You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scan

[nospam]

In article <19falor94m7rc$.1oiedy6m2zadk$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

use the camera on the back, not the front.

Many's the device with but a single camera, on one side only.

usually on the back, not the front.

if there's only a camera on the front and the user wants something
other than selfie's, then they have only themselves to blame for buying
the wrong product.

 

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2017-03-22 19:45, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:


When you tack a new gadget with an unfamiliar operating system, Android
in this case, you need an open mind. And ask around things that you find
difficult to do, maybe you are doing it wrong.

What I do remember is that I found it would connect to the WIFI, but the
browser was not easy to use. I found I could install something more
familiar (Firefox), but doing the installation was something I could not
figure out. Its not just a matter of downloading it and running the
installer, (like in Windows).

Installing an app is trivial in Android, but different than in Windows.

Just find the wanted app in "Google Play" app, tap "install", exit
"Google Play", tap on the new app icon. Done.

I did fight with it and managed to watch
some youtube videos. Saving them was not possible, like it is with
Firefox. When I did save something and wanted to copy it to computer,
that again was near impossible.

This is intentional.

A tablet is not a laptop, it is different.

Then came the camera. The stupid thing was only for selfies. I have
absolutely no need for that. I turned it around and without seeing what
I was shooting, I snapped some pics of my yard, in good light. The pics
were absolutely horrid, grainy and lousy.

Most tablets have two cameras, one front, one rear (usually a better
one). There is a button on the camera app to choose which.

The front camera is not only for selfies; it is intended, as in many
laptops, for video conferencing.

If your gadget doesn't have a rear camera, well, then, you bought the
wrong device. And cheap devices have lousy cameras, that's a fact.

That is, you can buy a tablet for 50 euros or dollars. But don't expect
much from those. Just entry devices to explore and find out if you want
a better one or not.


> The other thing I remember was that since it'sd owned by Google,

No, it is not.

I was
constantly having google trying to get me to download games. I dont play
games at all, and that was very annoying.

That wasn't google. That was the vendor of your device. Some brands are
bad at that.



> I dont care if XP is not supported.

You should. It is open to viruses. It can be used by hackers as a
platform to attack other computers from other people.

It works, works well, and personally
I would not even want any of Microsoft's newer bloated operating
systems. I know Windows 10 is filled with MS spyware, but it seemed to
me that Android was filled with google spyware too.

Google does want to know what you do, yes, but they don't hide that
fact. They are quite open about it. They differentiate what is private
and treat it as such.

On Windows 10 you can easily disable what is generally considered
intrusive. You just need a list of those things and disable them, as
several howtos in the net explain how to do it.

I'm not a Windows lover, my system of choice is Linux. However, I find
Windows 10 quite good, considering, once customized. I prefer Windows 7,
but 10 is safer.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

 

[tlvp]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:55:11 -0400, nospam wrote:

Many's the device with but a single camera, on one side only.

usually on the back, not the front.

LOL:I think oldschool@tubes.com would beg to differ . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

 

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2017-03-24 00:45, tlvp wrote:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:55:11 -0400, nospam wrote:

Many's the device with but a single camera, on one side only.

usually on the back, not the front.

LOL:I think oldschool@tubes.com would beg to differ . Cheers, -- tlvp

He said it was a notepad with Android. It is not strange having only a
front camera . for video-conferencing, not for photo taking.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:35:15 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

He said it was a notepad with Android. It is not strange having only a
front camera . for video-conferencing, not for photo taking.

Not really that strange and quite common. For example, all laptops
and Chromebooks only have one camera facing the user. That's good for
video chat (Skype) but really awkward for taking camera photos.

Some feature phones have only a front facing camera, suitable for
taking pictures, but not selfies or video chat. For these, there are
clip on mirrors for redirecting the image:
<http://forum.xcitefun.net/front-facing-camera-with-a-clip-on-mirror-t59495.html>
or for user facing cameras on smartphones:
<http://walyou.com/blog/2010/12/21/smartphone-video-calling/>
No clue if these things are actually useful or if they don't mangle
the image.
--
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

 

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...
On Windows 10 you can easily disable what is generally considered
intrusive. You just need a list of those things and disable them,
as several howtos in the net explain how to do it.

I'm not a Windows lover, my system of choice is Linux. However,
I find Windows 10 quite good, considering, once customized. I
prefer Windows 7, but 10 is safer.

I thought I heard that Windows 10's claim to fame was specialty in the video watching and video game area.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

oldschool@tubes.com wrote:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:10:15 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

Summary: I use my tablet a lot more than I thought I would.

Tablets come in two sizes.
1) too small to read and operate with fat fingers.
2) too big/heavy to hold comfortably.

SInce I'm elderly, I dont have thge best eyesight anymore. Cellphones
are way to small for me to see anything. One guy I know is always
shoving his phone in my face and saying look at this. I repeatedly have
to tell him I cant read it, and if it's a picture, I only see a blur. I
do not make a habit of carrying around my reading glasses. I only have
them on me if I plan to read something. And yea, the keys are too small
on all that stuff. I like a REAL keyboard. I always have a tough time
doing texts on my flipphone.

Anyhow, even if a laptop computer is large and hard to hold, it is much
better for me to use.

The obvious solution is to have two or four.

Nah, too much stuff to buy and maintain.
My cellphone (flipphone) is just a phone, and that is all I really need
to have with me. But if I want to use a WIFI, I have to plan in advance
and bring my laptop with me. That's not always convenient, but it works.
Besides that, owning a smartphone is too costly for my budget. I mostly
just have a cellphone for emergency calls, but it does come in handy to
call businesses to see if they have what I need, or if they are open,
(when I am not home). But a prepaid cellphone is fairly cheap as long as
the calls are short, whereas a contract for a smartphone is costly,
especially when they allow for enough data to actually watch videos or
spend considerable time shopping ebay or something like that.

These days, a person almost MUST have at least a basic cellphone,
because there are no longer any pay phones, and in an emergency one
needs some way to contact for help. But if I want to call and talk to a
friend for an hour, I use my landline. I must keep my landline, because
where I live (rural area), cellphone service is poor. Heck, a couple
years ago, I saw smoke coming out of a building and could not get a cell
signal, and there were no pay phones. By the time I drove to a place
where I could get a phone signal, that building was entirely in flames
and it was a total loss.

I later spoke with someone from the fire dept, and was told that they
have been trying to get a cell tower in that area for years and all they
get is a runaround. He said the population is too small to make it
profitable. I proceeded to complain about why they removed the pay phone
in that town, which was still there about 7 years ago, when they knew
that there is no cell service there. He said they fought that with the
local phone company too, and was told that pay phones were no longer
maintained. Personally, none of that makes any sense.... Why was there
better service back in the days before 2010? And why is maintaining a
pay phone so difficult? It could have prevented a major fire, and could
even save a life. STUPID STUPID....

Yes, you are. Pay phones started dying, when cell phones became
popular. They started to disappear, as they no longer took in enough
money to pay for the equipment, the line and the labor to service them.
They finally reached the point where the equipment was worn out, and too
expense to maintain. Payphone companies started to disappear, in the mid
'90s. I hauled off trailer loads of aluminum phone booths from one
company when they downsized to a smaller building. A year later, they
were bankrupt. That was in 1995.

As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and
local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed,
over safety.


--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:52:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and
local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed,
over safety.

