dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20276
share rss forum feed


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
reply to DonLibes

Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house?

All covered in the FCC ruling regarding the matter:

»www.khlaw.com/Files/10233_FCC-11···1%5D.pdf


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
reply to AVD
said by AVD:

said by JALevinworth :

it's not known if the construction of that particular pole meets all the requirements. That's what I am getting at.

-Jim

the presumption should be that it is a-ok unless otherwise proven.

Says you. OP and his neighbors may want to confirm that.

There's a whole push for and activity taking place on field inspections currently by federal governing agencies because of the large number of unsafe and improper attachments that have been going on. These federal inspectors noted that the stimulus act got a lot of projects going very fast and improper and unsafe installations are on the rise dramatically. If I can find the document I read again about this, I'll post it but the presumption of a-ok isn't a-ok.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
I really doubt that all the people involved in this process would knowingly violate some sort of code or regulation that they are bound to. The liability, to both the individual and company would be too great compared to the possible potential profit or other benefit.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
google this "(sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200*x)+sqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)^0.01, sqrt(9-x^2), -sqrt(9-x^2)"


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
said by AVD:

I really doubt that all the people involved in this process would knowingly violate some sort of code or regulation that they are bound to. The liability, to both the individual and company would be too great compared to the possible potential profit or other benefit.

Opinion noted.


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
reply to John Galt
said by John Galt:

All covered in the FCC ruling regarding the matter:

»www.khlaw.com/Files/10233_FCC-11···1%5D.pdf

Stupid question, but I don't get all the legalese of all the rule making processes and comments and circles they do, but this says, "REPORT AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION". Does that make it an FCC rule?

Interesting doc either way.


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
said by JALevinworth :

Does that make it an FCC rule?

Yes, the operative word is Order.


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
said by John Galt:

said by JALevinworth :

Does that make it an FCC rule?

Yes, the operative word is Order.

Thanks. All that mumbo jumbo it starts sounding like something that's "requesting a request to make a request to comment on a request"

Before your response I started looking at the federal register and I'm guessing that's part of the rule as an amendment made on May 09, 2011. More followed.
»ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te···ull+text

On a side note, list of FCC fines to violators of the rule set are here:
»ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te···3A1.0.17

-Jim


whizkid3
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9
I agree with your assessment that the installation violates the NESC rules. For this to be a problem, the NESC requirements must be a law. (I didn't look at the federal code requirements.) If it is, then one could sue in federal court that the code is being violated. The end result would be either they move the antenna; or they add an adjacent pole, without the AC power, for the antenna installation.


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
said by whizkid3:

I didn't look at the federal code requirements.

Covered in the Order...


furlonium
Shut up baby, I know it

join:2002-05-08
Allentown, PA
reply to DonLibes
We had those all around Center City and the south side of Bethlehem. PPL (the local power company) installed them with the hopes of offering BPL but that never panned out. For the longest time I'd see all sorts of APs similarly named - "PPLbroadband2324" and the like.
--
My brother, Michael: "Kev, guess how fast my GTI topped out at?" "How fast?" "137." "Wow!" "Guess who else goes that fast?" "Who?" "Connecticut State Police."


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
reply to whizkid3
said by whizkid3:

I agree with your assessment that the installation violates the NESC rules. For this to be a problem, the NESC requirements must be a law. (I didn't look at the federal code requirements.) If it is, then one could sue in federal court that the code is being violated. The end result would be either they move the antenna; or they add an adjacent pole, without the AC power, for the antenna installation.

I'm not sure it does violate law, not without benefit of actually knowing the specs of each of poles involved and also seeing how the pole attachment agreement was written too. Also, which NESC rule year the OPs state has adopted.

But yeah, I'd want to look at every detail because it does look fishy and might be leverage they need. Worth looking into is how I see it.

-Jim


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
reply to John Galt
said by John Galt:

said by whizkid3:

I didn't look at the federal code requirements.

Covered in the Order...

John, I don't have the time I did yesterday, but when I was reading the FCC rules yesterday I didn't see where or how that's written that applies to this case. Not disagreeing, just didn't read it. Could you cite & paste the section if you have time? That would be most helpful to OP too. Thanks. Also, I think FCC rules are only part of the jurisdiction with other federal agencies having say on their areas of authority, but could be wrong and correct me if I am.

-Jim


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
said by JALevinworth :

said by John Galt:

said by whizkid3:

I didn't look at the federal code requirements.

Covered in the Order...

John, I don't have the time I did yesterday, but when I was reading the FCC rules yesterday I didn't see where or how that's written that applies to this case. Not disagreeing, just didn't read it. Could you cite & paste the section if you have time? That would be most helpful to OP too. Thanks. Also, I think FCC rules are only part of the jurisdiction with other federal agencies having say on their areas of authority, but could be wrong and correct me if I am.

-Jim

Add: Re-reading again, I'm rushing and I think I was reading too fast. I got the impression that you were saying the federal order covers that this setup is ok via the FCC. If so, then the above still applies. If not, my bad.


