NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: This Is Why People Hate the Phone Company, AT&T

----- Forwarded message from Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> -----

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:06:23 -0700
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] re  WORTH READING  This Is Why People Hate the Phone Company,
	AT&T - Tested
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>


When a friend at Bell Labs first briefed me many, many moons ago about
the plans for cellular phones, I remember saying to him, "Man,
eventually you'll end up with a base station antenna on every
residential block!"  He suggested that they didn't expect so many
subscribers that antenna placements would be a big problem ...

We can argue radio ERP all we want, but I know that I'd feel at least
a bit uncomfortable living in an apartment with one of those antenna
arrays a few 10s of feet from my bedroom 24/7.  Yeah, when I was an
active amateur radio guy there was a lot of RF from those
handie-talkies, but not at microwave frequencies day in and day out.

And let's not totally discount the negative esthetics of antennas
going up pretty much everywhere.  When you drive or ride some of the
suburban or rural canyons around L.A., you'll often find that just
about literally every damn utility pole is plastered with every shape
and style of ugly cell antennas with tangled hanging wiring, circuit
boxes, meter boxes, and a bunch of thick snaking cables that represent
the cellular instrumentality for the various carriers -- who of course
mostly can't share their equipment.  It's ugly as hell.

Now, admittedly one doesn't expect utility poles to be pretty, but the
sense that the installs were done by "Jethro Bodine" Cell Services is
overwhelming.  No wonder some communities get all bent out of shape
over this stuff, even while they simultaneously clamor for better
cell coverage.

There's a lot of duplication and waste in these setups, even as the
FCC seems hell bent on doing more wireless deployments even in those
areas where facility sharing of existing infrastructure would make far
more sense, bring competition online much faster, and potentially be
more eco-friendly in terms of resource usage as well.  But we know
who doesn't want to share, even though they got to where they are
today by virtue of monopoly privileges and associated facilities
that are still paying off big-time for them today.

Lauren Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
   - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition 
   for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein

 - - -

On 03/27 18:49, Dave Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Andrew C Burnette <acb@acb.net>
>> Date: March 27, 2010 8:55:21 AM EDT
>> To: dave@farber.net
>> Subject: Re: [IP] WORTH READING  This Is Why People Hate the Phone  
>> Company, AT&T - Tested
>> Dave,
>> For IP if you wish.
>> Yes, interestingly, in the US it seems consumers are willing to cut a 
>> deal with whichever part of the duopoly they find least distasteful. A 
>> sad state of affairs.
>> AT&T (note: I'm a VZ customer) has suffered from the success of the  
>> iPhone and given long cycles of network planning, deployment and  
>> dealing with thousands of (I'll be kind here) municipalities, capacity 
>> is not an easy add on as much as we'd like to think.
>> The obstacles are numerous, but two in particular...:
>> 1- poor planning on the carrier's part. Yes, we've had cost effective 
>> tech to get FTTH/FTTC & fiber to the tower for nearly two decades. The 
>> economics were born out early in the 1990's as being better in the long 
>> term for fiber deployment. AT&T, et al, were busy selling callerID and 
>> call waiting instead. No sympathy here.
>> 2- despite each generation of wireless actually *lowering* effective  
>> power radiated, the same "uninformed" citizens/consumers go a bit  
>> nutso about putting a tower "in their back yard" (very annoying in my 
>> own town; same people don't vaccinate their kids from horrific and 
>> completely avoidable diseases that devastated generations past).
>> My own experience was to see a group of (yes, even former bell labs  
>> folks) kill putting an 10 watt tower on the far corner of school  
>> grounds near my home. Note that the typical GSM or CDMA handset can  
>> peak at nearly 1W of radiated power in the pocket of the kids these  
>> parents were trying to protect. 500-1000 tech savvy kids, at even  
>> 100mW walking around with lousy coverage instead of an overall  
>> reduction in power by giving them good coverage. The irony is lost on 
>> the parents, and the wireless carrier is unable to articulate the  
>> greater good.
>> At the local town meeting where VZ wireless came to answer questions  
>> was a travesty. VZ wireless rep was unarmed and not able (or aware) of 
>> how to articulate the fact that good coverage results in lower  
>> personal exposure to RF for everyone involved. It was a sad moment  
>> indeed. So, we lost $35k in annual revenue for the school, better  
>> coverage for our area, and effectively are exposing our kids to more  
>> RF radiation out of ignorance.
>> I believe AT&T's own studies show approximately 40% usage "in the  
>> consumer's home" so I understand the femto cell strategy. Not that I  
>> agree with the exact implementation, but something has to be done to  
>> extend coverage.
>> As to answers. Not sure.
>> Best regards,
>> Andy Burnette
>> On 03/26/2010 10:40 PM, David Farber wrote:
>>> As usual I invite other opinions djf
>>> http://www.tested.com/news/this-is-why-people-hate-the-phone-company-att/60/
>>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>    [Powered by  
>>> Listbox]
>>> <http://www.listbox.com>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

----- End forwarded message -----