Long Island Town Enacts Tough Cell Tower Limits 310
crimeandpunishment writes "They're getting tougher on towers on Long Island. The town of Hempstead, NY has imposed some of the toughest cell phone tower restrictions in the country. The ordinance prohibits wireless equipment within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship, unless the company can prove absolute need. A spokesman for Verizon says, 'It's not unheard of for towns to have issues, but this is extreme,' and says this makes 95 percent of the town off limits to future antenna construction." With internet access by 3G, 4G and WiMax getting ever more common, I suspect that not everyone in the town will appreciate blocking out the companies that provide it.
Hempstead (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hempstead (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome our new hemp growing Amish cell tower overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't understand. They got this ban passed because cell phone signals were interfering with the government mind-control rays. They just want you to _think_ it's safe to take off your tinfoil hat, but reality you need to double up on it.
Take a look at the map..... (Score:2)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Hempstead,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.313287,86.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hempstead,+Nassau,+New+York&ll=40.706214,-73.618698&spn=0.032077,0.084543&t [google.com]
Re:Take a look at the map..... (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>If we impose the 1,500 foot blackout... there is what, maybe ONE place to put a tower?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my art teacher. I said the US Congress has banned incandescent bulbs effective 2012. He immediately pointed out that the law doesn't directly ban incandescents. It requires a 50% reduction in energy usage. I replied that's the same effect as a direct ban because no incandescent can meet that standard, so what's the difference? None.
Same with this celltower law. It doesn't directly ban the towers, but the 1500 foot limit has the same effect, which I bet was the politicians' plan all along. "We did not ban celltowers in Hempstead." Yeah. Accept that you did because now no towers can be built.
Aside -
I consider Edison's incandescent bulbs to be a superior technology to CFLs. Fast turnon, can be used in cold/hot areas (or enclosed fixtures), cost consumers 1/10th to buy, use fewer materials, easy to recycle, and no mercury vapor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>The energy is the issue
Yeah but how much energy is saved when I have to make a special trip in my Car to carry the Burned-Out CFL to a special recycling center (due to mercury content). Benjamin Franklin has a saying: "Penny wise and pound foolish." This is the same deal where you're saving a few watts of power and then burning-up kilowatts on disposal costs.
The incandescent would save more energy overall, because it can just be tossed with all the other garbage and doesnt need special (read:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No that is included in the cost of the product. And since you save money with CFLs the tradeoff is pretty clear. You really should try the new ones, they have them working outdoors and in enclosed fixtures now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what??? CFLs cost about ten times more than the Edison incadescent bulb. Also in my experience, almost none of them have lasted longer than the incandescents. They keep dying within 1-2 times the span of a regular bulb, thereby actually costing me MORE money to use, not less.
Of course I know why they die so fast. I have enclosed fixtures.
Am I supposed to go out and spend hundreds of dollars changing my home's fixtures from closed to open, just so I can save a few pennies with CFLs? That's bass-back
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take a look at the map..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Same with this celltower law. It doesn't directly ban the towers, but the 1500 foot limit has the same effect, which I bet was the politicians' plan all along. "We did not ban celltowers in Hempstead." Yeah. Accept that you did because now no towers can be built.
Had the same issue with power plants in Arizona. During the summer...they can't produce enough power to run the AC...but heaven forbid you want to build more plants or ship in more expensive power from out of state. When you get outages and brownouts...these same people bitch/moan that more power is needed without the plants or raising their electric bills. When the solutions are there in plain view...not in my backyard and you better not obstruct my views either.
The funniest part of this is the ones crying the loudest about the lack of service are the ones who don't want the plants/towers where they can be seen...even from Pluto.
Re:Take a look at the map..... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference.
The reason why the law makes an efficiency requirement is because it's not the bulbs themselves that are the concern, but the energy they use. Banning incandescent light bulbs specifically would allow them to be replaced with something even less efficient, if there's an alternative that's cheap and isn't technically an "incandescent light bulb". If that happened, the law would have had the opposite of the desired effect.
By writing the law that way you don't mandate or exclude any technology. If an incandescent light bulb can be made to be efficient enough, that's just fine.
CFL vs Incandescent (Score:3, Informative)
I consider Edison's incandescent bulbs to be a superior technology to CFLs. Fast turnon, can be used in cold/hot areas (or enclosed fixtures), cost consumers 1/10th to buy, use fewer materials, easy to recycle, and no mercury vapor.
.
Somewhat off topic I know but I can't resist.
Let's examine those points you made:
Re:Take a look at the map..... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.