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
Quick snippets...

quote:
F. Legal Authority
90. We conclude that section 224 authorizes the Commission to promulgate the access rules, we adopt today, including the timeline and its self-effectuating remedy for failure to meet the timeline in the communications space. Through section 224(b)(1), Congress explicitly delegated authority to the Commission to “regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments,”272 as well as to develop procedures necessary for resolving complaints arising under the Commission’s substantive regulations, and to fashion appropriate remedies.273 In addition, section 224(b)(2) directs the Commission to make rules to carry out the provisions of this section.274 Congress also gave more specific substantive guidance for access to poles in section 224(f): “just and reasonable” access must also be "nondiscriminatory.”275
quote:
2. Pole Tops
77. We clarify that section 224 allows wireless attachers to access the space above what has traditionally been referred to as “communications space” on a pole.224 On previous occasions, the Commission has declined to establish a presumption that this space may be reserved for utility use only, and has stated that the only recognized limits to access for antenna placement are those contained in the statute.225 Yet wireless attachers assert that pole top access is persistently challenged by pole owners, who often impose blanket prohibitions on attaching to some or all pole tops.226 Blanket prohibitions are not permitted under the Commission’s rules.227 We reject the assertions of some utilities that our rule regarding pole tops will create a “de facto presumption in favor of pole top attachments” or otherwise “restrict an electric utility’s right to deny access for reasons of safety and reliability.”228 Instead, we clarify that a wireless carrier’s right to attach to pole tops is the same as it is to attach to any other part of a pole. Utilities may deny access “where there is insufficient capacity, and for reasons of safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering purposes.”229 The record in this proceeding is replete with examples of various types of pole top attachments that have been successfully accommodated, both for wireless attachers and for the utilities themselves.230
--
»www.archive.org/details/Meatpies_1984



JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net

“just and reasonable” access must also be "nondiscriminatory.”275

That sentence is at the center of the basis of the ruling against blocking pole tops in a blanket manner, as some utility companies and also government/local agencies were doing, and without any other technical specifications as to why other than they didn't want it. This is what this entire addendum to the code is about.

In short you can't blanketly reject pole-tops without cause - but can limit based on "Utilities may deny access “where there is insufficient capacity, and for reasons of safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering purposes.”

Now the question is, are these installations done to those specs as defined.

Thanks for that, John.

-Jim


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
said by JALevinworth :

Now the question is, are these installations done to those specs as defined.

In all likelihood they are.

It would be helpful if the OP posted some photos of other installations...and the emission measurements he mentioned.


JALevinworth

@embarqhsd.net
agree, time for input from OP.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to whizkid3
said by whizkid3:

said by LazMan:

we'll only know for sure in the future, after the technology has been around for 30-40 years...

People have been using microwaves routinely since WWII, some 70 years. Electromagnetic waves, which includes microwaves, have been around since...hmmm...the big bang.

Unfortunately, the average tin foil hat wearer easily gets electromagnetic waves confused with ionizing radiation - the stuff from nuclear weapons - and panics; not realizing their walls are full of wires giving off electromagnetic waves that are much stronger when they fall upon the body than tiny antennas placed 30 feet high on a pole.

Get an inductive tone probe wire tracer, you'll be breaking out the 10lb sledge hammer immediately to get all the cancer causing wires out of your walls that are cooking you alive.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to DonLibes
»celltowerphotos.com/ have fun folks


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
said by patcat88:

»celltowerphotos.com/ have fun folks

More to the topic at hand:

»celltowerphotos.com/thumbnails.php?album=31


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:

»celltowerphotos.com/ have fun folks

Awesome site. Thanks!


EastGhostCom

@grdn.net
Are you friggin kidding? Practically any kind or amount of electromag has cellular effect.

Stop listening to the devious clowns making money off providing you cell service - they're probably also invested in big pharma, ama, and the numerous cancer treatment centers popping up.

microwave news . com

and also search youtube for "dr magda havas" for many videos on the dangers of electrosmog.


EastGhostCom

@grdn.net
not only that, but just noticed the power meter is a 'smart meter' which also emits point-to-point wifi radiation, so it's a double cancerous whammy.

smart meters are an inroad to the un's anti-american agenda 21 / "sustainable development" collectivism. many videos about this on youtube.


aannoonn

@optonline.net


Yes, it's all a UN plot! I saw it on YouTube!!
Expand your moderator at work

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to patcat88

Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house?



EastGhostCom

@grdn.net
reply to EastGhostCom
you can write to pepco and tell them not to put a smart meter on your house - but you have to write and send it registered to their HQ

it also helps if your nearby neighbors also refuse the smart meter. no reason necessary, just say no.

smart meter allows them to watch and control you, and more insidiously to also greatly (and constantly) contribute to your cancer-causing eletrosmog load

Speedy Petey

join:2008-01-19
said by EastGhostCom :

smart meter allows them to watch and control you,

Wow, really? Control you? In WHAT way may I ask?

said by EastGhostCom :

... and more insidiously to also greatly (and constantly) contribute to your cancer-causing eletrosmog load

Give me a break. This is tin-foil hat fear mongering. Nothing more.


Coma
Thanks Steve
Premium
join:2001-12-30
NirvanaLand
said by Speedy Petey:

This is tin-foil hat fear mongering.


U call ?




--
March is Brain Injury Awareness Month

TheMG
Premium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·NorthWest Tel

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to EastGhostCom
said by EastGhostCom :

smart meter allows them to watch and control you

They can turn off your power if you don't pay your bill, and they can monitor how much power you use.

It's the same thing power companies around the world have been doing for over 100 years, only now they can do it remotely.

Big freaking deal. Get over it.