Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Long Island Town Enacts Tough Cell Tower Limits

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the radio-silence-is-golden dept.

Cellphones 310

crimeandpunishment writes "They're getting tougher on towers on Long Island. The town of Hempstead, NY has imposed some of the toughest cell phone tower restrictions in the country. The ordinance prohibits wireless equipment within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship, unless the company can prove absolute need. A spokesman for Verizon says, 'It's not unheard of for towns to have issues, but this is extreme,' and says this makes 95 percent of the town off limits to future antenna construction." With internet access by 3G, 4G and WiMax getting ever more common, I suspect that not everyone in the town will appreciate blocking out the companies that provide it.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can you hear me now? Nope... (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696274)

Hempstead, New York, future home of "all circuits are busy."

Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... (5, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696310)

Dang, did I just get first post? The frosty-drink troll guy must be trying to use his Android from Hempstead.

Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... (1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696396)

Probably the whacky politicians read a report about "dangerous EM emissions causing cancer and headaches and other scary things" so they decided to ban transmitters. (Not directly of course, but this law has the same effect.)

Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696446)

If I were running the cell companies I wouldn't be worried - it's one town (not enough market to really hurt if it's lost) and people will realise within a month or two that they actually quite enjoyed being able to use their phones. Just let the administrators steam in their own stupidity once the population gets pissed off, making sure to politely point out exactly why nobody has phone coverage.

Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696558)

If I were running a phone company, I would cut service completely to the town and issue a press release saying something like this:

We at Evil Co. sympathise with the town's wish not to be bombarded with EM radiation. A it is clearly the will of the people that they not have these signals directed in their vicinity, we wish to respect their wishes, even at the cost of some profit. Unfortunately, complying with these new laws would require significantly increasing the power output of other towers to compensate, and so we are unable to continue to offer service without violating the intent and spirit, if not the letter, of this law. As we can not provide a service in this town, we are willing to waive early termination fees for any customers in the affected area, as a gesture of good will. We hope that they will enjoy their relaxed lifestyle, free from the burdens of modern technology.

Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33696676)

Town of Hempstead is right in the center of Nassau County. County population 1.4 million. Median household income $95K. Several major highways pass through it. (Puts on tin-foil hat) I suspect that it's Cablevision behind it. Trying to hinder competition.

Hempstead (2, Funny)

captain_dope_pants (842414) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696282)

I'm moving there - it'll save me a fortune in tin foil hats. Plus "hemp" + "stead" = a town that grows dope ? Great ! :-)

Re:Hempstead (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696548)

I for one welcome our new hemp growing Amish cell tower overlords.

waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (-1, Troll)

Kristopeit, Mike D. (1900570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696286)

oh no... 95% of the town can't have cell towers... hold on a sec... math math math... that leaves 5% of the town to LITTER with cell towers.

what percentage of most towns are consumed by cellular transceivers? is it far less than 5%? far far FAR less?

slashdot = stagnated with whining idiots.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (2, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696326)

Um, they have to spread them out so that the coverage is as close to 100% as possible. Limiting the land they can build in means the optimum coverage is likely far less...

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1, Insightful)

Kristopeit, Mike D. (1900570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696424)

um... democratic freedom voted in the council members that voted on behalf of their constituents who wanted to keep the corporations out, and you're arguing that the free market capitalist corporation has the right to move in on land against the land owners' wishes?

go be a communist somewhere else.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33696870)

First car accident where they person can't call for help on their cell phone because there is no coverage, and they die. Let me post YOUR FUCKING comment to the news paper.

Asshole

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696350)

I don't think you get it.

Radio signal strength decays exponentially. To give a city good coverage you have to place towers at more or less regular intervals. You cover the area with towers whose coverage overlaps like this [rsm.govt.nz] .

If the laws are such that most of the city is out of limits for tower placement, it means that a lot of people are going to get really crappy reception. You could place the Mother of All Towers in the allowed bit, but a tower has a limit to the amount of calls it can handle, so it's not going to work very well.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (0, Troll)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696398)

i know you don't get it. the town can do WHATEVER THEY WANT. it's called democratic freedom.

go be a communist somewhere else.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696516)

True, it's within their rights to do it. And it's within my rights to explain why it's a stupid thing to do.

