Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay

[mcdude]

These quotes from a Letter to the Editor found in The Baysider (http://www.thebaysider.com).

the objective of the people constructing the towers is "to give us 100 percent coverage with the least offensive looking and fewest towers." This is a ruse and deception. The applicant, Industrial Communications and Electronics (ICD), is looking to create the most vertical real estate (rentable tower space) as they think they can persuade the town to permit. Having been previously turned down in Wolfeboro, their plan is to create enough antenna rental space for as many wireless providers as possible to give Wolfeboro as well as Alton near full coverage.

Why is this a bad thing, one may ask?

Aside from the aesthetic issues of having two 120-foot towers placed on the ridgeline of Alton Bay towering 70 feet or more above the trees, there are huge health concerns. The applicant's plans show five tiers of antenna arrays with 12 antennas per tier. A tower equipped in this manner can have the power (wattage) equal to a large radio station.

and

The new Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance enacted by Alton's residents clearly prohibits the type of facility proposed by ICE. Instead, it encourages more targeted low powered and new systems such as Micro Cells and Repeaters. One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cover and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover.

I hate cell phones. Do people really need to be gabbing on their cell phones while out on the lake? However, this is probably inevitable. At least PLEASE disguise these towers so they don't ruin the beautiful mountain scenery. Next they'll be trying to put a wind farm with turbines to generate electricity out in the broads.

[RumGuy]

I agree. Remember when you got into your car and that time was yours? What's the first thing that we do when we get into the car now?? Make those calls. Now more than ever we need that time to ourselves, to meditate, reflect collect our thoughts...whatever you want to call it.

On a side note-Can they make a cell tower that looks like a hemlock tree?

[Lin]

On a side note-Can they make a cell tower that looks like a hemlock tree?

They have them as pine trees, depending on their location they are noticible because of the height to get above the natural trees. They do blend in from a distance though, just looks like a taller fake Christmas tree. There are a few of them along rte 495 in MA and there is at least one that I know of on the west side of 93 somewhere up around the lake exits, not sure what town.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Well you can blame it on us. After years of crappy reception in the cabin we decided to get a land line. So just as buying new ski's dooms the rest of the winter to snowlessness, Murphy has decided to act up given our new land line. I http://home.earthlink.net/~farfrumhom/images/barfy.gif on Murphy's law and I http://home.earthlink.net/~farfrumhom/images/badair.gif in his general direction !

ps - I wouldn't worry about health concerns due to RF emissions. All very much "sky is falling" stuff. I've worked around RF all my life and I don't think it caused this stut .... stutt ... stutter and twi .... twit .... twitching :eek: ;)

[codeman671]

They have them as pine trees, depending on their location they are noticible because of the height to get above the natural trees. They do blend in from a distance though, just looks like a taller fake Christmas tree. There are a few of them along rte 495 in MA and there is at least one that I know of on the west side of 93 somewhere up around the lake exits, not sure what town.

Here is a link to a picture of a so-called pine tree cell tower. I have seen them in Mass and CT and quite frankly they look ridiculous. They are so much taller than anything in its surroundings that it looks very out of place.

http://www.pl8.com/cell/DSCN0524.JPG

[Weirs guy]

The hideous, I mean, realistic looking fake tree on 93 is between exits 17 and 18. Oh, and bonus points to you mee-n-mac for the holy grail refrence!

[Sparrow Hawk]

The towers will blend in with all the scars on the mountain sides from the houses that have been put up the last few years. Live free or die baby!

[Grant]

Sure, the "tree" cell phone towers are fugly, but are the gaudy McMansions devouring Lake shoreline any prettier? Honestly? Folks are more willing to ensure ocean-going 30+ ft. cigarette boats blasting by their shores at 60+ mph than they are a relatively inconspicuous tower. Frankly, I'd rather see fewer BMF boats (and their trailers along 93), and enjoy some better cell reception.

Just MHO...

[tricia1218]

there is one on 106 and I can honestly say it does not blend

[winniekid]

Although I may get hammered for this next statement I thought I'd present another point of view. We are fortunate enought to live in the age of technology that allows certain freedoms. Previously, I hadn't been able to spend time on the lake for over 10 years since I live out West and my boss just wouldn't let me take three months off over the summer (the nerve of him!;) ). Now I own my own business and because of my cell phone, laptop computer, call forwarding, the internet, and all the other gadgets I can spend the entire summer on Winnipesaukee. I get the best reception on the middle of the lake...when a call comes in I just slow the boat down, address the issue and throttle back up. Without this technology, I would be stuck in Arizona in unbearable summer temperatures. I realize some may just think "stay in Arizona with your business" but why would I deny myself the chance to spend it at a place we all love when I don't have to. Wouldn't you rather be at the lake as much as possible?????:)

[Winni]

Who among us has not been somewhere on or near Lake Winnipesaukee and suddenly found themselves in an unexpected or even scary situation? The weather on The Lake has suddenly turned and you are now completely disoriented. You've come upon an automobile accident and quickly need help. You're in a major traffic jam and are going to be late picking up your kids.

Whatever it is, the first thing most of us do today is grab our cell phones and try to contact the people we need. That could be anything from "911" to our children's preschool teacher. Most of the time all you get in the Alton/Alton Bay area and, indeed, on most of Lake Winnipesaukee is a "No Signal" message. In my opinion, and I know I'm going to get a barrage of put-downs for saying this, the proposed cell towers need to be built to make critical, safety related, modern day communications in these areas possible.

I speak from first-hand experience. You may remember reading in the paper last fall about a boat crashing into a dock (mine) in the middle of a really nasty wind and rain storm. These folks had been closing up their cabin on Rattlesnake Island. Why they left so late, in the dark, and in what was clearly an impending storm condition, is not for us to judge. That their ability to make decisions may have been impaired in some way is also not at issue here. All that really matters is they were trying to get home to their kids and they were in big trouble.

Having left Rattlesnake, they found themselves suddenly enveloped in fog, on a moonless night, with little control of their boat in huge waves caused by an awful wind. They crashed into an island they never saw coming. With a damaged boat and gravely damaged people on board, they tried to use their cell phones to get help. They were unable to get a cell signal. The only reason they were able to get help was they saw my spotlight turn on when I checked my own docked boat. They followed the light to my dock. When the EMTs and police, all of whom did a great rescue job, tried to use their cell phones at my dock, in my yard to get more advanced EMT help so an IV could be inserted before lifting the most seriously injured person out of the boat, they too were unable to get a cell signal.

This scenario has been repeated many times on our Big Lake, in many variations, to people with no impaired judgment and traveling in full daylight. Some may still use marine radios in their boats and be fortunate enough to reach the Marine Patrol to guide them to safety on the marine radio VHF emergency channel 16. Others, however, may be on our roadways, on snowmobiles, on personal watercraft, in homes, or in businesses where an emergency has caused landline failure. These people have no chance of contacting help unless they or someone with them can use a cell phone. People used to die because they couldn't get help; with a cell phone one at least has a chance.

Marine radios will not solve the problem. Due to limited resources, the Marine Patrol, (who do a spectacular job with the minimal resources they are given and deserve our enormous gratitude), currently only monitor channel 16 during their office hours.That being said, if an emergency happened to me today, all I would have with me would be my cell phone. I, like most people, expect them to work. I, like most people, do not carry a marine radio in our boat anymore. Neither do those in kayaks, canoes, small fishing boats, motorcycles, cars, trucks, bicycles, snow mobiles, or PWCs. Neither do runners and walkers. There are no more phone booths (remember those?) on every corner. Whatever the mode of transportation, we all expect our cell phones to be our link to emergency help when we need it and to communication services for convenience.

Once a cell tower is put up, eventually most folks will not even notice they are there. You will forget about it just as you don't notice the great swaths of forest taken out of hillsides for electric, cable, and phone lines unless you are really looking. There is a place approaching Plymouth on Rt. 93 that has a cell tower and one of these huge swaths side-by-side going up a mountain. You may have noticed, but if not, look for it next time you head North. Personally, I'd rather have the cell tower than all that baldness going up the mountain (not that "bald" is bad on heads, but not for the mountains!) .

What would have happened if we had said "no" to electricity in the late 1800's or cable access in the last few decades? If there is an eyesore in our town, look around you at the wires, poles, transformers and such that cover every street and back road you travel. Are you willing to give up electricity, land line phone, and cable access "for the view"? I really don't see much of a difference except that the cell towers are actually less intrusive. Also, good point , Grant, on the "McMansions"! I'd take a cell tower over these eyesores any day!

The people constructing these towers are doing everything possible to conform to Alton's apparently constantly changing requirements. Their object is to give us 100% coverage with the least offensive looking and fewest towers. They are trying to allow as many cellular companies tower presence with the least possible number of towers. Does Alton really want every cell company constructing their own individual towers instead? Eventually, as with the introduction of electricity, there will be no stopping the spread of cell towers, so I don't understand the objections when the people introducing them are trying to do it in the least objectionable, most compact way.

The people who want to build these cell towers for us are doing us a huge favor. They are ensuring the safety of the people in the Alton/Alton Bay area and on Lake Winnipesaukee. These are places that have barely any cell coverage and more frequently, none at all. The tower builders are giving us, at no cost to us, the convenience and safety most have come to expect as commonplace today. Please note I have no connection to, nor stake in these companies (other than needing their service). I am speaking only as a citizen of Alton.

As far as I am concerned, this is one of those issues we all refer to as a "no brainer". I think we must allow the building of these towers NOW…before you, I, or someone else comes upon another accident, or one finds us, and we have no way to get help. What if it were your child or spouse in the boat or car accident; you dialed "911", and all you got was "No Signal"?

Just my opinion…

[Airwaves]

MJP
You make some strong arguments for cell phone coverage and I agree with them with really only one exception:
Marine radios will not solve the problem. Due to limited resources, the Marine Patrol, (who do a spectacular job with the minimal resources they are given and deserve our enormous gratitude), currently only monitor channel 16 during their office hours.That being said, if an emergency happened to me today, all I would have with me would be my cell phone. I, like most people, expect them to work. I, like most people, do not carry a marine radio in our boat anymore.

Two points, first if I am correct, MP only monitors Marine VHF16 during office hours because MP vessels don't carry Marine VHF, at least they didn't the last time I inquired. (in my opinion that is a mistake on MP's part)

Second, if I'm in trouble on the lake I want EVERYONE on the lake to know it and come to my rescue! You can't do that on a cellphone but you can on a Marine VHF. A cell phone can contact one person, that's all. Sure that person might be a 911 operator but he/she is sitting on the shore, safe and dry while you're in trouble probably miles away on the water. That means the 911 operator has to take additional steps to contact and dispatch a crew that could be miles away on another part of the lake, and still no one but you and the 911 operator would know about your problem. Wouldn't it be better to allow someone in a boat, already in your area, hear about your problem and provide immedate assistance while waiting for MP to respond?

Just my $.02 on folks that have replaced Marine VHF with cellphones. Add a cellphone to your emergency aresenal, don't replace a Marine VHF with a cellphone.

RE: EMTs not being able to use cellphones from your dock after the unfortunate incident, didn't they carry radios?

[mcdude]

As I said, It's probably inevitable, however, at this point can't there be an option adopted that does not involve a huge tower on the ridgeline....such as the one mentioned above?

One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cove and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover.

I don't know much about this...but....there's a tower on Prospect Mountain down the end of the bay in New Durham. Couldn't that be utilized or is it too far away? Also there's a fire tower already on Belknap Mountain. Why not some amplifiers and repeaters up there?

The proposal recently put forward in Wolfeboro would have placed a tower on Mt. Delight overlooking Lake Wentworth. A "Balloon Test" was undertaken to illustrate how high the tower would have loomed over the lake.
See Photos Here (http://www.lwa.org/index.php?set_albumName=album01&option=com_gallery&Itemid=60&include=view_album.php)

It just seems to me that now is the time to come up with some creative alternatives. Once the towers go up it's kind of too late.........

[secondcurve]

MJP:

I still think that we could do without a cell tower in Alton Bay. That being said, you present a strong argument. Regarding the couple that crashed into one of the small islands off of Rattlesnake and then putted over to your house in the Roberts Cove area. You make that couple sound like wonderful people trying to get home to take care of their children. I think that you left out one important fact. The guy driving the boat was drunk as a skunk. As far as I'm concerned, that accident, like most, could have been prevented by common sense.

[jrc]

MJP is 99% correct on the need for cell phones and towers to support them. They are here to stay. For full disclosure, I have been in the phone and cell phone industries all my career.

...
Just my $.02 on folks that have replaced Marine VHF with cellphones. Add a cellphone to your emergency aresenal, don't replace a Marine VHF with a cellphone.
....

The 1% I don't agree with MJP is marine radio. You can get a handheld VHF for $100. No monthly subscription to pay. It's a very small price to pay for the security. Even if the Marine Patrol doesn't hear you, someone will. Plus they usually have built in weather radios. You really shouldn't be on a big lake miles from shore without one.