1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.
2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?
Re:Take a look at the map..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.
1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.
If you don't vote, you literally don't count.
Voting is your responsibility as a citizen. It is your civic duty. It should not be voluntary.
If somebody didn't show up to vote, and gets screwed over by this, it's their own damn fault. Maybe next time they'll show up to vote.
2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?
Probably not.
That's the big problem with the democratic process... It relies on informed voters. Too many people today base their voting decisions on fearmongering and emotional responses. Folks don't do any research, don't actually
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Maybe this will be a lesson to the town about the importance of voting in elections. Maybe turnout will be better at the next election.
Other progressive ideas they should adopt (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Black cats to be tied up in a sack and thrown into Long Island Sound."
I think that's standard procedure when Cablevision comes out to fix problems with your service, innit?
Transmissions from phone (Score:3, Interesting)
I would assume that this optimal point is less than 1500 feet from the tower. If that is the case, then anyone using their phone in these "protected" places will receive more radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point ignores the fact that your phone is in use for a small fraction of the day but the tower is in constant use. You need to apply a large adjustment on the optimal range for this.
Re:Transmissions from phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Mom? Is that you? Because everyone else I know leaves their cell phone on all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course people do. But when your phone is on it sends occasional handshake messages to the tower. The tower will be contacting many phones which are making calls so it has a much higher average (mean average) signal strength.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I know this happens but the total radiation from the occasional handshake is far less than a phone call and the tower will be handling calls all of the time.
Phones with no antennas? (Score:2)
places of worship (Score:2)
so, maybe they can form a religion around these towers and hold services?
Reality called ... (Score:2)
Re:Reality called ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They should be doing exactly the reverse (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming signal strength is somehow harmful, they're doing the exactly wrong thing to deal with it.
By imposing those limits, they force towers to be further apart. To cover the area anyway they'll have to bring the power way up. The schools, daycare centers and so on will probably get about the same amount of RF as before, but whatever is near that tower will get cooked. And for those who protest the aesthetics, it's going to be a big ugly one as well.
What they should be doing instead is peppering the area with a weak tower on every roof. Then they can have coverage without strong emitters anywhere.
Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are going at it all wrong. What you propose is based on the premises of logic, whilst the rules are based on politics (AKA votes-whoring and popularity). Since anyone with any reasonable amount of logic is not trying to be involved in the cesspool called politics, then it is obvious that the two domains are mutually exclusive and thus your post has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.
And on a serious note: Too bad you are 100% correct. Not only is there no proof to the dangers of cellphone radiation, but also if there was any danger, then the correct course of action would be to put as many low-power towers as possible, as per your post. Sadly enough, the ones passing the rules don't deem it important enough to consult anyone who actually understand something in this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
totally, but when was the last time you heard of a competent politician/political decision/gov't law etc.? It's rare, but grandstanding is cheap.
That reminds me... (Score:3, Funny)
About 15 years ago my rural dwelling brother law was a leading light in a somewhat successful local campaign against the "radiation masts" that were sprouting up around the country side. As a city dweller who lived even then in a veritable sea of electromagnetic waves I was pretty sceptical of their protests and today , 15 years later, I am amused at his constant complaints that he cannot get a decent phone or internet signal.
Kick your Bro in Law in the nuts for all of us! (Score:2)
That American Cancer Society... (Score:2, Insightful)
You know those blasted scientists and the American Cancer Society, definitely in the pocket of "Big Cell Phone"
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones are a much bigger source of radiation to your body than a celltower. Now, if you move the celltower further away, what does the cellphone need to do to reach it? Pump the power, radiating even more, at a geometrical increase depending on the distance.
And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again... (Score:3, Interesting)
This sort of legislation is due to the "OMFG I KIN FEEL IT IN MY BWAIN!!!" tinfoil hat crowd, saying "RADIASION IZ KILLIN DE BEEZ!"
And since the vast majority of people don't see fit to have an opinion on this, the vocal moronity - err, minority - are all that is heard, and the politicians will bow to the herd to get votes.
The right answer IMHO would be for all the carriers to say "OK, fine - since you are too sensitive for our signals, we will remove them." Let us see what happens when Joe Ranknfile finds his precccisouuuussss cellphone doesn't work, and it is due to the tinfoil hat brigade and the spineless political hacks who covet their votes. Suddenly it won't be JUST the tinfoilers who are making themselves heard.
