Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay

[mcdude]

These quotes from a Letter to the Editor found in The Baysider.

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

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]

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]

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]

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 on Murphy's law and I 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

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Well you can blame it on us.

OK Mee-n-Mac it's all your fault

To tell you the truth I hate the looks of them. Being an outside person I like the nice prestine woods and view, I like lakes with no homes on them but I get neither. I don't have a cell phone and never have. I hate to be interrupted when I don't want to be.

But as some say, progress is forcing it upon us just like all the other unsightly views we now have to put up with. To a person like myself the world is getting uglier all the time with objects of "progress."

All I wish for is that the towns that permit them control where they are put, how they look, read how high etc. and that the companies that own them abide by the wishes of the folks who live around them. I know, I'm in a dream world. It might be, but it's getting uglier and further away from the dream.

ToW

[mcdude]

Results of the October 10 Planning Board Meeting.....

The Baysider

.....The news was both good and bad for the applicants, with the Planning Board members finding that the Roberts Knoll site, on Route 28, had little visual impact, while the Miramichie Hill site, on East Side Drive, was visible from many viewsheds, especially from Lake Winnipesaukee.

Planning board member Jeanne Crouse said there was "no way to enter or exit Alton Bay" and not plainly see the balloons on Miramichie Hill.

But the impact on the viewshed wasn't the only thing Planning Board members took issue with. They were unanimous in finding that the applicants did not investigate the possibility of a network of smaller towers to provide adequate coverage, and the board also found that the applicants failed to make adequate inquiries to local property owners to compile a list of possible sites. Both of those complaints, and the fact that both proposed towers exceed the limit of 10 feet above the average tree canopy, and that the Miramichie tower negatively affects the viewshed, all violate the town's new telecommunications ordinance.

Planning Board Chairman Jeremy Dube said the "spirit" of the new ordinance is for the town to have coverage, but for that coverage to be achieved by many shorter towers, instead of a few taller towers.

Planning Board Member Tom Hoopes elaborated, saying the ordinance seeks to "make facilities available all over town, as long as they are invisible."

Donald Cody, director of operations for Industrial Communications, said he was "willing to work" with the town on disguising the towers as trees, but he wasn't as excited about continuing to pursue other locations, or the possibility of using more numerous, but shorter, towers in place of the two 120-foot towers he has planned. "The by-law asks that we notify potential sites within the area. We have done that. We have looked at alternative sites, there simply aren't any alternative sites," Cody said.

After the meeting on Oct. 10, the boards weren't sure what to do next. The Planning Board made its findings, but was counseled by the town attorney Mark Sessler to not deny the site plan yet, but simply table the discussion until the Zoning Board of Adjustment could look at the applications. However, ZBA member Timothy Kinnon noted that, until the Planning Board has formally denied a site plan, the ZBA has no legal framework to address the case.

"This whole thing is weird – it's all Attorney Sessler's weaving," Dube said.

The Planning Board voted to continue the meeting until it could gather more explicit directions from Sessler.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Results of the October 10 Planning Board Meeting.....

Planning Board Member Tom Hoopes elaborated, saying the ordinance seeks to "make facilities available all over town, as long as they are invisible."

After the meeting on Oct. 10, the boards weren't sure what to do next. The Planning Board made its findings, but was counseled by the town attorney Mark Sessler to not deny the site plan yet, but simply table the discussion until the Zoning Board of Adjustment could look at the applications. However, ZBA member Timothy Kinnon noted that, until the Planning Board has formally denied a site plan, the ZBA has no legal framework to address the case.

"This whole thing is weird – it's all Attorney Sessler's weaving," Dube said.
The Baysider

It would seem that Alton needs to be renamed Sesslerton...

[mcdude]

A little bit of background on Industrial Communications

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by mcdude: msg #105

A little bit of background on Industrial Communications

mcdude linked to an interesting article from the October 19, 2006 e-edition of the Foxboro (MA) Reporter. The report changes weekly. They have no on-line archive and the link no longer yields that article. Without editorializing I'll present it as published. By the way, at the Oct 2006 hearing the proposal was approved. Presented here with the permission of the Foxboro Reporter:

The Foxboro Reporter Week of October 19, 2006

By Frank Mortimer
In 1983, the Foxboro Zoning Board of Appeals granted Francis J. DiRico a special use permit to build and operate a 350-foot communications tower on Dudley Hill off Hill Street.

In 1986, without a building permit, DiRico extended the tower to 450 feet plus a 20-foot antenna -- and later sued the town after the building inspector ordered him to reduce the structure to the allowed height. DiRico tonight (7:30 p.m., Oct. 19, at Town Hall) is scheduled to appear before the board again, with plans to replace the existing tower which stayed at 450 feet in a settlement of his court case a decade ago.

Concerned residents are mounting an information campaign focusing on DiRico's new plan and noting his record of legal compliance when building towers in Foxboro and other communities.

"Owner of towers skirts height laws," was the headline of a 1993 Boston Globe article that reported on DiRico's communication's tower building activities in Foxboro, Quincy and in other states.

A resident is circulating copies of that article along with a flyer urging residents to attend tonight's zoning board public hearing.

Residents are concerned about radiation emissions, emissions inspections, construction plans, recent modifications on a shorter tower on the site, and the height of the proposed structure.

"Is it time to re-address the lowering of the tower to 350 feet?" the flyer asks.
The 6.4-acre parcel is located within the R-40 residential district near homes in Dudley Hill Estates.

DiRico's company, Industrial Communications of Marshfield, seeks a special use permit to build a 450-foot replacement wireless communications tower on the existing parcel and, once the equipment transfer is completed, take down the old tower.

The "face size" of the tower -- the distance from leg to leg -- would increase from 52 inches to 60 inches to allow for installation of a safety ladder inside the tower.

According to DiRico's filing to the board, the existing tower is a lattice with three legs and six anchor points. The new tower would be a lattice with three legs and three anchors for support.

DiRico's filing states that the existing tower legally can and will continue to operate "if the requested approvals are denied."

But since the tower was built in 1983, the filing says, design standards for telecommunication equipment and towers have changed four times and DiRico has improved the tower over time by adding more achors [sic] and guy wires. Nonetheless, it says, the "existing tower cannot be improved to meet today's standards."

A divided zoning board in 1993 turned down DiRico's request to modify his earlier permit and allow the tower to remain at 450 feet. "This construction was done without a building permit and in violation of the Special Use Permit granted in 1983" that decision states.

DiRico sued then board members David J. Brown, Lynne S. Mitchell and Joyce M. McDonough. As part of the board's agreement to settle the case and leave the tower and antenna at 470 feet, DiRico agreed to donate $15,000 to the town tree fund. He agreed to "limit the radio frequency radiation emissions from the tower below 25 percent of those allowed at any time by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Radio Frequency Exposure Limits for members of the general public."

And he agreed to conduct an inspection of the radio frequency emissions from the tower at least yearly (and pay for up to one additional inspection per year if asked by the building commissioner) and report the results within 10 days to the building commissioner.