Not so much legal fees. The local cellular operators tend to hire
real estate brokers and such to deal with the local governments.
They're less expensive than lawyers and are more knowledgeable about
local alternative sites, site rental fees, and property costs.
Intentional delays that bordered on extortion became such a problem
that the FCC was forced to require a time limit for acting on proposed
sites new site and modifications.
<http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/cellular/fcc-shot-clock-presumptions-for-wireless-tower-permitting-upheld/>
<https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-99A1.pdf>

It's not just municipal governments that slow things down. Local
citizens groups that fear the proliferation of RF belching towers also
create delays. For example, this is our local citizens groups:
<https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/>
The Boulder Creek site was never built, but no because of the efforts
of this group. It was due to the county demanding specific basic
documents from the Verizon representative, which were not produced.

I has several discussions with the Verizon people about this site and
others that were planned locally, which taught me a few things. For
example, at the time, Verizon had about 1500 new sites in various
stages of planning in Northern California. Most of these sites are
not for new coverage, but are to increase bandwidth and capacity in
areas that already have service. New sites require some minimum
prospective user density to be considered worthwhile, which is a
problem for areas with transient usage. For example, a rather large
lake in the area has nearly zero cellular coverage, despite a large
influx of cell phone users during the summer. Because the area is
essentially empty during the remaining 9 months of the year, it's
probably not going to be profitable investment.

Verizon also takes the path of least resistance. If there's any
impediments caused by government or citizen groups and can't seem to
be resolved, Verizon just moves on to another more hospitable area.
The previously mentioned lake owners/operators offered to pay Verizon
for installing a site to compensate for the limited revenue. I don't
know if that worked.

Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles
the cost of the tower. Yet another is the time involved in crafting
local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical. I was involved
in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in
my never humble opinion was a giant mess. You really don't want to
know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances.
Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission. They
took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually
produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties
often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of
delaying the introduction of new towers.

If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL
(Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive:
<http://www.aglmediagroup.com>

I can go on forever on tower politics, but I'm already late for a
lunch time meeting.



--
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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2017-03-22 19:45, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:


When you tack a new gadget with an unfamiliar operating system, Android
in this case, you need an open mind. And ask around things that you find
difficult to do, maybe you are doing it wrong.


What I do remember is that I found it would connect to the WIFI, but the
browser was not easy to use. I found I could install something more
familiar (Firefox), but doing the installation was something I could not
figure out. Its not just a matter of downloading it and running the
installer, (like in Windows).

Installing an app is trivial in Android, but different than in Windows.

Just find the wanted app in "Google Play" app, tap "install", exit
"Google Play", tap on the new app icon. Done.

I did fight with it and managed to watch
some youtube videos. Saving them was not possible, like it is with
Firefox. When I did save something and wanted to copy it to computer,
that again was near impossible.

This is intentional.

A tablet is not a laptop, it is different.


Then came the camera. The stupid thing was only for selfies. I have
absolutely no need for that. I turned it around and without seeing what
I was shooting, I snapped some pics of my yard, in good light. The pics
were absolutely horrid, grainy and lousy.

Most tablets have two cameras, one front, one rear (usually a better
one). There is a button on the camera app to choose which.

The front camera is not only for selfies; it is intended, as in many
laptops, for video conferencing.

If your gadget doesn't have a rear camera, well, then, you bought the
wrong device. And cheap devices have lousy cameras, that's a fact.

That is, you can buy a tablet for 50 euros or dollars. But don't
expect much from those. Just entry devices to explore and find out if
you want a better one or not.


The other thing I remember was that since it'sd owned by Google,

No, it is not.

I was constantly having google trying to get me to download games. I
don't play games at all, and that was very annoying.

That wasn't google. That was the vendor of your device. Some brands are
bad at that.



I dont care if XP is not supported.

You should. It is open to viruses. It can be used by hackers as a
platform to attack other computers from other people.

It works, works well, and personally I would not even want any of
Microsoft's newer bloated operating systems. I know Windows 10 is
filled with MS spyware, but it seemed to me that Android was filled
with google spyware too.

Google does want to know what you do, yes, but they don't hide that
fact. They are quite open about it. They differentiate what is private
and treat it as such.

