iBurst base station woes

[rpm]

iBurst base station woes

Objections lead iBurst to drop base station

 

[The_Unbeliever]

A sign of things to come?

Will people start to object against Neotel putting up base stations, then in the same breath, complain bitterly about hellskommels' poor service?

Ahhh... the irony...

 

[Pilgrim]

Where can I find out if ibust plans to put up a base station near my area? I want to put a stop to it at all costs

 

[staphill]

Why would you want to stop I-Burst from providing better service to people??

 

[Nerfherder]

Bloddy hell !!!!! Thats my area... i'm going to find these people and hurt them.

I my connection gets dropped every 5 mins...

 

[eltherza]

“Parents don’t want their kids to spend all day next to the thing,”

Seriously, kids wont find a tower interesting enough to spend all day next to it, there are much more fun things to do, like TV.

 

[Basilrsa]

"Thing"

I think the lady is refering to the internet as the "thing"
A compromise would be to allow a tower per area, with all service providers sharing it. This will prevent an array of towers in close proximity which might detract from the aesthetics of an area.
NO PAIN, NO GAIN

 

[kaspaas]

What are the rules on service providers sharing towers?

If my memory is correct, there is a licensing condition that VC/MTN/CellC may not share towers.

Can anybody confirm/correct?

 

[vodacom3g]

What are the rules on service providers sharing towers?

If my memory is correct, there is a licensing condition that VC/MTN/CellC may not share towers.

Can anybody confirm/correct?

We often share towers, often because the networks have issues getting own sites, like in this case.

The whole issue of site selection and approval is quite complex. Have a read over in the Vodacom sub-thread. I've posted a lot of detail there on the process one must go through to get a site approved and the typical objections you can get. This can make site selection in a specific area a 3-year process, if not longer.

Area such as Constantia in Cape Town even has different, competing resident groups, one blocking towers going up and the other trying to instigate class-action against the networks for NOT putting towers up.

But it's not just a problem with new towers, existing towers also come into the firing line and it's not uncommon to loose a tower or two with the resultant fiasco for those who's been covered by it. Ask the good people down in Somerset West, for example.

 

[Captain Beer]

Ask the good people down in Somerset West, for example.

Haha which tower was removed?

I know about seven years ago VC had a bitch of a time trying to put a tower up around my area (Helderberg College/Estate, SWest). They even wanted to put one on our property and pay a rental ****ing neighbors didn't like the idea
Then they tried putting one on the College field (damn neighbors again). After about six years they started sharing the MTN tower

Rich people can be so petty.

 

[ambo]

It is interesting that in some parts of the world (India if I recall correctly) people actually want big base stations in their back gardens and your property value actually goes up the closer you are to a base station... to the extent that they are disgusted by the South African camouflaged 'trees'

They've obviously figured out a different set of cultural priorities

 

[vodacom3g]

It is interesting that in some parts of the world (India if I recall correctly) people actually want big base stations in their back gardens and your property value actually goes up the closer you are to a base station... to the extent that they are disgusted by the South African camouflaged 'trees'

They've obviously figured out a different set of cultural priorities

Let alone getting the income if it's in YOUR backyard

 

[Tanarri]

We had a proposal on a piece of land from Vodacom or MTN many years ago on my father's property. My mother and father was actually quite keen on the idea, but in the end Vodacom just never pulled through.

Personal taste/distaste rather than cultural values?? Oh yeah I forgot here in good ol' SA we all like generelise.

 

[Nerfherder]

I think they pay you like 10grand to have a tower in your yard... the dude across the street has one, he has a plot and put the tower on the far end of his property.... right on top of one of his neibours houses ! and far away from his own house....

The neibour tried to stop it but in vain.

 

[Just_Ice]

I think they pay you like 10grand to have a tower in your yard... the dude across the street has one, he has a plot and put the tower on the far end of his property.... right on top of one of his neibours houses ! and far away from his own house....

The neibour tried to stop it but in vain.

lol poor neighbour! But plz, what damage can it actually do? Radiation? Wow

 

[spacemuis]

Rich people can be so petty.

Hmmm maybe rich people are better educated about the risks of electromagnetic radiation. Maybe rich people are more likely to come from the class of people who own polluting and harmful businesses, and they don't trust others of their kind to be any more socially/environmentally responsible in their profit-seeking? Just maybe...

 

[spacemuis]

Spoiler Alert

But plz, what damage can it actually do? Radiation? Wow

Yes. Wow. Most people who like to exonerate cell phone radiation - whether from handsets or base stations - consider the so-called SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) of Radio Frequency radiation whic is a measure of the rate at which the radiation heats up tissue of a specific density. The idea is that tissues (bone, brain, muscle) could be damaged by localised heating. The cell phone industry loves SAR and heating-related tests because they usually give cell phones a clean bill of health. No excessive heating = no problem.

