Winnipesaukee Forum

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3362)

mcdude 06-02-2006 07:25 AM

Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay
 
These quotes from a Letter to the Editor found in The Baysider.

Quote:

the objective of the people constructing the towers is "to give us 100 percent coverage with the least offensive looking and fewest towers." This is a ruse and deception. The applicant, Industrial Communications and Electronics (ICD), is looking to create the most vertical real estate (rentable tower space) as they think they can persuade the town to permit. Having been previously turned down in Wolfeboro, their plan is to create enough antenna rental space for as many wireless providers as possible to give Wolfeboro as well as Alton near full coverage.

Why is this a bad thing, one may ask?

Aside from the aesthetic issues of having two 120-foot towers placed on the ridgeline of Alton Bay towering 70 feet or more above the trees, there are huge health concerns. The applicant's plans show five tiers of antenna arrays with 12 antennas per tier. A tower equipped in this manner can have the power (wattage) equal to a large radio station.
and

Quote:

The new Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance enacted by Alton's residents clearly prohibits the type of facility proposed by ICE. Instead, it encourages more targeted low powered and new systems such as Micro Cells and Repeaters. One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cover and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover.
I hate cell phones. Do people really need to be gabbing on their cell phones while out on the lake? However, this is probably inevitable. At least PLEASE disguise these towers so they don't ruin the beautiful mountain scenery. Next they'll be trying to put a wind farm with turbines to generate electricity out in the broads.

RumGuy 06-02-2006 08:06 AM

Cell
 
I agree. Remember when you got into your car and that time was yours? What's the first thing that we do when we get into the car now?? Make those calls. Now more than ever we need that time to ourselves, to meditate, reflect collect our thoughts...whatever you want to call it.

On a side note-Can they make a cell tower that looks like a hemlock tree?

Lin 06-02-2006 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RumGuy
On a side note-Can they make a cell tower that looks like a hemlock tree?

They have them as pine trees, depending on their location they are noticible because of the height to get above the natural trees. They do blend in from a distance though, just looks like a taller fake Christmas tree. There are a few of them along rte 495 in MA and there is at least one that I know of on the west side of 93 somewhere up around the lake exits, not sure what town.

Mee-n-Mac 06-02-2006 12:50 PM

It was bound to happen
 
Well you can blame it on us. After years of crappy reception in the cabin we decided to get a land line. So just as buying new ski's dooms the rest of the winter to snowlessness, Murphy has decided to act up given our new land line. I http://home.earthlink.net/~farfrumhom/images/barfy.gif on Murphy's law and I http://home.earthlink.net/~farfrumhom/images/badair.gif in his general direction !

ps - I wouldn't worry about health concerns due to RF emissions. All very much "sky is falling" stuff. I've worked around RF all my life and I don't think it caused this stut .... stutt ... stutter and twi .... twit .... twitching :eek: ;)

codeman671 06-02-2006 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lin
They have them as pine trees, depending on their location they are noticible because of the height to get above the natural trees. They do blend in from a distance though, just looks like a taller fake Christmas tree. There are a few of them along rte 495 in MA and there is at least one that I know of on the west side of 93 somewhere up around the lake exits, not sure what town.

Here is a link to a picture of a so-called pine tree cell tower. I have seen them in Mass and CT and quite frankly they look ridiculous. They are so much taller than anything in its surroundings that it looks very out of place.

http://www.pl8.com/cell/DSCN0524.JPG

Weirs guy 06-02-2006 02:17 PM

The hideous, I mean, realistic looking fake tree on 93 is between exits 17 and 18. Oh, and bonus points to you mee-n-mac for the holy grail refrence!

Sparrow Hawk 06-02-2006 08:01 PM

The towers will blend in with all the scars on the mountain sides from the houses that have been put up the last few years. Live free or die baby!

Grant 06-02-2006 09:46 PM

Sure, the "tree" cell phone towers are fugly, but are the gaudy McMansions devouring Lake shoreline any prettier? Honestly? Folks are more willing to ensure ocean-going 30+ ft. cigarette boats blasting by their shores at 60+ mph than they are a relatively inconspicuous tower. Frankly, I'd rather see fewer BMF boats (and their trailers along 93), and enjoy some better cell reception.

