dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
26062

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA to toby

Premium Member

to toby

Re: Here's the law

said by toby:

Others like myself have several power outages per year due the weather or due to people running their trucks into power poles.

We do have a smart meter, but all our power is underground for several miles, so the power company only gets the power readings when they drive up our roads with their antenna pointing at houses or cabins in the forests.

When the power is out for more than a few hours, our CenturyLink phones no longer work. We have no phone service, we have no cell service, we have no power.

So if these meters help us in the surrounding areas to get power back quicker, then its ok by us.

A claim on insurance makes the premium go up, or at least stops it going down.

quote:
When the power is out for more than a few hours, our CenturyLink phones no longer work. We have no phone service, we have no cell service, we have no power.
Here our Verizon POTS continues to work and our Verizon Cell phones continue to work as the tower has a "Big" generator. We have never been without phone service even after Isabel when the power was out 17 days.

I don't recall ever having a problem reporting an outage so the smart meter argument is just a smoke screen for the real reason to deploy them.

After having a claim then for lost food the adjuster said that events like that (Power failures) due to weather have no effect on individual rates going up.

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ

AVD

Premium Member

said by Jack_in_VA:

Here our Verizon POTS continues to work and our Verizon Cell phones continue to work as the tower has a "Big" generator.

Its not the size of the generator, its the size of the fuel tank.

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

said by AVD:

said by Jack_in_VA:

Here our Verizon POTS continues to work and our Verizon Cell phones continue to work as the tower has a "Big" generator.

Its not the size of the generator, its the size of the fuel tank.

Very true but they managed to keep it going for 17 days. However the generators they put on their POTS electronic switches kept being stolen almost as fast as they put them on.
49528867 (banned)
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL

1 edit

49528867 (banned)

Member

said by Jack_in_VA:

Very true but they managed to keep it going for 17 days. However the generators they put on their POTS electronic switches kept being stolen almost as fast as they put them on.

That’s bullshit, switches in a central office or MTSO have their own on-site generators.

As to the field where remote terminals or sites are powered by generators that are tied down and booted.

Wayne

LazMan
Premium Member
join:2003-03-26
Beverly Hills, CA

LazMan to DonLibes

Premium Member

to DonLibes

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

We man ours 24/7 when the portables are out in the field... But then again, we keep them moving, too. 4 hours at a remote, to recharge the batteries, then onto the next one... We can run between 8 and 24 hrs on battery, depending on the location.

Larger sites have fixed gensets... Biggest one I personally maintain has 8 2MW generators, and 21 days on on-site fuel... Tier 3 datacentre...

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA to 49528867

Premium Member

to 49528867

Re: Here's the law

Are you saying i'm lying? Ok mods this is a flame. I don't know what your problem is Wayne but you have one.

You weren't here and I was very much without POTS many times due to batteries running down because generator at the switch 2-1/2 miles from me was stolen. They cut the chains to get them.
Jack_in_VA

Jack_in_VA to LazMan

Premium Member

to LazMan

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

said by LazMan:

We man ours 24/7 when the portables are out in the field... But then again, we keep them moving, too. 4 hours at a remote, to recharge the batteries, then onto the next one... We can run between 8 and 24 hrs on battery, depending on the location.

Larger sites have fixed gensets... Biggest one I personally maintain has 8 2MW generators, and 21 days on on-site fuel... Tier 3 datacentre...

Verizon doesn't have the manpower anymore to do much of anything. In my county when I moved in in 1989 the Telco was Continental who had 12 service techs. Then it was GTE who maintained the 12. Verizon bought them out and now there are 3.

So maybe your company in Canada has the manpower to accomplish keeping the system operating.

grobinette
Southeast of disorder
MVM,
join:2001-01-27
22152-1106

grobinette to DonLibes

MVM,

to DonLibes
Okay guys, some of you need to take a break and chill.

This is a simple discussion on a board on the internet and the world is not going to end if someone disagrees with what somebody else says here.
Expand your moderator at work
DonLibes

join:2003-01-19

DonLibes

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

I've attached a petition (pdf) that was sent to the local government outlining the reasons to have the antennas+pole (mentioned in the very first post in this thread) moved. In short, the petition asserts three reasons:

1) county govt did not properly follow its own procedures
2) FCC limits exceeded
3) devaluation of property

I don't have the background to follow the "FCC limits exceeded" part of the petition so I'm particularly curious if it makes sense to people here.
iknow
Premium Member
join:2012-03-25

iknow

Premium Member

said by DonLibes:

I've attached a petition (pdf) that was sent to the local government outlining the reasons to have the antennas+pole (mentioned in the very first post in this thread) moved. In short, the petition asserts three reasons:

1) county govt did not properly follow its own procedures
2) FCC limits exceeded
3) devaluation of property

I don't have the background to follow the "FCC limits exceeded" part of the petition so I'm particularly curious if it makes sense to people here.

WOW, it seems whoever sent that in never read all the comments here!.
1) the county makes it own procedures so they don't have to follow them.
2) for this, accurate and verifiable evidence is needed
3) WHAT? having reliable cell service is very desirable

whoever is doing this needs to review the advice and do a lot more research which proves this is no problem.