Unfortunately for them - and for US - it is now known that RF radiation causes molecular change (expression of proteins in cells) other than through the mechanism of heating (New Scientist, BioMed Central)

Maybe all that doesn't bother you ... how about triggering Alzheimer's? (BBC News, paper at PubMed)

On this page is a somewhat soppy & melodramatic account from a long-time cellphone user who developed a brain tumor right where his phone's antenna is normally held. Now this doesn't constitute causation by any means. However, scroll down until you get to Dr Mercola's comments about the hazards of information-carrying waves (cell phones, WiFi) that vibrate in the range that affects cellular and molecular activity...

After reading this (and much else besides...), I've lost faith in the cell phone industry's claims that their product is safe for long-term use. I resisted this conclusion vigorously! I've had a cell phone from the first month that Vodacom launched commercial services in Cape Town - I upgraded my pager device to a cell phone as soon as I could. As a self-employed consultant and software developer it is obviously a very useful tool for me. But I can no longer ignore the evidence, or be part of this large-scale health experiment. Unfortunately I cannot ditch the phone completely, but I've taken measures to wean myself off this dependence, like

• Switching the phone off for stretches during the day, and definitely during the night while I'm sleeping.
• When it has to be on, leaving it in the next room (I remember from a first-year physics radiation experiment that the best defence against radiation is distance; even solid lead shielding added very little more)
• Leaving it at home sometimes. Do you really need to be contactable at all times?
• Not carrying it in my pocket or on my person. Gotta protect the family jewels! My gonads are the LAST place I want to interfere with the replication of proteins!
• Ditched the bluetooth headset. And the cable one. Would love to get one of those "air tube" headsets, but cannot find a supplier in South Africa.

 

[kaspaas]

• Switching the phone off for stretches during the day, and definitely during the night while I'm sleeping.
• When it has to be on, leaving it in the next room (I remember from a first-year physics radiation experiment that the best defence against radiation is distance; even solid lead shielding added very little more)
• Leaving it at home sometimes. Do you really need to be contactable at all times?
• Not carrying it in my pocket or on my person. Gotta protect the family jewels! My gonads are the LAST place I want to interfere with the replication of proteins!
• Ditched the bluetooth headset. And the cable one. Would love to get one of those "air tube" headsets, but cannot find a supplier in South Africa.

People mistakenly believe that there is continuous communication between a cellphone and the network.

But reality is:

When you are not actively using your phone for a call or data transfer, it is a listening device 99% and more of the time.

Switching it of won't make a difference in the amount of radiation around the phone.

The problem I have with the experts claiming that cellphone radiation is damaging, it that every article I've seen on the subject had techical inaccuracies which made me doubt the quality of the rest of the study.

 

[Pilgrim]

Yes. Wow. Most people who like to exonerate cell phone radiation - whether from handsets or base stations - consider the so-called SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) of Radio Frequency radiation whic is a measure of the rate at which the radiation heats up tissue of a specific density. The idea is that tissues (bone, brain, muscle) could be damaged by localised heating. The cell phone industry loves SAR and heating-related tests because they usually give cell phones a clean bill of health. No excessive heating = no problem.

Unfortunately for them - and for US - it is now known that RF radiation causes molecular change (expression of proteins in cells) other than through the mechanism of heating (New Scientist, BioMed Central)

Maybe all that doesn't bother you ... how about triggering Alzheimer's? (BBC News, paper at PubMed)

On this page is a somewhat soppy & melodramatic account from a long-time cellphone user who developed a brain tumor right where his phone's antenna is normally held. Now this doesn't constitute causation by any means. However, scroll down until you get to Dr Mercola's comments about the hazards of information-carrying waves (cell phones, WiFi) that vibrate in the range that affects cellular and molecular activity...

After reading this (and much else besides...), I've lost faith in the cell phone industry's claims that their product is safe for long-term use. I resisted this conclusion vigorously! I've had a cell phone from the first month that Vodacom launched commercial services in Cape Town - I upgraded my pager device to a cell phone as soon as I could. As a self-employed consultant and software developer it is obviously a very useful tool for me. But I can no longer ignore the evidence, or be part of this large-scale health experiment. Unfortunately I cannot ditch the phone completely, but I've taken measures to wean myself off this dependence, like

• Switching the phone off for stretches during the day, and definitely during the night while I'm sleeping.
• When it has to be on, leaving it in the next room (I remember from a first-year physics radiation experiment that the best defence against radiation is distance; even solid lead shielding added very little more)
• Leaving it at home sometimes. Do you really need to be contactable at all times?
• Not carrying it in my pocket or on my person. Gotta protect the family jewels! My gonads are the LAST place I want to interfere with the replication of proteins!
• Ditched the bluetooth headset. And the cable one. Would love to get one of those "air tube" headsets, but cannot find a supplier in South Africa.

ROFLMAO. Time to go get my tin cap...

 

[TheRoDent]

Time to get the tinfoil underwear.