Four such annual studies -- performed in 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2006 -- were on file in the inspection department, according to the leaflet circulating among residents, which questioned whether the studies are being done each year as required in the settlement.

Attorney Frank Spillane, representing DiRico, on Monday said he did not know whether his client has complied with the annual inspection requirement but that he would have that information in time for tonight's hearing.

[mcdude]

Thanks Al.

[mcdude]

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Police: Can you hear us now?
Planning Board may need a bouncer
by Adam Drapcho
Staff Writer

write the author

November 09, 2006
ALTON — Even for an issue that has proven to be generally contentious, the cell tower meeting on Nov. 2 set a new standard for raucous discourse. Highlights of the short meeting included the town attorney shouting down the applicant's attorney, and the Planning Board chairman calling Alton police to remove the applicants from the meeting.

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by mcdude

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

I wasn't there, but I understand that there was at first some discussion of why the topic was being brought up because at the last meeting it was to be passed to the ZBA. Once they got by that, I guess things got interesting.

The town wants more info on how more numerous but smaller towers would work, which would be more in line with the town's cell tower ordinance, with the study paid for by the town. In the meantime, it would be tabled.

The applicant's attorney was not happy with the topic being tabled for another month and seemed to blame the town attorney for them not being informed. Published reports indicate that there was a good amount of shouting, and when the chairman of the board tried to cut off the conversation, it continued and the police were then called to remove the applicants.

From the reports I read, and some scuttlebutt from a couple attendees, it certainly was not conversation between two or more adult and respectful representatives of both sides, and is unfortunately what is becoming a more common sight in the political arena at any level.

Hope I can make the November 30th meeting... Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and some real progress, rather than regression, can be made.

[ApS]

Rather than being discarded, your out-dated cellphone or video phone can be donated to a soldier.

http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/

[rrr]

thanks APS! I have a bunch. I will drop them off before the week is out.

[mcdude]

From the Baysider...

ZBA grants one cell tower variance
by Adam Drapcho
Staff Writer

write the author

December 07, 2006
ALTON — It was incremental progress, but after about a year of meetings, it was progress nonetheless for the applicants who wish to build two 120-foot tall telecommunications towers in Alton.

At a Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on Nov. 30, the ZBA granted a height variance for one of the proposed towers, for the proposed Roberts Knoll location in northern Alton. The board will meet on Monday, Dec. 11, to discuss the height variance needed for the second proposed site, on Miramichie Hill near Route 28A.

After receiving the height variances, the applicant – Industrial Communications – will have to go before the Planning Board to get the site plans approved. The possibility exists that the applicant could have to go back before the ZBA, should the Planning Board find further variances to be necessary.

Milestone passed

"I half-heartedly wanted to say 'Happy Anniversary,' since we've sat here for a year now," said Earl Duval, an attorney representing Industrial Communications.

According to the town's recently adopted telecommunications ordinance, cell phone towers may be constructed nearly anywhere in town, but they are restricted in height to being no more than 10 feet higher than the average tree canopy of the site.

Duval called the ordinance "fatally flawed," due to its height restrictions. At only 10 feet taller than the average canopy, Duval said the towers wouldn't be able to provide adequate service. "It does not work," he said.

ZBA members had fewer concerns about the Roberts Knoll location, mostly because of the result of a balloon test held in September, when Industrial Communications released colored balloons tethered to the height of the proposed towers. While the balloons at the Miramichie Hill location were easily visible from many places around Alton Bay, the Roberts Knoll balloons were only visible from a nearby gravel pit and the Roberts Knoll campground.

Sylvia Leggett, owner of Roberts Knoll Campground, who will be leasing the land for the proposed cell tower, spoke in favor of the height variance. Leggett said improved cell phone service in town would help the town's "tourist-friendly" image. "It would provide a great service for the residents and the tourists," she said.

Other residents, however, spoke in response to Duval calling the ordinance "fatally flawed." Resident Charles Weston commented that other towns in New Hampshire have similar ordinances limiting tower height. "Apparently the towers work in other towns, and don't have a problem with the '10-foot over' height." Resident David Slade made a similar comment.

Russ Wilson said all the evidence against a 10-foot over height is theoretical. "In real life it's going to work."

"It's not within the purvey of this board to decide whether or not this ordinance is fatally flawed," stated ZBA member Timothy Morgan. "It's the law of this town until someone other than us decides that it's fatally flawed."

The board ultimately decided to grant a height variance for the Roberts Knoll site, but only with the stipulation that the tower will be camouflaged to look like a tree, and that no lights are to be placed on the pole unless required so by a governmental agency.

The board began discussion about the height variance for the second proposed tower, but ran out of time before deliberations could begin.

Hobey Livingston, a local aviation enthusiast, said he can see hundreds of lights and vertical obtrusions dotting the landscape, including lots of telephone poles. "Yes, I can see the poles from my plane, should I be offended by this?" What's the remedy, he asked, ripping out the telephone infrastructure, and forcing residents to turn off their lights at night? He urged the board to grant a height variance, because the taller tower will be able to support several phone companies. "It will prevent the building of more towers, instead of having each carrier come in and build their own tower," he said.

Resident Alden Norman questioned whether the Miramichie Hill facility would indeed fill the "coverage gaps" that the applicants have described along Routes 28 and 11. Once these towers are permitted, Norman foresaw more companies looking to follow.

"This is just the start of several towers. More towers are on the horizon, you folks have to be cognizant of setting a precedent," Norman said.

Slade, whose property abuts the proposed Miramichie Hill site, offered extensive testimony arguing that the proposed facility would diminish his property value. Slade also said that the applicants hadn't explored alternative sites, as he felt the ordinance required them to do. Both of Slade's opinions were contested by the applicants.

The Dec. 11 ZBA meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m.

[mcdude]

Ron actually looks forward to viewing beautiful new cell phone tower from his picture window.....

Cell tower is a public safety issue

To the Editor:

It's frustrating to watch the goings-on regarding approval for a cell tower or two in Alton Bay. Between the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, and the Town Solicitor, nobody can even agree on whose court the ball is now in. No wonder people are screaming at each other at these meetings.

Obstacles to the tower range from the health risk of 'microwaves' (ridiculous) to the tower's impact on the 'viewshed.' Although I have yet to see a study that declares cell towers unsightly, or at the very least less beautiful than other antennas, the appearance of a cell tower from vantage points within the Alton Bay area is already decided to be detrimental. Yet I wonder? Will a single tourist not come to Alton because these cell towers are in-place?

I live on 28A in a 'no signal' area of town, directly across the street from the proposed site, and I am quite anxious for the new tower on Route 28A to be approved and built. In fact, I look forward to seeing this beautiful new tower from my picture window!

