|
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 04:20:13 -0500, Foxs Mercantile
wrote: On 3/26/2017 4:06 AM, Neill Massello wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg The Watts Towers of telecom. To me, that's actually more aesthetically pleasing than most of the attempts to disguise. Back in the early to mid '90s, the standard albeit incorrect answer for "no cell phone use on airplanes" was that they would interfere with the operation of the airplane. Cell phones in airplanes don't work very well because the phone can see perhaps hundreds of cell sites simultaneously from the air causing handoff problems: http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft My question was, if that was true, why wasn't Mount Wilson a smoking crater for the amount of RF it poured out under the flight path. Patience. Your crater might arrive eventually. An LAX ATC tried by aiming a Boeing 777 Dreamliner at Mt Wilson in order to produce the required crater: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-faa-investigation-plane-wrong-direction-20161220-story.html http://www.jacdec.de/2016/12/20/2016-12-16-eva-air-b777-flew-astray-and-close-to-terrain-east-of-los-angeles/ Since that failed, it might be possible to attempt to burn it down again, once the trees and brush grow back: http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Mt.-Wilson-with-labeled-names-of-scopes.jpg The bottom line is that cell phone interference is unlikely, but still too much of a potential problem to risk a disaster. Better safe than sorry. Besides, I don't want to fly in an airplane full of people trying to yell over the engine noise into their cell phones. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 2017-03-26 08:09, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
In the last 17 years, the ordinance has roughly doubled in size. Exemptions and exceptions are added regularly to deal with non-compliant technology and organizations. Life blunders on. If adding a cell site in your neighborhood requires a tower ordinance, you have my sympathies. I wonder why such things are not regulated from the highest level possibly in any country. Seems absurd to my that anything smaller than a state has to regulate towers. -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 2017-03-26 06:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
This is what AT&T (Cingular) installed when they were first forced to disguise a cell tower or monopole and had no clue what they were doing but had to build it in a hurry: http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/jeffl/crud/AmestiAT&T.jpg I'll spare you the jokes about standing lumber trees. ROTFL! X'-) People drove for considerable distances to see this abomination when it was first installed about 20(?) years ago. I can imagine :-) Incidentally, it's 90ft high. There was some official debate over the distinction between a genuine disguise monopine and an attractive nuisance. This created an awkward situation for AT&T, where modifying or rebuilding the tower might be construed as agreeing with their critics. So, it was left unchanged for a few years until the bad jokes died down. A water tank now sits on the location and a new cell site was built somewhere close, but further away from the nearby residential areas. For additional disguise cell towers and associated stories, see: http://www.celltowerphotos.com Then, there's the giant cucumber tower: http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Giant-Cucumber.jpg Anything worth doing, is also worth over-doing: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Cell_Site_Mast_Loaded.jpg -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanning anyway?
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:17:01 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote: On 2017-03-26 08:09, Jeff Liebermann wrote: In the last 17 years, the ordinance has roughly doubled in size. Exemptions and exceptions are added regularly to deal with non-compliant technology and organizations. Life blunders on. If adding a cell site in your neighborhood requires a tower ordinance, you have my sympathies. I wonder why such things are not regulated from the highest level possibly in any country. Seems absurd to my that anything smaller than a state has to regulate towers. I'm not going to speculate why, but the various parts of cell tower installation are divided between Federal, State, and local authorities by areas of influence. Anything that has to do with RF is owned by the FCC. Anything that has to do with aviation hazards, is run by the FAA and managed by the FCC. The FCC also deals with licenses, auctions, and protecting monopolies. If there are local public utilities commissions involved, then those are run by the State. Site selection, co-location, construction practices, aesthetics, compliance the local general plan, and taxing users, are handled by the local authorities (city and/or county). It might be possible to consolidate all these into some kind of national personal communications bureaucracy, which would run things at all levels. To some extent, that's roughly what happened when the DHS (dept of homeland security) was established in 2001. I believe that might be what you're suggesting. Yes, it could be done, but do we really need yet another bureaucracy when the inefficient but tolerably effective existing tangle of overlapping agencies, departments, and boards are adequate? Sometimes, they need a kick in the posterior, as with the FCC imposing a "shot clock" to get things moving, but mostly, things lurch and blunder forward without bloodshed or additional taxes. Also, the cellular industry basically started in about 1990 and is now only 27 years old. In another 15 years or so, we'll probably be overly connected at gigabit speeds going to work via virtual reality and traveling around via augmented reality. Creating yet another bureaucracy just to speed up the process doesn't seem like a great idea. We may even be communicating by telepathy via implants. Be patient. The future will arrive at the usual erratic pace quite nicely without faster regulations and additional bureaucracy. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
You probably don't know the answer but what allows WiFi scanninganyway?
On 2017-03-26 23:17, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:17:01 +0200, "Carlos E. R." wrote: On 2017-03-26 08:09, Jeff Liebermann wrote: In the last 17 years, the ordinance has roughly doubled in size. Exemptions and exceptions are added regularly to deal with non-compliant technology and organizations. Life blunders on. If adding a cell site in your neighborhood requires a tower ordinance, you have my sympathies. I wonder why such things are not regulated from the highest level possibly in any country. Seems absurd to my that anything smaller than a state has to regulate towers. I'm not going to speculate why, but the various parts of cell tower installation are divided between Federal, State, and local authorities by areas of influence. Anything that has to do with RF is owned by the FCC. Anything that has to do with aviation hazards, is run by the FAA and managed by the FCC. The FCC also deals with licenses, auctions, and protecting monopolies. If there are local public utilities commissions involved, then those are run by the State. Site selection, co-location, construction practices, aesthetics, compliance the local general plan, and taxing users, are handled by the local authorities (city and/or county). It might be possible to consolidate all these into some kind of national personal communications bureaucracy, which would run things at all levels. To some extent, that's roughly what happened when the DHS (dept of homeland security) was established in 2001. I believe that might be what you're suggesting. Yes, it could be done, but do we really need yet another bureaucracy when the inefficient but tolerably effective existing tangle of overlapping agencies, departments, and boards are adequate? Sometimes, they need a kick in the posterior, as with the FCC imposing a "shot clock" to get things moving, but mostly, things lurch and blunder forward without bloodshed or additional taxes. I wasn't thinking only or specifically of the USA ;-) -- Cheers, Carlos E.R. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter