🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:15:07 +0000, in
<Xns9DC429072B37noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone@home.com>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in 
>news:v4u15659qncovipl40hutg4iieihmuubtk@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:03:49 -0700, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>It turns out Steve Jobs wasn't exaggerating all that much when he said
>>>it can take three years to get a cell tower approved in San Francisco.
>> 
>> Last year, the FCC approved a "shot clock", which specifies a
>> "reasonable" time limit on such procedures.  The problem is that San
>> Francisco and other cities are using the hearing process to delay
>> almost indefinitely the installation of new towers.
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/19/fcc_shot_clock/>
>> <http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=1828&format=xml>
>
>Precisely why FCC needs to expand PRB-1 to INCLUDE all communications 
>services it licenses, not just ham radio.....
>
>FCC can stop this nonsense, immediately, if it wants.  I don't think the 
>sellphone carriers WANT it stopped, or it would have already been done.  I 
>think the sellphone carriers are looking for a SCAPEGOAT to blame their 
>lack of system expansion to fill in the holes in their coverage in less-
>than-stellar-profitable areas under their license.  FCC can stop all that, 
>too!  It's called "Proof of Performance" and any broadcast engineer can 
>tell you how expensive THAT can get if his boss tries to turn down the 
>power to save the company a few bucks in light bill on the big transmitter.

This is a kinda sorta democracy, so if the majority would rather have
less towers and poorer wireless coverage, then that's what they should
be able to get -- there's no right of the few to impose their will on
the many in this regard.  There's no compelling public interest in good
cellular coverage.  It's up to cellular carriers (and hams) to sell the
public on the benefits of their towers.  

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]