Apple says it takes 3 years to get a new cell tower in San Francisco - Page 3

It doesn't have to fool anyone except the idiot politicians. They can pretend that they're preserving the native beauty of the place - and not realize that everyone is laughing at them behind their backs.


I have no problem with that (or the person who posted something similar about Texas). The real problem is people who want everything and don't want to deal with the consequences.

If the people of San Francisco made a knowledgeable decision that they were not willing to have any more cell phone towers and that their phone reception would stink because of that choice, that's their choice to make.

Or, if they decided that they want cell phone coverage, but don't like the appearance of the towers so they'd hire an architect to work with the cell phone people to disguise the towers, that's OK.

Or, if they decide that they can live with those silly palm tree monstrosities, that's their choice.

Or, if they invest in technology to try to make it possible to have improved cell phone reception with existing tower, that would be a reasonable choice.

The problem is that they want great cell phone coverage and don't want to pay the price in any way. Like the people with their 6,000 square foot homes with 4 a/c units, home theatre, etc - but who won't vote for power plants in their state. Choices have consequences - and the sooner people learn that, the better.

My guess is that there was at least one cell in San Fran that took over thirty months to approve, so Steve is telling the truth.

The press loves RIM and hates Apple.

I imagine that your post is well founded in reality.

I don't know about that. I hadn't seen a lot of articles promoting RIM products.


2000? I think AT&T was a different company then, wasn't it Cingular there at that time, before they were bought by AT&T?

What is the issue with electromagnetic radiation? Are there signal interference problems?

I think the idea is to draw a little less attention to the stark look that would be an antenna alone. Maybe they could design some huge bumpers for these antennae.

It would be interesting reading if someone knows of studies that compare the licensing and safety/health issues in other countries around the world on this.

Cingular was purchased by SBC, which also purchased the name ATT when ATT was dissolved. It then renamed itself ATT, even though it's really SBC (or was). ATT was broken into the baby bells back in the '80s, then was eventually eaten by one of its own offspring so to speak. Somewhere in this whole thing GTE was absorbed as well (I think by Cingular first in the '90s).

If what you and your ilk spew about at&t were even 10% true why hasn't Verizon (goddess of networks) taken over the entire country by now and put lowlife at&t out of business. The following answers are just FUD smokescreens...

1. Stupid people stay with at&t.

2. Nobody leaves because of their contract.

3. They like their iPhone.

People have had plenty of time to leave at&t for the land of milk and honey. People would move if they were as disatisfied as your crowd says they are.

Nope. It's just more bullshit from bullshit artists who think they are tuff stuff by spewing their bullshit. Your bullshit is no different than the bullshit vomited by the Android crowd.

That's false. When RIM messed up with that hunk of junk blackberry storm, they got demolished too. I feel Apple gets a huge lashing for messing up often simply because of the fanboys. Apple fanboys love to rub how perfect Apple products are in people's faces, and thus people jump on apple issues.

That being said, Apple also has been trying to paint this issue as different than it actually is. The attenuation with all phones is true, but I don't think they accidentally omitted the fact that the iphone 4 sees a bigger decrease in signal than even the iphone 3gs.

Actually a report (NYTimes I think) shows Verizon catching up with ATT in terms of # even without the iPhone. This is why Verizon don't really want the iPhone, they're in bed with Google/Android

Someone should sue San Francisco claiming that it is a public safety issue.

I will make this clear. San Francisco is a class act city. Yes, it has some pessimistic [to put it mildly] council members who want every aspect of their long-term plans for preserving a level of social diversity addressed. No, they don't want a bunch of cheap towers. Yes, they want the most blended in towers designers can make to keep the aesthetics of the landscape the same.

No go visit Orlando. What a dump. I lived there as well. It's a dump. Go to Seattle. It's a mix of a beautiful city with dumpy areas. Certain areas are very difficult to get more towers installed. Others are glad to put up any old cheap tower for a quick fix.

Now go to Eastern WA and you'll discover with all the rollling hills and valleys it presents unique landscape challenges for any design of towers. Even in Spokane, where I grew up, you have a lengthy process for such expansion.

We've debated a downtown zone with a developer for more than 25 years. He wants Manhattan pricing for a prime piece of Real-Estate and due to the GOP leaning Supreme Court he's going to get Eminent-Domain pricing. Personally, he doesn't deserve that for a nearly 30 years delay of a critical part of downtown he dictated.

Thanks to Washington State University and the University of Washington bringing a full Medical University on WSU Spokane, people are finally realizing what a prick he has been. He was one architect.

People haven't a clue how land developers with questionable taste can shape the direction of any city. San Francisco is not the exception. It just happens to be a very visible norm.

You should all watch this video about the iPhone. its short, on point and puts a lot of things in perspective: http://vimeo.com/13406519

San Francisco WAS a class act city.


Now go ride a MUNI, you can watch a homeless (literally) take a dump.

Bam! Said the guy with the Mac Pro.

I bet you were running all sorts of crazy stuff and still had plenty leftover CPU to fire up the troll hammer! Sweet.

