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

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 138
    normmnormm Posts: 653member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ianmac47 View Post


    Or alternately, instead of waiting for AT&T to install new towers, maybe Apple should be offering the iPhone on other networks that don't have "weak signal" spots as frequently as AT&T.



    As far as I know, most towers are shared by all the phone providers. So this isn't just a problem for ATT.
  • Reply 102 of 138
    kapskaps Posts: 2member
    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.
  • Reply 103 of 138
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post


    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?



    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.
  • Reply 104 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SendMe View Post


    The press loves RIM and hates Apple.



    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.
  • Reply 105 of 138
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NormM View Post


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



    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...
  • Reply 106 of 138
    daveswdavesw Posts: 406member
    so hopefully reception will improve by Sept. of this year
  • Reply 107 of 138
    Takes far longer for AT&T to put in a tower in Montana and that has nothing to do with regulations.
  • Reply 109 of 138
    stnstn Posts: 1member
    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?
  • Reply 110 of 138
    merlinwmerlinw Posts: 35member
    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. 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.



    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.
  • Reply 111 of 138
    merlinwmerlinw Posts: 35member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBR View Post


    Maybe they already do this but I think a great place to put a cell tower would be in cemeteries. I remember being near SF and I went down a road that must have had at least 20 cemeteries on it all in a row. It would be the perfect place for a cell tower disguised as a tree. It works out great for the cemetery because the would get a continuous revenue stream and there is nobody living around to complain about them being unsightly.



    The nearest cemetery (excluding Mission Deloris) to SF is in Colma, around 10 miles south.
  • Reply 112 of 138
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    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 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
  • Reply 113 of 138
    st3v3st3v3 Posts: 63member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post


    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
  • Reply 114 of 138
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 764member
    Removed
  • Reply 115 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    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).



    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..
  • Reply 116 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mtcowdog View Post


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



    Right. Has all to do with population density and where you get the best bang for your money.
  • Reply 117 of 138
    zorinlynxzorinlynx Posts: 170member
    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.
  • Reply 118 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    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.



    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).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    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..



    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.
  • Reply 119 of 138
    zorinlynxzorinlynx Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    \\

    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
  • Reply 120 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post


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



    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 ... ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.