Placebo effect is real... (Score:2)
If they want to vote themselves shitty cellphone coverage in their nurseries and schools then let them. Hope they can get a signal when snowflake is choking on something...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They're also putting COLORS in the water now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's make a list of related lunatic fringe causes:
Artificial Sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose)
Vaccines particularly MMR
Chlorination / Fluoridation of drinking water
HFCS
Glyphosate
GMOs
Any more?
Re: (Score:2)
Aspartame really makes my sister sick. Two glasses of diet products -> Puking. Chlorination is bad because it tastes like shit an people have to buy bottled water(and throw away the containers). The rest, that is for nut jobs.
And here's the other half of the issue... (Score:2)
And here's the other half of the issue:
"... unless the company can prove absolute need."
Such proof being provided on the memo line of a check with a lot of zeros, made out to the politico's reelection fund.
Somehow, I would guess that if Verizon wanted a cell site at some location, there are, $hall we $say, way$ to $ee $omething like that happen$.
Leave it to the "Ban Everything" Coasts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, well, if they're that upset about radiation, maybe we don't give them television, radio, ban the 2-ways in the police, fire, and ambulance, nobody can own a cell phone or any other 2-way communications, no more wireless computer networks, wi-fi, etc. Landline phones only, no remote car door unlockers or garage door raisers... its fun to take it to an extreme... but this is already an extreme...
Its dumb as a box of rocks. All they're saying is, "We don't want ANYTHING to change, anywhere, anytime, for any reason."
People I love to hate...
Shut 'em all down (Score:2)
Verizon (and other cell companies) should not only no longer place cell sites in Hempstead. They should disconnect all the sectors of out of town antennas which point into Hempstead, and make the whole thing a dead zone. Then there's a few things that could happen.
1) Much of Hempstead's population will get sick of being in a dead zone and will tell the tinfoil hatter's to STFU and repeal the law.
2) Hempstead will become a destination for tinfoil hatters and cranky old cellphone haters, and everyone's happ
Not uncommon (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA mentions another city that tried similar restrictions and was overturned by a federal court. There is a proposed Wi-Max tower half a block from my house and the neighborhood is doing everything they can to stop it. The city has made it clear they have no say in the matter as tower placement is governed by the state and feds. So... IMHO Hempstead will be in court the next time a carrier proposes a new tower, and while it may delay the tower being built Hempstead spend a lot of money and lose. Also, cell towers are a source of revenue and in my part of town they are primarily on school buildings (the building itself or their chimneys), churches, watertowers, one in a graveyard, etc. We have very few stand-alone towers which may be part of the NIMBY here.
Scary towers! (Score:2)
five children who attended school 50 feet from cell antennas on a water tower have been diagnosed with cancer or leukemia and three have died
So ... instead of looking for the actual cause of the cancers you decided the tower was a good enough scapegoat?
Darwin in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean 'unlikely' - they never looked for the real cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, next up, electricity (Score:2)
I hope Hempstead bans telephone polls and electrical wires too. And streetlights, and traffic signals.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything that emits electromagnetic radiation has to go.
Give them a taste of what they want (Score:2)
On the day when the law comes into force, the companies should just turn off the towers within the limited areas for 30 minutes during a peak time, along with appropriate publication in local media before that.
Then the citizens can decide if their representatives are representing well, and the (currently) silent majority is welcome to lynch the activist group that achieved this.
non-issue (Score:2)
Hooray for artificially holding back technology! (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, this all comes down to how dumb people are. I'll give an example from where I grew up
It was a relatively small town, but within 10-20 minutes of large cities here in New York. There is literally NO cell phone reception around the entire radius of the town. You have to drive at least 10-15 minutes to get cell reception. So Verizon (and at that time, CellularOne who was recently bought out by AT&T) wanted to put up a tower right in the middle of the town behind some barns and silos. Not visible from the road but if you tried hard enough you could see it.
The town, who I knew from experience hated not having cell service, was concerned about property values dropping and how "bad the tower would look" when driving by...so Verizon proposed using one of the "camouflage" towers that looks like a pine tree. The town reviewed it, and STILL said no because it "didn't look enough like a tree". So Verizon came back and said "ok we will build the tower inside a silo. You won't be able to see it AT ALL. The reception will be reduced slightly because of it being enclosed, but you will still have service". Instead of approving it, they put it up for a vote, and the tower STILL voted it down over concerns of "radiation".
Weeks later I remember hanging out with friends, whose fathers and mothers were on the town board, and others who had voted no, and hearing them and their kids bitch about the fact that there still wasn't cell reception, and blaming the cell companies for NOT PROVIDING A FEASIBLE SOLUTION!
