-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleThe [Port Edward] Campaign Has Started....
- Thread starter TowerGuru
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 14,805
Actually, v3g was quoting the response he got from Vodacom's planning people for your area - as a direct result of your complaint in the form of this thread, and my interpretation is that the cell tower earmarked for 3G-ifying clearly belongs to MTN:GayTechie said:
How many 2G Vodacom cell towers does P.Edward have? How many 2G [and 3G] cell towers does MTN have in P.Edward?vodacom3g said:
TowerGuru
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,303
well im so sorry if people talk AMBIGUOSLY. the fact still remains that Port Edward is sitting without 3G. so i order to make me (A valued CONTRACT customer for over 3YEARS) happy maybe they should listen to what im saying. did the revered "radio planning team" examine all options? i dont think so. and i dont need a degree in quantum mechainics to tell you that. and why is the Lighthouse not a good option? if they are to stingy to build a new tower they can pop it on there! i dont see why VODACOM subscribers must be disadvantaged by the shortcommings of MTN! am i the only one here who thinks that is absolutely absurd?
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 14,805
@GayTechie:
PS: IMO your reference to "Sipho Gumede sitting in open space he needs 3G (obviously)" in the graphic you posted, is racially offensive as you're basically saying that you're more important than any black man in SA, I strongly suggest that you remove that from your graphic.
GayTechie, I'm sure v3g will ask the planning team about your Lighthouse suggestion.vodacom3g said:
PS: IMO your reference to "Sipho Gumede sitting in open space he needs 3G (obviously)" in the graphic you posted, is racially offensive as you're basically saying that you're more important than any black man in SA, I strongly suggest that you remove that from your graphic.
TowerGuru
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,303
i believe its not racially offensive at all. im just illustrating the geography and demographics to Vodacom. im not saying that i am more important. im simply showing you the realistic picture. is "sipho gumede" going to have a 3G cellphone or is a town with 10 000 people more likely to have 3G cellphones? oh and did Vodacom just go down for my benefit? lol
GayTechie said:
GayTechie - I hear there is a vacancy in Vodacom's planning department in Durban.
It sounds like you are the guy they are looking for cos you know better than the guys who have been on the job for the last ten years. V3g, please ensure you get this guys CV to the boss man in Durbs and he can solve all the 3G planning problems. P.S. Just don't ask him to look after any website for them cos then it won't work
Last edited:
The one thing you've probably done by now is to p**s the planning guys off enough that Port Edward is now at the bottom of the to-do list....I'm sure the residents will be very grateful.
And, by the way, you can stop sending me abusive and threatening private messages. But if you'd like to carry on, fine, they're mildly amusing, albeit pathetic.
Do you normally find that being abusive, threatening and racist actually gets you anywhere?
And, by the way, you can stop sending me abusive and threatening private messages. But if you'd like to carry on, fine, they're mildly amusing, albeit pathetic.
Do you normally find that being abusive, threatening and racist actually gets you anywhere?
Neo to be honest I also find this guy halarious. He is venting his anger at MyADSL users and whatever other forum he has been on.
GayTechie, stop being so bloody gay you got your response from Vodacom, they cant build towers anywhere else. They wont tell you something to piss you off. There are customers there that want 3G, its Vodacom's loss that they arent using the service.
If they could do something about it they would. This is the point that you say "Thank you Vodacom 3G for getting the response for me, please keep me informed regarding any developments in my area"
After that do what you want, go march to Vodacom's HQ in Jhb/CT wherever, but we cant do anything else about it.
GayTechie, stop being so bloody gay you got your response from Vodacom, they cant build towers anywhere else. They wont tell you something to piss you off. There are customers there that want 3G, its Vodacom's loss that they arent using the service.
If they could do something about it they would. This is the point that you say "Thank you Vodacom 3G for getting the response for me, please keep me informed regarding any developments in my area"
After that do what you want, go march to Vodacom's HQ in Jhb/CT wherever, but we cant do anything else about it.
Received the following from the Natal Radio Planning department:
1. Since very early in the existence of Vodacom and MTN, an agreement was reached between the 2 networks to share one anothers masts in areas where it was not feasible to erect more than one mast - this agreement also now includes Cell-C and their masts. This share agreement was done on a one for one pairing agreement - we use MTN's mast at Port Edward and they use our mast at "Wherever is agreed". The site is built by and remains the responsiblilty of the network who has negotiated the lease with the property owner for that site. Any future maintenance, etc. on that site remains the responsibility of the constructing network. Should the second party require to do any work on the mast, permission is still required from the site "owner" (in this case MTN). Prior to this permission being granted, the network will consult with their professional engineers to check the structural loading of the mast and determine whether the work can go ahead. In the case of Port Edward, due to the design and age of the mast, it was determined by the site owner (MTN), that the additional antennas required to provide 3G coverage from that site would constitute overloading the mast and making it unsafe. As such, there is not much Vodacom can do on this tower until MTN either replace the mast or find some other solution.
2. As for our "tower thingy" on the Port Edward lighthouse, that structure does not belong to Vodacom, but rather to Portnet - Vodacom and MTN lease space for our sites there from Portnet. There is a possibilty that we may use this in the future, but again, we need to get permission from the structure owner (Portnet) and this will also be some time in the approval stage. Wouldn't life as a radio planner be so much easier if we could just go and install our equipment on any structure without requesting permission from the owner?
3. With respect to the reference to Southbroom, there is a similar problem there where Vodacom's mast, which is shared by MTN, is also not able to accomodate 3G panels and we are busy with the above process since December 2005 to replace that mast to cater for 3G.
4. In recent years, legislation has been amended in an attempt to protect the environment from the proliferation of communications structures - this includes masts disguised as trees. As a result, the process which has to be followed before erecting a mast goes something like this and is the same for ALL communcations structures:
So, unless legislation governing the erection of communications structures changes in the near future, the erection of a new tower (or tree) anywhere in Port Edward is likely to take substantially longer than waiting for the necessary remedial action from MTN on THEIR mast or permission from Portnet to expand the lighthouse installation.
----------------------------------------------------
I hope the above suffice, now let's give these guys their weekend back. They're busy enough as it is.....
1. Since very early in the existence of Vodacom and MTN, an agreement was reached between the 2 networks to share one anothers masts in areas where it was not feasible to erect more than one mast - this agreement also now includes Cell-C and their masts. This share agreement was done on a one for one pairing agreement - we use MTN's mast at Port Edward and they use our mast at "Wherever is agreed". The site is built by and remains the responsiblilty of the network who has negotiated the lease with the property owner for that site. Any future maintenance, etc. on that site remains the responsibility of the constructing network. Should the second party require to do any work on the mast, permission is still required from the site "owner" (in this case MTN). Prior to this permission being granted, the network will consult with their professional engineers to check the structural loading of the mast and determine whether the work can go ahead. In the case of Port Edward, due to the design and age of the mast, it was determined by the site owner (MTN), that the additional antennas required to provide 3G coverage from that site would constitute overloading the mast and making it unsafe. As such, there is not much Vodacom can do on this tower until MTN either replace the mast or find some other solution.
2. As for our "tower thingy" on the Port Edward lighthouse, that structure does not belong to Vodacom, but rather to Portnet - Vodacom and MTN lease space for our sites there from Portnet. There is a possibilty that we may use this in the future, but again, we need to get permission from the structure owner (Portnet) and this will also be some time in the approval stage. Wouldn't life as a radio planner be so much easier if we could just go and install our equipment on any structure without requesting permission from the owner?
3. With respect to the reference to Southbroom, there is a similar problem there where Vodacom's mast, which is shared by MTN, is also not able to accomodate 3G panels and we are busy with the above process since December 2005 to replace that mast to cater for 3G.
4. In recent years, legislation has been amended in an attempt to protect the environment from the proliferation of communications structures - this includes masts disguised as trees. As a result, the process which has to be followed before erecting a mast goes something like this and is the same for ALL communcations structures:
The radio planner identifies an area where coverage needs to be provided / improved or capacity increased on an existing site.
Using a computerised planning tool, an approximate area is determined for the installation of a new base station.
Armed with this information, the planner and property negotiator then visit the area to find a suitable property to house the proposed base station.
Assuming this goes well, a lease is signed between the property owner and network.
An environmental consultant is then employed (as required by law), to conduct a full Environmetal Impact Assesment (EIA) to determine whether there will be any adverse impact on the environment - this includes visual impact, vital plant or animal life which may be affected and numerous other factors. Depending on the findings during the EIA process, this process can take quite a few months and even cause the rejection of this site and subsequent restarting of the planning.
