Do I want a cellphone tower on my property?

[Banders]

On 06/11/2019 06:01 AM, amdx wrote:

On 6/9/2019 9:09 PM, bitrex wrote:

When someone
offers you what seems like easy money, at least take a moment and
consider - why am I being offered this at this particular juncture and
not my neighbor whose land is probably perfectly adequate place to put
a cell tower, too.

The parcels are large around here, and can't be subdivided today into
pieces smaller than 20 acres, so I don't have many neighbors. I would
guess about four of us have usable sites.

Around 5 or 6 years ago a small ISP came by looking for a spot for their
tower. They call it a tower, but it only stands ~7 feet tall. They
needed line-of-sight to dishes in another canyon, and I needed something
better than dial-up. They have their solar panels and batteries and
dishes set up, and I have free 20 Mb internet service. It's, um,
microwave =^/ I didn't know about orgonite, maybe better get some now.

The OP is trying to figure out his options, but the tower needs to go
somewhere, so if he can profit by it, good for him.
Positives - Negatives = Profit

I'm waiting for more information. She has my contact info.

If an attractive woman approaches you in a bar and says

It was a white Range Rover. Never actually said she was from AT&T, just
that AT&T is looking and pays $800/mo. I may be outvoted though, two
other family members don't like this.

 

[mpm]

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:24:41 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

I remember the time when there were hot dog stand microwave ovens at
1.27 GHz. Has the hot dog resonance doubled in a few decades .

That's in the 1.2GHz ham band. Are you sure about that?

Not exactly....
While the hot dog resonance has not doubled in the last few decades, the fat content has. Also, I think they've since renamed the 1.2 GHz "ham" band to the "pork" band.

Sorry to have missed some of the technical discussion [rant/drivel in some cases] on RF radiation. Had some personal travel.

 

[mpm]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC-4, Banders wrote:

It was a white Range Rover. Never actually said she was from AT&T, just
that AT&T is looking and pays $800/mo. I may be outvoted though, two
other family members don't like this.

Sounds like AT&T just issued Search Rings to "the usual suspects" and they are out now trying to locate suitable candidate properties. This is the normal way it is done. Carriers don't usually approach land owners directly.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:22:41 -0700, Banders <snap@mailchute.com>
wrote:

Around 5 or 6 years ago a small ISP came by looking for a spot for their
tower. They call it a tower, but it only stands ~7 feet tall.

A tower has three or four legs. Lattice construction is considered a
tower. A pole or monopole has one leg. Height is not relevant.

It's, um,
microwave =^/ I didn't know about orgonite, maybe better get some now.

Orgonite is commonly available:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=orgonite&tbm=isch>
Try craft faires, hobby shops, mystical healing stores, New Age
accessory vendors, Radiation Paranoia web sites, TowerBusters clubs,
etc. Or, just make some:
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+make+orgonite>
Even if it doesn't work, it's something to keep the kids busy.

About 10 years ago, I was finding Orgonite pyramids around various
mountain top tower sites. Some were really works of art. A few had
spikes molded into the resin intended to cause tire or foot damage.
Don't do that.

Also, you might notice from the photos of Orgonite that there is quite
a bit of copper wire involved in their construction. Copper theft at
was and still is a serious problem. I suggest you refrain from that
method of collecting Organite ingredients.

If an attractive woman approaches you in a bar and says

It was a white Range Rover. Never actually said she was from AT&T, just
that AT&T is looking and pays $800/mo.

I would be careful here. There are web sites offering to "help"
property owners obtain cell sites and associated revenue on their
property. Mostly, they're an extra middle-person extracting a
percentage of the proceeds or realtors looking for some extra income.
I've personally never run into someone like that, but I'm told that
they do exist. You might want to research their employer and
determine if there really is an AT&T connection. As I previously
mentioned, I find it odd that you were contacted directly by AT&T and
not by Crown Castle.
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-inks-streamlined-tower-small-cell-deal-crown-castle>
Note: The photo in the above URL is *NOT* a small cell.

Also, most realtors drive flashy, comfortable, and expensive cars to
impress their clients when touring prospective properties.

I may be outvoted though, two
other family members don't like this.

Be glad it's just family, not neighbors. This is what happened to us
when the neighbors found out there was a cell tower planned in their
back yard:
<https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/>
Little was accomplished by this group, especially because I
volunteered to be their technical advisor. They did make enough noise
to be noticed by the press. The tower was never built, mostly because
the local realtors hired by Verizon were so inept that they failed to
supply the county with necessary details, three times. Verizon also
had an interesting attitude. Their engineer casually mentioned that
he had a very long waiting list of communities actively seeking
cellular coverage, all of which were more than willing to cooperate.
Verizon might get back to this site in a few decades.

