[NBLUG/talk] Cell Tower Upgrades in Sebastopol

Wed Dec 7 15:20:53 PST 2011

Is the upgrade plan posted anywhere?  I'm curious when I should start
looking for a better signal (it's currently weak around my house).

Jesse

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:14:43 -0800
Christopher Wagner <waggie at waggie.net> wrote:

> Some very good questions, and I agree, a focus on decommissioning the 
> older, less efficient equipment is warranted.  Checking with a cell RF 
> engineer friend of mine, I've learned there isn't much, if any, analog 
> equipment still in service (definitely not in Sebastopol).  There is 
> still 2G and 2.5G technology out there in abundance.  I do know the 
> currently existing equipment (3 antennas) is not being removed at this time.
> 
> You may want to contact the local engineer on the project, who may be 
> able to share some of this information.  Calling City Hall in Sebastopol 
> (823-1153), asking for the contact information of the engineer (Mr. 
> Hammett), then contacting him may yield results.  This engineer is 
> contracted, ultimately, by Verizon.  The other cell carrier co-locating 
> at that tower is MetroPCS, who is not performing any upgrades at this 
> time.  Other carriers have towers elsewhere in Sebastopol.
> 
> I hope this helps in some way.  If you do get more information outside 
> of this list on this topic, please share it here as well.
> 
> - Chris
> 
> On 12/07/2011 02:35 PM, Matt Hardwick wrote:
> > I am pretty much on board with what has been said here but one thing
> > that stands out to me that has not been mentioned is regard to old
> > equipment.
> >
> > What is the status of the previous equipment, e.g. Analog, 1G, and 2G?
> > What has been decommissioned?
> > If it hasn't what is the prediction/schedule of when they will be
> > decommissioned?
> >
> > If this is already happening then the rolling effect of putting up new
> > equipment and removing old has already been in effect for some years.
> > If it hasn't, then this is what they should honestly be focusing on in
> >   my opinion.
> >
> > Anyone know the status on this?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Hardwick
> > Sonoma State University
> > Student / Developer / IT / Tutor
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Christopher Wagner<waggie at waggie.net>  wrote:
> >> It's a fair point, to be sure.  I'll also admit that my statement came up
> >> lacking.  Thanks for keeping me on my toes. :)
> >>
> >> I do think that if the towers don't get upgraded, the old antennas will
> >> never be decommissioned, so upgrading is really the only path to move
> >> towards reducing unneeded EMF, in my opinion.  Also, the newer antennas will
> >> be supporting some of the older technologies also (the applicant
> >> specifically stated that the new antennas would also be supporting 3G in
> >> addition to 4G), so while there is a total net increase in radiation (around
> >> 800 watts each for the three antennas, not exactly a huge amount), it is
> >> likely that the older equipment can be replaced not too far in the distant
> >> future with more advanced and efficient equipment.
> >>
> >> If nothing else, electricity is expensive, and companies are always looking
> >> for ways to make things more efficient.  I think that we can at least trust
> >> the companies to find ways to save money on electricity, which will push
> >> them to demand more efficient products from their vendors.  We all know
> >> profit margins are the best way to motivate any company.
> >>
> >> I'd also like to add that radio technology is nothing new.  It has been
> >> improving drastically (Moore's Law in action) in efficiency over the past 60
> >> years.  Radio gear can serve a far higher number of users with far less
> >> wattage than was possible even 20 years ago.
> >>
> >> To go back to the human health discussion, I know dozens of people that have
> >> been working at close proximity with very high powered radio gear for years
> >> and many of those for decades (some up to 40 or 50 years), at a pretty wide
> >> range of frequencies.  None of whom show the slightest ill effects other
> >> than the normal range and occurrence of typical human minor maladies.  It's
> >> hardly scientific, but that's my observation and human nature dictates that
> >> I be at least partially influenced by my observations.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your input, Steve.  I appreciate the insight and discussion.
> >>
> >> - Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/06/2011 08:47 AM, Steve S. wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Christopher Wagner<waggie at waggie.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Personally, I support the upgrade, it'll will add 4G coverage in Sebastopol
> >> and despite claims by the opposition, my research indicates this will
> >> actually reduce overall EMF radiation (newer wireless technologies are far
> >> more efficient).
> >>
> >> While I'm essentially in agreement with you -- I'd like to see
> >> more/better coverage -- I have to note that ADDING the 4G won't STOP
> >> the older service (at least not for some years... not until pre-4G
> >> phones (and the signal that serves them) fall out of use).  The net
> >> load of radiation will thus be higher (for those years)...
> >>
> >> :-/
> >>
> >>
> >> - Steve S.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk at nblug.org
> >> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk at nblug.org
> >> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at nblug.org
> > http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nblug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20111207/da33f181/attachment.pgp>