Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYT on Cell Phone Tower Controversy

Posted by timothy on from the cingular-can't-even-properly-cover-seattle dept.

prostoalex writes "The New York Times discusses the controversy of placing cell phone towers on top of hills, a practice to which many people object. According to the article, people frequently complain about the visual impediment and are afraid that property values will decline or some health damage will be done with radio waves. At the same time, people get quite irritated when proper phone service is not provided by the operators, and the calls keep dropping or coverage is poor outside of densely populated areas. Phone companies also lease the land to place the cell phone tower for $30,000-$50,000, which is attractive to many landowners, but some, like Sammy Barsa from NYT article, find themselves persona non grata in the community."

5 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. business model by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fro $50k / hill / month, I'll be happy to play the role of persona non grata.

  2. New ebay auction. by mctk · · Score: 5, Funny

    For $50k a month, I'd be happy to host a cell tower on my head.

    --
    Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  3. Re:Sweet Deal by sik0fewl · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... and it basically gives her money-for-nothing every month.

    And her chicks for free..?

    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  4. Re:Church steeples are a good spot by F13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Improves ones reception to God too.

  5. Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... by gregwbrooks · · Score: 4, Funny
    NIMBY is old-school. The joke among developers and those who have to site projects today is that NIMBYs have turned into BANANAs

    Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."