--
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 <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
newsm52gepdtgc98nba65pb5ffcuc7h02bh8d@4ax.com:

As I previously
mentioned, I find it odd that you were contacted directly by AT&T and
not by Crown Castle.

Alway ask for federal tax id number. That stops the frauds in their
tracks, and lets one find out more about that particular firm.

 

[gregz]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:08:58 -0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net
wrote:

I am always reading about 5G opposition groups. I have been trying to find
comparative data of towers vs hand held and ear position cell phones on
signal levels. These people seem OK using cell phones but fear towers.

Greg

That's probably because there aren't going to be very many 5G
microwave handsets. That's because 5G is really made for IoT
(Internet of Things) which are likely to resemble modular RF modems
and wireless hot spots. Initially, there will probably be some
promotional handheld devices offered to see if the GUM (great unwashed
masses) are interested, but most of the money will be in IoT,
driverless cars, and an alternative to cable and DSL connectivity. If
the RF paranoids want to destroy 5G, assaulting the "towers" would be
more effective.

My brother said his newer IPhone was working 5G in Baltimore area.

Greg

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

onsdag den 12. juni 2019 kl. 20.43.07 UTC+2 skrev Gz:

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 08:08:58 -0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net
wrote:

I am always reading about 5G opposition groups. I have been trying to find
comparative data of towers vs hand held and ear position cell phones on
signal levels. These people seem OK using cell phones but fear towers.

Greg

That's probably because there aren't going to be very many 5G
microwave handsets. That's because 5G is really made for IoT
(Internet of Things) which are likely to resemble modular RF modems
and wireless hot spots. Initially, there will probably be some
promotional handheld devices offered to see if the GUM (great unwashed
masses) are interested, but most of the money will be in IoT,
driverless cars, and an alternative to cable and DSL connectivity. If
the RF paranoids want to destroy 5G, assaulting the "towers" would be
more effective.


My brother said his newer IPhone was working 5G in Baltimore area.

Greg

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/21/18151764/att-5g-evolution-logo-rollout-fake-network ?

 

[mpm]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 11:51:54 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Be glad it's just family, not neighbors. This is what happened to us
when the neighbors found out there was a cell tower planned in their
back yard:
https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/

That's a real shame...
Boulder Creek Golf would have been a great place for a tower.**
The area is only served by two distant macrocells - (Both are multi-carrier monopoles, both owned by Crown Castle):

28372 Big Basin Way (37.19614, -122.16435), and
12500 Empire Grade (37.12175, -122.15633).
Neither one FCC (ASR) registered due to their heights being under 200'.

The good news is both sites have relatively unobstructed paths into Boulder Creek from both towers, w/ Empire Grade being a little closer. 1900 might be problematic, but 700/800 should be acceptable (at least).

And of course, the DAS over at Lockheed.

As you know: Never underestimate the tree-hugger opposition to building towers.
They are a formidable bunch.

** I often wonder if the people who object to these towers are the same folks who constantly complain of poor signal in rural areas.

 

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

More people should see this: <https://xkcd.com/radiation/>. It's
instructive.

Nice chart.

Now define a new unit dBSv which is desibels relative to 1 Sievert.
Some of the examples fro the chart:

-73 dBSv 0.05 uSv Sleep with someone
-70 dBSv 0.1 uSv Eating one banana
-60 dBSv 1 uSv Using a CRT monitor for a year
-53 dBSv 5 uSv Dental X-ray
-44 dBSv 40 uSv NYC to LA flight
-40 dBSv 100 uSv Two weeks at Fukushima Town Hall
-27 dBSv 2 mSv Head CT scan
-13 dBSv 50 mSv Max yearly dose for radiation workers
-4 dBSv 400 mSv Radiation poisoning symptoms
+3 dBSv 2 Sv Severe radiation poisoning
+9 dBSv 8 Sv Always fatal
+17 dBSv 50 Sv 10 minutes at Chernobyl reactor after explosion

The dBSv values should be easier to comprehend.

Did you add the dB portion or the web site?

I'm wondering why you used the 10 log rule vs the 20 log rule.

Is a Sievert a unit of power or field intensity?

1 Sv = 1 J/kg i.e. how much energy is absorbed by 1 kg of tissue, so
definitively 10 x log.

The background is usually given for the 1 year dose, so those figures
are actually dose rates and the unit is W/kg, which is the average
power absorbed by 1 kg of tissue.

In a year here are 365 x 24 x 3600 = 31536000 seconds and converted
to decibels that is 75 dBs.

The 2 Sv/a is -27 dbSv/a = -27 dbSv/a - 75dBs = -102 dbW/kg.

As a comparison the RF noise density at 300 K environment is -174
dBm/Hz = -204 dBW/Hz. At 10 GHz = +100 dBHz bandwidth, the thermal
noise is -204 dBW/Hz + 100 dBHz = -104 dBW, i.e. comparable to the
radioactive background radiation. This is the power level flowing
around and through the tissues, which only partially absorbers it.

