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

[Jeff Liebermann]

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

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.

Cell phones in airplanes don't work very well because the phone can
see perhaps hundreds of cell sites simultaneously from the air causing
handoff problems:
<http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft>

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.

Patience. Your crater might arrive eventually. An LAX ATC tried by
aiming a Boeing 777 Dreamliner at Mt Wilson in order to produce the
required crater:
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-faa-investigation-plane-wrong-direction-20161220-story.html>
<http://www.jacdec.de/2016/12/20/2016-12-16-eva-air-b777-flew-astray-and-close-to-terrain-east-of-los-angeles/>
Since that failed, it might be possible to attempt to burn it down
again, once the trees and brush grow back:
<http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Mt.-Wilson-with-labeled-names-of-scopes.jpg>

The bottom line is that cell phone interference is unlikely, but still
too much of a potential problem to risk a disaster. Better safe than
sorry. Besides, I don't want to fly in an airplane full of people
trying to yell over the engine noise into their cell phones.

--
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.]

On 2017-03-26 08:09, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

I wonder why such things are not regulated from the highest level
possibly in any country. Seems absurd to my that anything smaller than a
state has to regulate towers.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

 

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2017-03-26 06:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

ROTFL! X'-)

People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when
it was first installed about 20(?) years ago.

I can imagine

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

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:17:01 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2017-03-26 08:09, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

I wonder why such things are not regulated from the highest level
possibly in any country. Seems absurd to my that anything smaller than a
state has to regulate towers.

I'm not going to speculate why, but the various parts of cell tower
installation are divided between Federal, State, and local authorities
by areas of influence. Anything that has to do with RF is owned by
the FCC. Anything that has to do with aviation hazards, is run by the
FAA and managed by the FCC. The FCC also deals with licenses,
auctions, and protecting monopolies. If there are local public
utilities commissions involved, then those are run by the State. Site
selection, co-location, construction practices, aesthetics, compliance
the local general plan, and taxing users, are handled by the local
authorities (city and/or county).

It might be possible to consolidate all these into some kind of
national personal communications bureaucracy, which would run things
at all levels. To some extent, that's roughly what happened when the
DHS (dept of homeland security) was established in 2001. I believe
that might be what you're suggesting. Yes, it could be done, but do
we really need yet another bureaucracy when the inefficient but
tolerably effective existing tangle of overlapping agencies,
departments, and boards are adequate? Sometimes, they need a kick in
the posterior, as with the FCC imposing a "shot clock" to get things
moving, but mostly, things lurch and blunder forward without bloodshed
or additional taxes.

Also, the cellular industry basically started in about 1990 and is now
only 27 years old. In another 15 years or so, we'll probably be
overly connected at gigabit speeds going to work via virtual reality
and traveling around via augmented reality. Creating yet another
bureaucracy just to speed up the process doesn't seem like a great
idea. We may even be communicating by telepathy via implants. Be
patient. The future will arrive at the usual erratic pace quite
nicely without faster regulations and additional bureaucracy.

--
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.]

On 2017-03-26 23:17, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:17:01 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2017-03-26 08:09, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

I wonder why such things are not regulated from the highest level
possibly in any country. Seems absurd to my that anything smaller than a
state has to regulate towers.

I'm not going to speculate why, but the various parts of cell tower
installation are divided between Federal, State, and local authorities
by areas of influence. Anything that has to do with RF is owned by
the FCC. Anything that has to do with aviation hazards, is run by the
FAA and managed by the FCC. The FCC also deals with licenses,
auctions, and protecting monopolies. If there are local public
utilities commissions involved, then those are run by the State. Site
selection, co-location, construction practices, aesthetics, compliance
the local general plan, and taxing users, are handled by the local
authorities (city and/or county).

It might be possible to consolidate all these into some kind of
national personal communications bureaucracy, which would run things
at all levels. To some extent, that's roughly what happened when the
DHS (dept of homeland security) was established in 2001. I believe
that might be what you're suggesting. Yes, it could be done, but do
we really need yet another bureaucracy when the inefficient but
tolerably effective existing tangle of overlapping agencies,
departments, and boards are adequate? Sometimes, they need a kick in
the posterior, as with the FCC imposing a "shot clock" to get things
moving, but mostly, things lurch and blunder forward without bloodshed
or additional taxes.

I wasn't thinking only or specifically of the USA ;-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.