Nevertheless, I hope they go ahead with it. I don't live there, so I don't care that much about what they do. I think they'll either get the worst coverage in the country, or the phone companies will get fed up and leave, leaving them with no phone service. I look forward to reading what will happen then.

Geometrical, not exponential (5, Informative)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696500)

"Radio signal strength decays exponentially. "

No, it decays geometrically.

Exponential decay would be of the form P=An^d, where "d" is the distance, and A and n are constants.

The formula for free space losses is of the form P=Ad^2 - a geometrical loss.

Re:Geometrical, not exponential (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696708)

Whoops. Thanks for the correction.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696356)

You forget to factor in that the 5% of the town that can have towers may be owned by people who don't want towers on them.

It's like the towns that only allow adult businesses 2000 feet away from homes, schools, parks, and churches, leaving 5% of the town open to such businesses, but it turns out that all but a small part of that 5% is owned by landlords who refuse to lease to adult businesses.

For adult businesses and other non-necessary services, this might be a good public policy statement. For items which are necessary in modern times, it's shooting yourself in the foot.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Kristopeit, Mike D. (1900570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696392)

you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

go be a communist somewhere else.

actually, towns aren't all-powerful (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696448)

The town's ability to make rules is limited by its charter and bylaws, state law, the state Constitution, the federal constitution, and where the feds have jurisdiction e.g. interstate commerce, federal law.

Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful (1)

Mike D. Kristopeit (1900568) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696484)

the town's citizen's ability to topple such towers is self evident.

Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696886)

The guy your talking to is a nutcase, you might want to avoid him in the future.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696478)

I don't think communism is a logical step in this thread of conversation; however good on you for railing against the OP's foolish post :)

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Mike Kristopeit (1900306) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696490)

the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?

that is COMMUNIST.

you're an idiot.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696538)

pot. porcelain. black.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Kristopeit, Mike (1905452) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696604)

coward.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696576)

For someone unable to work out where capital letters go in a sentence, you are very free to call other people idiots. Especially when you are completely wrong. In a communist society, there is no such thing as a 'non-state capitalist, for profit corporation'. All of the corporations are owned by the people (managed either by the central government, or via local soviets). Maybe you should actually try reading Marx, instead of using 'communist' to mean 'stuff I think is a bad idea'.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Kristopeit, Mike Da. (1905342) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696626)

WHO SAYS where capital letters go? it seems I SAY, as I HAVE DEMONSTRATED MY ABILITY TO DO SO.

i am not using 'communist' to mean 'stuff i think is a bad idea' (although it's telling that you might think i was)... i'm pointing out that 'allowing a service provider to impose themselves on lands owned and controlled by people who do not want such imposition, and the imposition is brought under the pretense that THE SERVICE IS GUARANTEED TO THE PEOPLE, AND THAT SERVICE ITSELF HAS THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE' is """COMMUNIST""". i'm saying that, BECAUSE IT IS.

you're an idiot.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696578)

the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?

that is COMMUNIST.

No, I think it's actually closer to fascist. Communists don't have "non-state capitalist, for profit corporations", remember?

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Mike Kristopeit (1900306) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696596)

you're so stupid.

my point is that if such corporations existed that WERE granted such rights THEN THE CONTROLLING ORGANIZATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL BODY WOULD BE COMMUNIST.

i can't believe how dumb you idiots are.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696666)

You're the idiot. They can build all the antennas they want. They can't turn them one and fill the PUBLIC airwaves with radiation. They don't own the airwaves across others' houses and streets.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (0, Flamebait)

Kristopeit, Mike Da. (1905342) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696694)

"turn them one", huh? how is the ownership of airwaves relevant in an eminent domain case?

you are NOTHING

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33696670)

That is the stupidest fucking thing I have heard all day.

therefore, your mum is NOTHING!!!!

