ah, vodafone and their cell sites

Forums › One New Zealand (including Vodafone, WxC, Farmside) › ah, vodafone and their cell sites

yuxek

147 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#57893 28-Feb-2010 03:31

look where vodafone wants to put a cell site on waiheke island:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/waiheke-marketplace/3367061/Mayor-backs-calls-over-cell-sites

personally i don't have a problem with it there. i think it's great giving coverage(does waiheke already have coverage?) to waiheke. but i think you should put the cell site away from schools otherwise it will just end up in the media. lol.

so anyway why did vodafone decide to give coverage to waiheke as opposed to say better coverage for waitakere?

1 | 2 | 3

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#302871 28-Feb-2010 07:23

Waiheke has mobile coverage this is reflected on the Vodafone NZ coverage map it was also the first place 7.2mbps downlink and 2mbps uplink went live on the 3G network.

http://www.vodafone.co.nz/coverage/

John

VFNZPaulBrislen

970 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#302888 28-Feb-2010 08:58

Quick response - the site on Waiheke is on a bowling club, not near a school. It's private property and the owner has given his permission.

We first started talking about it 18 months ago and the residents who are nearby and are concerned have all been in discussion about it since then. Most of the residents have no problem with it - a few (who don't live near the site incidentally but are more than a kilometre away in some cases) are upset that even though the majority of customers and residents on Waiheke want better coverage, the few who don't aren't being listened to. Hence the news report.

Which fails to mention that we've consulted with the councillor Aaron Bhatnager previously about this and he was fine with it. Also fails to mention that it's the council which makes these things non-notifiable, not Vodafone. Also fails to mention that there's no health risk from cellphone towers because it's just radio waves, just like your TV antenna or your radio mast.

For those that are interesting, there's a lovely explainer with a great graphic on this page: EMF Explained. So while cellsites "blast" out what, 2-50 Watts of raw power, TV antennas power out 20,000 to 100,000 Watts.

So, good folk of Waiheke, if you're concerned about radio waves perhaps you should lobby the TV and radio stations to shut down first and then work your way down to cellsites.

Cheers

Paul

EDIT: Forgot to say - not a company statement: just that of an angry science geek.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#302933 28-Feb-2010 11:13

PaulBrislen:
For those that are interesting, there's a lovely explainer with a great graphic on this page: EMF Explained. So while cellsites "blast" out what, 2-50 Watts of raw power, TV antennas power out 20,000 to 100,000 Watts.

Freudian slip, Paul?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79253 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#302935 28-Feb-2010 11:17

Kyanar:
PaulBrislen:
For those that are interesting, there's a lovely explainer with a great graphic on this page: EMF Explained. So while cellsites "blast" out what, 2-50 Watts of raw power, TV antennas power out 20,000 to 100,000 Watts.

Freudian slip, Paul?

I think the "blast" (in quotes) was enveloped in sarcasm as in, while people shout that 2 - 50 Watts is blasting, they forget to look at 20,000 - 100,000 that other sources emit.

VFNZPaulBrislen

970 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#302940 28-Feb-2010 11:23

Yes, hence the "" around the word blast...

It's all about perspective - 50 Watts versus 20,000 Watts is your best case scenario here, yet it's the low powered site that gets picketed because of poor understanding of the "risks" (and again, that's in quote marks because I don't believe their are significant risks to cellphone towers).

If anything, customers who want to limit their exposure to radio waves should be asking for more towers. More towers means more (and stronger) coverage which means the cellphones don't use as much power to connect therefore the amount of power needed by the device you're holding to your head is reduced.

Again, these are my science geek thoughts, not a post on behalf of anyone else.

Paul

DrNut

135 posts

Master Geek

#302952 28-Feb-2010 11:59

PaulBrislen: Yes, hence the "" around the word blast...

It's all about perspective - 50 Watts versus 20,000 Watts is your best case scenario here, yet it's the low powered site that gets picketed because of poor understanding of the "risks" (and again, that's in quote marks because I don't believe their are significant risks to cellphone towers).

If anything, customers who want to limit their exposure to radio waves should be asking for more towers. More towers means more (and stronger) coverage which means the cellphones don't use as much power to connect therefore the amount of power needed by the device you're holding to your head is reduced.

Again, these are my science geek thoughts, not a post on behalf of anyone else.

Paul

couldn't have said it better myself Paul. People are quick to complain about telcos lack of coverage but when they step up with a solution everyone is quicker to complain without even knowing the facts.

Oh and a little OT, well done to vodafone for offering to pay for XT customers contract cancellation. Vodafone could almost cancel any advertising for the next 6 months and just reap the benefits of XT's outages.

