Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[Paynefanbro]

That's perfect!

Is that what sprint is trying to put everywhere or just the neighborhoods that complain?

Pretty much. There are a few outliers but this seems to be the most common setup.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[dnicekid]

Pretty much. There are a few outliers but this seems to be the most common setup.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

I wouldn't complain about that

Now those monsters in previous pictures I could definitely see people having issues

[Arysyn]

I really don't like how people complain about the appearance of wireless towers. I would love for a wireless carrier (particularly T-Mobile, since I have service with them) to have a tower near my house. If I owned property, I wouldn't care what the tower looks like as I know two very important benefits come with it. The tower would provide me with excellent service and it also would help all the surrounding residential and commercial properties with it as well. I'm really tired of hearing people complain about how towers appear and all the ridiculous efforts they make wireless carriers go through to "decorate" the towers to fit in with trees, etc. I personally believe towers appear much worse when wireless carriers have to make cosmetic changes to how towers appear. Wireless carriers are not decorators, they are there to provide service, not aesthetics.

 

Also bad is all the time and effort wireless carriers have to go through to get permits, etc. I hate all the delays these people cause the wireless carriers in order to provide service, then the wireless carriers get the blame for bad service areas. When I'm in a bad area, I may question the lack of spectrum as I've made mention plenty of times here on S4GRU. However, the first thing that comes to my mind actually is not spectrum, but towers in the area, which of course in my mind I think of these issues regarding permits, etc. knowing very well these carriers quite likely tried, but got a bunch of opposition from the townspeople over development. I'd really like for laws to be changed to allow for a better business climate for wireless carriers. The only attribute wireless carriers would have to meet/comply with is safety standards, not "beautifying" the towers to look more like trees.

[greenbastard]

Are we talking macro sites or small cells here? A 70 ft pole would be a macro site.

 

 

That is not a 70 ft pole, by the way. It is a Sprint DAS small site in a hilly/valley area that otherwise would be a dead spot for LTE. Would that installation really offend your aesthetic sensibilities?

 

AJ

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Sprint or any other carrier installing in existing light/telephone poles. That's the way it should be done. But Sprint/Mobilite seems to be installing their own poles that are taller than existing poles in some places.

 

Installation in existing telephone poles or a street light? Sure. But 70 ft? That's over the top. 40 foot poles already exist in many suburban neighborhoods, so there's no need for Sprint to add more poles. Range be damned; they are small cells and not meant for range so they don't need height.

[greenbastard]

Then suck it up and don't complain.

So homeowners who bought a house in a neighborhood with specific rules about neighborhood aesthetics should just suck it up? Are you serious?

That is all.

 

It's obvious that is not all.

First, ugly is your opinion which I personally don't care about.

 

And not being ugly is your opinion, which homeowners who have to put up with 70ft. poles installed within line of sight from their homes don't care about.

 

So stop with this 'opinion' counterargument. d

Second, you don't see them once you stop looking or if never had it pointed out.

For full build towers, that's true since they sit in their own lot away from the street. But small cells will be placed in the right of way easement. Now Sprint should have no problem if they just stick to using existing poles. But in some areas, they seem to go with their own pole that is taller than existing telephone poles. That won't camouflage.

But if you don't have cell reception in your home and you fight carriers putting in base station that pass a cost benefit analysis don't complain. If you complain then you are dumb.

 

You don't read very well do you? Like I said earlier, I'd rather protect my property value than to have full signal. How much more ckear does it need to be?

I don't mind you and your community vauling a certain aesthetic appeal over cell reception...

Are you sure??? Because you seem to be fighting the argument with the same 'opinion' argument.

I don't get it but to each their own, just eat the cost of your aesthetic choices like a big boy and don't complain.

How many times must I repeat myself????

[greenbastard]

That's perfect!

Is that what sprint is trying to put everywhere or just the neighborhoods that complain?

For the most part, yes. This is the height that Sprint is aiming for in most places.

 

The issue is with some few areas in which Mobilite is proposing 70ft. poles. So about 2/3rds taller than existing utility poles.

[Dkoellerwx]

Aesthetics arguments aside, doesn't a 70ft pole kind of defeat the purpose of a "small cell?" For most areas, I don't see any reason to use anything other than the cells like what AJ posted, or what we have seen pictures from the Los Angeles area. Have any of the 70ft poles been approved, and where exactly are they attempting to install them?

 

Heck... a 70ft pole would be taller than 90% of the cell sites Sprint uses in my hometown (Springfield, MO). I'll link to a picture of one: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27292144/Towers/2013-01-05%2016.47.40.jpg
(this site has NV/B41 gear on it now - tri-band - I just don't have a picture showing the whole tower with the new gear, just close ups).

[lilotimz]

A 70 feet pole puts it in the range of high voltage electrical transmission towers in some places and on par if not higher than a lot of urban macro cells.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X

[utiz4321]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Sprint or any other carrier installing in existing light/telephone poles. That's the way it should be done. But Sprint/Mobilite seems to be installing their own poles that are taller than existing poles in some places.

