrusive manner sitting on a properties easement,
then I suspect they would be more inclined to mandate their installation with
new development, but as it stands today, there is a fundamental difference
between a cellular tower and laying coaxial cable and small boxes that are a
couple of feet per dimension.

> That said, private gated community parks are also used as selling
> points--they aren't always forced on the developer by a planning
> commission. I wouldn't want to live in a sterile, cookie-cutter,
> environment and I would imagine there are others who wouldn't either.
>
> Finally, you seem hung-up on "salable land" when speaking about
> developers. Their goal isn't to sell land; it's to make money by
> _developing_ that land into something that is financially more
> attractive (e.g., usually involving "buildings"). A tiny percentage
> set-aside for a tower or two--that will be purchased anyway--is not
> going have a huge effect (heck, if they lease the tower, it could very
> well be a profit center).

No, I am not hung up on it. My point is that it is easier for them to build
on the land and sell a property than it is to allocation some for a tower and
then negotiate zoning, licensing and what have you so that they can make a
sale to an operator. Most developers these days buy chunk of land, partition
it, get permits and break ground. They turn it over very rapidly and to spend
the time working with business as yet another customer [you don't think they
will just give an operator the land do you?] which is bound by a lot of FCC
regulation and local regulation just isn't worth it for most. Suppose they
buy the land, allocate space for a tower and develop just to find that they
left a hole that won't sell because of some lobby or other unforseen local or
federal issue. Where there is money, there will be exceptions, but in
general, most developer flip that land over quite rapidly and I just don't
believe they will deal with it on their own.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1