Do I want a cellphone tower on my property?

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:27:27 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<3da50334-d3ac-452a-a372-bfcd180d291b@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-4, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Typically more than one carrier occupies a tower. I'd want my contract

to include additional rent from each additional carrier.

Typically the carrier doesn't deal with this although the OP said he heard from
AT&T. Because most towers are used my many services the tower is owned
by a company just for that and rent to all carriers on an equal footing.
The property owner is not part of that negotiation.

Property owners usually have little room for negotiation since the company will
go to his neighbor if he causes too much trouble. They may already be
talking to them.

I'd think the reason prices are high is that nobody wants that stuff near their house.
Also the old towers were noisy, for example because of the cryo coolers (like I have)
used to cool the superconducting filters.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (8 Jun 2019 10:55:09 -0700) it happened Winfield Hill
<winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote in <qdgspt025oi@drn.newsguy.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote...

Do not do it, high level RF radiation for a
long time is dangerous.

If he's worried about that, he can take a small
portion of the $300k, and clad portions of his
house with tinfoil under siding, or use metal
siding, etc. Doing the bedroom wall and one or
two other rooms could cut total exposure to 1/4.

We All Live In A Yellow Submarine..

Tinfoil hat?

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:37:56 PM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

It may be "safe" at the beginning, upgraded to questionable new
technology through the years, they want a 30-year lease and their tower
could evolve into anything. It might be no more than ~500 feet away from
the house.

An $800/mo income generator for the rest of my life! This is a really
bad idea, right?

I have many years of experience in the tower business.
Here are my thoughts. PM me if you want to discuss.

1) $800/mo is cheap.
We used to charge carriers (like AT&T) at least $1,500 a month, and that was back in 1998 dollars. And that was for just one set of antennas, not the multitude of antennas a typical cell site has now. If they have the right to sublease to other carriers, they are making money off your land.

2) 30 year lease is about right. A cell site costs a lot of money these days.

3) You could do a joint-venture with Vertical Bridge, or SBA, or American Tower, or maybe another company (near you). Let then negotiate the best deal, and then you don't have to do anything. Not even collections!! (Although AT&T pays well, just not on time.) If AT&T needs a tower here, the other carriers probably do too. Another reason to joint-venture. You can maximize your profits.

4) Are you in an area where you think AT&T HAS to have a tower at your location? How much flexibility do you think they might have? This concerns the proximity of their other tower assets in relation to mobile data/voice traffic demands.

5) PM me your approximate location. I have every AT&T tower mapped (legitimately, not via some untrustworthy app). Maybe I can help you answer #4.

6) Carriers, in general, do not build as many macrocell towers as they used to. Nowadays, they opt for smaller (lower to the ground) C-RAN nodes, and in-building solutions (where 80% of the traffic is anyway).

7) At present, AT&T is on a MAJOR COST CUTTING initiative, including staff reductions, etc... I'm surprised they're building any new cell sites, frankly. But then, this is just a land lease, and they may try to structure it so you don't get paid until they construct. (Don't accept that!)

8) RF Radiation is not a problem to be concerned with expect, perhaps, in very extreme circumstances. In the thousands of tower sites I've dealt with in my career, I think we only had (3) that were legitimate issues -- and all of those were broadcast TV towers, not cellular.

9) If you are on a hurricane coastline, or the location is situated in a jurisdiction that has lots of building code and/or zoning restrictions, factor that into your price. Hurricane coastline because it means the tower foundations will have to be deep (to prevent overturning in the wind), and the zoning restrictions speak for themselves. Ditto for Nat'l Register of Historic Places, environmentally sensitive areas, tribal land, etc.., etc.. It's possible AT&T wants your location simply because it's easier to navigate the above.

10) Whatever deal you make, AT&T will try to change it 20 times before the ink is even dry. Be prepared for that. (They have a building full of attorneys who have nothing better to do...)

11) Remember that a cell tower on your property may make it less attractive when you go to sell it later. (Unless it's sold as investment property, of course.)

I could go on and on. Just PM me with any questions.
I would say (not knowing anything about the circumstances) that $800 is lowball. And you could probably get 2X just for negotiating it. (?). Still, I strongly recommend looking at Option-3 above, and kick those tires. (PM me first to make sure whatever company you elect doesn't themselves have a nearby tower to offer) -- though the carriers, AT&T included, already know where all the towers, rooftops, bridges, etc. are located (private, public and government).

One last thing: Visit fccinfo.com and download the Google Earth plug-in. This will let you map most towers in your area (those that are >200 feet, or located within an airport's glideslope, or seaplane base, close to an Interstate highway, or the FAA just wants it registered, etc.. Towers under 200' may be optionally registered. It's not a guaranteed 100% list due to the above regulatory exceptions, but it's close enough for your purposes since many cell towers are 200+ feet.

Good luck!!

 

[amdx]

On 6/8/2019 2:01 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/8/19 12:37 PM, Banders wrote:
AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

It may be "safe" at the beginning, upgraded to questionable new
technology through the years, they want a 30-year lease and their tower
could evolve into anything. It might be no more than ~500 feet away from
the house.

An $800/mo income generator for the rest of my life! This is a really
bad idea, right?

the best part about Americans from a corporation's perspective is that
you can buy most of 'em for such pitiful amounts of money lol

Pitiful? That's like having $250,000 in your nest egg earning you money.
That could be 20% or 25% of a retired persons total income for doing
basically nothing, I don't see that as pitiful.
That said, I would look at what would prevent them from paying more,
and if possible negotiate for more.
Mikek

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-06-08, Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

Are they also negotiating with your neighbours? perhaps not yet.

It may be "safe" at the beginning, upgraded to questionable new
technology through the years, they want a 30-year lease and their tower
could evolve into anything. It might be no more than ~500 feet away from
the house.

Can't evolve into "anything" also newer technologies are typically lower
power than old tech.

An $800/mo income generator for the rest of my life! This is a really
bad idea, right?

see if you can get it indexed for inflation.



--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/06/19 17:37, Banders wrote:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

It may be "safe" at the beginning, upgraded to questionable new
technology through the years, they want a 30-year lease and their tower
could evolve into anything. It might be no more than ~500 feet away from
the house.

An $800/mo income generator for the rest of my life! This is a really
bad idea, right?

In the UK, some people have had "free" solar cells put on their
roof in exchange for money based on the electricity generated.
The company that does that effectively leases their roof for
30 years.

That has been a problem with mortgage providers, that don't
like lending on properties where other entities have a claim
on the property.

So, consider the /next/ purchaser of the property: how would
a tower affect them and their ability to get a mortgage.

Such considerations, plus a general dislike/fear of cellular
towers may mean the property value is reduced when you sell
it.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/8/19 3:34 PM, amdx wrote:

On 6/8/2019 2:01 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 12:37 PM, Banders wrote:
AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

It may be "safe" at the beginning, upgraded to questionable new
technology through the years, they want a 30-year lease and their tower
could evolve into anything. It might be no more than ~500 feet away from
the house.

An $800/mo income generator for the rest of my life! This is a really
bad idea, right?

the best part about Americans from a corporation's perspective is that
you can buy most of 'em for such pitiful amounts of money lol

 Pitiful? That's like having $250,000 in your nest egg earning you money.
 That could be 20% or 25% of a retired persons total income for doing
basically nothing, I don't see that as pitiful.
  That said, I would look at what would prevent them from paying more,
and if possible negotiate for more.
                                     Mikek

Given what it costs to install a new tower and the kind of profit margin
there'd have to be to justify the expense yeah, it is a pitiful amount
compared to the money they'll be making off it.

But as someone mentioned they're probably already talking to a neighbor
who'll do it for $600.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/8/19 4:08 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/8/19 3:34 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 2:01 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 12:37 PM, Banders wrote:
AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

It may be "safe" at the beginning, upgraded to questionable new
technology through the years, they want a 30-year lease and their tower
could evolve into anything. It might be no more than ~500 feet away
from
the house.

