. .


This is Why Your Mobile Coverage is Bad

September 25, 2010 10:17:57.567

It's not so much about "greedy" wireless companies as it is about the rising tide of NIMBY-ism, combined with the wild theory that mobile signals are bad for you. If that's the case, then we had best ban radio as well, and erect a barrier in the atmosphere against radiation from space:

The ordinance passed unanimously this week by the Hempstead town board prohibits wireless companies from installing equipment closer than 1,500 feet to homes, day care centers, schools and houses of worship, unless they submit compelling evidence that there is an absolute need. Hempstead, home to America's first suburban community — Levittown — is a densely populated township just east of New York City.

What you won't see reported much is the same people who pushed for this wondering "why is my signal weak" later on.

Technorati Tags: ,

posted by James Robertson


Re: This is Why Your Mobile Coverage is Bad

[Tom Sattler] September 27, 2010 9:01:57.481

I grew up in the Town of Hempstead. It encompasses the western part of Nassau County, Long Island, just across the line from New York City. To say it is "densely populated" is quite an understatement. I would love for the Town Board to point at just ONE place in the entire town that doesn't violate any of these rules.

And as for the "absolute need" poppycock ... OF COURSE there is an absolute need. Putting one of these things up is extremely expensive, so they don't get built unless there is a need for them. Or are they suggesting that wireless companies routinely throw money in the toilet by building cell towers for the sheer enjoyment? They only build them when there is an absolute need. If there wasn't an absolute need, there would be no towers. But such is life in Nassau County politics. "I don't think your company really needs this tower, but if you make a contribution to my re-election fund, that need might look a little bit more compelling."

 Share Tweet This