If the EIA shows there are no significant environmental issues, the outcome has to be submitted to the Dept of Environmental Affairs for their approval.
That takes care of the "easy part" of the process. At this point, things are likely to start going horribly wrong due to the requirement to get Joe Public involved. One now has to obtain Local Authority (LA) approval from the entity responsible for town planning in the area - this process varies from one Local Authority to another but is never a simple one. During this LA process, adverts are required to be placed in the local papers informing the public of the intention to erect a mast and base station and inviting objections from "Interested and Affected Parties". All it requires is for ONE person to lodge an objection, and the whole process grinds to a halt. It is normal to receive numerous objections with varying reasons - these include amongst others, health concerns, property devaluation, unsightly appearance and increased crime rates.
At this point, it is up to the network to contact each "interested and affected party" and try to resolve the reason for their objection. If this is successful, then the final approvals from the LA will normally be approved eventually. However, it is seldom the case that all parties agree to withdraw their objections and as such, the whole process has to start from the beginning.
Using a computerised planning tool, an approximate area is determined for the installation of a new base station.
Armed with this information, the planner and property negotiator then visit the area to find a suitable property to house the proposed base station.
Assuming this goes well, a lease is signed between the property owner and network.
An environmental consultant is then employed (as required by law), to conduct a full Environmetal Impact Assesment (EIA) to determine whether there will be any adverse impact on the environment - this includes visual impact, vital plant or animal life which may be affected and numerous other factors. Depending on the findings during the EIA process, this process can take quite a few months and even cause the rejection of this site and subsequent restarting of the planning.
If the EIA shows there are no significant environmental issues, the outcome has to be submitted to the Dept of Environmental Affairs for their approval.
That takes care of the "easy part" of the process. At this point, things are likely to start going horribly wrong due to the requirement to get Joe Public involved. One now has to obtain Local Authority (LA) approval from the entity responsible for town planning in the area - this process varies from one Local Authority to another but is never a simple one. During this LA process, adverts are required to be placed in the local papers informing the public of the intention to erect a mast and base station and inviting objections from "Interested and Affected Parties". All it requires is for ONE person to lodge an objection, and the whole process grinds to a halt. It is normal to receive numerous objections with varying reasons - these include amongst others, health concerns, property devaluation, unsightly appearance and increased crime rates.
At this point, it is up to the network to contact each "interested and affected party" and try to resolve the reason for their objection. If this is successful, then the final approvals from the LA will normally be approved eventually. However, it is seldom the case that all parties agree to withdraw their objections and as such, the whole process has to start from the beginning.
So, unless legislation governing the erection of communications structures changes in the near future, the erection of a new tower (or tree) anywhere in Port Edward is likely to take substantially longer than waiting for the necessary remedial action from MTN on THEIR mast or permission from Portnet to expand the lighthouse installation.
----------------------------------------------------
I hope the above suffice, now let's give these guys their weekend back. They're busy enough as it is.....
Neo said:You should stop visiting Port Edward
You know they're bored there without internet access, so have to find other ways to entertain themselves
Never knew Port Edward existed till GayTechie mentioned the place. Had to look on the map to find out where it was.
And he expects a big company like Vodacom to take him seriously? Ag shame......
TowerGuru
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,303
mmm ok. if you think im going to shut up now you have another thing coming. i had a very valid issue with Vodacom. and the response i got was delivered on time with a smile. essentially the reply i got was that they are waiting on MTN to give them permission to upgrade "the structurally unsound tower" which has been there since i can remember. now why on earth would MTN agree to that? since when have they been concerned about Vodacom customers? and knowing the intiative of MTN that tower will only get repaired when Jacob Zuma is president.
so who is the is the losing party here? Me and the rest of the Vodacom customers in my town. the fact that Vodacom doesnt have its own tower here is flabbagasting . this area will become a key zone when the new toll road through the Transkei is started (and that will happen) and Vodacom doesnt even have its own tower! And there are plenty of locations for a new tower, that wont work as an excuse. infact there is more than enough space where the present tower is for a new one. and the people in port edward wont object. infact i suspect you could probaly build a 30m tall statue of Mugabe and they wouldnt bat an eyelid (as long as it didnt block anyone's sea view).
