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

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 138
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Insert generic San Francisco bashing here ___________.



    I see I am too late.
  • Reply 22 of 138
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Insert generic San Francisco bashing here ___________.



    I see I am too late.



    This is the first time San Francisco has been known to not fully embrace a few rods!





    i got nuthin :/
  • Reply 23 of 138
    poochpooch Posts: 768member
    i live in san francisco. by all means, apple and at&t, please publish a list of the pending tower requests you have for the city of san francisco and i will contact my supervisor.
  • Reply 24 of 138
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "It's one of the toughest spots to get approvals," Jobs said. "Sometimes I think they should enlist the support of all the iPhone users in the community."



    Just give everyone a micro-cell.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post


    i live in san francisco. by all means, apple and at&t, please publish a list of the pending tower requests you have for the city of san francisco and i will contact my supervisor.



    Why? Who is your supervisor and what can he do?
  • Reply 25 of 138
    ilovestuffilovestuff Posts: 143member
    It take four years to get a banana tree in SF!
  • Reply 26 of 138
    rexeyrexey Posts: 1member
    Is he explaining the reason why apple is not going to other networks, or is he explaining the reason why apple IS GOING TO TO OTHER NETWORKS! If not.....
  • Reply 27 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post


    i live in san francisco. by all means, apple and at&t, please publish a list of the pending tower requests you have for the city of san francisco and i will contact my supervisor.



    They're available *someplace*, I just don't know where on http:www.sfgov.org .



    Nothing like listening to a room full of parents at my daughters' elementary school pushing a petition for AT&T to be kept from installing a new antenna near the school. Of course, all of them have mobile phones. They even barked down a doctor who thought the antenna wasn't such a problem.



    I'm sorry, but I won't say where AT&T finally put the antenna because that would identify which school it is and they'd lose even more enrollment than they have recently. They keep me out of the school probably because I am a watchdog on them... I wonder why my youngest still goes there, but my wife thinks all other schools will toss her out (No drugs, no weapons, just a personality for which many people flame us).
  • Reply 28 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hansende View Post


    "AT&T has tried to make them look like banana trees". How about Apple trees?



    Because a 200-foot tall tree with everlasting fruit is a bit obvious.



    Hmm, all what's needed is for someone to discover that some rare bug uses cell phone towers for its habitat. Boom, problem solved. SF would become a forest of cell towers.
  • Reply 29 of 138
    ilovestuffilovestuff Posts: 143member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Apple 'says' all manner of things... One learns to discern what's most likely rubbish - Like This!



    What do most people do with all the garbage you say? Like this?
  • Reply 30 of 138
    silenciosilencio Posts: 134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post


    i live in san francisco. by all means, apple and at&t, please publish a list of the pending tower requests you have for the city of san francisco and i will contact my supervisor.



    It was just a couple of weeks ago in the Chronicle that I read an article about some NIMBY mom with her brood of three little rugrats who was fighting T-Mobile over their plans to install a cell tower inside a church steeple in the Mission District. These people aren't concerned about the aesthetics of the towers, they're concerned about the effects of the electromagnetic radiation they emit.



    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAT01E8QTQ.DTL



    I think it's an excellent idea for AT&T to alert people to the planning meetings in San Francisco where new cell tower proposals are discussed. These NIMBYs should not get to spout their superstitious blather unopposed.
  • Reply 31 of 138
    donarbdonarb Posts: 52member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post


    i live in san francisco. by all means, apple and at&t, please publish a list of the pending tower requests you have for the city of san francisco and i will contact my supervisor.



    Dude, you do understand that Apple does not have any pending requests for cell towers? Anywhere, in any city in the world. You know why? Because they are not in the business of providing cell service. Call your supervisor and ask what towers are proposed for your neighborhood and what is the holdup.



    And for the guy asking about a supervisor, in San Francisco, a supervisor is a member of the city council that represents the city neighborhoods.
  • Reply 32 of 138
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,608member
    The cell phone companies are taking the wrong approach. They need to push micro and pico-cell sites in buildings and on street lights that cover a radius of 100m or less. Traditional tower installations are a lost cause; there isn't the spectrum to heavily centralize the infrastructure.



    For San Francisco, that would be a worst-case total of 4,000 pole-top towers... at a cost of less than $10k per tower. Triple that to cover the SF factor, but you are still coming out pretty far ahead. Ricochet was able to do it for higher power boxes twelve years ago...
  • Reply 33 of 138
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Apple 'says' all manner of things... One learns to discern what's most likely rubbish - Like This!



    Nice trolling. Or to be more specific, saying any manner of things.
  • Reply 34 of 138
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


    Damn...those would be some HUGE banana trees!



    I didn't find a banana tree, but here is an evergreen tree-style tower:



    Tree tower



    I think it was in a national park.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post


    The noisiest ATT customers are in SFO and NYC. In SFO get off your asses and tell your govt you don't want a landline. Stop bitching about ATT if you're too lazy to vote or write your rep.



    This is necessary so some sanity can be put into the local political processes, because it's mostly nutcases that attend local meetings. As you can imagine with that scenario, commissioners can get inundated by a minority of cranks that rely on fear for their daily personal motivation.