PSWired
join:2006-03-26
Annapolis, MD

PSWired to DonLibes

Member

to DonLibes
said by DonLibes:

I've attached a petition (pdf) that was sent to the local government outlining the reasons to have the antennas+pole (mentioned in the very first post in this thread) moved. In short, the petition asserts three reasons:

1) county govt did not properly follow its own procedures
2) FCC limits exceeded
3) devaluation of property

I don't have the background to follow the "FCC limits exceeded" part of the petition so I'm particularly curious if it makes sense to people here.

I can't open that file inside the zip, what format is it?

Not sure if I linked this before, but this could be helpful:

»wireless.fcc.gov/siting/ ··· uide.pdf

"In addition, a cellular facility is categorically excluded, regardless of its power, if it is not mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet) above ground level."

John Galt6
Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp

John Galt6 to DonLibes

Premium Member

to DonLibes
Here is the file...
John Galt6

John Galt6 to DonLibes

Premium Member

to DonLibes
This petition has little chance of success due to the preemption rules...

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

The authorities are used to NIMBY arguments.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to DonLibes

Member

to DonLibes
Leave out #2 unless you have facts to support it. #3 is true but again, not as important as #1.

If you can show #1 is true, then you can get a local lawyer (preferably in the neighborhood) to take on the city/county for this issue.

Something like this happened in a town a few years ago. Residents living at the top of hill woke up to a giant cell phone tower (3x the size of this) in their backyards. It was the ideal location for the company, but the residents weren't informed properly. The address application for the tower was across the nearby highway, so I believe that is how and why residents weren't notified of the construction.

After the tower was up and running, the lawyer that lived adjacent to the tower filed suit. The tower was eventually removed.

If you can prove the county did not follow their own rules or skipped steps, you have recourse. Do keep in mind that you could be shooting yourself in the foot if the tower is your cell phone provider's tower. They may be likely to let your area wither after eating the cost of the lawsuit and tower removal. Providers have been known to be spiteful in that way.

Good luck!

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

marigolds to DonLibes

MVM

to DonLibes
I learned about several of these issues while working on our siren system.
For #1, they are ignoring the height of the pole and attenuation. If the pole is 65' high, than no one is within 60'; and the radiation is outwards, so ground radiation is going to be considerably less than being 65' straight out. Second aspect is that there will be considerably attenuation from the house walls. Our sirens have 5 watt transmitters at 800MHz, and they come nowhere close to exceeding FCC limits.
They made a major mistake using the FCC software as well. The software is specifically for FM transmissions. 1.5GHz is not in the FM band.

#3 is not going to help much.
I had to run a study on tornado siren placement, which are placed on similar poles (57' instead of 65', but same type of pole). There was no statistically significant loss of property value from being within any distance of a siren pole. In fact, there was a -gain- in property value from being within line of site of a siren pole (though not statistically significant, so it did not matter).

The real estate agents were misleading; poles cannot be considered in creating comps unless the building is within the fall distance of the pole. I doubt the agents were qualified to calculate fall distance, but it is going to be considerably less than 40' on a 65' wood pole. This happened a lot with the siren project. People went to real estate agents to try to prove they had lost value, and the agents claimed they were inside the fall line and calculated accordingly. We actually had no house within double the fall line; but the agents said what people wanted them to hear. There is no way any house outside the nearest house could be considered inside the fall distance, which means that legally the proximity of the pole cannot be taken into account in calculating comps for all other houses. For the nearest house, the question might arise of whether or not the house was built according to setbacks. Setbacks are normally created to ensure that any house built cannot be built within the fall line of any conforming pole placed in the right of way.

I actually had someone argue that one of our poles was too close to a bus stop and a danger to children if someone ran into the pole while they were standing there. I pointed out that in order to sheer off a siren pole, you would need a vehicle of at least 3 tons traveling 60 mph or more to sheer it off. Odds are that if a vehicle hit the pole and knocked it towards the children waiting at the bus stop, the pole would save the children rather than endanger them.

There is a minor, but significant, flaw in the last line. Right of ways are not easements. They are owned by the county, not the residents, and the residents have nearly zero legal control over what gets placed in them as they have no claim on the property inside the right of way.

As for the alternative, measuring from obliques show there are trees immediately adjacent to the ROW there that are many trees over 80' above the base elevation at the road, so I don't think a pole there is going to work at all. The pole currently sits on the local high point, with relatively few adjacent trees; that is probably the reason for choosing that site.
marigolds

1 recommendation

marigolds to DonLibes

MVM

to DonLibes
I realized that the petition also misunderstands the implications of the averaging time. That is not the maximum length of exposure, like with sound, but rather the period over which exposure is averaged.

The longer the averaging time, the less peak exposure factors into the average exposure. Any peak exposure greater than the averaging time is going to be irrelevant; the average will simply be the peak. It is only when peak exposure is for time periods less than the averaging time that the averaging time becomes important.
iknow
Premium Member
join:2012-03-25

1 edit

iknow to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

Leave out #2 unless you have facts to support it. #3 is true but again, not as important as #1.

If you can show #1 is true, then you can get a local lawyer (preferably in the neighborhood) to take on the city/county for this issue.

Something like this happened in a town a few years ago. Residents living at the top of hill woke up to a giant cell phone tower (3x the size of this) in their backyards. It was the ideal location for the company, but the residents weren't informed properly. The address application for the tower was across the nearby highway, so I believe that is how and why residents weren't notified of the construction.

After the tower was up and running, the lawyer that lived adjacent to the tower filed suit. The tower was eventually removed.

If you can prove the county did not follow their own rules or skipped steps, you have recourse. Do keep in mind that you could be shooting yourself in the foot if the tower is your cell phone provider's tower. They may be likely to let your area wither after eating the cost of the lawsuit and tower removal. Providers have been known to be spiteful in that way.

Good luck!

like the local govenment will fine themselves!. it's up to them if they want to reconsider, but, they have to abide by federal law foremost. as had been stated previously. »wireless.fcc.gov/siting/ ··· uide.pdf

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

They have to abide by federal law, state law, and local law. If they are in violation of local law regarding building a tower or repeater, then the there may be a legal case to be had. This is not environmental or safety issue. It is permit, building code, enforcement, etc. The FCC won't fine themselves, but it's possible the tower will have to be removed based on the other violations.
iknow
Premium Member
join:2012-03-25

iknow

Premium Member

said by morbo:

They have to abide by federal law, state law, and local law. If they are in violation of local law regarding building a tower or repeater, then the there may be a legal case to be had. This is not environmental or safety issue. It is permit, building code, enforcement, etc. The FCC won't fine themselves, but it's possible the tower will have to be removed based on the other violations.

it's not the FCC that may be in violation of their own codes, but the local jurisdiction. in any case, there are limits on state and local laws imposed by the FCC, if a tower is needed for cell service, or to compete with another, state or local codes can't deny them. look at section 7. »www.law.cornell.edu/usco ··· t/47/332

John Galt6
Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp

John Galt6 to DonLibes

Premium Member

to DonLibes
Just a reminder that utility poles are -not- towers...poles are typically exempt.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to iknow

Member

to iknow
I think we are in agreement. A tower can't be denied without a reason, but it also isn't automatically approved because there is a need. A tower must comply with the state and local laws, and if it doesn't or if steps are skipped in building a tower then it can be removed.

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

said by morbo:

I think we are in agreement. A tower can't be denied without a reason, but it also isn't automatically approved because there is a need. A tower must comply with the state and local laws, and if it doesn't or if steps are skipped in building a tower then it can be removed.

The State and Local authorities cannot pass laws and regulations that are designed as a back door method to prohibit or hinder cell phone companies installing equipment such as cell towers or antenna on poles.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Right--however, that does not give companies a free pass to put up towers by completely bypassing state and local regulations. Companies do not have a free pass to do whatever they want in whatever location they want. Companies cannot skip the permitting process or the community input process just because there is a need for a cell phone tower. In every instance, there are multiple "good enough" locations for towers.

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

Very true but there are 12 pages of comments by us computer keyboard legal experts and I've yet to see any official ruling by any court or AHJ that the pole and antenna in question is not a legal installation.

This is more a NIMBY argument thread than anything else.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

It would take some digging by the OP or a local attorney to determine if the installation is legal.

My anecdotal story earlier in the thread is where a gigantic tower installation was removed after the proper permitting procedure and neighbor notification was skipped or (intentionally) overlooked due to the possible uproar. The address on the permit was incorrect, and the tower was removed a few months later.

John Galt6
Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp

John Galt6

Premium Member

said by John Galt6:

Just a reminder that utility poles are -not- towers...poles are typically exempt.

Again...

And, to further reiterate, localities have no authority over the RF portion of the installation...in ANY manner.
iknow
Premium Member
join:2012-03-25

iknow to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

Right--however, that does not give companies a free pass to put up towers by completely bypassing state and local regulations. Companies do not have a free pass to do whatever they want in whatever location they want. Companies cannot skip the permitting process or the community input process just because there is a need for a cell phone tower. In every instance, there are multiple "good enough" locations for towers.

they can get that free pass from the FCC if they need to put up a tower in a specific location, and the state and local governments wouldn't be able to stop it. the FCC has Federal Jurisdiction. Cell phones have a safety side, just like the extremely powerful radar at airports, and the transmitter farm of voice of america, and all the military bases, police fire, etc. all these would breeze past any state or local government jurisdictions!. that's for sure!. anyone try to stop an airport from being constructed? well, the federal government controls that too.
iknow

iknow to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

It would take some digging by the OP or a local attorney to determine if the installation is legal.

My anecdotal story earlier in the thread is where a gigantic tower installation was removed after the proper permitting procedure and neighbor notification was skipped or (intentionally) overlooked due to the possible uproar. The address on the permit was incorrect, and the tower was removed a few months later.

i'd like to see a link to that, as i think either the wrong location was submitted to the FCC, or the company voluntarily relocated the tower, probably with some concessions from the town. they are guaranteed to provide adequate cell phone service to their customers by the FCC, so some information is missing here.