onthebay:
You're joking, right:eek:

While it is obvious that you need to put your PFD on and get away from a burning boat, the dispatcher didn't use their own Marine radio to put out a call for assistance?

You didn't say what time of year this incident occurred but I will assume that water temperature and hypothermia would not have been an issue as it certainly would be in the spring and fall.

Anyone who has ever listened to a Marine radio has heard the Coast Guard put out a Pahn Pahn or Securitay on many occasions to aid a stranded boater or be on the lookout for an overdue boat. Even if the only patrol boat on the lake was 20 miles away a call by Marine Patrol to a nearby marina, a local town with an emergency boat, Sea Tow or Tow Boat/US would probably have gotten a response as well.

You're joking, right?

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.

E911 cell location - Wet phones and dropped service
 

I was trying to keep my message brief but I guess I wasn't specific enough.

Wireless E911 location system (phase 1) is indeed working in many areas. Phase One provides your cell number and the location of the cell TOWER handling your call to the 911 operator. That could put you in a large area inside many square miles. You need a GPS to provide specific location.

Wireless E911 location PHASE TWO is the system that aims at pinpointing your position within 300 meters. I do not believe that phase 2 is available around the Lake (or many other places) even though the FCC deadline was set for 6 months ago (and has since been extended). I haven't followed this as closely as I could have. Cingular and Verizon are each developing independent methods to meet the E911 cellular location mandate but it is still in progress. If you have more updated info about pinpointing cell users please enlighten me (us).

* I was not clear enough regarding cell phones and water. Of course I am aware of the waterproof pouches used to store cell phones and other items. Some plastics bags claim that you can use the item while it is still inside (albeit kind of muffled). I'm talking about USING them in very wet conditions. Communicating in very wet splash situations is better done using a device designed to be used in that environment. That is, an appropriate marine radio, not the average cell phone. Sure you can paddle to a dock or beach and find a calm or dry spot to use your cell but if you are out in the broads and need to call for help, your cell phone may not be the best choice.

* Dropped calls are a great reason to get more towers? Sorry to disagree here. While more cell sites can help, 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. Many reasons including cell LOCK OUT (no available channels). I'm not against cell phones (or towers), they have their place as do Marine Radios.

When it comes to locating someone in distress: I can find someone who is using a Marine VHF radio with simple direction finding techniques. Ham Radio operators have made a sport of finding hidden transmitters - we've been doing it for eons. We can not home-in on digital cell phone users.

The topic of WHO puts up the cell towers is something I'll address in another message later tonight (with pictures). McDude's thread starter has some interesting quotes that are important to explore.

A segment from another letter to the editor that appeared in The Baysider on May 31.

Apparently there are 152 Alton residents against the further urbanization of the lake. I would've signed the petition myself if I weren't a non-resident taxpayer (a tax payer who is not allowed to vote).

I am for "seeking the best and safest way to develop wireless service." I am not against cell phones, per se, (I AM against the unsafe and/or intrusive* use of cellphones) I am simply against ruining the ridgeline view with cell phone towers. Let's take our time and explore the use of microcells and repeaters. As I keep saying, once the towers are installed they are not going to be coming down anytime soon.

*referring to the very well-stated response by Waterbaby

Who's choice? Your's or mine?
 

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

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

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.:look:

P.s.
 

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.

Where are the other towers on the lake located?

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.

Skip of SQ writes:
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 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)

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.

Fact check....
 

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 :)

Skip wrote:
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!

No disagreement
 

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.

Bottom Line?
 

Hmmm...okay are you going to keep us guessing or "fess up"??? :D 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?

Who's who in the zoo.....
 

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

Clarifications
 

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.

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 :laugh:

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

$1200./month rent
 

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!

Already HAM
 

Have had HAM license since 1978.

Flattery will get you everywhere....
 

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! :laugh:

I carry cell, vhf and 2mtr in the boat.... ham since 74

Maybe the cell companies should bring a few more of these in for the summer.

http://www.sys-con.com/read/232604.htm

Cell Tower Applicant - From the Headlines
 

Well Skip, I give credit where credit is due. I might need one of those "cards" if I write everything I want to about Industrial Communications and Electronics (ICE) the applicant for the Alton Cell towers - and their co-founder and President, Francis "Frank" DiRico. However, right now I'll present items from the FREE portion of the Boston Globe archives at http://Boston.com the complete articles are available for a fee or free to registered home delivery subscribers - login or register at https://verify1.newsbank.com/cgi-bin/ncom/BG/ec_signin (or try your local library).