I think this happens more often than not around the country, where stupid backwards people who don't really know what they are talking about, wind up shooting town technological advances in favor of "oh that looks bad" or "oh i heard it does _______ which is bad" without knowing the facts, or understanding how important technology can be, especially in rural areas that have been without it. In this case, lack of cell phone reception and broadband internet kept many businesses and other things important for growth of a town or city out of the area because of the lack of available technology.
It really amazes me at how resistant people are. I'd rather have my property value go down a little than be without cell reception or internet service in this day in age. It hurts more not to have it than it would to just grin and bear it for the good of advancement.
In Canada... (Score:2)
Radio towers are a Federal issue and the only standing that provinces and municipalities have is what the feds care to give them. This federal perogative has been widely accepted by the provinces. Industry Canada is the regulating ministry.
This is not to say that the municipalities are ignored... just that if the feds say you can build a tower and approve the design then the local municipality can complain but they have no legal grounds to block the construction.
see http://www.cwta.ca/CWTASite/english [www.cwta.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the same in the US. Antenna placement is governed by the FCC, and any local or state laws and regulations that have a significant impact on the ability of anyone to put up an otherwise-legal antenna are void.
Lots of cities try to pull this crap. Some of them back off once a few lawyers get involved, others waste millions of tax dollars in court only to be smacked around by an unamused US District Court judge.
May also be aethetics. (Score:2)
All the comments here seem to focus on fears of health issues. That may be true, but I remember that when I was younger, a cell company put up a tower overnight in the middle of my community. There was a lot of protest, people complained. Not because of health issues, but because it was ugly--a giant ugly tower right up in the middle of the neighbourhood. So, just to say, it may not only be that people are 'nuts', but just that they want to preserve the aesthetics of their town. I think they were also
Not banning, just regulating (Score:3, Insightful)
"The ordinance prohibits wireless equipment within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship, unless the company can prove absolute need."
Note the last part of that sentence from the summary. In essence, it seems to imply that their just requiring special building permits approved on a case-by-case basis for any new cell tower built in a potentially concerning place. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
At the very least, if the process for requesting permits for new towers becomes more cumbersome, perhaps the providers will look more closely at re-using/sharing existing towers in more elaborate ways. If not, we'll have cell towers on every block sooner or later (which isn't good for anybody).
Who owns existing towers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... (Score:5, Funny)
Dang, did I just get first post? The frosty-drink troll guy must be trying to use his Android from Hempstead.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Probably the whacky politicians read a report about "dangerous EM emissions causing cancer and headaches and other scary things" so they decided to ban transmitters. (Not directly of course, but this law has the same effect.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... (Score:5, Insightful)
We at Evil Co. sympathise with the town's wish not to be bombarded with EM radiation. A it is clearly the will of the people that they not have these signals directed in their vicinity, we wish to respect their wishes, even at the cost of some profit. Unfortunately, complying with these new laws would require significantly increasing the power output of other towers to compensate, and so we are unable to continue to offer service without violating the intent and spirit, if not the letter, of this law. As we can not provide a service in this town, we are willing to waive early termination fees for any customers in the affected area, as a gesture of good will. We hope that they will enjoy their relaxed lifestyle, free from the burdens of modern technology.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And nothing of value will be lost.
Maybe, just maybe, the city fathers are crazy like a fox. Eventually, Hempstead (? home of marijuana) will become a bastion of civility and quiet. Drivers will actually pay attention to the road. Teenagers won't have their thumbs in splints.
And maybe they're just batshit insane. My money is on the latter.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
FYI: in the English (as opposed to American)-speaking world, it is typical (though no longer obligatory) to use "s" rather than "z" in such a case.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I can imagine an iPhone user grinding his teeth waiting for a typical media-intensive webpage to load at 9600 baud
Wow that's damn slow. Even an old-fashioned phone connection is faster (53,000 bits per second)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Asshole
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. The website's language confirms it is the same person.
It claims he is married. Wonder what the wife must be like...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship"? This sounds like they've confused cell towers with liquor stores.
These kinds of distance-based restrictions are usually used as a way of banning something de facto when a higher law doesn't allow banning it de jure. Like a local law which bans past sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school. Which has the (unintended?) side effect of preventing them from using the city's homeless shelters, all of which fall within that range.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?
that is COMMUNIST.
No, I think it's actually closer to fascist. Communists don't have "non-state capitalist, for profit corporations", remember?
Re: (Score:2)
You're the idiot. They can build all the antennas they want. They can't turn them one and fill the PUBLIC airwaves with radiation. They don't own the airwaves across others' houses and streets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
No, that's irrelevant because it does nothing to reduce the stupidity and deservingness-of-ridicule of what they decided to do.
Re: (Score:2)
are you going to stop them?
No, I'm going to laugh at them. I thought that was the whole point of it being posted here, actually.
you are NOTHING
Well yeah, but the (lack of) meaning of life is a bit oversized of a topic for here.
Re: (Score:2)
Look out, someone let a 10-year old on Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
You are LESS THAN NOTHING, YOU ARE POOP!
Just emulating your style of debate.
Re: (Score:2)
***you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
go be a communist somewhere else.***
Well, no. Actually the town does not have the right to do whatever they want. Federal law says that they can not establish restrictions that would make it impossible to provide cell phone service in the town. See http://hosted-exchange.tmcnet.com/topics/mobility/articles/104066-long-island-town-passes-restrictive-cell-tower-law.htm [tmcnet.com]
If the town hasn't given some serious thought to cra
Re: (Score:2)
The guy your talking to is a nutcase, you might want to avoid him in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting defensive about this for some reason.
I know defending the common good and educating the ignorant are both usually a good idea, but some people revel in their dementia and don't want it disturbed. Sometimes I don't recognize this quickly enough and need to be reminded that I'm talking to a bakatare.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Taking your comment another way...
So what if the cell phone company chooses not to set up shop in your town because it's not profitable?
Are you going to be adolescent and call them names too for not making it less possible for people to die?
Oh... what about my right to not have electromagnetic radiation involuntarily pulsed through my body for your convenience?
(For the record, I don't have a problem with being subject to radio tower emissions, but some people do).
Re: (Score:2)
Geometrical, not exponential (Score:5, Informative)
"Radio signal strength decays exponentially. "
No, it decays geometrically.
Exponential decay would be of the form P=An^d, where "d" is the distance, and A and n are constants.
The formula for free space losses is of the form P=Ad^2 - a geometrical loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops. Thanks for the correction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In practice that could be way higher than 2 (or sometimes less). From Wikipedia:
"In the study of wireless communications, path loss can be represented by the path loss exponent, whose value is normally in the range of 2 to 4 (where 2 is for propagation in free space, 4 is for relatively lossy environments and for the case of full specular reflection from the earth surface—the so-called flat-earth model). In some environments, such as buildings, stadiums and other indoor environments, the path loss exp
Re: (Score:2)
True, it's within their rights to do it. And it's within my rights to explain why it's a stupid thing to do.
Nevertheless, I hope they go ahead with it. I don't live there, so I don't care that much about what they do. I think they'll either get the worst coverage in the country, or the phone companies will get fed up and leave, leaving them with no phone service. I look forward to reading what will happen then.
Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (Score:5, Informative)
First, this country is not a democracy, even though we espouse the democratic concepts. It's something called a representative republic. If your school failed to teach you that, or you failed high school civics, then go look it up, I'm sure wikipedia has an article on it.
Second, no town or person can do "whatever they want". If they could, it would be an anarchy and there would be no town ordinances in the first place. Don't forget that they have to follow rules as well (state & federal), and if you let people do whatever they want, they will eventually do stupid or unfair things that just hurt themselves or other people. (Remember slavery? It's an extreme example, but totally valid to represent what happens when you let the 'majority' do what they want.)
Third is the communist thing. We'll ignore the original utopian concept that communism was meant to be and go with the more modern variant based on the old Soviet Union and the current China. Hmmm, a government setting a restrictive rule that limits both corporate endeavors and public access to communication utilities/resources. Yep, that qualifies as modern communism. But that's the opposite of your declaration... Yeah, speaking of failing high school civics, I think we've got your number.
Just a small note on utopias. There are many different utopian theories, and they are all interesting but fatally flawed. I don't believe in the possiblity of any form of utopia existing until after all of humanities basic psyche has been severely altered, and that isn't happening any time soon, if ever.
Re:Places of worship? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand the purpose of these regulations at all. What difference does it make how close a tower is to a day care center or place of worship? Within 1,500 feet of homes? How do they expect to get cellular service at home, then? Hm.
I have two guesses which aren't mutually exclusive. The first is that someone has bought into the hysteria that cell phones cause radiation damage and hence wants them far away from places where people gather or live. Second, that this is a sly attempt to create a monopoly for a provider. It'd be interesting to see if someone already satisfies these regulations. If we start seeing more extremely restrictive regulations like this, that would be an indication that someone is organizing local monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if this is anonymous coward. MOD PARENT UP! I'd love nothing more than to see this happen.