An $800/mo income generator for the rest of my life! This is a really
bad idea, right?

the best part about Americans from a corporation's perspective is
that you can buy most of 'em for such pitiful amounts of money lol

  Pitiful? That's like having $250,000 in your nest egg earning you
money.
  That could be 20% or 25% of a retired persons total income for doing
basically nothing, I don't see that as pitiful.
   That said, I would look at what would prevent them from paying more,
and if possible negotiate for more.
                                      Mikek

Given what it costs to install a new tower and the kind of profit margin
there'd have to be to justify the expense yeah, it is a pitiful amount
compared to the money they'll be making off it.

The 30 year offer wasn't even inflation/CPI adjusted lol.

I will gladly fuck their sister for an $800 flat fee.

 

Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

That's good money. You can start a CD and get taxed very little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


Yeah... that'll do it.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.


That's good money. You can start a CD and get taxed very little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


Yeah... that'll do it.

You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year college
for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/8/19 4:39 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 08/06/19 17:37, Banders wrote:
AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.

It may be "safe" at the beginning, upgraded to questionable new
technology through the years, they want a 30-year lease and their tower
could evolve into anything. It might be no more than ~500 feet away from
the house.

An $800/mo income generator for the rest of my life! This is a really
bad idea, right?

In the UK, some people have had "free" solar cells put on their
roof in exchange for money based on the electricity generated.
The company that does that effectively leases their roof for
30 years.

That has been a problem with mortgage providers, that don't
like lending on properties where other entities have a claim
on the property.

So, consider the /next/ purchaser of the property: how would
a tower affect them and their ability to get a mortgage.

Such considerations, plus a general dislike/fear of cellular
towers may mean the property value is reduced when you sell
it.

yeah it's a shit deal with a lot of assumptions that may not be true in
5 years much less 30.

When a billion-dollar corporation builds a bunch of shit on your
property then IMO they now effectively own the property, not you. Yeah
that's not what the documents say but who decides what the documents
say? The courts do. What determines what the courts say? Who can throw
enough money at them and the lawyers...

 

[amdx]

On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year college
for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

Do you have a lot of money saved?
Mikek

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:49:54 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com>
wrote:
(...)
Very nice summary of the situation. Thanks. Permit me to add my
usual drivel.

>1) $800/mo is cheap.

I agree. That's too low for a monopole, with or without camouflage.
However, even without a regular escalation rate to pay for inflation,
that's $244,000 over the 30 year term.
<https://www.steelintheair.com/cell-tower-lease-rate-calculator/>

In my area, the typical land lease for macrocell tower or monopole,
equipment shelter, power transformer, and underground wiring, runs
about $1,200/month. Much depends on whether At&T will be leasing a
tiny DAS (distributed antenna system) site, small fill-in site,
macrocell monster tower, or something in between. Some site owners
also negotiate having the cellular company pay for their electric use,
which is usually very small compared to what a multi-vendor radio site
will draw.

I'm rather surprised that you were approached by AT&T directly for the
site lease. Usually, they go through a property manager such as Crown
Castle to negotiate the lease. I guess AT&T really is cutting their
costs.

If you're concerned about your ability to later sell the property, you
might consider having AT&T locate the tower and shelter in a corner or
side of the property. When it's time to sell, you might be able to
arrange a lot split separating the house and tower properties.

You might want to get some legal help. I know nothing about this
company, but the articles on their site look interesting (even though
they're mostly out of date):
<https://www.steelintheair.com/att/>

In the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz California, tower owners are
required to attempt to co-locate at an existing cell site before the
county will consider a building permit for a new site:
See 13.10.663(A)(2) and 13.10.663(B)(12) at:
<https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/#!/SantaCruzCounty13/SantaCruzCounty1310.html#13.10.660>
I helped scribble that mess in 2002 when it was about 1/5th the
current size. It grew considerably over the last 17 years as special
interests became involved. I haven't checked lately, but it's my
understanding that sharing a site or tower is generally a requirement
to avoid excessive tower proliferation. Please not that at least
locally, the cellular companies operate by variances and exemptions,
which sometimes provide them convenient ways to work around the code
requirements.

