Palo Alto mulls revisions to cell tower policies Palo Alto Issues, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Jun 25, 2012 at 8:29 am
Seeking to improve porous cell-phone coverage and meet a growing demand for wireless service, Palo Alto officials will consider on Monday whether the city should look to large cell towers on city land or smaller antennas in residential neighborhoods for assistance.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, June 25, 2012, 8:10 AM
Posted by hypocrites, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2012 at 8:37 am
How many of the hypocrites that oppose cell phone towers own cell phones themselves? If all those hypocrites just cancelled their cell phone contracts, there would be plenty of bandwidth for the rest of us.
Posted by No Hypocrisy Here, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2012 at 10:46 am
To "hypocrites:" Many of the opponents of these big, ugly cell towers are indeed technology-saavy cell phone users, but that does not make them hypocrites. The City needs to figure out how to provide the needed bandwidth with an overall plan, as opposed to leaving our City at the mercy of all of the competing telecomms who have no interest other than their own financials. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc will just keep putting up more and more towers in order to compete with each other, regardless of the impact to our city streets and residents. Those that advocate more and more towers for the benefit of their personal coverage are short-sighted. Realize these big "fake trees" will often be much bigger that the natural trees surrounding them, will many times REPLACE existing real trees, and require a large compound around them that includes generators and fuel tanks.
We need to look at the big picture and create a comprehensive plan, like other tech-saavy cities have done. We can do better than to allow AT&T and Verizon to turn our community into an increasingly industrial environment.
Posted by Don, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm
At least the complaints are no longer extensively devoted to radiation fears. Science is being accepted that the level of transmit and receive microwave signals are very low for antennas and phones.
Radiated power decreases about the square of the distance from a source (it is recommended that people hold the phones at least an inch from their ears), so people are shifting their complaints to aesthetics. At least this is subjective and not non-scientific.
Posted by hypocrites, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm
No one believes that tower radiation nonsense. Radiation is a much bigger problem when you are holding your cell phone right next to your brain. That whole issue was a big whine or smokescreen.
Now that people are admitting that their real complaint is the ugly factor, the cell phone companies can work with residents rationally. We need to let the cell phone companies build their antennas into all existing structures, like church towers, athletic field lights, fire houses, and school roofs. Antennas add minimal ugliness when added to existing giant structures.
Posted by No Hypocrisy Here, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2012 at 1:55 pm
I know it's more fun to spew rhetoric and accuse people of being dishonest, but many people have more than one objection to the cell towers. Science is as good as what is know as of this time, but not everyone is quite as quick to conclude that science won't tell us something different 20 years from now. The primary "radiation" concern is the much larger volume of RF that children are being exposed to than ever before. Science has time and again shown us that "insults" to children's developing brains and bodies have far more impact than they do on adults.
It's so funny that people have come to believe they NEED high-bandwidth available to them on every inch of the earth, at all cost. A little compromise and understanding on all sides would benefit everyone.
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2012 at 2:51 pm
> our collective health is too important.
What are you talking about? There have been many high level studies, by the federal government, which deny any such helath effects. There have been many low level junk science studies that suggest that there are such negative effects. Please be specific.
Posted by neighbor, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2012 at 3:36 pm
One thing I don't hear much about is the noise factor. Am not sure people realize that these antennas are not only unsightly, but produce noise as well (I became aware of this only recently). AT&T's current plan incorporates noise levels acceptable in commercial, rather than residential, areas, using the justification that the poles sit on city-owned land and thus are not residential. The acceptable dB difference between commercial and residential is significant.
Posted by Alphonso, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Jun 25, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I never have any connection issues in Monteverde CR (the middle of a rain forest) and I did not have any issues on the Yangzee River (except in in one gorge). Reception is a little spotty in PA - I guess it is a third world city/
Posted by David , a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:24 am
City Council: PLEASE DO NOT OVERLOOK THE POOR CELLULAR COVERAGE IN THE FOOTHILLS. Most cellular phone, except for Verizon, have very poor coverage west of Hwy 280. Verizon still has significant dead spots. With a good percentage of the city in the foothills all the way up to Skyline Blvd, please do not leave us in the dark ages.
Posted by No Hypocrisy Here, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 2, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Agree completely with AT&T sucks - I had AT&T for years and had to go outside to use my phone. I switched to Verizon and I no longer have any coverage issues anywhere in Palo Alto (or elsewhere). Problem solved!