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (0, Flamebait)

Kristopeit, Mike Dav (1905462) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696704)

coward.

reveal yourself to me, admit what you've done, and i will kill you.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696496)

you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

No, that's irrelevant because it does nothing to reduce the stupidity and deservingness-of-ridicule of what they decided to do.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Mike Kristopeit (1900306) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696554)

that's = that is => that = something exists. if that something exists, it's relevant.

they most certainly have the right to do whatever they want.

are you going to stop them?

you are NOTHING

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696592)

are you going to stop them?

No, I'm going to laugh at them. I thought that was the whole point of it being posted here, actually.

you are NOTHING

Well yeah, but the (lack of) meaning of life is a bit oversized of a topic for here.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Kristopeit, Mike Da. (1905342) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696660)

you admit yourself as irrelevant.

you are NOTHING

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (2, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696588)

"Homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship"? This sounds like they've confused cell towers with liquor stores.

These kinds of distance-based restrictions are usually used as a way of banning something de facto when a higher law doesn't allow banning it de jure. Like a local law which bans past sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school. Which has the (unintended?) side effect of preventing them from using the city's homeless shelters, all of which fall within that range.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696400)

Wow, you just unsuccessfully discarded much objective and insightful analysis with a single inconclusive post. Not to mention, ironically, you're effectively whining about Slashdot users. Did you intend to include yourself in that final statement? really really REALLY include?

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (1)

Mike D. Kristopeit (1900568) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696438)

so you agree with me.

Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696582)

He's a late entrant into the 'most stupid Slashdot poster of 2010' but he seems to be closing in on commodore64_love's early lead.

Cheaper tin-foil hats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696292)

Not to mention the negative effect on the economy this will have once people figure out that thinner and cheaper materials now suffice for the tin-foil hat.

Take a look at the map..... (1)

echucker (570962) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696298)

If we impose the 1,500 foot blackout around homes, day care centers, schools and houses of worship, there is what, maybe ONE place to put a tower in Hempstead? Then everyone will complain about crap for signal and bandwidth. More NIMBY at work.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Hempstead,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.313287,86.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hempstead,+Nassau,+New+York&ll=40.706214,-73.618698&spn=0.032077,0.084543&t=h&z=14 [google.com]

Re:Take a look at the map..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696366)

"I suspect that not everyone in the town will appreciate blocking out the companies that provide it"
It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want. Assuming that it didn't, that's probably the aluminium in your skull at work.

Re:Take a look at the map..... (3, Interesting)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696524)

It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.

1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.

2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?

Re:Take a look at the map..... (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696584)

Who cares? The people affected by this are the very people who voted for it. If their desire for better cellphone reception outweighs their dislike of ugly cell towers in a couple years, then they can vote differently next time. The decision to NOT build the towers is much more easily reversible than the decision to allow them.

Re:Take a look at the map..... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696814)

It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.

1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.

If you don't vote, you literally don't count.

Voting is your responsibility as a citizen. It is your civic duty. It should not be voluntary.

If somebody didn't show up to vote, and gets screwed over by this, it's their own damn fault. Maybe next time they'll show up to vote.

2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?

Probably not.

That's the big problem with the democratic process... It relies on informed voters. Too many people today base their voting decisions on fearmongering and emotional responses. Folks don't do any research, don't actually think about what they're doing. They just vote for the guy they want to hang out with. Or they vote against the guy who looks scariest in the commercials.

Same thing here.

Somebody made an impassioned argument that cell phone towers have to be all-but banned. Maybe to keep those scary radio waves from mutating your children... Maybe to preserve property values... Maybe to prop up the local phone companies... Who knows. Folks liked what they heard.

Maybe some of them really contemplated the outcome of the vote... But I doubt if many of them did.

Re:Take a look at the map..... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696852)

Good. Maybe this will be a lesson to the town about the importance of voting in elections. Maybe turnout will be better at the next election.

Re:Take a look at the map..... (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696450)

>>>If we impose the 1,500 foot blackout... there is what, maybe ONE place to put a tower?

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my art teacher. I said the US Congress has banned incandescent bulbs effective 2012. He immediately pointed out that the law doesn't directly ban incandescents. It requires a 50% reduction in energy usage. I replied that's the same effect as a direct ban because no incandescent can meet that standard, so what's the difference? None.

Same with this celltower law. It doesn't directly ban the towers, but the 1500 foot limit has the same effect, which I bet was the politicians' plan all along. "We did not ban celltowers in Hempstead." Yeah. Accept that you did because now no towers can be built.

Aside -

I consider Edison's incandescent bulbs to be a superior technology to CFLs. Fast turnon, can be used in cold/hot areas (or enclosed fixtures), cost consumers 1/10th to buy, use fewer materials, easy to recycle, and no mercury vapor.

Re:Take a look at the map..... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696652)

Unfortunately, raw materials aren't the bottleneck, where the incandescent would be superior. The energy is the issue, which is why the law addreses efficiency rather than type.

Re:Take a look at the map..... (1)

David Jensen (1987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696858)

Does the lighting law include the energy used to make and dispose of the product?

Re:Take a look at the map..... (3, Interesting)

Phoobarnvaz (1030274) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696760)

Same with this celltower law. It doesn't directly ban the towers, but the 1500 foot limit has the same effect, which I bet was the politicians' plan all along. "We did not ban celltowers in Hempstead." Yeah. Accept that you did because now no towers can be built.

Had the same issue with power plants in Arizona. During the summer...they can't produce enough power to run the AC...but heaven forbid you want to build more plants or ship in more expensive power from out of state. When you get outages and brownouts...these same people bitch/moan that more power is needed without the plants or raising their electric bills. When the solutions are there in plain view...not in my backyard and you better not obstruct my views either.

The funniest part of this is the ones crying the loudest about the lack of service are the ones who don't want the plants/towers where they can be seen...even from Pluto.

Re:Take a look at the map..... (5, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696762)

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my art teacher. I said the US Congress has banned incandescent bulbs effective 2012. He immediately pointed out that the law doesn't directly ban incandescents. It requires a 50% reduction in energy usage. I replied that's the same effect as a direct ban because no incandescent can meet that standard, so what's the difference? None.

There's a big difference.

The reason why the law makes an efficiency requirement is because it's not the bulbs themselves that are the concern, but the energy they use. Banning incandescent light bulbs specifically would allow them to be replaced with something even less efficient, if there's an alternative that's cheap and isn't technically an "incandescent light bulb". If that happened, the law would have had the opposite of the desired effect.

By writing the law that way you don't mandate or exclude any technology. If an incandescent light bulb can be made to be efficient enough, that's just fine.

Other progressive ideas they should adopt (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696302)

  • D&D players must be kept at least 100 meters from jocks at all times to prevent Satanic jinxes from affecting the football team.
  • 6-year-old girls must be kept 10 meters away from 6-year-old boys while in school to prevent transmission of cooties.
  • Doctors administering placebos must pinky-swear that they really work in order to enhance the placebo strength.
  • Fire trucks are prohibited from operating their ladders at more than an 10-degree angle from vertical, to avoid bad luck caused by walking under them.
  • Black cats to be tied up in a sack and thrown into Long Island Sound.

Re:Other progressive ideas they should adopt (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696888)

"Black cats to be tied up in a sack and thrown into Long Island Sound."

I think that's standard procedure when Cablevision comes out to fix problems with your service, innit?

Places of worship? (1)

sea4ever (1628181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696330)

I don't understand the purpose of these regulations at all. What difference does it make how close a tower is to a day care center or place of worship?
Within 1,500 feet of homes? How do they expect to get cellular service at home, then? Hm.

Re:Places of worship? (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696376)

I don't understand the purpose of these regulations at all. What difference does it make how close a tower is to a day care center or place of worship? Within 1,500 feet of homes? How do they expect to get cellular service at home, then? Hm.

I have two guesses which aren't mutually exclusive. The first is that someone has bought into the hysteria that cell phones cause radiation damage and hence wants them far away from places where people gather or live. Second, that this is a sly attempt to create a monopoly for a provider. It'd be interesting to see if someone already satisfies these regulations. If we start seeing more extremely restrictive regulations like this, that would be an indication that someone is organizing local monopolies.