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#302959 28-Feb-2010 12:26

I know of people that have complained of poor mobile coverage and when someone does something about it they get upset. I will use the example Flat Bush Manukau Vodafone NZ have had so many complaints about this area so we thought lets fix it. Go Build a site and people hit the roof. (Just a FYI site was integrated last week and goes live soon 3G 2100mhz)

John

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

DrNut

135 posts

Master Geek

#302960 28-Feb-2010 12:34

My point exactly John. People seem more concerned about how the towers look and don't want their country scenery upset so perhaps you guys could look at a colour scheme, maybe flouro pink or jungle camo!

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#302962 28-Feb-2010 12:41

DrNut: My point exactly John. People seem more concerned about how the towers look and don't want their country scenery upset so perhaps you guys could look at a colour scheme, maybe flouro pink or jungle camo!

Day Glow pink with purple Poka dots will be the next fashion

DrNut

135 posts

Master Geek

#302966 28-Feb-2010 13:13

johnr:
DrNut: My point exactly John. People seem more concerned about how the towers look and don't want their country scenery upset so perhaps you guys could look at a colour scheme, maybe flouro pink or jungle camo!

Day Glow pink with purple Poka dots will be the next fashion

keep thinking along those lines John and they'll put you in charge of vodafones next run of commercials

Seriously though, they will need to be a nice bright colour for aircraft safety regs.

ajw

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#302971 28-Feb-2010 13:19

DrNut:
PaulBrislen: Yes, hence the "" around the word blast...

It's all about perspective - 50 Watts versus 20,000 Watts is your best case scenario here, yet it's the low powered site that gets picketed because of poor understanding of the "risks" (and again, that's in quote marks because I don't believe their are significant risks to cellphone towers).

If anything, customers who want to limit their exposure to radio waves should be asking for more towers. More towers means more (and stronger) coverage which means the cellphones don't use as much power to connect therefore the amount of power needed by the device you're holding to your head is reduced.

Again, these are my science geek thoughts, not a post on behalf of anyone else.

Paul

couldn't have said it better myself Paul. People are quick to complain about telcos lack of coverage but when they step up with a solution everyone is quicker to complain without even knowing the facts.

Oh and a little OT, well done to vodafone for offering to pay for XT customers contract cancellation. Vodafone could almost cancel any advertising for the next 6 months and just reap the benefits of XT's outages.

Have a read of this website.

http://www.banthetower.co.nz/

DjShadow

4084 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#302980 28-Feb-2010 14:35

johnr: I know of people that have complained of poor mobile coverage and when someone does something about it they get upset. I will use the example Flat Bush Manukau Vodafone NZ have had so many complaints about this area so we thought lets fix it. Go Build a site and people hit the roof. (Just a FYI site was integrated last week and goes live soon 3G 2100mhz)

John

Its sad really, people expect great Mobile Coverage but want it done with no Cell Towers

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#302995 28-Feb-2010 16:00

Reminds me of the huge debate in Titahi Bay over both Vodafone and Telecom cellsites.

There was a campaigner who very publically protested claiming she decided to live in the suburb because there were no cellsites or overhead cables and yet she lives right under the 2 x Titahi Bay radio masts that pump around 70 kW each!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titahi_Bay_Transmitter

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#303005 28-Feb-2010 16:57

sbiddle: Reminds me of the huge debate in Titahi Bay over both Vodafone and Telecom cellsites.

There was a campaigner who very publically protested claiming she decided to live in the suburb because there were no cellsites or overhead cables and yet she lives right under the 2 x Titahi Bay radio masts that pump around 70 kW each!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titahi_Bay_Transmitter

ID10T error

savag3

188 posts

Master Geek

#303041 28-Feb-2010 17:42

PaulBrislen: Yes, hence the "" around the word blast...

It's all about perspective - 50 Watts versus 20,000 Watts is your best case scenario here, yet it's the low powered site that gets picketed because of poor understanding of the "risks" (and again, that's in quote marks because I don't believe their are significant risks to cellphone towers).

If anything, customers who want to limit their exposure to radio waves should be asking for more towers. More towers means more (and stronger) coverage which means the cellphones don't use as much power to connect therefore the amount of power needed by the device you're holding to your head is reduced.

Again, these are my science geek thoughts, not a post on behalf of anyone else.

Paul

Actually Paul 50 watts is incorrect. Depending on what antennas are on the site it will be more like 1500 watts. I imagine johnr will be able to confirm what the EIRP actually is.

1 | 2 | 3