Sharing has also created a weird situation where sites are
intentionally built as small as possible. The cellular provider then
claims that the tower won't handle the load, there's not enough space,
or the utility power is insufficient, to avoid having a competitor at
the same site. You should probably check with the local government
planners as to what is customary or acceptable in your area.

Incidentally, if the proposed tower is rather large or potentially
obtrusive, be prepared for you and/or your attorney to spend many
hours in meetings and hearings ironing out a compromise with
neighborhood aesthetic committees, advisory committees, planning
boards, county/city elected representatives, historical societies,
environmental groups, and other interested parties. These meetings
have a tendency to attract the lunatic fringe and NIMBY hordes. Radio
waves have turned my brain to mush and such. At least you'll be
suitably entertained during the proceedings.

Also, you might want to talk to whomever is in charge of building
permits for cell site in your county. They should have a complete
list of sites, owners, lot numbers, and contact information. Talk to
the land owners of existing cell sites to get a clue how things
worked, what needed to be done, whether it was worth the effort, and
which promises were broken.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 14:35:29 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

Pitiful? That's like having $250,000 in your nest egg earning you money.
That could be 20% or 25% of a retired persons total income for doing
basically nothing, I don't see that as pitiful.

More like $457,000 if one includes a 3% annual inflation increase in
the lease:
<https://www.steelintheair.com/cell-tower-lease-rate-calculator/>

That said, I would look at what would prevent them from paying more,
and if possible negotiate for more.

Probably because the size of the tower, shelter, and site improvement
have not been disclosed. For very small fill-in site, $800/mo is in
the ballpark. For a macrocell monster, far too little.

Also, don't forget that lease payments are all taxable income. Also,
income generating assets on the property are fully taxable. There
might also be an increase in assessed valuation of the property.
Without a suitable clauses specifying that the cellular company pay
the tax increases, the property owner would pay this part of the
property taxes.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[bitrex]

On 6/8/19 10:24 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:49:54 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:
(...)
Very nice summary of the situation. Thanks. Permit me to add my
usual drivel.

1) $800/mo is cheap.

I agree. That's too low for a monopole, with or without camouflage.
However, even without a regular escalation rate to pay for inflation,
that's $244,000 over the 30 year term.
https://www.steelintheair.com/cell-tower-lease-rate-calculator/

In my area, the typical land lease for macrocell tower or monopole,
equipment shelter, power transformer, and underground wiring, runs
about $1,200/month. Much depends on whether At&T will be leasing a
tiny DAS (distributed antenna system) site, small fill-in site,
macrocell monster tower, or something in between. Some site owners
also negotiate having the cellular company pay for their electric use,
which is usually very small compared to what a multi-vendor radio site
will draw.

I'm rather surprised that you were approached by AT&T directly for the
site lease. Usually, they go through a property manager such as Crown
Castle to negotiate the lease. I guess AT&T really is cutting their
costs.

If you're concerned about your ability to later sell the property, you
might consider having AT&T locate the tower and shelter in a corner or
side of the property. When it's time to sell, you might be able to
arrange a lot split separating the house and tower properties.

You might want to get some legal help. I know nothing about this
company, but the articles on their site look interesting (even though
they're mostly out of date):
https://www.steelintheair.com/att/

In the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz California, tower owners are
required to attempt to co-locate at an existing cell site before the
county will consider a building permit for a new site:
See 13.10.663(A)(2) and 13.10.663(B)(12) at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/#!/SantaCruzCounty13/SantaCruzCounty1310.html#13.10.660
I helped scribble that mess in 2002 when it was about 1/5th the
current size. It grew considerably over the last 17 years as special
interests became involved. I haven't checked lately, but it's my
understanding that sharing a site or tower is generally a requirement
to avoid excessive tower proliferation. Please not that at least
locally, the cellular companies operate by variances and exemptions,
which sometimes provide them convenient ways to work around the code
requirements.