all im asking Vodacom for is to provide this town with Wireless broadband.Every other little town here has except for Port Edward. do you know how i disapointed visiting Vodacom customers are when we tell them to drive 5KM down the freeway to get 3G? i am sorry people find me an obnoxious pratt. i will continue to be an obnoxious pratt until i have 3G coverage and i will continue my campaign until i do. you havnt heard the last from me.... i have some more ideas coming. so stay tuned folks
so who is the is the losing party here? Me and the rest of the Vodacom customers in my town. the fact that Vodacom doesnt have its own tower here is flabbagasting
. this area will become a key zone when the new toll road through the Transkei is started (and that will happen) and Vodacom doesnt even have its own tower! And there are plenty of locations for a new tower, that wont work as an excuse. infact there is more than enough space where the present tower is for a new one. and the people in port edward wont object. infact i suspect you could probaly build a 30m tall statue of Mugabe and they wouldnt bat an eyelid (as long as it didnt block anyone's sea view). all im asking Vodacom for is to provide this town with Wireless broadband.Every other little town here has except for Port Edward. do you know how i disapointed visiting Vodacom customers are when we tell them to drive 5KM down the freeway to get 3G? i am sorry people find me an obnoxious pratt. i will continue to be an obnoxious pratt until i have 3G coverage and i will continue my campaign until i do. you havnt heard the last from me.... i have some more ideas coming. so stay tuned folks
Last edited:
TowerGuru
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,303
and in reply to that post that popped up while i was writing that: Good job. i am glad you have been working very hard since December 2005 in getting the (mostly wealthy)residents of Southbroom 3G! I do see you have a point there about the new mast, but in my belief Vodacom should have instituted the process of installing a new tower going in December 2005 when they realised the problem. then maybe they would be half way there allready! of course all this is just speculation from a guy who knows nothing about such complicated things. and i do appreciate everything the radio planning team does. i dont doubt that for a second.
Okay, I got some comments...
1) paragraphs and structure, have you never heard of pressing the enter key, it hurts my eyes to read that post.
2) Jacob Zuma and Statue of Mugabe was funny, btw, why mugabe?
3) It is in your best interest not to piss off the people of MyADSL. If you have us on your bad side you might aswell put up your flag and resign.
4) I honestly hope your problem is resolved, but you are going about it in the wrong way.
This is the last time you will hear from me in this thread, according to me this case has been resolved at MyADSL, we cant do anything else. Contact goverment or MTN for a resolution.
Mr.G
1) paragraphs and structure, have you never heard of pressing the enter key, it hurts my eyes to read that post.
2) Jacob Zuma and Statue of Mugabe was funny, btw, why mugabe?
3) It is in your best interest not to piss off the people of MyADSL. If you have us on your bad side you might aswell put up your flag and resign.
4) I honestly hope your problem is resolved, but you are going about it in the wrong way.
This is the last time you will hear from me in this thread, according to me this case has been resolved at MyADSL, we cant do anything else. Contact goverment or MTN for a resolution.
Mr.G
TowerGuru
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,303
thank you kindly for your objective responeses. they are duly noted. and it will be a terrible loss to this thread that we may not see your friendly face here again *sigh* but life goes on.
(look see i pressed enter just for you) please members of ADSL please do not think this is a personal attack on ya'll, im just very frustrated (in more ways than one) and i tend to be very much like an obnoxious pratt. and i am just bringing my own brand of unique humour to this forum. ruffle alittle feathers. (maybe i should press enter now)
If i have offended anyone personally: dont worry u can offend me back. it shouldnt be that hard seeing as im gay 'n all. and i hope to have some more jibes at the Vodacom 3G tower coming soon. persisitance usually wins the day
(look see i pressed enter just for you) please members of ADSL please do not think this is a personal attack on ya'll, im just very frustrated (in more ways than one) and i tend to be very much like an obnoxious pratt. and i am just bringing my own brand of unique humour to this forum. ruffle alittle feathers. (maybe i should press enter now)
If i have offended anyone personally: dont worry u can offend me back. it shouldnt be that hard seeing as im gay 'n all. and i hope to have some more jibes at the Vodacom 3G tower coming soon. persisitance usually wins the day
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
This thread is hilarious. What I still don't get is that there are people claiming to use 3G up to 20km from a tower. GayTechie says he's 5km away. If someone knows of a way to set his Ericsson V600i to use 3G only he might stop complaining to you and to Vodacom.