Just MHO...

tricia1218 06-02-2006 10:25 PM

there is one on 106 and I can honestly say it does not blend

winniekid 06-03-2006 12:42 PM

a necessary evil for some
 
Although I may get hammered for this next statement I thought I'd present another point of view. We are fortunate enought to live in the age of technology that allows certain freedoms. Previously, I hadn't been able to spend time on the lake for over 10 years since I live out West and my boss just wouldn't let me take three months off over the summer (the nerve of him!;) ). Now I own my own business and because of my cell phone, laptop computer, call forwarding, the internet, and all the other gadgets I can spend the entire summer on Winnipesaukee. I get the best reception on the middle of the lake...when a call comes in I just slow the boat down, address the issue and throttle back up. Without this technology, I would be stuck in Arizona in unbearable summer temperatures. I realize some may just think "stay in Arizona with your business" but why would I deny myself the chance to spend it at a place we all love when I don't have to. Wouldn't you rather be at the lake as much as possible?????:)

Winni 06-04-2006 11:05 AM

Safety Issue on Lake
 
Who among us has not been somewhere on or near Lake Winnipesaukee and suddenly found themselves in an unexpected or even scary situation? The weather on The Lake has suddenly turned and you are now completely disoriented. You've come upon an automobile accident and quickly need help. You're in a major traffic jam and are going to be late picking up your kids.

Whatever it is, the first thing most of us do today is grab our cell phones and try to contact the people we need. That could be anything from "911" to our children's preschool teacher. Most of the time all you get in the Alton/Alton Bay area and, indeed, on most of Lake Winnipesaukee is a "No Signal" message. In my opinion, and I know I'm going to get a barrage of put-downs for saying this, the proposed cell towers need to be built to make critical, safety related, modern day communications in these areas possible.

I speak from first-hand experience. You may remember reading in the paper last fall about a boat crashing into a dock (mine) in the middle of a really nasty wind and rain storm. These folks had been closing up their cabin on Rattlesnake Island. Why they left so late, in the dark, and in what was clearly an impending storm condition, is not for us to judge. That their ability to make decisions may have been impaired in some way is also not at issue here. All that really matters is they were trying to get home to their kids and they were in big trouble.

Having left Rattlesnake, they found themselves suddenly enveloped in fog, on a moonless night, with little control of their boat in huge waves caused by an awful wind. They crashed into an island they never saw coming. With a damaged boat and gravely damaged people on board, they tried to use their cell phones to get help. They were unable to get a cell signal. The only reason they were able to get help was they saw my spotlight turn on when I checked my own docked boat. They followed the light to my dock. When the EMTs and police, all of whom did a great rescue job, tried to use their cell phones at my dock, in my yard to get more advanced EMT help so an IV could be inserted before lifting the most seriously injured person out of the boat, they too were unable to get a cell signal.

This scenario has been repeated many times on our Big Lake, in many variations, to people with no impaired judgment and traveling in full daylight. Some may still use marine radios in their boats and be fortunate enough to reach the Marine Patrol to guide them to safety on the marine radio VHF emergency channel 16. Others, however, may be on our roadways, on snowmobiles, on personal watercraft, in homes, or in businesses where an emergency has caused landline failure. These people have no chance of contacting help unless they or someone with them can use a cell phone. People used to die because they couldn't get help; with a cell phone one at least has a chance.

Marine radios will not solve the problem. Due to limited resources, the Marine Patrol, (who do a spectacular job with the minimal resources they are given and deserve our enormous gratitude), currently only monitor channel 16 during their office hours.That being said, if an emergency happened to me today, all I would have with me would be my cell phone. I, like most people, expect them to work. I, like most people, do not carry a marine radio in our boat anymore. Neither do those in kayaks, canoes, small fishing boats, motorcycles, cars, trucks, bicycles, snow mobiles, or PWCs. Neither do runners and walkers. There are no more phone booths (remember those?) on every corner. Whatever the mode of transportation, we all expect our cell phones to be our link to emergency help when we need it and to communication services for convenience.

Once a cell tower is put up, eventually most folks will not even notice they are there. You will forget about it just as you don't notice the great swaths of forest taken out of hillsides for electric, cable, and phone lines unless you are really looking. There is a place approaching Plymouth on Rt. 93 that has a cell tower and one of these huge swaths side-by-side going up a mountain. You may have noticed, but if not, look for it next time you head North. Personally, I'd rather have the cell tower than all that baldness going up the mountain (not that "bald" is bad on heads, but not for the mountains!) .

What would have happened if we had said "no" to electricity in the late 1800's or cable access in the last few decades? If there is an eyesore in our town, look around you at the wires, poles, transformers and such that cover every street and back road you travel. Are you willing to give up electricity, land line phone, and cable access "for the view"? I really don't see much of a difference except that the cell towers are actually less intrusive. Also, good point , Grant, on the "McMansions"! I'd take a cell tower over these eyesores any day!

The people constructing these towers are doing everything possible to conform to Alton's apparently constantly changing requirements. Their object is to give us 100% coverage with the least offensive looking and fewest towers. They are trying to allow as many cellular companies tower presence with the least possible number of towers. Does Alton really want every cell company constructing their own individual towers instead? Eventually, as with the introduction of electricity, there will be no stopping the spread of cell towers, so I don't understand the objections when the people introducing them are trying to do it in the least objectionable, most compact way.

The people who want to build these cell towers for us are doing us a huge favor. They are ensuring the safety of the people in the Alton/Alton Bay area and on Lake Winnipesaukee. These are places that have barely any cell coverage and more frequently, none at all. The tower builders are giving us, at no cost to us, the convenience and safety most have come to expect as commonplace today. Please note I have no connection to, nor stake in these companies (other than needing their service). I am speaking only as a citizen of Alton.

As far as I am concerned, this is one of those issues we all refer to as a "no brainer". I think we must allow the building of these towers NOW…before you, I, or someone else comes upon another accident, or one finds us, and we have no way to get help. What if it were your child or spouse in the boat or car accident; you dialed "911", and all you got was "No Signal"?

Just my opinion…

Airwaves 06-04-2006 01:13 PM

MJP
You make some strong arguments for cell phone coverage and I agree with them with really only one exception:
Quote:

Marine radios will not solve the problem. Due to limited resources, the Marine Patrol, (who do a spectacular job with the minimal resources they are given and deserve our enormous gratitude), currently only monitor channel 16 during their office hours.That being said, if an emergency happened to me today, all I would have with me would be my cell phone. I, like most people, expect them to work. I, like most people, do not carry a marine radio in our boat anymore.
Two points, first if I am correct, MP only monitors Marine VHF16 during office hours because MP vessels don't carry Marine VHF, at least they didn't the last time I inquired. (in my opinion that is a mistake on MP's part)

Second, if I'm in trouble on the lake I want EVERYONE on the lake to know it and come to my rescue! You can't do that on a cellphone but you can on a Marine VHF. A cell phone can contact one person, that's all. Sure that person might be a 911 operator but he/she is sitting on the shore, safe and dry while you're in trouble probably miles away on the water. That means the 911 operator has to take additional steps to contact and dispatch a crew that could be miles away on another part of the lake, and still no one but you and the 911 operator would know about your problem. Wouldn't it be better to allow someone in a boat, already in your area, hear about your problem and provide immedate assistance while waiting for MP to respond?

Just my $.02 on folks that have replaced Marine VHF with cellphones. Add a cellphone to your emergency aresenal, don't replace a Marine VHF with a cellphone.

RE: EMTs not being able to use cellphones from your dock after the unfortunate incident, didn't they carry radios?

mcdude 06-04-2006 06:18 PM

As I said, It's probably inevitable, however, at this point can't there be an option adopted that does not involve a huge tower on the ridgeline....such as the one mentioned above?

Quote:

One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cove and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover.
I don't know much about this...but....there's a tower on Prospect Mountain down the end of the bay in New Durham. Couldn't that be utilized or is it too far away? Also there's a fire tower already on Belknap Mountain. Why not some amplifiers and repeaters up there?

The proposal recently put forward in Wolfeboro would have placed a tower on Mt. Delight overlooking Lake Wentworth. A "Balloon Test" was undertaken to illustrate how high the tower would have loomed over the lake.
See Photos Here

It just seems to me that now is the time to come up with some creative alternatives. Once the towers go up it's kind of too late.........

secondcurve 06-04-2006 06:46 PM

MJP:

I still think that we could do without a cell tower in Alton Bay. That being said, you present a strong argument. Regarding the couple that crashed into one of the small islands off of Rattlesnake and then putted over to your house in the Roberts Cove area. You make that couple sound like wonderful people trying to get home to take care of their children. I think that you left out one important fact. The guy driving the boat was drunk as a skunk. As far as I'm concerned, that accident, like most, could have been prevented by common sense.

jrc 06-04-2006 08:02 PM

MJP is 99% correct on the need for cell phones and towers to support them. They are here to stay. For full disclosure, I have been in the phone and cell phone industries all my career.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves
...
Just my $.02 on folks that have replaced Marine VHF with cellphones. Add a cellphone to your emergency aresenal, don't replace a Marine VHF with a cellphone.
....

The 1% I don't agree with MJP is marine radio. You can get a handheld VHF for $100. No monthly subscription to pay. It's a very small price to pay for the security. Even if the Marine Patrol doesn't hear you, someone will. Plus they usually have built in weather radios. You really shouldn't be on a big lake miles from shore without one.

Weekend Pundit 06-04-2006 09:05 PM

Cell Phone Radiation
 
The article quoted by mcdude made a glaring error:

The writer said:

"Aside from the aesthetic issues of having two 120-foot towers placed on the ridgeline of Alton Bay towering 70 feet or more above the trees, there are huge health concerns. The applicant's plans show five tiers of antenna arrays with 12 antennas per tier. A tower equipped in this manner can have the power (wattage) equal to a large radio station."