Sharing has also created a weird situation where sites are
intentionally built as small as possible. The cellular provider then
claims that the tower won't handle the load, there's not enough space,
or the utility power is insufficient, to avoid having a competitor at
the same site. You should probably check with the local government
planners as to what is customary or acceptable in your area.

Incidentally, if the proposed tower is rather large or potentially
obtrusive, be prepared for you and/or your attorney to spend many
hours in meetings and hearings ironing out a compromise with
neighborhood aesthetic committees, advisory committees, planning
boards, county/city elected representatives, historical societies,
environmental groups, and other interested parties. These meetings
have a tendency to attract the lunatic fringe and NIMBY hordes. Radio
waves have turned my brain to mush and such. At least you'll be
suitably entertained during the proceedings.

Also, you might want to talk to whomever is in charge of building
permits for cell site in your county. They should have a complete
list of sites, owners, lot numbers, and contact information. Talk to
the land owners of existing cell sites to get a clue how things
worked, what needed to be done, whether it was worth the effort, and
which promises were broken.

A good policy in life, in general, is when you notice someone has
approached you with the "offer of a lifetime" like it is your "lucky
day" but there are many other people around you that superficially seem
not so different than yourself, probably, who have not been approached
with the same offer of a lifetime, to consider why that should be so.

The gullible tend to assume they are just that fortunate and it was
bound to happen because they're them.

The not so gullible take a little time to think if they might, for some
reason, seem like the most gullible person in their local area...

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:35:21 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Also, don't forget that lease payments are all taxable income. Also,
income generating assets on the property are fully taxable. There
might also be an increase in assessed valuation of the property.
Without a suitable clauses specifying that the cellular company pay
the tax increases, the property owner would pay this part of the
property taxes.

For larger broadcast tower parcels, we used to entice the local cattlemen to graze their stock with sweetheart deals, then lower the tax base to agricultural. Occasionally, we might even "let" Georgia Pacific or whomever farm trees on the excess property. (You need lots of land for the dreaded tower fall radius, these days.)

Of course, that approach wouldn't work for the postage-stamp sized cellular lot.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 11:37:06 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Do not do it, higk level RF radiation for a long time is dangerous.

That is true, high level RF radiation is dangerous. In this case that is a moot point. He won't be exposed to high levels of
radiation.

Well 152 meter, wide beam, microwave, high power

What's the 'high power' all about? Interconnect links are
beamed, not much power at ground level nearby, and cell communication
to a phone is pretty much symmetric: the phone (battery powered) needs
as much power to transmit to the tower as the tower needs to
transmit to the phone. Maybe the phonea need more, because their antennae
aren't aimed, or directional.

 

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 23:03:02 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 11:37:06 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Do not do it, higk level RF radiation for a long time is dangerous.

That is true, high level RF radiation is dangerous. In this case that is a moot point. He won't be exposed to high levels of
radiation.

Well 152 meter, wide beam, microwave, high power

Look for nearby cellular towers.

- How close are they ?
- How high are these towers ?
- How may potential customers are in the area, both residential and
travelers on a road ?

This will help determining the cell size as well as total power
needed.

What's the 'high power' all about? Interconnect links are
beamed, not much power at ground level nearby,

As log as the antennas on the tower are much higher than your house
this is true. A low tower or a high building and the beam is directed
directly into your window will cause a strong RF field.

and cell communication
to a phone is pretty much symmetric: the phone (battery powered) needs
as much power to transmit to the tower as the tower needs to
transmit to the phone.

This is true for ordinary telephone conversations, thus the number of
simultaneous phone conversations in the cell will determine the total
required cell site power.

