🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
news:3723561um0afo49klm46v2hd0cftv2s02h@4ax.com...

> Speaking for myself, what I want is for less precious spectrum to be
> dedicated to the personal hobbies of hams,

Honestly, it's not like hams are sitting on any significant amount of really 
prime RF real estate.  I think it's a worthwhile hobby, (though I've never 
really been involved.  I used to monitor the long-range ham bands on my 
shortwave, but found it amusing that people from across the world, from 
different countries and cultures were contacting each other, and all they 
ever talked about were their radios!)  ;)  It also keeps a portion of the 
radio spectrum "public" which I think is a good thing.


> and for reasonably attractive
> siting of commercial radio towers.  Left entirely to their own devices,
> commercial radio operators will put up the cheapest ugly crap they can,
> so it's up to government to strike an appropriate balance with
> reasonable rules.  And this is a kinda sorta democracy, 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, and it's up to carriers to sell
> the public on the benefits of the towers.

I'm on the side of preemption of local rules, myself, like with TV antennas 
and satellite dishes.  I'll give you reasonable accommodation (disguising 
the equipment to blend in to local surroundings,) height size restrictions 
(which really just lead to more installations of smaller equipment) and a 
historic exemption (which, one could argue, would cover half of San 
Francisco anyway!) to keep them out of Amish country, etc. but that's about 
it.  If a commercial-zoned building owner wants to lease roof space to a 
wireless company, so be it.  Cell towers, like power lines and telephone 
poles are part of 21st century life.  Embrace them as the thing of tech 
beauty they are!  ;)