    Quote:

    ATT handles more traffic than all the other carriers combined. That's frikkin heroic. Don't like it stop being a whiny brat and switch.



    Where do you get traffic figures? I haven't seen any cellular data traffic figures, aggregated or otherwise, except articles saying that most "mobile" web traffic comes from iOS devices. I don't think that translates to AT&T having more traffic than all other traffic combined, because that web traffic information doesn't distinguish traffic from cellular and traffic from WiFi, and I also don't think iPhones are the majority of the AT&T devices in use.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    The cell phone companies are taking the wrong approach. They need to push micro and pico-cell sites in buildings and on street lights that cover a radius of 100m or less. Traditional tower installations are a lost cause; there isn't the spectrum to heavily centralize the infrastructure.



    For San Francisco, that would be a worst-case total of 4,000 pole-top towers... at a cost of less than $10k per tower. Triple that to cover the SF factor, but you are still coming out pretty far ahead. Ricochet was able to do it for higher power boxes twelve years ago...



    I agree, this may be they way to go, if you divide the spectrum to smaller radii, then you'll have a lot more potential capacity. And I suspect you would have a lot fewer problems with dead spots.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post


    i live in san francisco. by all means, apple and at&t, please publish a list of the pending tower requests you have for the city of san francisco and i will contact my supervisor.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by donarb View Post


    Dude, you do understand that Apple does not have any pending requests for cell towers? Anywhere, in any city in the world. You know why? Because they are not in the business of providing cell service.



    Even though Apple isn't involved in the actual service, was your nitpicking really necessary? The problem does affect Apple unfortunately, which is why the question came up at an Apple press event, and it does sound like they're keeping tabs on the situation and might actually have that information.



    You seem to have ignored the part where AT&T was in the comment too.
  • Reply 35 of 138
    psych_guypsych_guy Posts: 481member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    The cell phone companies are taking the wrong approach. They need to push micro and pico-cell sites in buildings and on street lights that cover a radius of 100m or less. Traditional tower installations are a lost cause; there isn't the spectrum to heavily centralize the infrastructure.



    For San Francisco, that would be a worst-case total of 4,000 pole-top towers... at a cost of less than $10k per tower. Triple that to cover the SF factor, but you are still coming out pretty far ahead. Ricochet was able to do it for higher power boxes twelve years ago...



    I worked at Metricom and that failure made it virtually impossible to do those kind of installations again. Many cities were burned by that model. That being said, the push is for DAS networks. Look up Distributed Antenna Systems. But even then, the City does not want them. They are very anti-cellular technology, despite what asshole DaHarder thinks.



    Speaking as one who works in the industry, SJ is right. And not just in SF either. There are many many cities that want their cell phones but don't want the towers.
  • Reply 36 of 138
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    The cell phone companies are taking the wrong approach. They need to push micro and pico-cell sites in buildings and on street lights that cover a radius of 100m or less. Traditional tower installations are a lost cause; there isn't the spectrum to heavily centralize the infrastructure.



    For San Francisco, that would be a worst-case total of 4,000 pole-top towers... at a cost of less than $10k per tower. Triple that to cover the SF factor, but you are still coming out pretty far ahead. Ricochet was able to do it for higher power boxes twelve years ago...



    IDK if they are called micro-cell towers, but the providers have been placing small cell antennas on buildings in urban areas for a long time. You still have to find suitable buildings to put them on.
  • Reply 37 of 138
    macinthe408macinthe408 Posts: 1,050member
    Are banana trees native to Northern California? Or, for that matter, California? Or, for that matter, the USA?



    That might be your problem right there.
  • Reply 38 of 138
    tt92618tt92618 Posts: 444member
    What's the prob? It takes half that long to get an iPhone 4
  • Reply 39 of 138
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    IDK if they are called micro-cell towers, but the providers have been placing small cell antennas on buildings in urban areas for a long time. You still have to find suitable buildings to put them on.



    Yep... A town where I once lived was very anti tower and for most of the 90s we went without any coverage at all.... Then the cell providers made deals with many of the large churches in town to ingeniously locate antennas inside the large/tall steeples... Then the town once again stepped in and put the kibosh on the deals... Why? The town was going to take away the churches tax exempt status since profits on the agreements weren't looked at too favorably by the town leadership.



    So... Another few years went by and we finally got a tower on the side of our local highway that looks exactly like that silly tree tower linked to above. The picture doesn't do it justice since 3 qtrs of the 'tree' is just brown steel and then near the very to are these silly tree branches. It looks so silly.



    So just a heads up that SF isn't the only tower troublemakers.. They have at least one sister city back east...
  • Reply 40 of 138
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Maybe if you (and your ilk) would removed those Apple-tinted goggles every once in a while you'd better see that no company is infallible... no matter how much you claim otherwise.



    Maybe you can pull your head out of your rear for two minutes and think before you write.



    Having lived in San Francisco it is well known the fight for right-of-way and Wireless carriers is real and brutal.
Sign In or Register to comment.