You're right, the AT&T "family history" is a twisty one.

SF looks pretty nice... from the Berkeley Hills above Oakland... all the way across the bay.

But inside the city... It's the decaying 100 year old infrastructure of a city that long outgrew it peninsula... the ultimate example of runaway urban sprawl in California. Those horribly-ugly bunches of power lines over every street are the biggest urban eye sore in the country, and a fitting reminder that your local goverent is more concerned with telling people and businesses what they can't do, than focusing on tangible public works. This is also why SF is almost am hour away from where the real technological heart of the Bay Area - Silicon Valley. San Jose has it's problems, but in comparison - SF is the retarded, redheaded step-brother... One who desperately needs a diaper change... BTW what is up with that piss smell that permeates seemingly every section of the city?

I'd stop longer to investigate, but your wonderful city gov can't manage to figure out how to zone for parking... not surprising you clowns aren't too good with roads, cables, cell towers or any kind of data flow thru. Enjoy your dirty hippy coffee bars, maybe some more revenue from a few drive-thrus might fix some idiocy. Better yet, bulldoze some of those rat traps along 19th avenue for a real freeway.

So, you're saying you can get a cell tower cleared for installation in significantly less time?

I think a lot of people would like to take you up on that.

As far as I know, most towers are shared by all the phone providers. So this isn't just a problem for ATT.

Here is a post of mine from a visit to Las Vegas where I found an AT&T antenna "disguised" as a palm tree. You be the judge of how "deceptive" it is.

The three-year process for a new antenna site sounds about right. The Clearwire folks have said many times that siting antennas is the longest part of a rollout process... mainly because everyone wants wireless data, but nobody wants the antenna in their back yard.

Which is also why iPhone reception issues aren't going to get better anytime soon, no matter what AT&T says. Lack of spectrum and not enough antennas means more crowded airwaves for the foreseeable future. Can't change physics, folks.

San Francisco is "the ultimate example of runaway urban sprawl" but San Jose is.... what, again?

Seems like for some, the culture wars are alive and well, and still trump reality.

More like the general press doesn't care about RIM, which is probably the WORST position for a company to be in.

I've never been to SanFran, so I can't comment on how nice it is but what I've seen in this thread just looks to be both extremes. Throwing up some cell towers isn't going to suddenly turn a pristine city into a dump. I do agree though that if the people in SanFran don't want more cell towers, then stop complaining when you have no service.

Reminds of the of the environmentalists who want clean energy but then fight wind turbines miles off the coast because it ruins the view from their beach house.

Research the difference between Verizons CDMA based service and the GSM network that the ATT network is based on.... Hint one needs 5x+ the number of towers to service the same patch of earth and thus the problem isn't REALLY the same for all carriers...

so hopefully reception will improve by Sept. of this year

Takes far longer for AT&T to put in a tower in Montana and that has nothing to do with regulations.

San Francisco and the bay area are beautiful places, and I enjoy visiting when I can. But SF doesn't have a lock on entrenched bureaucracy, and people who have concerns about the health effects of cell towers in close proximity need to look at the evidence of holding a cell phone up to your ear for prolonged periods.
I live in Little Rock, a small city by comparison, and some would say an "ugly" city. I have a cell tower twenty feet from my property line. I don't even notice it unless their are technicians working on it ( you can hear them talk when you're outside). Of course I also get great reception and quick 3G as well. About two miles from me is another cell tower by a church. It has crosses on it, and I'm sure Jesus is happy about it.
What I mean to say is that we are moving toward more mobile forms of communication, and city planners must be ready to respond. Future development should be wired up for these things. And certainly, the bright minds on the left coast can work this out.
As for politics, yeah, SF has it's share of left-leaning folks. But the desire to keep things the same and challenge innovation and resist change--Isn'tthat the very definition of conservatism?

Small correction; Supervisors are elected in each district, I believe 10. They serve on the Board of Supervisors (not a City Council) Most are left wing nuts (Google Chris Daly) District elections in SF are very corrupt, one supervisor bused homeless folks from a soup kitchen to the polls to vote for him.

And yes, at a recent hearing before the board, Hundreds of folks showed up to condemn a cell phone tower for health reasons. And yes, they all had cell phones, lol, go figure.

The nearest cemetery (excluding Mission Deloris) to SF is in Colma, around 10 miles south.

you can build towers inside almost any building billboard or structure. in nyc verizon has towers and repeaters every where . when they fight verizon
verizon moves 8 blocks a way and builds in it there quietly

verizon can makes calls thru the canyons of nyc
ATT has no 30 yr infrastructure to build upon
ATT has CING1 EQUIPMENT

the hills of san fran must make any tele carrier nuts

9

I've even gotten service in the subway on Verizon at times

Removed

AT&T Wireless pre-dated Cingluar. Cingular purchased AT&T Wireless around '04. Cingular was co-owned by SBC and BellSouth at the time.

SBC purchased AT&T and adopted that name. AT&T didn't dissolve, nor was the name purchased by SBC. Cingular became wholly owned by the (new) AT&T when T bought BLS in last couple of years..

Right. Has all to do with population density and where you get the best bang for your money.

I find it incredibly obnoxious how Apple tries to blame AT&T for all of this, when they share the responsibility because they won't simply BRING THE DAMN PHONE TO OTHER CARRIERS.

If the iPhone's userbase were spread between AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile, we wouldn't have these stupid problems. But no, they want to stay in a monogamous **** **** ***** **** ***** relationship with AT&T forever, like they are in love and want to *** **** ***** with them.

I wonder what sort of **** **** ****** **** **** goes on when they have executive board meetings? I feel sorry for the poor janitors.

Or hire some local artists to design artwork to go around the antenna. It could even be used as a fundraiser (my city did it with penguins all over the city, each designed by a different artist).


I find it obnoxious when people attack Apple with silly, unfounded nonsense.

Apple has never blamed AT&T. Apple said that you're more likely to drop calls when you're in a weak signal area. They also said that the 'dropping bars' problem is more likely to happen in a weak signal area. How is that blaming AT&T? It's simply true - no matter who the carrier is. The same statement applies to every single phone ever built and every single phone network. When the signal is weak, you're more likely to have problems than when you have a strong signal.

Attacking Apple for that statement is just plain foolish.

I'm attacking Apple because despite the fact that so many people are bitching about what a crap network AT&T is, they stick with AT&T as if they were happily married.

I have a love/hate relationship with Apple. I love Macs, but hate the iPhone division, because it seems they're all about pandering to AT&T and restricting what you can do with their products.

For example, you would think being able to tether a Wifi iPad to use an iPhone's data connection would be a very natural thing to allow. Did they allow it? Of course not.

-Z

I guess that's a price we have to pay in the "Last Best Place", but that hasn't stopped Verizon from putting in a great network here. Plus, more than a few people from all over the world visit those little places like Yellowstone and Glacier. Don't bother to bring your AT&T phone when you do ... ;-)

I have probably done my fair share of bitching about AT&T's service, but lately I have come to appreciate it a little more.

Every year, I go and spend at least 2 weeks camping out at the Kerrville Folk Festival in rural Texas in late may/early june.

Generally, the reception at the campsite is OK. Voice works just fine, but only edge for data. There is wifi that I can receive from the area that I camp, but it can be pretty slow. This year, seeing as I was taking 2 devices with me, iPhone 3GS and iPad (wifi), I thought that I would stack the deck a little in my favor.

I bought a Sprint Overdrive gadget which acts as a wifi hotspot with 4G/3G about 2 weeks before my trip. I live in Houston which is one of the cities that has 4G. Since it is essential to have high speed internet for my work (self employed trader), I figured I can use it as a backup for when cable goes out - which it does sometimes, and it would great for the vacation. I had no illusions that it would work as 4G in Kerrville, but 3G would be just fine. The subscription of $60 or so per month is not out of line.

I should have known better when at the Sprint store, the Overdrive only had 3G connection. When I brought it home it would flit from 4G to 3G, and the speed that I got using speedtest was slower than what I get on my at&t connection.

I went to various locations around the city in the next few days, and was alarmed at how few places I could actually get a 4G signal, and in some places (again in the city) I got no signal at all. This sucked. I ended up returning it after about 4 days since I don't think it was ready for prime time yet.

Anyway at the campsite, the people that I was camping close to were heavily geek leaning. My iPhone worked well, as did the iPad (albeit slower than at home, but I expected it). One of the guys had a Blackberry (Verizon) that was provided for him by his employer. Like my iPhone it worked well for voice and texting. He did not not use internet on his phone at all but had a netbook which worked OK.

Another guy had an Android phone (N1 ) under TMobile. He was pretty proud of it - would never consider any apple product. He also had some kind of internet gadget - a little bigger than the iPod touch, but smaller than the iPad. Don't know the make. What I found amusing was that he got no voice signal on his phone, and his internet gadget just wouldn't pick up the wifi signal. He had to borrow my phone or one of the other guys' any time he wanted to make a call. I found that amusing only because he was so anti iPhone.

Since I have had my iPhone 4 (got it about a week after it came out), I have experienced 3 dropped calls, two of which may well have been a problem on the other end. That's with about 6+ hours of call time. I consider the antenna issues to be a nonissue. Trust me, I would have returned it otherwise. In every way, the product is very good, perhaps the best phone I have ever owned.

In all my experience with AT&T lately has actually been decent. The only places that I have not gotten a signal (Big Sur, CA, and somewhere in rural West Virginia), other cell phones (carriers) didn't get any reception either. Data throughput has been quite acceptable. There have been places where I did not get 3G, but Edge generally was available.

I have not been with another carrier in several years, so I cannot comment on others (other than the few days I spent with Sprint, and was unimpressed). Verizon is said to be decent, and I have no reason to doubt that. I like iPhones (and other Apple products) and see no reason to change carriers at this point.