On Windows 10 you can easily disable what is generally considered
intrusive. You just need a list of those things and disable them, as
several howtos in the net explain how to do it.

I'm not a Windows lover, my system of choice is Linux. However, I find
Windows 10 quite good, considering, once customized. I prefer Windows
7, but 10 is safer.

I have a couple tablets. My favorite is a 10" Irulu with an octacore
processor. I have a case for it with a real keyboard, but it spends a
lot of time on a stand, on top of my SFF dell computer. I can see the
24" monitor behind it as I stream the news, or another program while
using the computer.

IRULU X1 Pro 10.1" Android 4.4 Tablet Octa Core 16GB/1GB HDMI 1024*600
/Keyboard and it was $106, delivered.

I have a pair of Kocaso MX780 7" tablets that I bought for $100. I carry
one to appointments at the VA hospital, since I have about for hours to
kill between the DAV shuttle runs. I have a 32 GB micro SD card with
thousands of old books to read, and the Android app for Magic Jack to
make calls when there is a free hotspot. The twin is a spare, in case
the other is lost or damaged.

--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

 

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2017-03-25 18:52, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:10:15 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

I later spoke with someone from the fire dept, and was told that they
have been trying to get a cell tower in that area for years and all they
get is a runaround. He said the population is too small to make it
profitable. I proceeded to complain about why they removed the pay phone
in that town, which was still there about 7 years ago, when they knew
that there is no cell service there. He said they fought that with the
local phone company too, and was told that pay phones were no longer
maintained. Personally, none of that makes any sense.... Why was there
better service back in the days before 2010? And why is maintaining a
pay phone so difficult? It could have prevented a major fire, and could
even save a life. STUPID STUPID....


Yes, you are. Pay phones started dying, when cell phones became
popular. They started to disappear, as they no longer took in enough
money to pay for the equipment, the line and the labor to service them.
They finally reached the point where the equipment was worn out, and too
expense to maintain. Payphone companies started to disappear, in the mid
'90s. I hauled off trailer loads of aluminum phone booths from one
company when they downsized to a smaller building. A year later, they
were bankrupt. That was in 1995.

Depends on which country you are. In mine, there was a mandate by which
each village must have at least one payphone, specially on small
villages that do not have a phone per house. That is, if the company can
not set a phone at each house that wants one, they must at least install
one payphone (or more, depending on the population).

I don't know if that mandate is still valid.

As for mobile, I think there is another mandate that the dominant
provider must provide service on every village. But I'm unsure.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

 

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <dsgddc506qf6ml83bnli60k7o07u1405qg@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...

Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles
the cost of the tower. Yet another is the time involved in crafting
local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical. I was involved
in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in
my never humble opinion was a giant mess. You really don't want to
know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances.
Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission. They
took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually
produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties
often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of
delaying the introduction of new towers.

Riding down the interstate today and saw a cell tower made to look like
a tree. It seemed to be about 100 feet or more tall. The top 1/3 or so
had some fake tree things on it to look like a pine tree. Real funny
looking as it was about 50 feet or more taller than any trees around it.

It would have been less noticable if it had just the cell antennas on it
instead of the fake tree top.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:54:20 -0400, Ralph Mowery
<rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:

Riding down the interstate today and saw a cell tower made to look like
a tree. It seemed to be about 100 feet or more tall. The top 1/3 or so
had some fake tree things on it to look like a pine tree. Real funny
looking as it was about 50 feet or more taller than any trees around it.

It would have been less noticable if it had just the cell antennas on it
instead of the fake tree top.

This is what AT&T (Cingular) installed when they were first forced to
disguise a cell tower or monopole and had no clue what they were doing
but had to build it in a hurry:
<http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/crud/AmestiAT&T.jpg>
I'll spare you the jokes about standing lumber trees.

People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when
it was first installed about 20(?) years ago. Incidentally, it's 90ft
high. There was some official debate over the distinction between a
genuine disguise monopine and an attractive nuisance. This created an
awkward situation for AT&T, where modifying or rebuilding the tower
might be construed as agreeing with their critics. So, it was left
unchanged for a few years until the bad jokes died down. A water tank
now sits on the location and a new cell site was built somewhere
close, but further away from the nearby residential areas.

For additional disguise cell towers and associated stories, see:
<http://www.celltowerphotos.com>

Then, there's the giant cucumber tower:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg>

Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg>


--
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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:52:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

As far as cell phone towers, a lot of the cost is in legal fees and
local governments charging out the ass for permits. So it becomes greed,
over safety.

Not so much legal fees. The local cellular operators tend to hire
real estate brokers and such to deal with the local governments.
They're less expensive than lawyers and are more knowledgeable about
local alternative sites, site rental fees, and property costs.
Intentional delays that bordered on extortion became such a problem
that the FCC was forced to require a time limit for acting on proposed
sites new site and modifications.
http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/cellular/fcc-shot-clock-presumptions-for-wireless-tower-permitting-upheld/
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-99A1.pdf

It's not just municipal governments that slow things down. Local
citizens groups that fear the proliferation of RF belching towers also
create delays. For example, this is our local citizens groups:
https://www.facebook.com/StopBoulderCreekCellTower/
The Boulder Creek site was never built, but no because of the efforts
of this group. It was due to the county demanding specific basic
documents from the Verizon representative, which were not produced.

I has several discussions with the Verizon people about this site and
others that were planned locally, which taught me a few things. For
example, at the time, Verizon had about 1500 new sites in various
stages of planning in Northern California. Most of these sites are
not for new coverage, but are to increase bandwidth and capacity in
areas that already have service. New sites require some minimum
prospective user density to be considered worthwhile, which is a
problem for areas with transient usage. For example, a rather large
lake in the area has nearly zero cellular coverage, despite a large
influx of cell phone users during the summer. Because the area is
essentially empty during the remaining 9 months of the year, it's
probably not going to be profitable investment.

Verizon also takes the path of least resistance. If there's any
impediments caused by government or citizen groups and can't seem to
be resolved, Verizon just moves on to another more hospitable area.
The previously mentioned lake owners/operators offered to pay Verizon
for installing a site to compensate for the limited revenue. I don't
know if that worked.

Another expensive problem is camouflaged towers, which roughly doubles
the cost of the tower. Yet another is the time involved in crafting
local tower ordinances, no two of which are identical. I was involved
in the passage of the Santa Cruz CA county tower ordinance, which in
my never humble opinion was a giant mess. You really don't want to
know what is involved in making sausage and tower ordinances.
Incidentally, we were saved by the local coastal commission. They
took our best efforts, cleaned it up dramatically, and actually
produced a readable and workable ordinance. Other cities and counties
often use the time needed to create such ordinance as a way of
delaying the introduction of new towers.

If you want to slosh through the politics, reading back issues of AGL
(Above Ground Level) magazine should be instructive:
http://www.aglmediagroup.com

I worked in CATV, Broadcast and Two way radios. The City of
Middletown Ohio's first tower ordinance banned ALL towers, and outdoor
antennas. No exemption for the local AM radio station, CATV headend, or
even the police and fire departments. Their faulty reasoning was if no
one had an antenna, everyone would have to pay for cable, and they would
make more money off the franchise fees which were based on the number of
customers.

In the early '80s St. Louis, MO sent our CATV manager an order to
take down their tower and Sat dishes, for the same fool idea. St Lois
was a real mess. They split the city into seven areas, and gave seven
different companies a franchise. They also wanted to make cable
customers pay a large fee to pay for the entire costs to operate the
landfill, and all garbage collection, since watching TV was a 'luxury'.



