Town Square

Post a New Topic

Danville residents file appeal, challenge wireless facility installation

Original post made on Nov 6, 2018

A collection of Danville residents continue to resist the implementation of wireless cellular facilities near residential areas, and have filled an appeal with the town contesting the placement of one such facility on Camino Tassajara approximately 225 feet east of Gatetree Drive.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, November 5, 2018, 3:21 PM

Comments (4)

8 people like this
Posted by Long Term Resident
a resident of Danville
on Nov 6, 2018 at 6:52 am

Hopefully the town will prevail in this case. Can you imagine if all property owners try to delay placement of cell antennas in every location proposed? We will never get 5G and improved service. It is not as visible as our road and bridge infrastructure, but our IT infrastructure is way behind world standards too. I travel all over the world, and get better coverage and service in most other countries, including China and India.


2 people like this
Posted by KF
a resident of Danville
on Nov 6, 2018 at 8:52 am

Dear "Long Term Resident", Why don't you give permission to the Danville Planning Commission to install one of those 5G antennas on the pole in front of your home? Perhaps that would solve the problem.!!!


8 people like this
Posted by hmmm...
a resident of Danville
on Nov 6, 2018 at 9:10 am

Just going to point out since I've worked in the wireless industry for a number of years. The relative impact of a tower to an individual actually is less than someone that is holding a phone next to their head. Since the same relative energy needs to travel the 2-5 miles depending on tower distance.

Also, the actual coverage right beneath a tower is next to nil. Safest place to be if you're really worried about it, but I would be more worried about holding the phone next to your head since it's an energy blast. Think of it like a shotgun shooting rock salt. Farther out means less damage. When you have a focused area at close distance, then there's issues. That's the same with RF energy.

Lastly, if you are right under the tower? There's almost nothing. Antennas are generally smart these days and tune power up and down as needed by usage and they are angled outwards. Depends on the shape of the coverage.


2 people like this
Posted by hmmm...
a resident of Danville
on Nov 7, 2018 at 10:34 am

Got a chance to scan through the legal brief.
* So aesthetics wise, there are ways around this argument since there are ways to disguise poles these days.

* Property de-value, I think needs to be justified.

* Backhaul alternatives, that depends. Wireless capacity is driven not by just antenna support, but how much backhaul from each site. Changing to smart antennas wouldn't necessarily increase what can be increased on backhaul (basic principle of if you have 802.11b wifi at home, but only a 1Mbps connection out of the house, increasing to 802.11n wouldn't change capacity).

* Locations wise, definitely the more on top of a hill would be better for coverage. I would be curious why Verizon chose those particular sites unless they are PG&E poles and those are the only ones that are sufficient for power backhauls (this depends on the power pole negotiations too).

The youtube video is pretty interesting, but it doesn't show the type of coverage (phone call can be done in IS-95 coverage, and not necessarily in 3G/4G). What would be more acceptable as part of due-diligence would be to show whether or not websites would work, GPS, etc. or just show signal bar indicators with base station handoffs. This can be done with an Android device, and anyone that has worked in the industry can show you the apps to look for.

I'm not stating that they (DCRG) don't have a good perspective. They bring a perspective, and could be completely right.

However, I find the evidence in both legal and RF evidence wise, a bit lacking. Like many municipalities, you can enforce shorter towers and lesser coverage by power ratios to cellular corporations. But in doing so, you also limit your call coverage since height does impact range. So perfect example is: Las Vegas. Providers only put up towers that are a few stories high, which makes the signal very horizontal. On the east coast, it's whatever, and the coverage is fantastic and driven only by a few towers instead of a multitude of short/low powered stations.

In any case, only spent about 15-20 minutes on this. Seems like the entirety could be looked at through a SME and then evaluated for the good of the overall Danville populace.

My two cents.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.