[Weekend Pundit]

The article quoted by mcdude made a glaring error:

The writer said:

"Aside from the aesthetic issues of having two 120-foot towers placed on the ridgeline of Alton Bay towering 70 feet or more above the trees, there are huge health concerns. The applicant's plans show five tiers of antenna arrays with 12 antennas per tier. A tower equipped in this manner can have the power (wattage) equal to a large radio station."

First, the radiation angle of those antenna arrays is such that the RF goes outwards, perhaps with a slight downtilt (depends upon the physical angle and the phasing of the elements within the arrays). The RF level is quite low even when standing nearby a tower. On the other hand, if you were to climb the tower and dangle in front of one of the arrays you might have something to worry about.

Second, the concern about RF exposure from the towers is a red herring. You get more exposure from your cell phone when you've got it plastered to your ear.

All that said, I am another one of those folks who detest cell phones when they are used in an inappropriate manner/place/situation. At least folks like winniekid do the right thing and slow down before taking a call (maybe to headway speed?). I see too many people using them while at the helm, paying attention more to their conversation rather than doing what they're supposed to be doing - piloting the boat.

[Airwaves]

Regarding where to place and how to camoflage cell towers, the fake pine tree towers aren't all that bad. I have noticed the one on 106 but I will have to keep an eye out for the one on 93 below exit 20!

Boston has some serious historical regulations. Cell companies can get very creative to hide them. There are cell towers at Fenway Park...can you tell? There are cell towers on Beacon Hill, hidden inside church steeples.

In the interest of full disclosure, we lease land to a cell company in NH. There are three different cell phone companies on the tower plus town services. It's 110 feet high and it is below the tree line. It's NOT lighted at night (no complaints from neighbors) and the trees don't distract from reception. Remember, I advocate Marine VHF radios on your boat and to NOT rely exclusively on cellphones.

How about this for a compromise? Allow the cell towers to go up in Alton, keep them below 120' tall and they don't need to be lighted (doesn't matter how high on the mountain they are) and if it's really an issue, you can make the cell company dress it up like a fake Christmas tree. Yep, it'll look like a fake Christmas tree for a while, but then it won't.

You'll have cell coverage, and the town will be getting income from the tower.

Just a thought.
:cool:

[upthesaukee]

I don't know much about this...but....there's a tower on Prospect Mountain down the end of the bay in New Durham. Couldn't that be utilized or is it too far away? Also there's a fire tower already on Belknap Mountain. Why not some amplifiers and repeaters up there?

.

McDude, the tower on Prospect Mt has cell antennaes on it. US Cellular and Verizon to name two. The problem is that the frequency band for cellular service requires "line of sight" coverage. As you sit in the middle of Alton Bay south of Sandy Point, you have coverage. Go over to the eastern shore near 28A and the coverage drops off to virtually no signal or actually no signal. In either case, no can talk!
Rte 11 westbound. Sandy Point, can talk, get out by Precious Gardens and you are blocked by the hill with all the houses that stick out like a sore thumb on the hillside and skyline (Lakewood Estates) (and we worry about a couple of towers). Pick up coverage past rte 11 D and lose it going by Mt Major Parking Lot. Ditto for someone along the west shore of Alton Bay.

Cell towers on the east side of the bay will fill the void caused by the terrain we love and provide a high measure of communication.

The ordinance that passed was not well publicized and basically says that antenna companies should place them in concealed place such as Church Steeples and Clock towers. Well folks, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the three steeples in town and the one bell tower (town hall) won't do a thing to improve cell coverage.

I would hope that the powers what be in the town would look to these towers and if their location would also be a satisfactory location for repeaters for public safety and town frequency radios, make space available on the tower for that purpose as part of the approval.

Ooooppppps, got on the soap box again. Sorry. :rolleye1:

[mcdude]

MJP:....The guy driving the boat was drunk as a skunk. As far as I'm concerned, that accident, like most, could have been prevented by common sense.....

Secondcurve: You may be confusing the incident at MJP's dock with THIS ONE (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3114) ?????

[Winni]

Hmm…okay, let me see if I can address a few of these comments all at once:

Airwaves and jrc: I just don't think many people, in reality, carry or will carry marine radios anymore but they actually DO carry cell phones. I know it would be nice to think all we kayakers, and all those jet skiers should go out and get pocket size radios, but I just don't think it's going to happen. We have to face that this has already become a cell-phone-based-society. Also, I want to get to 911 as fast as possible if I have an injury, not just the MPs. I think, from my experience, 911 is very good at getting Marine Patrol help when you need it. Also, they can connect quickly to the local police & fire and have the police or fire boats immediately dispatched in addition to the MPs. The locals often won't have to travel as far to reach the emergency as the MPs and, I do believe, most of the large towns have these local response boats now.