Re:Places of worship? (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696428)

Now define "places of worship". Turn your house into a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you don't get a tower within 1500ft. And if they still do it, take them to the Supreme Court on the grounds of religious bias. Actually, that's what any geek in the town should do and pretty quickly, you'll have no cell towers, rendering the regulations completely unworkable.

Re:Places of worship? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696594)

Your house is covered by the 'homes' part of the ban already. Places of worship are presumably there because they are places where people congregate. They don't want to include all buildings, because that would include all sorts of uninhabited structures.

Re:Places of worship? (1)

Kristopeit, Mike Dav (1905462) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696722)

how about unobstructed views of ornate places of worship that generally include towering structures of their own?

it's a good thing your understanding is irrelevant.

Transmissions from phone (2, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696334)

Fact is that your mobile phone will send a stronger signal if it notices that the cell tower is far away, so that the signal can be received there. So if you vary the distance from the cell tower, radiation from the tower will get less when you move further away, but radiation from your phone will get more. There is an optimal spot in between where the total radiation hitting you is minimised.

I would assume that this optimal point is less than 1500 feet from the tower. If that is the case, then anyone using their phone in these "protected" places will receive more radiation.

Re:Transmissions from phone (1)

Quantumstate (1295210) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696530)

Your point ignores the fact that your phone is in use for a small fraction of the day but the tower is in constant use. You need to apply a large adjustment on the optimal range for this.

Re:Transmissions from phone (3, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696598)

Mom? Is that you? Because everyone else I know leaves their cell phone on all the time.

Re:Transmissions from phone (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696614)

Your phone does a periodic handshake with the tower, so that the operator knows which cell to route your calls to. If the cell is far away, this handshake has to be much stronger. You can test this quite easily by watching how much battery life suffers on a phone in standby mode when the signal strength is low.

Phones with no antennas? (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696352)

Administrators don't want antennas close to homes but they probably want their citizens to be able to use mobile phones inside their homes. One would think about upping the power but you can't have too high levels close to the antennas. Furthermore the higher bandwidth you want, the smaller you have to keep the cell radius. I wonder if they'll be able to use anything more than 2G there but I'm sure people will be blaming the operators.

Houses of worship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696370)

... houses of worship? Seriously?
Do microwaves interfere with prayers or something?

This passage from Neil Gaiman's Color Colours comes to mind:

The old priest pockets the coin, gives me
a bag of crumbs as a bonus,
sits on his steps, hugging himself

I feel the need to say something before I leave.
Look, I tell him, it's not your fault.
It's just a multi-user system.
You weren't to know.
If prayers could be networked,
if saintware were up and running,
if you could make your side as reliable as they've made theirs...
"What You See," he mutters desolately
"What You See Is What You Get." He crumbles a communion wafer
throws it down for the pigeons,
makes no attempt to catch even the slowest bird.

Cold wars produce bad losers.
I go home.

Re:Houses of worship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696456)

That should of course be Cold Colours. Silly typo.

places of worship (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696372)

so, maybe they can form a religion around these towers and hold services?

That church steeple may be a cell phone tower (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696418)

Hey, they do it with trees [palomar.edu] .

Oh wait, it's actually happening already [unmuseum.org] .

Reality called ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696382)

And it would like to point out that the article starts by pointing out that this applies to new tower construction. It does not mean that existing towers must come down.

Re:Reality called ... (3, Insightful)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696508)

So then did the companies with existing towers lobby heavily for this so they can leverage their newly-created prime real estate?

Re:Reality called ... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696602)

I thought there were already laws forcing cell companies to share towers, so there aren't multiple sets of towers in place wasting space and trashing the skyline? If there aren't, there certainly should be.

They should be doing exactly the reverse (4, Interesting)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696386)

Assuming signal strength is somehow harmful, they're doing the exactly wrong thing to deal with it.

By imposing those limits, they force towers to be further apart. To cover the area anyway they'll have to bring the power way up. The schools, daycare centers and so on will probably get about the same amount of RF as before, but whatever is near that tower will get cooked. And for those who protest the aesthetics, it's going to be a big ugly one as well.

What they should be doing instead is peppering the area with a weak tower on every roof. Then they can have coverage without strong emitters anywhere.

Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse (5, Insightful)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696590)

Also, in order to communicate with the distant tower, the actual cell phone (the thing that delivers the most radiation to your head) must boost its power.

Counterpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696390)

If aesthetics are the issue they're legislating against, here is the alternative:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/04/03/gallery-cell-phone-towers-pretending-to-be-trees/ [infrastructurist.com]

Re:Counterpoint (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696476)

Make like a tree and gimme 3G!

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696406)

News flash. We don't need to be always connected, have Internet access in every nook and cranny, or engulf our homes in a mesh of (more) RF. I make my living in IT, but honestly sometimes (more and more lately) I wish it would all go away. Well, most of it anyway.

Re:Good! (4, Insightful)

Risha (999721) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696470)

There are often times when I wish to be less connected. However, nice of you to make the decision as to where and when for everyone around you, too.

That reminds me... (3, Funny)

Liambp (1565081) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696434)

About 15 years ago my rural dwelling brother law was a leading light in a somewhat successful local campaign against the "radiation masts" that were sprouting up around the country side. As a city dweller who lived even then in a veritable sea of electromagnetic waves I was pretty sceptical of their protests and today , 15 years later, I am amused at his constant complaints that he cannot get a decent phone or internet signal.

Cancel their ass (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696458)

So if carriers still provide service there, it will be spotty, customers will complain, reputation suffers. Sounds like a place to *not* do business.

The carriers should just pull out, and blackhole it. Add a new color to their coverage map for "we could work here, but the city government has its head up its ass"

The cell carriers should cancel the accounts of the bozo city officials who supported this.

Then the city can be a haven to the "get off of my yard" geezers.

That American Cancer Society... (2, Insightful)

hockeyc (1675766) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696472)

From TFA:

'Our position is we want to be more proactive.' said Jody Turk-Goldberg, co-founder of a civic group called 'Moms of Merrick,' which discounts pronouncements by groups like the American Cancer Society that conclude there is scant evidence that cell towers are a health hazard. 'We saw what the tobacco companies did years ago; everybody said smoking was safe,' she added

You know those blasted scientists and the American Cancer Society, definitely in the pocket of "Big Cell Phone"

Re:That American Cancer Society... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33696550)

More likely they have a big cell phone in their pocket.

Re:That American Cancer Society... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696696)

Cellphones are a much bigger source of radiation to your body than a celltower. Now, if you move the celltower further away, what does the cellphone need to do to reach it? Pump the power, radiating even more, at a geometrical increase depending on the distance.

And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again... (2, Interesting)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696528)

This sort of legislation is due to the "OMFG I KIN FEEL IT IN MY BWAIN!!!" tinfoil hat crowd, saying "RADIASION IZ KILLIN DE BEEZ!"

And since the vast majority of people don't see fit to have an opinion on this, the vocal moronity - err, minority - are all that is heard, and the politicians will bow to the herd to get votes.

The right answer IMHO would be for all the carriers to say "OK, fine - since you are too sensitive for our signals, we will remove them." Let us see what happens when Joe Ranknfile finds his precccisouuuussss cellphone doesn't work, and it is due to the tinfoil hat brigade and the spineless political hacks who covet their votes. Suddenly it won't be JUST the tinfoilers who are making themselves heard.

Placebo effect is real... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696630)

If they want to vote themselves shitty cellphone coverage in their nurseries and schools then let them. Hope they can get a signal when snowflake is choking on something...

Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696656)

Yes. They're also putting COLORS in the water now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8 [youtube.com]

Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696780)

Let's make a list of related lunatic fringe causes:

Artificial Sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose)
Vaccines particularly MMR
Chlorination / Fluoridation of drinking water
HFCS
Glyphosate
GMOs

Any more?

And here's the other half of the issue... (1)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696552)

And here's the other half of the issue:

"... unless the company can prove absolute need."

Such proof being provided on the memo line of a check with a lot of zeros, made out to the politico's reelection fund.

Somehow, I would guess that if Verizon wanted a cell site at some location, there are, $hall we $say, way$ to $ee $omething like that happen$.

Leave it to the "Ban Everything" Coasts... (3, Interesting)

rally2xs (1093023) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696564)

Yeah, well, if they're that upset about radiation, maybe we don't give them television, radio, ban the 2-ways in the police, fire, and ambulance, nobody can own a cell phone or any other 2-way communications, no more wireless computer networks, wi-fi, etc. Landline phones only, no remote car door unlockers or garage door raisers... its fun to take it to an extreme... but this is already an extreme...

Its dumb as a box of rocks. All they're saying is, "We don't want ANYTHING to change, anywhere, anytime, for any reason."

People I love to hate...

Shut 'em all down (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696580)

Verizon (and other cell companies) should not only no longer place cell sites in Hempstead. They should disconnect all the sectors of out of town antennas which point into Hempstead, and make the whole thing a dead zone. Then there's a few things that could happen.

1) Much of Hempstead's population will get sick of being in a dead zone and will tell the tinfoil hatter's to STFU and repeal the law.
2) Hempstead will become a destination for tinfoil hatters and cranky old cellphone haters, and everyone's happy.
3) (most likely) Much of Hempstead's population will want their cell phone reception, but they'll fail to see any connection between lack of reception and anti-tower laws. They'll then complain that they're somehow being mistreated and/or discriminated against by the carriers. Maybe they'll even try a lawsuit. The rest of us will all have a good laugh at their expense.

Not uncommon (2, Interesting)

PNutts (199112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696616)

TFA mentions another city that tried similar restrictions and was overturned by a federal court. There is a proposed Wi-Max tower half a block from my house and the neighborhood is doing everything they can to stop it. The city has made it clear they have no say in the matter as tower placement is governed by the state and feds. So... IMHO Hempstead will be in court the next time a carrier proposes a new tower, and while it may delay the tower being built Hempstead spend a lot of money and lose. Also, cell towers are a source of revenue and in my part of town they are primarily on school buildings (the building itself or their chimneys), churches, watertowers, one in a graveyard, etc. We have very few stand-alone towers which may be part of the NIMBY here.

Scary towers! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33696622)

five children who attended school 50 feet from cell antennas on a water tower have been diagnosed with cancer or leukemia and three have died

So ... instead of looking for the actual cause of the cancers you decided the tower was a good enough scapegoat?

Darwin in action.

I don't see the problem, (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696640)

since there are companies [ipr-berlin.com] which specialize in "neutralizing interference waves which are harmful to humans".

In fact I'm thinking of founding a company myself. I could easily disperse the harmful magnetic flux components by switching the polarity in the tachion inverter matrix and rerouting the resulting neutrino flux through the phase coils in the flux capacitor. Now, if only I could find my field remodulator!

Good, next up, electricity (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696698)

I hope Hempstead bans telephone polls and electrical wires too. And streetlights, and traffic signals.

Re:Good, next up, electricity (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696752)

Everything that emits electromagnetic radiation has to go.

Re:Good, next up, electricity (1)

Grayraven (95321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696818)

Well, the goes the sun then.

Give them a taste of what they want (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696724)

On the day when the law comes into force, the companies should just turn off the towers within the limited areas for 30 minutes during a peak time, along with appropriate publication in local media before that.

Then the citizens can decide if their representatives are representing well, and the (currently) silent majority is welcome to lynch the activist group that achieved this.

non-issue (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696794)

"Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from considering health issues in approving locations for cell antennas, a group of mothers concerned about what they consider risky cell towers outside their children's schools successfully lobbied the town of Hempstead. While the town board adhered to FCC regulations to not consider possible health effects, officials instead described the vote as a quality of life issue. The ordinance provides real protection against the siting of cell towers and antennae in locations that would adversely impact home values or the character of local neighborhoods,"

They town board thinks they're being creative and sneaking around the law, but their about to have the full weight of the multi-billion dollar cellular industry descend on them in the form of a tornado of lawyers that are going to ass-rape their board members until no other municipality ever thinks of trying something this stupid again.

So... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 3 years ago | (#33696836)

So is this the result of:

1. Fraudulent and false claims of injury due to radio wave emission?

2. Scams by local governments preferring to force people to have to use their police tower, at rates 3-4x the going rate for private towers?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?