You can see these items (as below) and others on-line at: ICE Towers from Globe archives

A TALE OF TALL TOWERS BUSINESSMAN SKIRTS THE LAW
Published on February 14, 1993
Author(s): David Arnold and Michael Grunwald, GLOBE STAFF

Francis J. DiRico, who owns the controversial new 700-foot communications tower in Quincy and says he operates ''totally by the book'' when complying with local regulations, owns and operates a tower in Miami without a legal occupancy permit. He also owns towers in Foxborough and Farmington, N.H., that are taller than town permits allow. DiRico's 1,044-foot communications tower in Miami, which became operational last year, does not.....
complete article available to subscribers http://Boston.com(1164 words)


FOXBOROUGH DEBATES EXTRA TOWER HEIGHT
Published on April 22, 1993
Author(s): Michael Grunwald, Globe Staff

FOXBOROUGH -- An embattled radio communications entrepreneur will have to wait a month before this town's zoning board of appeals decides whether to allow him to maintain a transmission tower at a height 115 feet taller than his original building permit allowed. At a public hearing last night, Francis J. DiRico, president of Industrial Communications and Electronics of Kingston and the owner of a controversial 700-foot tower in Quincy, was greeted by a storm of criticism from.......
(405 words) for complete article see the Boston Globe archives.

TOWER EXTENSION RAISES CONTROVERSY ZONING BOARD TO RULE ON VIOLATION
Published on May 16, 1993
Author(s): Michael Grunwald, Globe Staff

FOXBOROUGH -- Sheila Cloutier was a bit upset about the aesthetics of the 450-foot transmission tower looming above her Hill Street home. She was a bit worried about the tower's possible health effects. And she was a bit irked about her increasingly lousy TV reception, which she blamed on radio microwaves transmitted from the metallic monolith on Dudley Hill. But Cloutier was downright furious about the murky process by which Industrial Communications & Electronics.........
complete article (930 words)

As I recall after the Foxboro tower was first built, it grew over 100 feet without permits. I'm sure it's another reason ICE has developed their business (more vertical real estate - antenna space rental) and probably has many happy customers.

I personally have trouble putting that sentence together with Industrial Communications and Electronics.

Interesting. While I agree that cell coverage is needed at the lake everyone needs to play by the rules.

If this gentleman and his company have a track record of violating his permits, and the tower is to be located along the flight path of an annual flyin event in Alton, then perhaps the FAA needs to be involved as well.

Just based on the headlines provided by Skip of the CQ. I don't have access to the full articles.

Questions about the proposed cell towers
 

Are they proposing towers that are 70 feet above the trees or 10 feet above tree level? The information is conflicting in different postings.

Who paid for the survey that concluded that this was the only solution for full cellular coverage to Alton Bay and islands? Who conducted the study? Who recommended the firm that did the study?

Will the proposed towers provide service for all cell phone companies or just Rural Cellular Corp or Unicel?

What I've read of the Letters to the Editor linked from the mcdude postings it appears that the proposal seeks variances from current zoning laws. There is also a question of whether the proposed towers will be for cell use or just an excuse to put on many radio transmitters. The letter writer said it could have as much power as a large radio station. How much power is that? How far are these locations from homes?

All things considered, could this be an attempt by Industrial Communications and Engineering to get a foothold and then add lots of antennas to the cell tower :confused: ?

2 separate tangents
 

1) I carry both VHF and cell on boat. Being a little older than most I guess, and having started my boating on saltwater, having at least one VHF on board is standard operating procedure. Having a cell phone was a nice addition close to land to call home.

It does surprise me how few boaters have VHF, let alone use VHF, on freshwater.

2) And as far as not using cell phones while at the helm (or driving the car for that matter), prohibiting use makes me laugh. Talking on the phone is not the problem. If it was, then radios shouldn't be used. (How about truckers using CB's??, Or police not using radios or typing on computer while driving?) The issue is the unattentiveness of the operator, whatever the device. Or non-device. Turning around to discipline children, for example. In states where hand free devices are required for the driver to talk on the phone, the problem is not the talking with a hand to the ear. It is the dialing of the phone that is the distraction. How about changing the radio station or cd?

Someone has the tag, "You can't fix stupid." It is not the device, it is the operator. (Here's where we take a left turn and talk about Capt Bonehead.)

Thanx for letting me spew.

Miracle Grow ICE Tower
 

Here's a picture of a Frank DiRico Industrial Communications and Electronics tower in Foxboro (Foxborough) MA. This was mentioned in the headlines as the one with a permit for 450' that grew an extra 115'.