 

Installation in existing telephone poles or a street light? Sure. But 70 ft? That's over the top. 40 foot poles already exist in many suburban neighborhoods, so there's no need for Sprint to add more poles. Range be damned; they are small cells and not meant for range so they don't need height.

So you are a network engineer? I am sure there arent trying to install poles they don't need just to upset people.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

So homeowners who bought a house in a neighborhood with specific rules about neighborhood aesthetics should just suck it up? Are you serious?

It's obvious that is not all.

And not being ugly is your opinion, which homeowners who have to put up with 70ft. poles installed within line of sight from their homes don't care about.

 

So stop with this 'opinion' counterargument. d

For full build towers, that's true since they sit in their own lot away from the street. But small cells will be placed in the right of way easement. Now Sprint should have no problem if they just stick to using existing poles. But in some areas, they seem to go with their own pole that is taller than existing telephone poles. That won't camouflage.

You don't read very well do you? Like I said earlier, I'd rather protect my property value than to have full signal. How much more ckear does it need to be?

Are you sure??? Because you seem to be fighting the argument with the same 'opinion' argument.

How many times must I repeat myself????

Yes. They should or deal with no service. Trade offs is a big part of life. And yes ugly is you opinion. So pay the cost for it without complaining please. Whiners are never good people.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

So you are a network engineer? I am sure there arent trying to install poles they don't need just to upset people.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

You didn't read the link that was posted earlier I assume.

[utiz4321]

You didn't read the link that was posted earlier I assume.

I read the 70 foot pole link. Look, the bottom line is if you fight carriers installing network gear and thus raise the cost beyond which it makes sense for them to invest in your area because you have a fixation on cell towers and think they look bad, first realize that aesthetics are subjective and what looks bad to you doesnt to others and second do complain about poor service. You are the cause. Is that so much to ask, that you not complain about the consequences of your decisions? I mean that seems to be the definition of an adult to me.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

 

Yes. They should or deal with no service. [/Quote]

I'm sure homeowners are aware.

 

Trade offs is a big part of life.

And they've chosen the trade-offs...which oddly you can't grasp why .

 

And yes ugly is you opinion.

Property devaluation is not an opinion.

 

So pay the cost for it without complaining please. Whiners are never good people.

Uh? Homeowners aren't paying for anything. They aren't the ones selling wireless service. They have other means of communication and I'm sure they understand that very well when they petition to block an unusually tall pole from being erected.

 

At this point, you're the one whining about people looking out for their own best interest. If you could put your nonsensical obsession as a wireless fanboy aside, you would understand your failed logic of "that's just your opinion" and "whining".

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[IamMrFamous07]

Really hope the DC Metro area (preferably Montgomery County) gets some of this NGN / Small cell love.

 

Overall my service experience is good, but it's very inconsistent in many areas.

 

I don't think they have 8t8r band 41 & CA enabled on a lot of sites though.

 

Probably 20-25% at most.

[utiz4321]

I'm sure homeowners are aware.

And they've chosen the trade-offs...which oddly you can't grasp why .

Property devaluation is not an opinion.

Uh? Homeowners aren't paying for anything. They aren't the ones selling wireless service. They have other means of communication and I'm sure they understand that very well when they petition to block an unusually tall pole from being erected.

 

At this point, you're the one whining about people looking out for their own best interest. If you could put your nonsensical obsession as a wireless fanboy aside, you would understand your failed logic of "that's just your opinion" and "whining".

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Dude first prove property values would be negatively effected. Second, nothing you have said deals with my point. Fine you don't want the pole, I get it. You are weird. Now deal with the fact that companies don't find it profitable to provide cell service to your house. Do that and I don't have an issue.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

I read the 70 foot pole link. Look, the bottom line is if you fight carriers installing network gear and thus raise the cost beyond which it makes sense for them to invest in your area because you have a fixation on cell towers and think they look bad, first realize that aesthetics are subjective and what looks bad to you doesnt to others and second do complain about poor service.

Slow down. That's a long run-on sentence.

 

But the fact that you can't understand why some people may find them ugly just about befuddles me. Also, declining property value due to tall poles being erected in front of your property is not all relative. It's a real.

You are the cause. Is that so much to ask, that you not complain about the consequences of your decisions? I mean that seems to be the definition of an adult to me.

How many times do I have to...

 

Protecting property>>>>>signal boost. All the time. Besides, I'm sure the homeowners who are fighting some of these new builds are fully aware of what they are doing. So quit using that counterargument since it makes absolutely no sense.

[utiz4321]

Slow down. That's a long run-on sentence.

 

But the fact that you can't understand why some people may find them ugly just about befuddles me. Also, declining property value due to tall poles being erected in front of your property is not all relative. It's a real.

How many times do I have to...

 

Protecting property>>>>>signal boost. All the time. Besides, I'm sure the homeowners who are fighting some of these new builds are fully aware of what they are doing. So quit using that counterargument since it makes absolutely no sense.

I don't understand why people find them ugly because I don't. I understand other people find it ugly and I am fine with that. I am not find with those same people complaining about service when they drive the cost of the infrastructure up beyond the point a company ability to earn a return on investment.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[greenbastard]

Dude first prove property values would be negatively effected.

I used to work for a homebuilder during college. It was a good summer job just traveling home site to home site making sure safety fences were still upright and nothing was being stolen. One thing I remember was that we had one house in a specific subdivision that none of the salesman could sell. It was one of the nicer 2 story houses with a car port. Unfortunately, it had a utility pole in the backyard that brought in all the utilities to the neighborhood. That alone caused the house to sit for the longest. I left the company before it was sold, but I do remember the house getting so many price cuts to the point where it reached the same price point as some of the cheaper 2 story houses.

 

Utility poles do have an effect in property value.

Second, nothing you have said deals with my point. Fine you don't want the pole, I get it. You are weird.

 

Let me use your argument against you.

 

fine. You like the pole. You're weird

 

You think you make a valid argument based off of 'opinion', but you don't.

Now deal with the fact that companies don't find it profitable to provide cell service to your house. Do that and I don't have an issue.

 

 

Sweet Baby Jesus and miniature fat Buda! Do you even read my post? How many times do I have to spell it out for you!

 

Property is MORE (as in being greater) important to me than Cellphone service.

 

If you can't understand that, then I give up.

[greenbastard]

I don't understand why people find them ugly because I don't. I understand other people find it ugly and I am fine with that.

I am not find with those same people complaining about service when they drive the cost of the infrastructure up beyond the point a company ability to earn a return on investment.

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Find me 5 people that has complained about service after they fought a small cell from being deployed on a 70 ft. pole. Please do.

[utiz4321]

I used to work for a homebuilder during college. It was a good summer job just traveling home site to home site making sure safety fences were still upright and nothing was being stolen. One thing I remember was that we had one house in a specific subdivision that none of the salesman could sell. It was one of the nicer 2 story houses with a car port. Unfortunately, it had a utility pole in the backyard that brought in all the utilities to the neighborhood. That alone caused the house to sit for the longest. I left the company before it was sold, but I do remember the house getting so many price cuts to the point where it reached the same price point as some of the cheaper 2 story houses.

 

Utility poles do have an effect in property value.

Let me use your argument against you.

 

fine. You like the pole. You're weird

 

You think you make a valid argument based off of 'opinion', but you don't.

Sweet Baby Jesus and miniature fat Buda! Do you even read my post? How many times do I have to spell it out for you!

 

Property is MORE (as in being greater) important to me than Cellphone service.

 

If you can't understand that, then I give up.

First, I don't known of any studies that say home prices are negatively effected by wireless towers. I am willing to expect that you value blah blah blah... More than having cell service. I am just asking you not complain about not having cell service if you make it uneconomical to put in the infrastructure? Are you saying you should complain? Or the wireless companies should lose money to provide you service?

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

While previous generations were probably more concerned with asthetics over function.

 

I know a few folks that have a list of wants before purchasing a new home, and having a good solid cell signal sits squarely in the must haves.

 

So in essense driving the property value up.

[Trip]

One day, every populated neighborhood will have small cells.  And then property values everywhere will be zero!

 

- Trip

[greenbastard]

First, I don't known of any studies that say home prices are negatively effected by wireless towers. I am willing to expect that you value blah blah blah...

I gave you a first hand experience (and one of the reasons I wouldn't want a 70 ft. tall wooden pole in front of my yard) yet you still dismiss it.

 

Some people are just to dense.

More than having cell service. I am just asking you not complain about not having cell service if you make it uneconomical to put in the infrastructure? Are you saying you should complain? Or the wireless companies should lose money to provide you service?

 

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Tell you what, the day I complain of slow speeds after I stop Sprint/Mobilite from sticking a 70 ft. pole in front of my yard, then that's the day you can say the above. But as of right now, I don't believe anyone has fought a small cell and complained publicly about speeds afterwards. If you can find that person, them bring him/her forward and you can bash them all you want. Most smart homeowners will know the consequences of fighting small cells or requiring powerlines to be put underground (longer outages if something goes wrong). People have been dealing with their decisions. Unfortunately, you can't seem to accept that.

 

I made it clear that I have absolutely no problem with Sprint using existing ~40 foot telephone poles in my area. I just don't want a 70 ft. wood mast sticking out like a sore thumb.

[greenbastard]

One day, every populated neighborhood will have small cells. And then property values everywhere will be zero!

 

- Trip

Probably so. But in order to get to that day, every cellphone provider is going to have to do one hell of a job at hiding their equipment.

 

Patriotic flag poles and fake palm trees for everyone?!????

[greenbastard]

While previous generations were probably more concerned with asthetics over function.

 

I know a few folks that have a list of wants before purchasing a new home, and having a good solid cell signal sits squarely in the must haves.

 

So in essense driving the property value up.

I'm not doubting there are people with different priorities when purchasing a home.

 

But there is a reason why most newer subdivisions pass all utilities underground. Think about that for a minute.