Furthermore, the Town's 'Personal Communications Ordinance' shouldn't even come into play here, this is a public communications issue. We're not talking about some private citizen's HAM Radio antenna. In fact, the lack of cell coverage in this area is a public safety issue, and therefore it is in the best interest for all that this application breeze through the approval process.

Ron Pearson

Alton Bay
Ron Pearson
Alton
December 06, 2006

from the Baysider.

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by mcdude

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

I guess it didn't get that hot as I see that the subject stopped in Dec. 06. Did you get towers or not and was there more said from those that opposed it??

[This'nThat]

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

[fatlazyless]

The Town of Ashland gets $1200/month rent for the cell tower near exit 24 in the Ashland waste water treatment facility which is on the Pemigewassett River. It certainly upset many of the Town of Bridgewater residents who have homes directly across the river and get to look right at the cell phone tower. About two years ago, the Ashland selectmen decided that the tower view being imposed on neighboring Bridgewater, across the narrow river, was not a reason to not let the tower be built. It's in a spot where no Ashland residents have much of a view.

"$1200 per month and no Ashland townies are forced to see it....what's not to like? All in favor, say aye. Now, that's good town planning!"

Probably, the tall white steam colored plume of smoke that rises upward from the nearby Bridgewater Power Plant was a strong arguing point. "Well Mel, if Bridgewater can locate their huge property tax paying power plant right up close to Plymouth and Ashland, then why don't Ashland locate their ugly new cell tower in that spot right by the river where it only can be seen from the Bridgewater side! Makes sense to me Mel, plus of course Ashland sure could use the rent money, now that the wool mill has closed up and sent all their wool machines to China, ayuh!

Up the road in Waterville Valley, the town just got through removing every single standard wood utility pole and street light fixture because the wood poles were unsightly and threw off too much light. All the street lights were making it tough to view the night skies and surrounding mountains at night. Instead of wood street lamps, there are now these colonial style, low light emmitting,, tall-but not as tall, charcoal grey colored outdoor street fixtures. Never seen anything like them anywhere else. For cutting down on night time light pollution, they are a very big improvement.

Every cable, telephone and power line in the 525 acre town of WV was relocated underground maybe 10 years ago, and now there's low light, designer street lights. How about that!

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

approval was given for the tower at Robert's Cove campground off rte 28, but denied for the East Side Drive location (28A).

Sooooooo, coverage in the Bay area will be limited to line of sight coverage from the towers on Prospect Mt, until you get out by the mouth of Alton bay, where you can pick up coverage from Wolfeboro.

It seems that the voting majority would rather not have our scenic vistas spoiled with a cell phone tower, but have no problem with a McMansion clear cutting a hill side . Ya gotta love it.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

No it is not rediculous..... it is a sad sign of our times when people don't know how to deal with a minor inconvience.... People are too used to being in touch 24X7..... If people need to be in constinent contact then they should have a land line.....

My phone stays in my truck or boat glove box when I am at the lake....and if I check it once over a weekend that is too much..... If people can get a hold of me then it is not really a vacation.....

I like the convience as much as the next guy.... but I also don't think my phone has to work every where I go, and I personally would rather it not.....

Like many things in life we have taken something that was ment as a convience and turned it into a necessity..... life has become so expensive, because of the stupidity of the American public, allowing themselves to think that the modern conviences, can not be lived with out... ( and before anyone attacks me for saying this I count myself in that as well )

[hockeypuck]

..... If people can get a hold of me then it is not really a vacation.....

LIforrelaxin, you're 100% correct about the above, but the convenience of a cell phone has allowed many a businessperson to enjoy time at the lake,that they never would have been able to enjoy if they were tied to a land land. Cellphone + laptop + fax + printer = office. Now we have the convenience of a mobile office almost anywhere in the world and no one knows if you're sitting on your boat on Robert's bay, Jost Van Dyke in the British Virgin Islands or at your desk in Boston. It's a cheap way to run a business and increase productivity(profits) so we can afford those taxes. True the "Vacation" may not be the same as a no cell one, but you can have a whole lot more of them. Not to mention the enhanced safety factor.

[Argie's Wife]

As an Alton resident who lives in a cell signal void area, this is a really frustrating issue. I totally sympathize with the NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard) people who don't want some butt-ugly tower in their view - I really do...

But...

We have a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) here with limited options who isn't allowing Metrocast Cable phone in the area AND is rather expensive to have as a utility - it seems everything is a long distance call with them! I've had several locals comment that as soon as a tower goes up, they're planning on dumping Union Telephone for their cell carrier for cost savings.

Additionally, whenever we have a power outage there is a safety factor - and we were impacted by this a few weeks ago.

In early October there was a nasty thunderstorm that came through the area. It included high winds and we had a microburst tornado touch down in our back yard - we had seven trees fall on our house in this less than fun event - causing over $10K in damage (home & property & tree removal costs). I had NO WAY to get in touch with anyone until power was restored. I was home with a 2 year old and a little freaked out by the whole thing. I'm thankful it wasn't any worse than it was but the "what ifs" run through my mind, especially where I have two young children.

Although I may take some heat for this, there's a "greater good" that should be considered in this issue. I haven't been following this closely enough to know what designs have been explored, etc. or what other locations might have been considered but I am for having a tower here Alton.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

No it is not rediculous..... it is a sad sign of our times when people don't know how to deal with a minor inconvience.... People are too used to being in touch 24X7..... If people need to be in constinent contact then they should have a land line.....

I understand your reaction, but since my wife drives, sometimes with our babies, through the Alton dead spots daily I would beg to differ that this is a "convenience". Is your argument more based towards the ability to disconnect from the world, or the towers ruining the view? Its too bad that even the tree looking ones look nothing like a tree.

Did we have cell phones a few years ago in case of emergencies, no. But where does it stop? Do we remove all the airbags, seat belts, stop lights...

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

I understand your reaction, but since my wife drives, sometimes with our babies, through the Alton dead spots daily I would beg to differ that this is a "convenience". Is your argument more based towards the ability to disconnect from the world, or the towers ruining the view? Its too bad that even the tree looking ones look nothing like a tree.

Did we have cell phones a few years ago in case of emergencies, no. But where does it stop? Do we remove all the airbags, seat belts, stop lights...

My arguement is more based in people inability to disconect from the world.
I have no issues with the cell towers persay... do they stand out, yep... and that is the price people pay for convience. Would I stop a tower from going in, no... if it is what a majority of people want....

What I don't like is people stomping there feet and crying because the world isn't just the way they want it. Dead spots are something people just need to except. Would I feel bad if your wife and kids where stranded in the dead zone... sure especially if it was at night.... but then again that is why I stop for people if I think they are in danger.... A courtesy that many have forgotten how to extend. As technology has advanced we have a become a less interactive and friendly society.

If people think a dead zone in Alton is bad what do they think of entire regions of Northern Vt and NH that are dead...... When I traveled from Burlington to Winnipesaukee there where many miles where my cell phone did not get a signal. One of my routes had me out of touch for over an hour.... It was a nice drive on a fairly busy road.... and no one was screaming about the injustice of it... it was just a dead zone.... If you saw someone in trouble you stopped to make sure they where ok....

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

-- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible.

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.

This should also yield a monthly check of around $1200,
if it proved to be an acceptable location for a tower.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.

Wouldn't bother me a bit. There are a whole lot of ugly, noisy things along the lake -- a cell tower is one of the least objectionable. Let's get the towers up!

[hockeypuck]

Put me down for a cell tower in my yard. A friend in Connecticut along I-91 bought a small (110 ft by 100 ft) piece of property with a small building on it for $65,000 a few years ago. Now he rents the building out for $1,000 a month and a cell tower was built, with 5 different cell servers attached, brings in a nice $70,000 per year! Every time a server adds another antenna the monthly charge goes up by about $1200. WOW! Ideal location, highway on one side, railroad tracks on other, no close neighbors. At first there was an annoying hum from the power shed, but this has been eliminated. Yes they are not natural, looking, but neither is a power boat, jet ski or ski lift.

[codeman671]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Rocky]

Originally Posted by Grant

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...

I'll second that!!

[RonP]

As a year round resident of Alton Bay, it kills me that this small town has spent $181,129 of taxpayer dollars fighting construction of a cell tower that the majority of full-time and seasonal residents of this town want and need. I work from home, have no cell coverage here, and the monopoly granted Union Telephone leaves me few options to reduce communications costs that run in the hundreds of dollars per month out of pocket. Beyond that, my Union Telephone issued phone number cannot be ported to a VoIP carrier such as Vonage; I am told that Union Telephone "OWNS" my phone number! What is going on here! This town's ridiculous stand against needed technology presents a safety issue to residents and passers by, and the exclusionary town ordinance that limits cell tower height to 10' above the tree line (note to idiots who write ordinances: trees grow, cell towers don't) has personally cost me many thousands of dollars in communications charges and lost business over the past ten years. To add insult to injury, my tax payments are funding this assault on my finances and my business for one of the most ridiculous reasons I have ever heard; "people will be able to see it". $181,129 in wasted taxpayer dollars sure could have been put to much better use; textbooks for the school kids, needed repairs to Alton Central School, a couple of teacher's salaries, road repairs to name a few. It's time those of us who pay taxes to this town stand up to town officials who waste public funds spending other people's money! This is an outrage !!

The following is from the Citizen

Alton Bay Cell tower dispute may be headed to court
Alton:

By GAIL OBER
gober@citizen.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009

The battle between the three companies and the town's selectmen over the proposed cell phone tower on Miramichie Hill will likely go court.

Town officials said Monday the Alton taxpayers have spent $181,129 defending the decision to deny the variance, a despite numerous and recent efforts, have still not reached an equitable settlement with them.

"I really can't comment on anything about the suit other than how much we've spent so far in legal bills," said Town Administrator Russ Bailey.

The Citizen has also learned the previous legal firm that represented the applicants — Industrial Communications and Electronics, the actual builder of the tower, and two cell phone companies, RCC Atlantic [d.b.a. Unicel] and USCOC [d.b.a. U.S. Cellular] — advised the applicants to fight the 2006 ordinance saying "unless you can say with absolute certainty that there are no other sites available in the entire town of Alton, obtaining a variance may be quite difficult."

"All that would be needed to defeat the application would be one available property that could host a tower 10 feet above the tree line," wrote attorney Earl W. Duval of Duval & Associates shortly before Alton voters passed the revised Zoning ordinances in March of 2006.

It was almost five years ago when Industrial Communications and Electronics, a tower contracting firm, chose Miramichie Hill in East Alton as one of two spots where a cell tower would bridge the gaps in cell phone coverage along parts of Route 28.

At the time, in 2005, a tower on Miramichie Hill would have involved a zoning variance because it was not in one of four "overlay districts" that allowed cell towers. The town was also under an "interim growth management ordinance" that prevented any new construction until the March 2006 elections when voters approved new zoning ordinances.

Voters overwhelmingly adopted the new zoning ordinances that allows cell towers in all areas of Alton, with a few exceptions, but restricted their height to 10-feet above the average tree canopy.

The problem, said independent engineers, was the Miramichie Hill tower needed to be 120 feet tall to be effective — 61 feet above the average tree canopy and still required a variance.

After the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the Miramichie Hill variance in December 2006, the cell tower companies switched legal firms to Steven E. Grill of Devine, Millimet & Branch of Manchester and filed suit against the town.

The cell tower companies and their developer are challenging that the revised Alton Zoning Regulations of 2006 "effectively prohibit" cell towers throughout the entire community — a violation of federal law.

However, according to the applicants' previous attorney, "Case law has said time and time again that it is in the discretion of the community to choose whether it wants taller but fewer towers, or shorter, but more numerous towers," said Duval in the internal memorandum to the cell tower companies that was admitted into evidence after it was accidentally included in a file during the discovery portion of the suit.

Further muddying the legal waters is abutter David Slade who successfully petitioned the court to intervene and become a co-defendant with the town of Alton.

"I really don't think they can settle this without me," said Slade who has offered financial assistance to the town to offset its soaring legal costs.

Slade has described his battle against the cell tower companies as a David-versus-Goliath-type battle where the cell tower companies have deep enough pockets to continue to fight in court for what they want, often forcing small communities with limited resources to knuckle under their wishes.

Slade has also questioned whether or not the selectmen have the legal right to override a zoning board decision with a negotiated settlement, saying he would think any change in the planning proposal, such as reducing the height of the proposed tower, would need to be reevaluated by the land boards.

[upthesaukee]

RonP: first comment from me: in your commentary, the three letter acronym on about the fourth or fifth line may be OK in texting, facebook, myspace, email, etc., but would probably be considered inappropriate by most posters in the forum. Maybe an edit and delete would be better there .

Second, you may not be aware, but since the recent purchase of Union telephone by TDS, Metrocast has finally been able to offer digital telephone to residents in TDS's areas, including portaging your number. If you choose not to do Metrocast, and want Vonage, I would assume that if Metrocast can portage, then Vonage should be able to.

I happen to live off the lake in Alton on the west side of the bay, and if that cell tower on the east side had been approved, I would have great coverage at my house. Right now I only have one bar in the house, and one to two outside in the front yard. Go up my road a quarter of a mile, and I have 5 bars!. I shared your frustration.

So, I suggest contacting the carrier of your choice and hopefully you can get the ball rolling towards a better communication situation for you.

Welcome to the forum.

[RLW]

Alton now does have new ways to have their phone service and a additional one coming the end of April first part of May. If you have MetroCast, they offer a fine phone service at a reasonable cost of $44.95 for unlimited calling anywhere in the US also gives about 12 different free options with it (KEEP YOUR OLD NUMBER). The end of April the new phone company owners are coming out with a complete new line of phone, internet an what ever else they can pass on, at good competitive prices. This info was given to me by a customer rep of TDS (Telecommunications Corp.) the new company owners. Just wait and keep the faith, good things will come (Hopefully).

[webmaster]

You all should really consider using OOMA if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by webmaster

You all should really consider using OOMA if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

Thanks for the info Don, but I do have one question. Do they work (out going) when one loses power as in my case I had to drop MetroCast as it would not work during the power outage and it is needed for the alarm system and medical reasons. If one is full time residency and has power backup most all cable units will work.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by RLW

Thanks for the info Don, but I do have one question. Do they work (out going) when one loses power as in my case I had to drop MetroCast as it would not work during the power outage and it is needed for the alarm system and medical reasons. If one is full time residency and has power backup most all cable units will work.

The OOMA does need power but so do your cable modem and router. If internet and phone service are critical I would plug all 3 into a battery backup unit.

[SIKSUKR]

I just like listening to the radio commercials. I would try OOMA but I signed for Comcast triple play for 2 years.

[granitebox]

I've been using OOMA for almost 2 years. I can't recommend it enough. We've had no problems.

Regarding power outages - unless you have a analog phone any cordless phone in the house will cease to function when the power goes out.

[codeman671]

OOMA sounds great, I may try it at our home. I'd like to try it at the lake but we have satellite and it is rather finicky. Also, with the bandwith limits set by Hughes I am not sure how it would work. The latency may pose a problem.

[RonP]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I just like listening to the radio commercials. I would try OOMA but I signed for Comcast triple play for 2 years.

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !!

[mcdude]

from Today's Citizen

Cell tower dispute nearing an end
Alton:
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Selectmen have reached a tentative agreement with the cell tower companies that want to build a tower on Miramichie Hill, but the attorney for abutter David Slade said his client isn't ready to sign on.

On March 3, selectmen agreed with Industrial Communication and Electronic, Inc. and two cell companies, RCC Atlantic [d.b.a. Unicel] and USCOC [d.b.a. U.S. Cellular], that a 100-foot tower could be built on the property at 486 East Side Drive.

As part of the agreement, the town also agreed that there would be "no just cause for further delay" and that the decision of the Alton Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 13, 2007 to deny the applicant's request for a height variance of 120 feet is meaningless.

The parties agree..." that further meetings, hearings or decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment would serve no useful purpose..." read the consent decree that has not been signed by a federal judge.

Slade lives next door and his family has owned the abutting property since 1953. Late last year, he successfully petitioned the court to intervene and his lawyer Paul Fitzgerald said he doesn't think the project can go forward without his client's agreement.

When he filed his petition to join the suit, Slade said the town of Alton, like so many other small towns, has waged a David-vs. Goliath-type battle against the deep-pocketed cell tower companies.

As of Oct 2009, Alton taxpayers had spent $181,000 in legal fees trying to uphold the Zoning Board's decision.

When the property was first identified as a site, it was not in one of the four areas designated by Alton's zoning ordinances that would be acceptable for cell towers.

In March of 2006, voters adopted new zoning ordinances that allow cell towers to be erected but restricted their height to 10 feet above the average tree canopy. The proposed ICE tower was initially 120 feet, or 61 feet above the tree canopy, and still required a variance.

Should the judgment and order be signed, the Zoning Board's denial of a variance for a 120-foot tower is vacated and amended to modify to grant the height variance to 100 feet with a full antenna array on the top so the entire structure is no more that 103 feet.

The agreement also stipulated that after five years the height of the tower may be extended provided the applicants received a variance from the Zoning Board.

The agreement further stipulates that ICE will submit revised plans and the Planning Board shall not act to reduce the maximum height of the tower or the antenna or seek to change the configuration as submitted by the applicant on June 19, 2006.

Fitzgerald said the court has given some time for his client to file a memorandum as to why he opposes the agreement.

Selectman Pat Fuller said that until a judge actually signs the order, she cannot comment.

Zoning Board Chair Paul Monzione said overall he had been very impressed with the Alton ZBA consistently applying the zoning laws, but said this could be a rare instance when complicated issues of federal law "can overwhelm and are inconsistent with local law."

Sometimes settlements are in the best interests of the town, Monzione said, adding that although he hasn't read the proposed order it appears the town's zoning laws will remain intact.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by RonP

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !!

You do, but it is under the name of MetroCast.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by RonP

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !!

Yes - the Metrocast 3-in-1 package is available as of February. Call them for more information and to get it installed. YEA!

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by webmaster

You all should really consider using OOMA if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

This sure sounds like something I could use.
I have a home on the lake and in Florida and currently have land line phones in both locations In addition to 2 mobile phones.
When i leave for the winter I either have to shut down the phones and pay to have them reinstalled when I return or put them on a vacation plan that is not too expensive but by the time they add all the fees it adds up.
I then have to do the same thing when I return.
I also have to do the same thing with the TV and internet.
There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

[RLW]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

Yep, I have just one. Stay at the lake all year round and then you do not have all the connecting/dis-connecting fees.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

No, I'm pretty sure you could take the box back and forth with you. It's small and once it's set up would just need to be plugged in to power, internet and a wall jack. It should work anywhere on the Internet.

The only small problem could be the Enhanced 911 listing. If I remember correctly, you can select to have your number associated with your address for the 911 system when you register your OOMA. If you were going to move the box around you should probably not use the 911 listing.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

This sure sounds like something I could use.
I have a home on the lake and in Florida and currently have land line phones in both locations In addition to 2 mobile phones.
When i leave for the winter I either have to shut down the phones and pay to have them reinstalled when I return or put them on a vacation plan that is not too expensive but by the time they add all the fees it adds up.
I then have to do the same thing when I return.
I also have to do the same thing with the TV and internet.
There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

Internet connection is internet connection, and I would not think that your change in location would have an effect, other than having to change your IP address with OOMA. One thing to remember is that if you are portaging your number, and friends are calling you from a landline without unlimited long distance calling, if your number is NH and you are in FL, those FL friends will be paying long distance to call you, and vice versa. We have friends that had NH cell phones, and when the moved down south, they kept the phones. Friends down there were getting long distance charges for a call from across the street.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

those FL friends will be paying long distance to call you, and vice versa.(

True, except for the vice versa. There are never any long distance charges for calls you make using OOMA.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by webmaster

True, except for the vice versa. There are never any long distance charges for calls you make using OOMA.

I should have continued on after viceversa... if in NH with a FL number, folks up here would be long distance. my bad.

[Gearhead]

Are we EVER going to get a cell tower in East Alton??? In a month or two the leaves will begin to open and I will once again lose my cell service. Grrr! I think there's only one person in the whole town against it.

[Merrymeeting]

The following headline was in this weeks Baysider. Full story on page 14

AT&T expanding coverage in Alton, New Durham

REGION — AT&T announced the expansion of its
mobile broadband network
in New Hampshire

The story doesn't have any details on when, how, or exactly where. Does anyone know?

[winniforlife]

Oh how I would love to have ATT service in West Alton... to use my iphone at the Marine would be wonderful!! Thanks for the update!

[upthesaukee]

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice


for location, put in "sthy 11" and Alton Bay 03810. You can navigate the map using the arrows and see your "coverage".

Good luck. Great Marina, lousy cell coverage.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice


for location, put in "sthy 11" and Alton Bay 03810. You can navigate the map using the arrows and see your "coverage".

Good luck. Great Marina, lousy cell coverage.

Good info. But that shows what is in place now. Not what is planned.

[mcdude]

From the 6/2 Baysider

Another cell tower ruling

This ruling nullifies prior approvals

BY TIM CROES

Staff Writer

ALTON — A decision was handed down by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on
May 19 on the proposed cell phone tower in Alton that nullifies the prior local and
court approvals that would have allowed the construction of the tower at 486 East
Side Drive. The case has been in the court system since 2005, when Industrial Communications and Electronics, Inc. proposed a tower in Alton for two wireless companies. David and Marilyn Slade, whose property abuts the proposed tower, objected to the construction of the tower because it would stand in line of the panoramic view of the lake and the surrounding mountains. The company determined that the tower would need to be 120 feet above the ground and applied for a variance to the zoning board of adjustments and were denied.
The company then sued the town. The town then began to negotiate a settlement
with Industrial Communications and the co-plaintiffs, the wireless companies,
which the Slades opposed. An agreement was made between the company and the
town to vacate the board’s decision and permit a 100-foot tower without further meetings. The ruling on May 19 allows for the Slades to continue the suit even though an agreement between Industrial Communications and its co-plaintiffs and the town was reached.

[Argie's Wife]

Am I understanding this correctly that the construction of the town can't begin until the lawsuit with Mr. Slade has been resolved?

[Gearhead]

I have NO coverage at my home on the east side. Will aluminum foil and an umbrella work?

Maybe I'll call Mr. Slade and ask if he gets reception at HIS house. Oh wait- he lives in New Jersey!

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

Am I understanding this correctly that the construction of the town can't begin until the lawsuit with Mr. Slade has been resolved?

Most likely, that's a typo and should say "construction of the tower can't begin," and yes, that reads to be the case here.

So, three cheers for the Slades and they did a big legal service to everyone in the area who did not want an ugly cell phone tower intruding into their big view. Way-to-go Mr Slade!

If you need to make a phone call, then go use the local pay phone!

[winniekid]

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]

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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.

[mcdude]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[RLW]

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.

[Winni]

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.

[jrc]

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]

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!

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

[Winni]

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]

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]

MJP

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:

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?

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.

[Waterbaby]

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.

On this, I have to agree! I can understand using cells for emergencies, but for everyday use? Give me a break! If Andy Rooney hasn't already done at least one commentary on the proliference of cell phone usage, he is way past due. I'm beginning to look at cell phones as an intrusion to "polite society"..... I have heard conversations that should have been kept private, i.e. the following: heard a mother talking to another mother about not only her daughter's first menstruation but the problems teaching tampon usage; one person talking to another about first person's bowel problems; one person talking to another about her son's attempted suicide and his probable emotional troubles........... where is the privacy in life? Do I need to really share in these life traumas? No, I was not asked to be a party to these conversations, but I was made one by said people choosing to carry on their telephone conversations in public, in the grocery store, where they are surrounded by people trying to mind their own business and get their shopping done. I actually consider these public conversations an intrusion into my own life.

There is a reason many states have mandated fines, etc. for people using cell phones while driving a vehicle. I think there should be fines levied if a boat driver is using a cell phone, as a boat can be more dangerous than a wheeled vehicle if the driver is distracted by talking on the phone -- anyone ever seen a boat with brakes? I'm beginning to think grocery cart drivers should be fined, also, if they are chatting away while pushing the cart, lol!

I guess what I'm saying is, I can see both sides of the argument, but enough is enough with the cell phone usage. Does anyone really need to be "connected" at all times? Where is the relaxation time? Where is the private time? And where is the family time? About 7 years ago I shut my cell phone off because I really needed a couple of hours away from a very stressful reality and I missed a very important family meeting - my father had had a stroke and the doctors called a family meeting to make literally a life or death decision in my father's case and I wasn't there because they couldn't get hold of me, but that time away from "life" helped me get through the rest of a very painful time. So, do we really need more towers? I say no.

Off my soapbox now. Maybe in the future, "to tower or not to tower" should become a warrant article. 'Nough said.

[Winni]

Originally Posted by Waterbaby

I can understand using cells for emergencies, but for everyday use? I have heard conversations that should have been kept private, ...I actually consider these public conversations an intrusion into my own life.

Your mixing up the opportunity to use a phone by choice with people having poor judgement.

Originally Posted by Waterbaby

I think there should be fines levied if a boat driver is using a cell phone, as a boat can be more dangerous than a wheeled vehicle if the driver is distracted by talking on the phone...

100% agreed. Again...it's about judgement.

Originally Posted by Waterbaby

Where is the relaxation time? Where is the private time? And where is the family time?

Whoa now...why aren't all the Live Free or Die-hards flipping over this one? Again, isn't that personal choice? We haven't closed all the cigarette factories even though it disgusts me to have to walk through someones exhaled smoke so I can go inside a store. We haven't forced all the motorcyclists to wear helmets so my insurance rates will stay low (i.e. less injuries/deaths/agony to the "other" person [non-cyclist] involved in the accident). Ditto on the absent adult seat belt law. I could go on and on.

So, it's okay to have "choice" only if it suits you?

"Skipper": I'm actually pretty good at sitting in my kayak and reporting on a cell phone an accident I've seen, laying over my flipped kayak and using a cell phone (never had to try this particular maneuver but have managed more difficult chores in this position), or using a cell phone as a passenger in a motor boat....etc.) Thanks for the info on the locator progress, but the thing is, it is coming, so why not be ready to use it? Also, that is not a good argument against having cell phone coverage available now. Having locator service is just an added plus when we get it!

"McDude": I just don't think it will be that noticeable! We aren't talking about towers "ringing" the Lake. You couldn't find anyone who loves NH forests and lakes more than I (and, yes, I do do something about it beyond just talk about it, so whoever said that can, uh, stick it in their hat?). But, to the point (see my picture a few posts ago), I just don't see how a few feet of pine-tree-looking tower sticking above the treeline is comparable to what the electric/land line/cable companies have done! If we approve these two towers we will be done on this end of the Lake; there will not be more "ringing" the Lake.

[Winni]

I think you will find the engineering studies have already proved micro-cells, repeaters, and use of such things as church steeples are not going to work because of our terrain. I suggest you take a look at the studies. They are available to the public at the Town Hall.

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by MJP

If we approve these two towers we will be done on this end of the Lake; there will not be more "ringing" the Lake.

Where are the other towers on the lake located?

Who's choice? Your's or mine?

apparently it is the choice of the Alton Zoning Board, the Alton Planning board and the Town Attorney

BTW: these cell towers will not affect the lack of reception for cell phones on Hills Pond in the least which is fine with me. Land line works fine and Alton has recently instituted enhanced 911 (provides location the call is coming from) - works on a land line....not a cell phone.

MJP: You articulate your thoughts well and give us reason to seriously consider what you are advocating.

[Airwaves]

Skip of SQ writes:

I live in an area where I can SEE several cell towers and I have dropped calls and no signal sometimes. It happens in isolated areas and in major population areas with lots of cell towers as well.

I can attest to this, as someone who is forced to commute along Storrow Drive on a daily basis, I know it is terrible for cell phone communication.
Go figure.

MJP, I am not arguing against the use of Cellphones on boats in an emergency. I am not arguing against the need for more cell towers.

I am saying that even though the "wave of the future" or "the time is at hand" for cellphones, in a marine environment they have a much more limited use (value) than a Marine radio.

Yes, I carry a cellphone with me on board. I also have a marine radio.

I have come to the assistance of other boaters once or twice while I was on the lake during the spring salmon season in years past. It happened when the Marine Patrol had limited or no boats on the water at the time. Why? Because I heard them call for help.

They didn't call me on my cell.

Waterbaby wrote:

I was not asked to be a party to these conversations, but I was made one by said people choosing to carry on their telephone conversations in public, in the grocery store, where they are surrounded by people trying to mind their own business and get their shopping done. I actually consider these public conversations an intrusion into my own life.

I agree! But the discussion that I thought we were having has to do with the lack of cell phone coverage ON THE LAKE for EMERGENCY purposes.
Any store can ask patrons to not use cell phones and to turn them off when they enter the premises.

BTW, it is ILLEGAL to listen in on cell phone conversations via scanners etc.

edited to include the response to Waterbaby that I had forgotten to include originally (sorry WB)

[Skip]

Very interesting thread.....

Let me chime in by correcting a few errors of fact woven throughout this particular conversation.

First, Marine Patrol boats do indeed in many cases carry and utilize marine radios. Some of the smallest aluminum boats have no fixed radios but as they move up in size they may have a fixed VHF public safety radio with inserted marine band channels. Larger craft carry a mix of radios including public safety VHF, 800 MHz and marine band radios.

I was very disturbed to read the account of the rescuers that were unable to use their cell phones and not carrying any portable radio equipment. While it may be understandable that some EMT volunteers may not have access to a readily available portable radio, all police officers and Fire/Rescue companies in this State do have access to portable radios and must have one with them while on duty for such occasions as described. The particular area of the Lake where the accident occurred, while lacking adequate cell phone coverage, is well covered by a variety of VHF & UHF public safety radio sites. Not having the appropriate equipment readily available to those personnel was not an issue of technology but one of failure to follow accepted procedure, if indeed the scenario as described was accurate. I monitor the public safety radio traffic in this area (along with DRH, the “Skipper” and others) and appreciate what an excellent job is done by the dispatch centers here, especially the Lakes Region Dispatch Center.

By the way, my good friend the "Skipper" is also correct about Phase II E-911 coverage in NH. While the State E-911 center is Phase II compliant and ready to receive Phase II positioning data, many cell phones still in use and a number of cell phone carriers in the State still are not forwarding the appropriate data for positioning purposes. The cell phone industry has dragged their feet tremendously in implementing Phase II. While we are fortunate in NH to be ahead of the bell curve on its implementation, a disturbing amount of calls to 911 still do not deliver live saving accurate positioning data. On the plus side most other States lag far behind us in meeting the well passed deadline for this technology.

Oh yes, the "engineering data" referenced in an earlier post is data that was paid for by the cell site developer? It is very easy to manipulate radio propagation maps and any two firms using any of a variety of prop loss study RF software can come up with vastly varying data. In many cases it is not the cell phone company attempting to erect a tower, but a "vertical reality" developer looking to create a site and then propagate it not only with cell carriers, but also to co-locate paging and data link (microwave)companies to maximize rental income. It is in the best interest of the Cell Company (or vertical reality company) to curb capital outlay by locating a minimal amount of sites at the highest (and usually most prominent) locations to get the greatest coverage area per site.

By the way repeaters and micro-sites work and they work well in the terrain presented by the Lake and elsewhere in our State. This is the technology that is currently used successfully by the public safety sector to cover the same areas the cell developers are now finally exploring. The reason the cell developers shun them is simple.....it’s the cost. While it is very expensive to build out a single mountaintop site (upward of $500k to in excess of a million dollars) it is still much cheaper for them to cover a wide swath of territory from one ridge or mountain top then to develop a half dozen or more smaller cell zones. It’s all about maximizing profits.

Anyway, I carry both my cell phone and a marine radio while boating. The main reason I continue to carry a radio has already been pointed out here previously....it not only allows me to request aid from nearby boaters that may have no idea that I have a problem if I only had my cell, but it also allows me to monitor my fellow boaters and render aid to them.

But that is my personal choice.

However, the reader must be forewarned that even with a plethora of cell towers being built out, the carrying of a cell phone does not guarantee instant location or rescue. How many times in the last few years have we read the story of the boater, hiker or motorist venturing out into unsafe conditions then demanding immediate rescue via their phone? And even though many of these phones were able to contact E-911 utilizing present Phase II technology, in many cases extensive searches still take place to locate a caller.

Remember, many of today's Phase II compliant handsets utilize built in GPS to transmit location. Unfortunately the same rugged terrain that interferes with cell phone coverage also interrupts GPS signals. If your phone does not know where it is because it does not have a clear LOS to enough birds (satellites) then it does not have enough information to relay accurate positioning to the PSAP (public safety answering point). Network base triangulation would probably have ensured a more accurate way of determining overall location and originally was thought to be the direction cell developers were moving in.....but you guessed it, it was easier to pass the cost along by putting the positioning responsibility on the consumer via the handset GPS then to have the cell companies go back and install the necessary hardware and software on their own equipment to triangulate.

Don't get me wrong, I love my cell phone and wouldn't be without it. I am one of those consumers responsible for the building out of cell sites around this State in my constant demand for new & greater service. But I am also not fooled by the tactics employed by cell site developers to minimize costs by attempting to develop prominent real estate sites that in many cases degrade scenic vistas.

The technology exists to expand coverage by utilizing readily available non-intrusive technology. The difference between utilizing this technology and slapping a big ugly tower on every virgin mountaintop in the Lakes region is simply one of maximizing profit margin.

Unfortunately it’s as simple as that!

(Anyway, sorry for the length of the post...but too much was slipping by and I thought I'd take a stab at it all at once)

In closing and as always, feel free to PM me offline if anyone has any particular interest in my thoughts. As some of you know, this is an area that the "Skipper" and I have extensive personal & professional experience. I am sure he too would gladly field any off-line technology questions you may have in reference to these concerns.

Safe boating….and make sure you keep those batteries charged!!!!

Skip

[Airwaves]

Skip wrote:

First, Marine Patrol boats do indeed in many cases carry and utilize marine radios. Some of the smallest aluminum boats have no fixed radios, as they move up in size they have a fixed VHF public safety radio with inserted marine band channels. Larger craft carry a mix of radios including public safety VHF, 800 MHz and marine band radios

Then I stand corrected. (Maybe)

The last time I inquired after trying to hail the MP on Marine VHF16 on Winni (several years ago) and listening to others try to hail MP on Marine VHF16, I approached a Marine Patrol vessel on the water in order to relayed the message they did not respond to, verbally.

I was told by the MP officier that Marine Patrol vessels do not carry Marine VHF Radios. He then radioed MP HQ on their working frequency and left the area.

I certainly hope that has changed!

[Winni]

Hmmm...okay are you going to keep us guessing or "fess up"??? MP, EMT, Police, Fire..."what" are you? Does your avatar give us the answer?

You make some excellent points, Skip. Yours is the first post that really explained a lot of the issues I did not understand or have not learned about. All I can relate is what I have observed, however. I am the first to admit I have a lot to learn about all this.

As for the accident at my house, all I can tell you is what I saw. What I saw was frustrated emergency personnel whose cell phones did not work. As I have said before, I was very busy with helping and during some of the time I was even in my cellar where some of the injured were being treated (and bleeding all over my floor as well!). So, what they may or may not have done in addition to trying to use their cell phones, I cannot attest to. I did notice the cell phones they did try did not work, however, and the policeman even asked to use my land line. I just cannot tell you why because I don't know. So, please folks, let's stop debating this portion of the issue. It happened and I know no more; okay?

From the meetings I attended and from what I've read over, it appears the engineering studies were not all done by people hired by the company wishing to build the towers. I do believe third party engineers were called upon by the ZBA to do unaffiliated studies. The company may have been asked to foot the bill, but I do think there were some third party engineers doing studies in addition to the company's own.

While I can't attest to knowledge of how other options than these towers work, the fact remains that if no one is willing to build them because they are too expensive, the purpose will still not be accomplished. Isn't that the bottom line?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by MJP

...Hmmm...okay are you going to keep us guessing or "fess up"??? MP, EMT, Police, Fire..."what" are you? Does your avatar give us the answer?...

Uhhhhh....one of the above, but only my barber knows for sure!

[Winni]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Skip of SQ writes:
I am saying that even though the "wave of the future" or "the time is at hand" for cellphones, in a marine environment they have a much more limited use (value) than a Marine radio.

I am not disagreeing with you at all!
------
Sorry, mcdude, I don't know about any other cell towers besides the proposed ones. The engineering studies considered all available sites on the southern part of Lake Winnipesaukee. The only places that would give 100% coverage, (yes, less the usual drops we all experience regardless of where we are), are the two going before the joint boards on June 20th at 6:00 pm. There were numerous other sites considered, but no other combination of available sites would provide coverage to all of Alton Bay, Alton, and much of the (lake) area just north of the mouth of Alton Bay.

That being said, if these two give this much coverage, I hope there would be no need for any further towers anywhere around the perimeter of Alton Bay. And, as I've mentioned previously, many cell companies could have presence on these towers thus eliminating a tower for every company. So, if the engineering studies are to be believed, I think this should be it for cell towers.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by mjp

Originally Posted by Airwaves
Skip of SQ writes:
I am saying that even though the "wave of the future" or "the time is at hand" for cellphones, in a marine environment they have a much more limited use (value) than a Marine radio.

Airwaves was NOT quoting me in that post #48 - those were the words of Airwaves (credit where credit is due). If I wanted to talk about preparing for the "wave of the future" I'd be promoting Marine VHF DSC. It's here and it works. But I have no problem with adding more cell coverage around the Lake. I have questions about HOW it is done.

Originally Posted by mjp to Skip

Hmmm...okay are you going to keep us guessing or "fess up"??? MP, EMT, Police, Fire..."what" are you? Does your avatar give us the answer?

You make some excellent points, Skip. Yours is the first post that really explained a lot of the issues I did not understand or have not learned about...

Right on mjp. Skip has unique knowledge, talents and abilities. I enjoy his participation in the forum.
Was Skip making you guess? Check out the archives and you might learn a bit more about Skip. As to "what" he is? In my opinion, Skip is a gentleman and a friend. An impartial, credible, level headed well respected expert. He is a communications enthusiast, fellow boater and forum member. He's a HAM Radio Operator and probably a few other things too.

Thanks for the information and another great post Skip.

By the way mjp, if the responders were working on patients in your basement, I assume that they were below ground level and under the house/cottage. I would expect cellular and 2-way radio coverage to be worse there than at your dock.

I too carry a cell phone and a Marine Radio on board - again, my choice.

I'm still trying to compose a post about Industrial Communications and Electronics (ICE) the applicant for the proposed towers. The Quote in mcdude's thread starter (from the letter to the Editor in The Baysider), "This is a ruse and deception" is a topic I feel needs further investigation.

Let's hope the rain stops for a bit so I have a reason to get outside and off the computer

When regular communications systems fail, HAM RADIO works. for information about this great communications hobby visit: Ham Radio

[fatlazyless]

A new cell phone tower was installed this winter close to exit 24 in Ashland, and is very visible as you drive south on Rt 93. Not disguised as a pine tree, it is definately an ugly tower! The Town of Ashland get $1200./month in rent according to a newspaper article. It is located bewtween Rt 3 and the Pemigewasset River on land used for the Ashland wastewater treatment facility that was probably purchased by eminent domain. Some of the Bridgewater residents from the other side of the Pemi River went to the Ashland selectman's meeting and complained about the tower's messing up the view and a possible decrease in property valuesn before it was approved and constructed. C'est le vue!

[Winni]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

When regular communications systems fail, HAM RADIO works. for information about this great communications hobby visit: Ham Radio

Have had HAM license since 1978.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

... Skip has unique knowledge, talents and abilities. I enjoy his participation in the forum...

Gee Al, now I'll have to bring you TWO "Get out of Jail FREE" cards at the next forumfest....and Mee-n-Mac was thinking he was going to score a couple!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Waterbaby

...I'm beginning to look at cell phones as an intrusion to "polite society"....

Some things never change, a quote from Twain:

Consider that a conversation by telephone--when you are simply sitting by and not taking any part in that conversation--is one of the solemnests curiosities of this modern life.
- "A Telephonic Conversation," 1880

Another:

It is my heart-warmed and world-embracing Christmas hope and aspiration that all of us, the high, the low, the rich, the poor, the admired, the despised, the loved, the hated, the civilized, the savage (every man and brother of us all throughout the whole earth), may eventually be gathered together in a heaven of everlasting rest and peace and bliss, except the inventor of the telephone.
- Mark Twain's Christmas greetings, 1890

Some people don't like change.

[Winni]

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.

[upthesaukee]

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.

[jrc]

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.

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.