A better comparison for non-ionized radiation is the SAR the Specific
Absorbtion Rate expressed in W/kg. Various RF-exposure standards allow
2 W/kg = + 3 dBW/kg., which is +3 dBW/kg - -204 dbW/kg = 207 dB
stronger than the exposure of ionized background.

I hope I got the calculations correct.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking the question

Don't start a flame war.

m

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:43:02 -0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net>
wrote:

My brother said his newer IPhone was working 5G in Baltimore area.
Greg

Probably AT&T and their phoney 5Ge label. The "e" means evolution,
which is marketing speak for "real-soon-now". It's really just
LTE(4G).

"5G Phones: Every Known Phone and Release Date"
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/5g-phones-list,news-29292.html>
Hmmm... no Apple phones listed but does mention that
And right now, all signs point to Apple sitting out the
5G rollout in 2019.

It will be interesting to see which phones will operate on the mmWave
28-40GHz frequencies and how well they work:
"First Verizon 5G Speed Tests: Fast But Frustrating"
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/verizon-5g-speed-test,news-29802.html>

--
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 Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:42:15 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 11:51:54 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Be glad it's just family, not neighbors. This is what happened to us
when the neighbors found out there was a cell tower planned in their
back yard:
https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/

That's a real shame...
Boulder Creek Golf would have been a great place for a tower.**

The original protest was over a proposed tower in the middle of
downtown Boulder Creek (BC). The monopole on top of a nearby mountain
covers far too large an area and therefore tends to get overloaded.
The tower in BC was intended to move some of the traffic away from the
site on the mountain. It wouldn't have worked anyway because most of
the traffic is coming from unlimited data plan home users on tethered
phones or hotspots and who are quite far away from BC.

The area is only served by two distant macrocells - (Both are multi-carrier monopoles, both owned by Crown Castle):

28372 Big Basin Way (37.19614, -122.16435), and
12500 Empire Grade (37.12175, -122.15633).
Neither one FCC (ASR) registered due to their heights being under 200'.

This is really old (2003).
The monopole on Empire Grade is:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/cellular/jeffl/Xmas/index.html>

The good news is both sites have relatively unobstructed paths into Boulder Creek from both towers, w/ Empire Grade being a little closer. 1900 might be problematic, but 700/800 should be acceptable (at least).

And of course, the DAS over at Lockheed.

As you know: Never underestimate the tree-hugger opposition to building towers.
They are a formidable bunch.

** I often wonder if the people who object to these towers are the same folks who constantly complain of poor signal in rural areas.

--
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

 

[David Lesher]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

We're now in the process of doing that backwards for 5G. If the ISP's
give us almost unlimited bandwidth, would we pay to use and abuse it?
Probably yes, as newer and better ways to violate laws, contracts, and
common sense are contrived.

Whenever something happens that I don't understand, I first ask myself
"What problem are they trying to solve"? In this case, the cell phone
companies have a big problem. They have successfully saturated the
market for cellular. What they need is another service they can
offer, such as 5G. It doesn't matter much (at this time) how it's
used, whether anyone needs or even wants it, or what it might cost.
They have to do something, or they will be forced to compete in the
cellular data business on the basis of price, which nobody wants.

Bingo! {re: problem}

The 2 biggest cell carriers have other motives as well. VZ{W}
is the franchised (i.e. Must Carry) carrier in multiple
states. They want to abandon all their copper plant. In places
where FIOS is deployed, they will force you to abandon POTS for
{my term} FOPS.

But they also do not want to spend more money on FIOS deployment.
Plus, it's not metered per bit.

So, fire up the 5G hype machine. Claim it's a floor wax AND a
dessert topping. Every self-driving car will need it. Coerce
everyone to abandon CTTH & FTTH because Magic 5G is here.

For that Magic, however, you need a site/node within hundreds
not thousands of feet; each fed by fiber. Hmmm.

(Plus, what IS 5G? Is there an international 5G standard on the
books yet?)

--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

 

[David Lesher]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> writes:

Due to the need for more bandwidth than a point to point microwave
link can provide, and to avoid difficulties with frequency
coordination and FCC licensing, most backhauls are moving to fiber
optic. At this time, my guess(tm) is about 40% use microwave, 40% use
some form of fiber, and the remaining 20% use copper (usually supplied
by the local telco). As additional bandwidth is needed at the larger
sites, the limited throughput microwave radios are being replaced by
fiber. Microwave will still be used where the terrain or lack of
infrastructure makes fiber impractical.

In a previous (voice only) era, the real point of microwave
cellsite backhaul was to compete against the LEC's outragous T1
rates. Almost as if it was magic, when dishes started appearing,
T1 pricing got far more flexible.


--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433