First, the radiation angle of those antenna arrays is such that the RF goes outwards, perhaps with a slight downtilt (depends upon the physical angle and the phasing of the elements within the arrays). The RF level is quite low even when standing nearby a tower. On the other hand, if you were to climb the tower and dangle in front of one of the arrays you might have something to worry about.

Second, the concern about RF exposure from the towers is a red herring. You get more exposure from your cell phone when you've got it plastered to your ear.

All that said, I am another one of those folks who detest cell phones when they are used in an inappropriate manner/place/situation. At least folks like winniekid do the right thing and slow down before taking a call (maybe to headway speed?). I see too many people using them while at the helm, paying attention more to their conversation rather than doing what they're supposed to be doing - piloting the boat.

Airwaves 06-04-2006 10:29 PM

Regarding where to place and how to camoflage cell towers, the fake pine tree towers aren't all that bad. I have noticed the one on 106 but I will have to keep an eye out for the one on 93 below exit 20!

Boston has some serious historical regulations. Cell companies can get very creative to hide them. There are cell towers at Fenway Park...can you tell? There are cell towers on Beacon Hill, hidden inside church steeples.

In the interest of full disclosure, we lease land to a cell company in NH. There are three different cell phone companies on the tower plus town services. It's 110 feet high and it is below the tree line. It's NOT lighted at night (no complaints from neighbors) and the trees don't distract from reception. Remember, I advocate Marine VHF radios on your boat and to NOT rely exclusively on cellphones.

How about this for a compromise? Allow the cell towers to go up in Alton, keep them below 120' tall and they don't need to be lighted (doesn't matter how high on the mountain they are) and if it's really an issue, you can make the cell company dress it up like a fake Christmas tree. Yep, it'll look like a fake Christmas tree for a while, but then it won't.

You'll have cell coverage, and the town will be getting income from the tower.

Just a thought.
:cool:

upthesaukee 06-04-2006 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdude


I don't know much about this...but....there's a tower on Prospect Mountain down the end of the bay in New Durham. Couldn't that be utilized or is it too far away? Also there's a fire tower already on Belknap Mountain. Why not some amplifiers and repeaters up there?

.

McDude, the tower on Prospect Mt has cell antennaes on it. US Cellular and Verizon to name two. The problem is that the frequency band for cellular service requires "line of sight" coverage. As you sit in the middle of Alton Bay south of Sandy Point, you have coverage. Go over to the eastern shore near 28A and the coverage drops off to virtually no signal or actually no signal. In either case, no can talk!
Rte 11 westbound. Sandy Point, can talk, get out by Precious Gardens and you are blocked by the hill with all the houses that stick out like a sore thumb on the hillside and skyline (Lakewood Estates) (and we worry about a couple of towers). Pick up coverage past rte 11 D and lose it going by Mt Major Parking Lot. Ditto for someone along the west shore of Alton Bay.

Cell towers on the east side of the bay will fill the void caused by the terrain we love and provide a high measure of communication.

The ordinance that passed was not well publicized and basically says that antenna companies should place them in concealed place such as Church Steeples and Clock towers. Well folks, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the three steeples in town and the one bell tower (town hall) won't do a thing to improve cell coverage.

I would hope that the powers what be in the town would look to these towers and if their location would also be a satisfactory location for repeaters for public safety and town frequency radios, make space available on the tower for that purpose as part of the approval.

Ooooppppps, got on the soap box again. Sorry. :rolleye1:

mcdude 06-05-2006 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve
MJP:....The guy driving the boat was drunk as a skunk. As far as I'm concerned, that accident, like most, could have been prevented by common sense.....

Secondcurve: You may be confusing the incident at MJP's dock with THIS ONE ?????

Winni 06-05-2006 11:24 AM

Replies to Many
 
Hmm…okay, let me see if I can address a few of these comments all at once:

Airwaves and jrc: I just don't think many people, in reality, carry or will carry marine radios anymore but they actually DO carry cell phones. I know it would be nice to think all we kayakers, and all those jet skiers should go out and get pocket size radios, but I just don't think it's going to happen. We have to face that this has already become a cell-phone-based-society. Also, I want to get to 911 as fast as possible if I have an injury, not just the MPs. I think, from my experience, 911 is very good at getting Marine Patrol help when you need it. Also, they can connect quickly to the local police & fire and have the police or fire boats immediately dispatched in addition to the MPs. The locals often won't have to travel as far to reach the emergency as the MPs and, I do believe, most of the large towns have these local response boats now.

Also, if someone is in a boat in my area, hopefully they will see we are in trouble and also call 911 and, better still, come help! Surprisingly, people do that. We have even called about people who have appeared to be in trouble in the Bay from our home, e.g. a motorboat that is drifting and drifting and through the binocs. is seen to be paddling. Actually, if you want help from those nearby, I think the your whistle or horn are really your best bet. In fact, a neighbor's son, a couple years ago, helped a kayaker in trouble who was just using his whistle.

As for emergency personnel not carrying radios, apparently they are only in their vehicles, which, in my example, had to be parked up the street some due to the narrow road. They all pulled out their cell phones, which just makes my point: like it or not, we have ALREADY become a cell-phone-based-society; it's not a choice anymore.

Additionally, people should be clear on what the weather conditions are before they ever venture out. I've been an "outdoors" person and water rat for over 55 years and I know what some guy telling me from Mt. Greylock or even Mt. Washington (p.s. I'm also a licensed ham radio operator), is not necessarily what's happening 2 miles ahead of me. If there is any question about the weather and you aren't extremely practiced at reading the skies yourself, then you shouldn't be out there in the first place. I've been out kayaking and turned around just on "gut instinct" (which I think is really just being familiar with weather and water), had my friend who I paddle with all the time tell me I'm just nuts (ok, we all know that anyway), and yet had it start raining the minute we've pulled into our docks. You have to rely more on reading the sky and water and your gut once you are actually out there; again, just my personal opinion.

mcdude: First of all, the towers that are being applied for are not "huge". The only variance the company is looking for is to have the tower 10' above the tree line, which is really not much. This is to allow better line of site and greater coverage (as mentioned by upthesaukee). They are willing to go with the "fake-pinetree" look if necessary. There have been extensive engineering studies (I've read them!), and the two positions they are asking for are the ONLY available locations that will offer 100% coverage to the lower part of the Lake and all of Alton/Alton Bay. My opinion…if you're going to do it, do it once and do it right the first time. The company has currently been tasked by the Planning Board and ZBA to search for alternatives (church steeples, etc.), but it's not looking good (again, as stated by upthesaukee).

You are correct, mcdude. secondcurve's comments on the intoxication issue are mixing up accidents. In my post (a variation of which was actually posted in "The Baysider" not long ago; you caught me), I mentioned intoxication only because it was a question posed around the particular accident that ended up at the end of my dock. I mentioned it to right up front squelch the very thing that's happening in a few posts here. People are saying these people shouldn't have been intoxicated, which I'm not sure was the case anyway, and I'm making them sound all sweetsie. That was my point…it didn't matter. Good people, bad people, nice people, drunk people, sober…it doesn't matter. "Why" those people had the problem is NOT the issue. The issue is that no matter who you are or why you are in trouble, you have NO cell signal.

Weekend Pundit: You are 100% correct about the RF issue. In fact, it cannot even be addressed in negotiations because the feds. have ruled these towers put out such a low level of RF that it cannot be used by local governments to reject them. So, this is just a non-issue and besides the reality of the fact simply is there just is not an exposure danger.

I believe that much of the backlash to these towers is really a backlash about people who " detest cell phones when they are used in an inappropriate manner/place/situation"(WP's words). I detest this kind of misuse as much as you do. Most of the time, unless I'm following someone's directions turn by turn in my car, for example, I pull my car over to the side of the roar as far as possible in order to talk. And, neither my husband or I ever talk on the phone while piloting the boat. That's the navigator/passenger's job.

Just to be clear once again, as I said before, I have no relationship to the companies involved with putting up the Alton cell towers. I am just an Alton citizen who wants cell coverage!

Soapbox now cleared…next?

RLW 06-05-2006 06:08 PM

Someone help me
 
How in heck did we all live 10 to 15 years ago without cell phones. My suggestion is let's go back to those good ole days and use them just for our work environment.:)

Winni 06-05-2006 06:08 PM

Photgraphic Proof
 
1 Attachment(s)
I am sorry I may have misled you all. In an earlier post I said this site was around Plymouth, but when I went up to take a picture today, I realized I must have been daydreaming. It is exactly across from Exit 28, Waterville, on Rt. 93N.

I think this is a perfect example showing how a cell tower, even a fully loaded, fully exposed, non-fake-pine tree one, does less damage to our forests and is less offensive in terms of view than the horrible swath that has been cut out to allow the land lines. Here they are, side by side; now which do you think is less offensive?

We've had the land lines cut through our woods all over the place like this for years and now we hardly notice them. Pretty soon you won't even notice those extra ten feet sticking up above the tree line that will probably be ordered to look like a pine tree anyway.

Winni 06-05-2006 06:23 PM

Phone Booths
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RLW
How in heck did we all live 10 to 15 years ago without cell phones. My suggestion is let's go back to those good ole days and use them just for our work environment.:)

They were called "phone booths"! Seen many lately? :) And, as I said, everyone on the lakes used marine radios; people just plain don't anymore. PWCs and snow mobiles hadn't been invented, and only a very few of us crazies went out white water canoeing back then! You rarely saw a kayak, though I did do it then. My emergency connection was a ham radio, but I had to be able to get back to my car to use it!

As much as I wish there were still only one stop light between my old house in Mt. Vernon (1978) and Nashua, Rt. 101A now has about 35 there. I'm afraid the wayback machine, as much as we all wish for it, has not been invented yet. ;) I'm with you on this one; life was better then, but whatcha' gonna' do?

jrc 06-05-2006 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLW
How in heck did we all live 10 to 15 years ago without cell phones. My suggestion is let's go back to those good ole days and use them just for our work environment.:)

How did we live 100 years ago without cars, lets go back to horses. How did we live 60 years ago without antibiotics, lets go back to leeches. I could go on forever. :D

Silver Duck 06-05-2006 07:28 PM

I agree with MJP on this one. A dead spot in cellular coverage could very easily wind up causing a dead person, whether it's on the lake or on the road. Moreover, if you're driving, marine VHF is not a solution!

If the cellular companies are willing to foot the bill for improving coverage, there's really no excuse for playing games with people's safety!

Silver Duck

RLW 06-05-2006 07:36 PM

What company does things for nothing
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck
If the cellular companies are willing to foot the bill for improving coverage, there's really no excuse for playing games with people's safety!

Silver Duck

Who are you kidding, they don't do one thing in business for nothing as it gets passed onto you and me.:)

jrc 06-05-2006 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck
I agree with MJP on this one. A dead spot in cellular coverage could very easily wind up causing a dead person, whether it's on the lake or on the road. Moreover, if you're driving, marine VHF is not a solution!

If the cellular companies are willing to foot the bill for improving coverage, there's really no excuse for playing games with people's safety!

Silver Duck

Didn't mean to imply you shouldn't have cell phones, just that a VHF is a great safety device on a boat. A cell phone replaces part of that but not all of it. Maybe on an inland lake you can get by without VHF, and maybe the difference will diminish as cell coverage improves.

Airwaves 06-05-2006 11:24 PM

MJP I think you're misunderstanding my point about Marine radios. I advocate ADDING cellphones to your emergency arsenel, not replacing marine radios with a cell phone, especially if you boat (kayak) in areas where you don't have coverage!
Quote:

Also, I want to get to 911 as fast as possible if I have an injury, not just the MPs. I think, from my experience, 911 is very good at getting Marine Patrol help when you need it. Also, they can connect quickly to the local police & fire and have the police or fire boats immediately dispatched in addition to the MPs.
Only if the cellphone works, as you pointed out. Even after hours using a Marine VHF if you can't raise Marine Patrol, and every other boater on the lake is ignoring you, you can raise Coast Guard Group Portland from Winni and have them relay your emergency but if you broadcast a Mayday you'll have more boats around you than you know what to do with in a fraction of the time it will take emergency personel to respond.
Quote:

Also, if someone is in a boat in my area, hopefully they will see we are in trouble and also call 911 and, better still, come help!
Sure, if they SEE you, but what if they are just around the other side of the island, heading the other way. Nope, they won't see you, they could hear you using the radio, but won't hear you on the cellphone.
Quote:

As for emergency personnel not carrying radios, apparently they are only in their vehicles,
That's just plain stupid!

Yes, cellphones are popping up everywhere, I even work with a number of folks who don't own landlines at all, just cellphones. My point is that if I am in trouble on the lake I want all the help I can get, and I want it immediately.

Perhaps the response time of the various towns or MP is good, maybe 5 to 8 minutes. Doesn't seem long does it. Can you hold your breath that long?

I am not saying don't take a cellphone with you on the lake, I am saying don't replace a marine radio with a cellphone and assume that you can contact emergency personnel or get help in an emergency.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck
Quote:

I agree with MJP on this one. A dead spot in cellular coverage could very easily wind up causing a dead person, whether it's on the lake or on the road. Moreover, if you're driving, marine VHF is not a solution!
As I also said, I agree with MJP regarding the need for better cell coverage, but my comments re: Marine radios are for boaters on Winni, not commuters on 93, You're right, a VHF is not an option on the road but I'm talking about the lake.

skisox24 06-06-2006 12:44 AM

Ugly Towers
 
Hey, I hate cell phones, too. In fact, I hate all phones, including the hard wired type. But lets face it. We are all reacting to an issue that our children's generation won't identify with.

Let's be serious! Are these microwave towers any more unnatural than the telephone lightposts that carry utility service transmission lines to our homes? Boy are they ugly and intrusive. I am constantly reminded of Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon decades ago. He couldn't have completed that historic moment without leaving a boot print on the moonscape surface. Telephone poles and microwave towers are earth's equivalent. It's part of the landscape, get used to it.

Eki 06-06-2006 05:40 AM

Airwaves ... you said:
How about this for a compromise? Allow the cell towers to go up in Alton, keep them below 120' tall and they don't need to be lighted (doesn't matter how high on the mountain they are)
That would be incorrect because Alton Bay becomes an air strip in the winter (as can be seen from your marine nav maps). Now the surrounding topology (tree lines, mountain tops) define what needs and does not need lights

secondcurve 06-06-2006 06:34 AM

It's too bad that the wireless technology we use to today was adopted over the alternative satellite technolgy. Fom what I understand, in the early years satellite technology was not cost effective since by definition there were very few cell phone users. Oh, well.

Winni 06-06-2006 10:00 AM

Footing the bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RLW
Who are you kidding, they don't do one thing in business for nothing as it gets passed onto you and me.:)

Of course they don't! But, my point is we are not laying out thousands of dollars from the town coffers to get this service. The way companies like this, that construct the towers, get their money is to have cell companies like Verizon, US Cellular, etc. pay for a presence on the towers. Many cell companies can use one tower rather than having a tower for every cell company.

And, of course each of us pays a little more to the cell companies. But, I'd rather pay a penny or two more, and that's about what it amounts to when it's spread across all phone owners, than not have coverage.

As for the marine radios, I'm not saying "don't have them" and I'm not saying "intentionally use cell phones to replace them". I'm just saying the reality is that most people these days don't have them.

Our radio kicked the bucket a few years ago and, having cell phones by then, we just said, "The heck with it." If you want to have both, of course you should. All I'm saying is that we should face up to what is not function on how we would like it to be. Most people will not have them but will have cell phones and thus we should have all the coverage we can get at the lowest price with the least impact to nature.

I don't get what's wrong with my statements.:confused:

Winni 06-06-2006 10:17 AM

What is "stupid"?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

That's just plain stupid!

I'm sorry, Airwaves, what is "just plain stupid!"? ... what I'm saying or what they did? If it's what I'm saying, I'm only reporting what occurred. If it's what they did, I don't think it's stupid at all.

You weren't here. You don't know where the vehicles had to park. Neither of us knows what their radio reception was like that night for them. (My understanding is that varies greatly with changes in the weather, the time of day, and the ionosphere.)

But, as I keep saying, it is what the reality is/was, and it's not going to change to be what someone wants it to be. In all the confusion, for all I know, besides using my land line they may have run back to their vehicles and used their radios. I just don't know. I was pretty busy helping to hold a boat still, removing their boat canopy, stopping bleeding, mopping up blood, and trying to reassure people who were very scared and in a lot of pain.

All I know is what I observed. They tried to use cell phones standing on my dock and couldn't. My goodness, this seems to be making something so simple so complicated.

Grant 06-06-2006 10:47 AM

A simple solution: Erect the towers on lakefront property. It seems that most folks don't take much issue with people building large, ugly, obtrusive structures on the shores of the Lake.

Airwaves 06-06-2006 09:16 PM

MJP
Quote:

I'm sorry, Airwaves, what is "just plain stupid!"? ... what I'm saying or what they did? If it's what I'm saying, I'm only reporting what occurred. If it's what they did, I don't think it's stupid at all.
What's just plain stupid is that EMTs or Police don't have portable radios! Or at least didn't in this case. Not what you're saying. If emergency services have issues with radio communications then they obviously need to install repeaters to handle the dead spots. (and considering the level of my RE tax bill they should certainly have the resources)

Bottom line is if you don't want to have a Marine radio on board that's your choice. I think it's a mistake for all the reasons we have both discussed.
Lack of cell coverage, lack of getting the word out to as many boaters as possible that you're in trouble, but it's your choice.

I just don't want anyone reading this to think that replacing their Marine radio with a cellphone will give them the same level of communitation with others in an emergency situation that they had with a Marine radio, it won't.

EKI wrote:
Quote:

That would be incorrect because Alton Bay becomes an air strip in the winter (as can be seen from your marine nav maps). Now the surrounding topology (tree lines, mountain tops) define what needs and does not need lights
I was under the impression that anything built above the terrain that was less than 120' did not need to be lighted. On the other hand if a 120' tower is surrounded by 125' trees, an unlighted tower isn't going to be a factor for landing aircraft will it? :eek:

If the proposed tower is located in the take off or landing pattern for aircraft then that is an argument that would probably be successful in getting them to located it somewhere else.

Winni 06-07-2006 08:29 AM

Height issue
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves
EKI wrote:

I was under the impression that anything built above the terrain that was less than 120' did not need to be lighted. On the other hand if a 120' tower is surrounded by 125' trees, an unlighted tower isn't going to be a factor for landing aircraft will it? :eek:

If the proposed tower is located in the take off or landing pattern for aircraft then that is an argument that would probably be successful in getting them to located it somewhere else.

My understanding is that the proposed towers are to be 10' above the treeline.

onthebay 06-07-2006 11:26 AM

Cell phone or radio
 
Just wanted to relay a funny (ironic) story. A friend of mine picked up his boat in from the marina out by Alton last year for its maiden run. It was out in the middle of the week and not in particulary great weather. Out in the broads his engine cut out and began smoking terribly (possible fire). He Couldn't open the engine Hatch because power was gone.
There were no other boats in site so he called Marine Patrol (cell phone) and spoke with a dispatcher. They told him that the only other MP boat on the lake that day was responding to a call on the other side of the lake and couldn't get to him for a while. Since they were both concerned that the engine fire could get out of hand. The dispatcher suggested that he put on his life jacket, jump overboard, swim away from the boat and wait for her call. :emb: :laugh:

Grant 06-07-2006 05:56 PM

If they are erecting any towers anywhere in the region, I'd certainly hope that they are carrying some GSM...GSM service is LAME on the eastern side of the Lake. Another reason to stay with Verizon if you are pondering a switch to Cingular or another carrier, and spend any time at the Lake when you need to be in contact via cell.

And, yes, I agree that it's a sad commentary on where our society has "progressed" when it's "essential" for people to remain so in touch. Case in point: I took off Monday and went fishing on the beach. Thanks to the cell phone, I fielded no fewer than five work-related calls...all of which could've been handled by someone else...or even dealt with the next day...

But I digress.

Skipper of the Sea Que 06-07-2006 06:32 PM

Emergency response, cell phones and VHF
 
I empathize with the people hurt in the boating mishap described by mjp. Bad weather and a boater out in poor visibility with almost no control of the boat hits an island that they didn’t see coming… So they want to use a cell phone to call “911” but there was no cell service. What would 911 do anyway? You don’t know where your boat is and neither do they. There is no cell phone locator system in place around the Lake.

The real concern as Airwaves pointed out, (msg #35) is that the responders did not have the necessary communications equipment to do their work as efficiently as possible. Their radios should provide them with proper coverage and back-up comm procedures. If not, that issue needs to be addressed. Blaming a delayed response on cell phone coverage that does not yet exist is a hard concept for me to embrace.

Monitoring VHF Marine Radio channel 16 can be very informative. You can hear severe weather alerts from the Captain of the Mt. Washington, Mighty Mo, Marine Patrol and other boaters. Your call for help can reach many people all at once – some may be close to you. The new Marine VHF-DSC system on Channel 70 can (if connected to GPS) transmit your exact location and a distress call with the push of a button (the DSC system is not currently monitored by Marine Patrol, Tow Boat US or SeaTow). More and more boaters though are discovering and using the DSC features of Marine VHF radio and do monitor for DSC distress and routine calls.

By the way, kayakers and others who get real wet while boating, most cell phones do not like water. There are various reasonably priced waterproof or submersible Marine VHF hand held radios you might consider.

Even if/when there is cell phone coverage, cell service is not always available and calls do get dropped and lost.

Winni 06-07-2006 07:56 PM

Not Quite True
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que
There is no cell phone locator system in place around the Lake.

By the way, kayakers and others who get real wet while boating, most cell phones do not like water.

Even if/when there is cell phone coverage, cell service is not always available and calls do get dropped and lost.

Regarding the above statements:

* The entire state, I believe, and if not the whole state at least most of it, has E911 locator capability. Most cell phones sold in the past few years even allow you to choose to have location on for anyone to find you or for only emergency (E911) location. Whether or not you choose to keep either or both on is up to you.

* Kayakers have for a long time now kept their cell phones in little waterproof and floatable containers attached to their person. At first we just hooked them to us, but now life jackets come with nice snug little covered pockets meant to hold your waterproof cell phone container containing your cell phone. I bought a new life jacket about 3 years ago and even that had one. I haven't seen a paddling jacket lately that doesn't have one of these.

* The final statement above, "...cell service is not always available and calls do get dropped and lost," is just one more great reason to get the towers! Let's fix the problem in the best possible way! What's wrong with having this in addition to your marine radios if you chose to have one and why not create the best possible odds for the cell phones to work when they are needed?

I guess I'm not really understanding why everyone is trying find workarounds or objections. No one is saying not to have marine radios if you want them; we're just saying why not make today's most common communication method as available as possible?

Sigh.....:rolleye1:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.