--
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 01:14:13 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

I worked in CATV, Broadcast and Two way radios. The City of
Middletown Ohio's first tower ordinance banned ALL towers, and outdoor
antennas. No exemption for the local AM radio station, CATV headend, or
even the police and fire departments. Their faulty reasoning was if no
one had an antenna, everyone would have to pay for cable, and they would
make more money off the franchise fees which were based on the number of
customers.

In the early '80s St. Louis, MO sent our CATV manager an order to
take down their tower and Sat dishes, for the same fool idea. St Lois
was a real mess. They split the city into seven areas, and gave seven
different companies a franchise. They also wanted to make cable
customers pay a large fee to pay for the entire costs to operate the
landfill, and all garbage collection, since watching TV was a 'luxury'.

We do things a little differently on the left coast. The county cell
tower ordinance was inspired by the local drug dealers in about 2000.
We have a rather large local amusement park. Nearby is a residential
slum and ghetto. In the middle of this area, on top of a small hill,
is a two story dilapidated building with a small market downstairs.
It's also the exchange point for most of the local drug deals.

Two of the cellular providers decided that if they purged and
disinfected the rooms above the market, it would make a good location
for cell sites. They then applied to the city (not county). This
information was eventually passed to the various drug dealers, who
somehow (correctly) deduced that a cell site located in the middle of
their stomping grounds could be used to accurately track their
movements around the area. So, they organized a protest movement,
which turned the first public hearing into a circus.

At this point, someone in city government decided that such things as
tower ordinances was really the job of the county. Characteristically
interested in more powers, the country agreed and decided to write the
tower ordinance. A temporary summer intern was hired by the planning
department to research and cut-n-paste an ordinance together out of
pieces he found on the internet from multiple sources. At the end of
summer he returned to his studies, leaving the county with an
inconsistent and incoherent mess.

The only problem was that they didn't know that it was a mess until
after the squabbling began. Every possible organization with an
interest in cellular, towers, land use, aesthetics, historical
preservation, electro biological effects of RF, and alien visitations
became involved. The original drug dealers probably attended the
initial planning department hearings, but were lost in the ever
expanding circus atmosphere.

Unfortunately, I was volunteered to represent the interests of the
local ham radio operators. Just one problem. I had recently survived
some major surgery and still felt rather lousy. Sitting for hours in
a crowded meeting room and lecturing morons on basic RF concepts did
not seem very appealing.

After the first circus meeting, things settled down to business during
the second meeting. Every group cut up its piece of the ordinance for
special attention. Speakers of all types and abilities presented
their case before the planning department board. There were the usual
comedies, such as one lady who after denouncing cell phones as a
health hazard, had her own cell phone ring while she was at the
podium. Several speakers presented seriously erroneous technical
information about RF. However, the real problem came from one of the
planning department members, who decided to add cell site density and
exposure limitations to the ordinance. Since nobody was interested, I
decided that it was up to me to deal with the problem.

When my turn at the podium came, I presented the board with a
simplified explanation about the relationship between transmit power,
data bandwidth, and range. Any two can be traded for the third. If
cellular radio was going to progress, it would need to increase the
data bandwidth. Power was not going up because the batteries in the
handsets would die too quickly. The obvious answer was more cell
sites and denser concentrations of cell sites. Otherwise, the county
was going to be locked into the technical backwaters of 2000. (It was
also illegal for the county to pass such a technical requirement as
that is the domain of the FCC, but I let county council tell them
that). The density and exposure clauses were quietly dropped.

I was sitting next to someone who obviously was an attorney. We
talked a little and I discovered he was there to represent AT&T. When
I asked why he said nothing during the hearings, he answered that the
important points would be settled after the ordinance is passed
through the usual exemptions and amendments. He was right.

Several meetings later, an ordinance was hammered out that was
sufficient to present to the board of supervisors. They did not want
yet another public circus, so they rubber stamped it on the consent
agenda. Nobody complained.

The next step was to pass it to the Coastal Commission, who's approval
was required because many of the cell sites were within the coastal
zone. What we got back was something that resembled bloodshed. There
were so many red marks, corrections, changes, and re-writes on the
various pages, that I barely recognized the ordinance. The Coastal
Commission had passed it on to what I believe was someone with
considerable experience in writing ordinances, who cleaned it up. I
was impressed. The planning board and board of supervisors were less
impressed, but accepted it anyway.

<http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCounty13/SantaCruzCounty1310.html>
13.10.660 thru 13.10.668.

In the last 17 years, the ordinance has roughly doubled in size.
Exemptions and exceptions are added regularly to deal with
non-compliant technology and organizations. Life blunders on.

If adding a cell site in your neighborhood requires a tower ordinance,
you have my sympathies.

--
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

 

[Neill Massello]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

Then, there's the giant cucumber tower:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg

We've got something like that here, looming over a small strip mall
parking lot, but it looks more like a giant furry green corn dog.

Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg

The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more esthetically
pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise.

 

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 3/26/2017 4:06 AM, Neill Massello wrote:

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg

The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more
aesthetically pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise.

Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect
answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would
interfere with the operation of the airplane.

My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a
smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the
flight path.



--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

 

[Pat]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 04:20:13 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>
wrote:

Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect
answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would
interfere with the operation of the airplane.

My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a
smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the
flight path.

First of all, they didn't say cell phones *would* interfere. They
said they *Could* interfere. The transmitters on Mt Wilson are
maintained by professionals. If one of those transmitters would
suddenly start transmitting on an ATC or navaid frequency, they would
figure it out and fix it quickly. Compare that to a few hundred
people on an airliner each with their own little transmitter. If one
of those devices malfunctions and is spewing harmonics, there is no
quick way to find and resolve it. So, asking everyone to turn off
their transmitters reduces the chances of an interference problem. Of
course, some will forget and others refuse, but having 2 or 3 small
transmitters on a plane rather than hundreds reduces the chances of an
issue. You said "if that was true". Not only *was* it true back in
the mid 90's. It *is* still true today. And, why do you want your
phone wasting battery searching for usable cell sites during a long
flight, anyway?

 

[MJC]

In article <1n3h49j.1pfusa2r19m5dN%nmassello@yahoo.com>,
nmassello@yahoo.com says...

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg

The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more esthetically
pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise.

Hmmm. Looks like an overgrown cross between two percussion instruments:
vibro-slap and tamborine (can't remember what the official one is
called)...

Mike.

 

[MJC]

In article <ob814l$1p8f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, jdangus@att.net says...

Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect
answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would
interfere with the operation of the airplane.

My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a
smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the
flight path.

At least while fuselages were still made of metal, it should be more
resistant to RF (and lightning) from outside than inside...

Mike.

 

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <aneedcl6qd917r9mf9m7slo6d5nanrajsn@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...

This is what AT&T (Cingular) installed when they were first forced to
disguise a cell tower or monopole and had no clue what they were doing
but had to build it in a hurry:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/crud/AmestiAT&T.jpg
I'll spare you the jokes about standing lumber trees.

People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when
it was first installed about 20(?) years ago. Incidentally, it's 90ft
high. There was some official debate over the distinction between a
genuine disguise monopine and an attractive nuisance. This created an
awkward situation for AT&T, where modifying or rebuilding the tower
might be construed as agreeing with their critics. So, it was left
unchanged for a few years until the bad jokes died down. A water tank
now sits on the location and a new cell site was built somewhere
close, but further away from the nearby residential areas.

For additional disguise cell towers and associated stories, see:
http://www.celltowerphotos.com

Then, there's the giant cucumber tower:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg

Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg

Just off the interstate in South Carolina where everyone can see it is a
water tower made to look like a peach.

When it was in its orange primer it looked like a giant butt sticking
up. Even after the peach color was added it still looks like a butt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachoid