utiz4321

Dude we get it. You are a NIMBY. Other people have other priorities. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Guy, you little story isn't proof that a 70 cell tower reduces property value. It isn't even evidence because a car port isn't a cell tower,neither is it a generalizable in any way. And if you stop a wireless provider from putting in infrastructure and don't complain about sucky reception or slow speeds that is really all I am asking for. But if putting in that 70 foot tower isn't going to help anyone, as you imply, I don't know why a company would spend the money to put it in. Last, carriers don't build there network based out what you find acceptable. If what you find acceptable and the infrastructure they plan to put in can earn a return that covers the cost then great. If not then people have to decide but if lived in you neighborhood i would do everything I could to allow carriers to improve their service. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then suck it up and don't complain. That is all. First, ugly is your opinion which I personally don't care about. Second, you don't see them once you stop looking or if never had it pointed out. 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. I don't mind you and your community vauling a certain aesthetic appeal over cell reception, 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. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

What, that doesn't make sense. What you are basically saying is it the carriers problem when dumb residents want to keep them out or make not worth putting addition coverage in because it fails a cost benefit analysis. It isn't, they just don't cover you and it is your problem. But then you complain and guess what, you still won't have service. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Excuse me but that is you opinion. Frankly I like the way cell towers look. If you whine about the way these things look and the economics doesn't work out for them they won't build and it is your fault. So don't complain. The world isnt perfect. Get over it. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Then don't complain about sucky cell phone service. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

My point is that if you are going to complain about the looks of a 70 foot pole you might want to consider the looks of the buildings around it. That housing unit was far more offensive than a tall pole. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

The assumption that a pole 70 feet high would be any more of an eye sore than that multi-dwelling housing unit is absurd. Sorry it is. Wireless towers become part of the urban back ground. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Most of the ones I point out are ones in people's neighborhoods, for the very reason of demonstrating that when you arent thinking about them, you don't see them. If you want to see how this works, take a walk around your neighborhood and look for satellite dishes on your neighbor's roofs. You will find that more have them than you would have guessed. But the next time your phone doesn't send that picture or you drop a call you will certainly notice that. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

I constantly point out cell towers to friends and 100 percent of the time they never noticed them before. It is just not something you notice unless you fixate on it or go looking for them. Mean while these same jackasses are the ones demanding wireless provider give them free mircocells because service doesn't work in their home. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Any network construction that makes wireless networks more reliable should happen. The NIMBY crowd is insane. No one notices wireless towers unless they are pointed out to them and our neighborhoods are inundated with power and telephone lines anyway. You don't see people fighting to keep the power lines out. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Idiots. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Nimbys need to go away. The cell phones themselves have a small link to increase cancer rates, yet we all use them anyway. To my knowledge no link has been made to the base stations. As far as the eye soar argument, that is in the eye of the beholder but power lines run all over the place and no one complains. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Other carriers have to deal with the same problems and manage to overcome them. It is just amazing that sprint hasn't. In the end all of those problems are meaningless for the end user that is stuck having one of those sites in their top five usage. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

That is my main gripe against sprint. Why are there still sites that havent been touched or are 3g only NV in the middle of major cities and suburbs? There is no excuse for it at this point that should mean a Damn to a paying customer. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

I simply said that the news is some what discounted because the foot print of lte is small. To Compare how your network does in major cities to how AT&T or vzw performs across a much, much larger area is a bit disingenuous. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Foot print is small for lte plus though. Major cities get you to that number. Cricket had that before att. It is small. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Foot print is small for lte plus though. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

Their debt is 100 percent to revenue. That isn't quite as bad as the national debt but still bad. Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk