| Ness net 2006-12-12, 10:33 pm |
| Bad thing.... no.
Aesthetically, 1 with many vs. 2-3+ towers on a hill.
The 1 with many wins.
In the beginning, it was every carrier for themselves. We built
many sites within a stone's throw of a McCaw site. Then, the PCS
guys came along and built also. "Antenna farm" is the term.
NIMBY has made carriers play nice - (nicer anyway)
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:457f33cb$0$6900
2$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Ness net wrote:
>
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing. The alternative is putting up multiple towers.
>
> What's amusing is to be at a planning commission meeting, where most of the members are real estate people or
> developers (as is the case in most towns), and Sprint or T-Mobile come in to try to get a tower approved. Invariably,
> the opponents of the tower will bring up the fact that Cingular and Verizon are able to provide coverage without
> towers in these sensitive locations, and the carriers then have to hem and haw about how they need more towers due to
> their operating frequency, how it's unfair to penalize them for being newer operators that got the less efficient
> spectrum, etc.
|