To reduce the handset power radiating into your head, a short distance
and preferably line-of-sight view of the cellular tower, will minimize
both handset transmission power and battery usage.

Maybe the phonea need more, because their antennae
aren't aimed, or directional.

Antenna reciprocity ?

The situation with smart phone (3G/4G/5G) access is different, the
download speed is typically much higher than the upload speed, this
requires more base station transmission power. Due to bandwidth
restrictions multiple bits are needs to be packed into each symbol,
which requires higher SNR on reception and hence even higher downlink
power than handset uplink power.

With a large number of users close to the tower or other good RF path,
the full downlink speed can be obtained with less than full power. At
larger distances or words RF paths, the full base power is needed and
at even larger distances less bits/symbols can be used with lower SNR
requirement and hence the maximum download speed even at full power is
reduced,

It should be noted that cellular companies try to avoid excessive
transmission powers, since this would cause leakage to nearby cells,
thus reducing the usability of some frequencies in the vicinity and
hence, reducing the total network capacity.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 8 Jun 2019 23:03:02 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<8b7df0c1-3e9a-4890-b150-5eee2fd49a14@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 11:37:06 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Do not do it, higk level RF radiation for a long time is dangerous.

That is true, high level RF radiation is dangerous. In this case that is a moot point. He won't be exposed to high levels
of
radiation.

Well 152 meter, wide beam, microwave, high power

What's the 'high power' all about? Interconnect links are
beamed, not much power at ground level nearby, and cell communication
to a phone is pretty much symmetric: the phone (battery powered) needs
as much power to transmit to the tower as the tower needs to
transmit to the phone. Maybe the phonea need more, because their antennae
aren't aimed, or directional.

Yes it is the interconnect links I am most worried about
some towers here have those dishes,,, all microwave.
Sure beamed, but what if your bedroom is on the third floor?
That would be 8 hours for the next 30 years of microwave exposure.
The other reason, but that is personal,
is that I do not want all those fields around in my (home) lab!
I already pick up some radar here...

It is difficult, if you read papers on the subject
of RF radiation some are disaster stories
some say it makes no difference.
All that said, I have WiFi permanently switched off here,
Of course I have been exposed to RF all my life, and lots of power, but at much lower frequencies.
That does not bother me, but anything near 2.4 GHz you better watch out for.

At least some people seem to not being able to take it.
There is a lot on google.
What is right? Sure industry needs to sell, and they could not care less if it shortens peoples lifespan or causes all sorts of problems.
Same as those Monsanto lawsuits were it was found their stuff causes cancer, but they would not tell you.
Plenty of data with google available.
Why take the risk?


And I was also thinking, if you allow them to build the thing
it will be building work, a new road will be made, starting 8 in the morning and all day long
big machines, cranes,

I once went up the Eifel tower (as a tourist) in Paris.
On the high floor there are many of those dishes, I had a bad headache after being there.

 

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 07:15:15 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes it is the interconnect links I am most worried about
some towers here have those dishes,,, all microwave.
Sure beamed, but what if your bedroom is on the third floor?
That would be 8 hours for the next 30 years of microwave exposure.

The dish half power beamwidth in degrees is something like
60 x lambda / Diameter
so a 1 m dish at 3 GHz would have a 6 degree beamwidth and 3 degrees
on 6 GHz.

<clip>

I once went up the Eifel tower (as a tourist) in Paris.
On the high floor there are many of those dishes, I had a bad headache after being there.

Perhaps the rapid air pressure loss due to the elevator caused the
headache ?

Anyway, why would a metallic paraboloid have any significant back
lobe?

The interesting thing is that people seem to be more afraid the larger
the dish is. With constant transmitter power, the larger the dish, the
lower the near filed power density. Admittedly, the near field
extends a few wavelengths further out. The most dangerous part of a
big dish antenna is the feedhorn at the focal point. Never look into
the waveguide, unless you are absolutely sure (remove mains fuses
that there are no RF-power or you might loose your sight.