They've definitely done that before, dunno if it was deliberately. They must have somewhat of an idea how long it takes for nocebo to kick in with the local village idiots, if it's short enough it could actually be a rather good idea to make waiting a bit a general policy. Tank some mild capital and opportunity cost to prevent having to battle in court and the town newspaper? Sounds like a win to me.
Tell them how much power the TV and radio broadcast towers put out and watch them freak out. The analog TV stations ran even higher power than the digital ones do now.
Ackshually, being too close to high power radio frequencies isn't safe. I remember at one base I was stationed at in Afghanistan, there was a smoke spot we all used to take breaks at. For some reason, I started developing really bad headaches and feeling kind of nauseous. I figured I was just acclimating to the local climate or something. After a few weeks, I was up on our building installing one of our satcom dishes on top of it when I noticed something. Right on the other side of the fence of that smoke area, was a ~2m high powered dish pointing just above above where the smoke area was. I pointed this out to the Norwegians that ran the camp and the break area was promptly moved, lol.
But seriously, I do not understand the anti-5G nutters.
Hell the high power WiFi equipment‡ I installed at my Grandma's house had warnings about keeping a few feet clear of it when powered on due to health concerns and that's just WiFi equipment. I can't imagine the dosage of gnarly from a 2m powered dish.
‡ I installed that equipment because she wanted WiFi on all 10 acres of her property and she didn't want me to install more stations around her property. Now she has the broadcast equipment in her garage with a tape line on the floor like it's a Goddamned radiation research facility lol
The higher the frequency, the worse that is. So standing very close to an HF antenna that only broadcasts up to like say 30 megahertz is different than standing next to a 700 megahertz cell phone antenna, which is different from standing next to a 2.5 gigahertz cell phone antenna. The reasoning for that is due to power levels and wavelength of the radio signal itself.
Also, they will lose. The FCC has said that the companies can build towers where they are needed for coverage. They might have to make it look like a tree or something, but they cannot be rejected from building it.
With the supreme Court overturning the Chevron decision last week, I'm not so sure that any federal regulatory bodies have much power anymore unless there's a specific law passed by Congress. That's what made that decision so dangerous, because the same applies to the FDA now regarding drugs and food.
A good overview of the circumstances of the recent Chevron decision.
Please note the final paragraph. Koch's goal is exactly this: bringing cases in front of the Supreme Court that, if won, would cause grave disturbances.
Be surprised if the courts cause problems with this given that cellphones are 911 devices and a means of making government emergency announcements. Those typical override the wishes of the snti-vaxx Karens of planning boards
This isn't regulatory. The auctions companies bid on and win have provisions in them that require companies to utilize the spectrum in X years. They must supply coverage if they bought the spectrum; they can't sit on it.
The planning board's decision was based on health concerns due to the possible negative environmental impact of telecommunication on the residents, especially the children studying at the school who could potentially be exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
Because that surely would be the only cell tower in town.
This is hilarious, a win-win in my book. I get to laugh at the ridiculous claim about radio waves frying people's brains or whatever, and at the same time, every day of stalling hurts an exploitive POS telecom company.
I'm rooting for the loonies! Protect our kids! You show those lizard people!
Not so much anymore after kicking a bunch of people off their plans when they had guaranteed pricing along with a bunch of other shitty shenanigans they've been up to as of late. I've been a customer for close to 20 years but am thinking about jumping ship as of late.
Jesus, an entire town falling for unscientific bullshit.
It's also not like they're going to point the antennas straight down at the school. They have directionality. I bet not one RF engineer was consulted.
I'd like to walk these people through the school with an inductive amplifier probe and let them hear the 60hz hum and its harmonics permeating every hallway and classroom.
The planning board's decision was based on health concerns due to the possible negative environmental impact of telecommunication on the residents, especially the children studying at the school who could potentially be exposed to electromagnetic radiation. The town felt the residents would be 'unsafe' due to radio frequencies and rejected the company's notion of building the tower on the land.
I mean, I think that the planning board is idiotic, but I don't see why T-Mobile cares enough to fight it. If they don't build it, okay. It looks like the school in question is right in the middle of town. Then Wanaque is going to have crummy cell coverage. Let them have bad cell coverage and build a tower somewhere else. It's not like this is the world's only place that could use better cell coverage. The main people who benefit from the coverage are Wanaque residents. Sure, okay, there's some secondary benefit to travelers, but if we get to the point that all the dead zones that travelers pass through out there are covered, then cell providers can go worry about places that are determined not to have have cell coverage.
If I were cell companies, I'd just get together with the rest of the industry and start publishing a coverage score for cities for cell coverage. Put it online in some accessible database format, so that when places like city-data.com put up data on a city, they also show that the city has poor cell coverage and that would-be residents are aware of the fact.
A quick web search for third-party coverage information tells me that Wanaque has good coverage from Verizon and poor coverage from T-Mobile. It's easy to guess why T-Mobile might be motivated to change that situation.
Speedtest.net bought a service that was doing this already sort of. I looked just now and I think it’s their “map” option on their mobile app. You need to switch between carriers to see coverage.
The tech was based off of manual speed tests and a background app that would measure coverage from a phone for a small area, about the size of 3 square acres.
How does anyone become sensitive to a 5g wireless signal? I could see maybe z pscemaker or some kind brain stimulator device but just a bare bones corpus delecti would seem to be known early enough to decide not to live near the broadcaster
Thank god I'm safe! And I will be dead and gone before it happens here. It's going to be decades before 5G is implemented where I live. Hell, 4G is spotty and unreliable even yet today. Even 3G was terrible.
My issue with Verizon 5g is that it is worse than their old Edge service.
5g on my signal bar essentially means "doesn't work." It wasn't an issue when I could turn off the 5g radio, but Samsung pushed an update that removed that option.