I tried to show the whole tower (there is a very large building under the tower for all the equipment) and added INSERTS to show more detail of the various levels. Note that the lowest insert is the CELL ANTENNA group.

Stop the Exaggerations!
 

Skipper, you are using ridiculous scare tactics, and I hope most people are realizing how really base that tactic is. You KNOW this is not what the proposed towers are to look like. They will only be 10 feet above the tree line, for cell relays only, and probably look like a fake pine tree. Anyone who looks at your pictures and believes that's what we are to get is just...well, you know...the s****d word.

Again, I have no connection to these companies, but I DO NEED CELL coverage. It happened AGAIN just yesterday! My husband was in an accident on the road near the north end of the 11-D/ Rt. 11 junction here in Alton Bay. (One of those lovely huge trucks carrying motor cycles backed into him before he could get the car into reverse. Grumble; grumble...that's another story.)

He tried "911" on his cell phone, but got "No Signal"! So, he tried to get me on his cell phone. All I got from him was that he couldn't get 911; it was an emergency, something about "...in an accident at the end of 11-D...", and the signal dropped because all you can get there is roaming and you drop in and out of cells all over the place.

I called 911 for him on the land line but could give them no information as to whether there were injuries or anything else. So, I just headed out to the scene. I heard the police cruiser whiz by full blast up on Rt. 11, but when I had called on the land line, I had no idea exactly where the accident was.

As it turns out, it was around the bend of 11-D and couldn't be seen from Rt. 11. So, I had to go up and wait for the cruiser to come back and flag him down. No, there were no injuries THIS TIME. But, what about next time and the time after that and if there were injuries where moments counted? Why isn't the safety of everyone, with a technology now available to us, the ONLY issue here? I just don't get it.

As we have hashed over many times in this forum before, people will say, "Well, what happened before we had cell phones?" The answer is, "People died! People hurt more; etc." What about before we had transplant surgery, light bulbs, radio towers, etc.? There will always be "before" and "after" and there will always be people who fight change to the end. But, how many of those people will be glad that change happened when they need emergency services?

These scare tactics are just ridiculous!!! We are in the 21st century. We have the technology to do things better. We are letting huge chain stores like Hannaford into our town which require a stop light, but we aren't going to allow people to have cell service?

This is all about the view issue for a couple of abutters and not about safety or the public good, and we all know it. So, let's stop the silly scare tactics and give up these ridiculous counter attacks! At the very least, admit what the real issue is and be honest about why you are objecting!

Meeting Location Change!
 

I called the Alton Planners office today and was told the joint Public Hearings with the Planning Board and ZBA would indeed run from 6:00 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, June 20th, as published in "The Baysider". What they aren't telling anyone is the meeting is to be held at the Prospect Mtn. High School. I only found out because someone (I think her name was Sharon, but I'm not sure) was nice enough to add that piece of information as an afterthought when I called.

I had to go into the Town Hall on other business today and saw nothing notifying the public of the change in location. One would think that an issue raising this kind of discussion in the town would at least warrant a notice on the entry door! I don't understand this kind of manipulation of the public and I don't understand why the hearings are being limited to the 7:15 p.m. ending time.

If these board meetings run as usual, they will use up the first hour motioning this and seconding that and then checking with each other to make sure they did it. It's highly unlikely the public will get to say much of anything. Sorry to seem so negative, but that is what I have observed. It is very aggravating!

I see no reason to limit the ability of the townspeople to speak their minds on this issue, regardless of whether they are for or against it. After attending the last ZBA meeting, where we were told we would be able to speak and yet were not allowed to, I hold out little hope for many of us being allowed to be heard at this one, but I figured I'd try to get the word out about the location change anyway! :rolleye1:

Concerns re Alton Cell proposal
 

The TRUTH can be ridiculous and scary. I’ve not seen the Alton proposal. The picture I presented, as stated, was of the Foxboro MA tower built by the Co-Applicant for the proposed Alton Cell towers. I assumed that people would be smart enough to read what I’ve written and realize why I posted the picture. I'll try to illuminate and reiterate my position: it’s Not about WHAT may be coming to Alton but WHO. It was but one of a few examples of Industrial Communications and Electronics (ICE) at work.

Once upon a time, ICE eventually received permits to build a 450 foot communications tower in Foxboro MA (pictured above) – This tower is WAY BIGGER than what people claim is proposed for Alton. Industrial Communications and Electronics (President, Frank DiRico) had the tower erected. Over a period of time it was discovered that the tower had GROWN an additional 115’ higher than the original permit allowed. Put another way. After Mr. DiRico’s company built the tower “by the book” the tower grew another 25%!! :rolleye2:

There are other ICE towers that clandestinely grew taller too. You may find that revealing this story is a ridiculous and scary tactic. That kind of history could well be. It sure causes me concern. Again I say the ONLY things in common between the Foxboro tower picture and the proposed Alton Cell sites are the tower APPLICANT, Industrial Communications & Electronics and cell antennae.

What does the disclaimer in my Mutual Funds say? Past history is no guarantee of future performance – or something like that. That could apply here about ICE. They seem to have a thriving business and many satisfied customers. That does not relieve me of my concerns.

You have a point. You are driving a car with ONSTAR, impact avoidance systems, front and side air bags and all the latest safety technology now available to us. So why should anything stand in your way of full cell phone coverage? I don’t know. I’m sure you have the best cell service available (with the most roaming capabilities) and the most useful cell phone (multi mode, Tri-band) not just a GSM or a Nextel or digital only phone. You probably have a cell phone docking station in your car to allow for an outside antenna and higher power for better cell coverage. For quite awhile I refused to change from my high power "bag phone" with outside antenna to a tiny hand held phone - I wanted the best coverage. Same with the Verizon REGIONAL plan I had. I didn't want to change to their America’s Choice Plan because I would lose coverage in Northern NH (and other places) due to contractual agreements between cell carriers.

I thought the topic had to do with where the cell towers go and who puts them there. Who wants to deny you or anyone of cell coverage? Not me. Why did the Zoning Board turn down the proposal? Ask them. Is there really one and only one way to provide full cell coverage around the Alton Bay area? I would imagine there are more ways to accomplish this worthy goal and more than one provider up to the task.

OK, I'll stop being subtle. I take exception to the implication that I am anything other than honest. I DO NOT object to adding cell towers in the area. I don’t know how to make this more clear. I personally have little confidence in Frank DiRico and Industrial Communications and Electronics. . My concerns are about ICE and not about cell tower aesthetics.

You claim the proposed towers will be 10 feet above the tree tops. Other posts claim a different height. Assuming 10’, is the top of the tower 10’ above tree tops or is it the bottom tier (of 4) of cell antennae that will be 10 feet above the tree tops? And what happens as those trees grow? Why maybe the tower will need to grow too.

I’m trying to decide if it would be worthwhile to share one of the personal, one-on-one experiences I’ve had with Frank DiRico and in a different situation an episode I had with ICE. I’ve got more to say but this is already too long. I hope I’ve made myself clear Winni and that you have opened your door to reality :) . Let us know what happens at the zoning meeting.

73

Is this TAX item about the same Francis DiRico?
 

Is this the same Francis DiRico that you all are talking about?

Find CaseLaw Appeal

Very clever man. In this appeal he explains how he pays his taxes. He kept 2 different sets of books with one set hidden from his accountants. Is this the same DiRico? Anyone know more about this tax story?

Long time forum reader.
Mark

Cell Towers
 

Gotta speak my peace on this one. Verizon or Cingular or someone is trying to put a cell tower in my town here in Jersey. We have NO coverage here whatsoever. Many people are making an issue of it, but there is really no point in doing so. Not one time has a cell company lost a lawsuit about putting up a tower. Not even once. No excuse (health, asthetics, whatever) works. In the end, the tower goes up and the town which protested loses the money. They lose twice in fact. They lose the money spent on the litigation and they lose the money on the lease since the cell company invariably puts the tower on private land.

Look, I don't like the look of those blasted towers, but in weighing the pros and cons including the prospect of successful litigation and the cost, well, just let them put the damn thing up. They are going to anyway and Alton might as well reap the benefit.

Jersey Girl

Winni: I noted in today's Baysider that they posted a photo in the Letters section that looked mysteriously like the one you posted above in this thread.
:rolleye1:
There was also a rather interesting letter to the editor that began something like this....

Anyway, I digress...

You never got back to us about what went on at the hearing the other night?

McD

Answer
 

Ahhh...it is a mystery isn't it??? :) Since they did not print my name, I guess I can fess up and say, "Yes, I did submit that picture to 'The Baysider'." I was very pleased they printed it, though I did not expect them to print my comment. My comment was to them. When I sent the picture, I said they could use it only if it was used to make the following point....but they quoted me anyway. I wasn't paying attention to grammar, etc., as I would have had I been writing an editorial, but I guess it doesn't really matter as long as it helps make the point!

As for the hearing...oh, this is SOOOOO bad! First, I haven't been on the forum at all for days until just now and only read this one post of yours, mcdude, so I'm not caught up with what is being said. I was in Boston the past few days.

[An aside: if you can possibly get to see the "Americans in Paris" exhibition of paintings at the MFA, you must. It will absolutely take your breath away. Our son and girlfriend are members, so we were able to go during the MFA member's preview for free. How lucky are we!!!]

As for the hearing, I will have to control my desired use of four letter words. I cannot even tell you how mad I was. Keep in mind this process has been going on for TWO, yes, that's 2!, years. Once again, they made the public wait around and canceled the meeting about 25 minutes after it was due to start. There were two members of the ZBA missing, so they did not have a quorum. You think maybe they could have told us all that at the beginning???

I felt bad for the company and their lawyers. They travelled 3-1/2 hours to get to the non-meeting. Then, the contractor asked if they could get the balloon test done ahead of time in preparation for the next meeting, as he knew they would ask him to do it before any decision could be made, and, of course, they said, "No." Such silliness this whole political business is most of the time!

Here's the rub, however. Kathy M. was the town planner. I do not know if she resigned, was asked to resign, or was fired. I do know that she had a heart of lead and I don't think I've ever seen the corners of her mouth even slightly turn up. I've had trouble with her in the past on other public non-profit projects, so I'm just as glad to see her go.

Now, put these facts together. She was the one asked to poll the Planning Board and the ZBA for last Tuesday's Public Hearing Meeting. She knew ahead of time the two ZBA members (who happen to be in favor of the towers, by the way) could not make the meeting that night. She clearly knew that would cause them to not have a quorum. She apparently didn't inform anyone of this ahead of time. She also made no attempt to tell the public the meeting would not be at the town hall, but rather at the high school. Hmmm...draw your own conclusions....

So, the saga continues. I have no idea when the next meeting is to be or any further info. However, if anyone knows why Kathy M. is so abruptly "gone", I'd be interested!

BTW, this week's editorial was signed, and not by me.

.....ah....small town politics at its' best. Thanks, Winni.:D

My 2 cents
 

I cant stand the lack of consideration people have while talking on there cellies , never mind the poor driving that occurs .. However if having reception on a boat or island saves a life , then its worth it. Id really like to see statistics on how many lives were spared by cell phones in emergencies.
The towers IMHO are not such an eyesore.. we've had them as well as flashing red beacons for the air traffic on top of the hills around here for years...

I wonder if a better question would be "How many lives need to be spared to make the cell towers acceptable." (no flaming intended rayhunt, your quote just jogged my mind).

Hopefully in the near future the towers can be made so that no one objects to them being in their view, god knows I don't want to look at them either.

Another "better question"
 

If it were your child/ spouse/ sibling/ parent/ friend, etc. whose live was NOT spared, would it really matter what the statistics were? Isn't ONE enough?

Or an even better question...
 

Err, how about how many people have lost their lives by taking uneccesary risks, feeling they were protected by having a cell phone in hand? Actually, how many people have lost their lives because someone was distracted by the cell phone in hand? Isn't even ONE too many?

Youve taken me out of context.. I am all for better reception in the area.
Yes one is enough , my point exactly :rolleye2:

Link to photo that Winni placed above...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1149557303

Winni:
Not sure if you've seen this week's Baysider. Here's what Russ Wilson had to say (in part) concerning this photo....
More adequate cell phone coverage would be nice, however, I reiterate my position, like Russ Wilson I say

....a group of towns!
 

Here are two examples of utilities that help the local town at the expense of its' neighboring town. In February 2006, a new cell phone tower was installed in Ashland close to Rt 93 and exit 24. It's presence signifigantly impinges on the view of the Pemigiwasset River waterfront residents on the Bridgewater side of the river. The new cell tower is located within the Ashland waste water treatment faciity and does not really impinge on the view of any Ashland residents. The town of Ashland receives $1200./month rent or the new tower.

Similarly the Town of Bridgewater has a large woodchip powered electrical generating utility which sells electricity to the power grid. It is a huge property tax payer for Bridgewater and it abutts the Town of Plymouth.

Both locations for the new cell tower and the maybe 15 year old and very clean electrity power plant were picked for their financial benefits to their host town and to the detrimental view exposure of their neighboing town. You can see that New Hampshire is not really a state, but is a group of individual towns.