Also, if someone is in a boat in my area, hopefully they will see we are in trouble and also call 911 and, better still, come help! Surprisingly, people do that. We have even called about people who have appeared to be in trouble in the Bay from our home, e.g. a motorboat that is drifting and drifting and through the binocs. is seen to be paddling. Actually, if you want help from those nearby, I think the your whistle or horn are really your best bet. In fact, a neighbor's son, a couple years ago, helped a kayaker in trouble who was just using his whistle.

As for emergency personnel not carrying radios, apparently they are only in their vehicles, which, in my example, had to be parked up the street some due to the narrow road. They all pulled out their cell phones, which just makes my point: like it or not, we have ALREADY become a cell-phone-based-society; it's not a choice anymore.

Additionally, people should be clear on what the weather conditions are before they ever venture out. I've been an "outdoors" person and water rat for over 55 years and I know what some guy telling me from Mt. Greylock or even Mt. Washington (p.s. I'm also a licensed ham radio operator), is not necessarily what's happening 2 miles ahead of me. If there is any question about the weather and you aren't extremely practiced at reading the skies yourself, then you shouldn't be out there in the first place. I've been out kayaking and turned around just on "gut instinct" (which I think is really just being familiar with weather and water), had my friend who I paddle with all the time tell me I'm just nuts (ok, we all know that anyway), and yet had it start raining the minute we've pulled into our docks. You have to rely more on reading the sky and water and your gut once you are actually out there; again, just my personal opinion.

mcdude: First of all, the towers that are being applied for are not "huge". The only variance the company is looking for is to have the tower 10' above the tree line, which is really not much. This is to allow better line of site and greater coverage (as mentioned by upthesaukee). They are willing to go with the "fake-pinetree" look if necessary. There have been extensive engineering studies (I've read them!), and the two positions they are asking for are the ONLY available locations that will offer 100% coverage to the lower part of the Lake and all of Alton/Alton Bay. My opinion…if you're going to do it, do it once and do it right the first time. The company has currently been tasked by the Planning Board and ZBA to search for alternatives (church steeples, etc.), but it's not looking good (again, as stated by upthesaukee).

You are correct, mcdude. secondcurve's comments on the intoxication issue are mixing up accidents. In my post (a variation of which was actually posted in "The Baysider" not long ago; you caught me), I mentioned intoxication only because it was a question posed around the particular accident that ended up at the end of my dock. I mentioned it to right up front squelch the very thing that's happening in a few posts here. People are saying these people shouldn't have been intoxicated, which I'm not sure was the case anyway, and I'm making them sound all sweetsie. That was my point…it didn't matter. Good people, bad people, nice people, drunk people, sober…it doesn't matter. "Why" those people had the problem is NOT the issue. The issue is that no matter who you are or why you are in trouble, you have NO cell signal.

Weekend Pundit: You are 100% correct about the RF issue. In fact, it cannot even be addressed in negotiations because the feds. have ruled these towers put out such a low level of RF that it cannot be used by local governments to reject them. So, this is just a non-issue and besides the reality of the fact simply is there just is not an exposure danger.

I believe that much of the backlash to these towers is really a backlash about people who " detest cell phones when they are used in an inappropriate manner/place/situation"(WP's words). I detest this kind of misuse as much as you do. Most of the time, unless I'm following someone's directions turn by turn in my car, for example, I pull my car over to the side of the roar as far as possible in order to talk. And, neither my husband or I ever talk on the phone while piloting the boat. That's the navigator/passenger's job.

Just to be clear once again, as I said before, I have no relationship to the companies involved with putting up the Alton cell towers. I am just an Alton citizen who wants cell coverage!

Soapbox now cleared…next?

[RLW]

How in heck did we all live 10 to 15 years ago without cell phones. My suggestion is let's go back to those good ole days and use them just for our work environment.:)

[Winni]

I am sorry I may have misled you all. In an earlier post I said this site was around Plymouth, but when I went up to take a picture today, I realized I must have been daydreaming. It is exactly across from Exit 28, Waterville, on Rt. 93N.

I think this is a perfect example showing how a cell tower, even a fully loaded, fully exposed, non-fake-pine tree one, does less damage to our forests and is less offensive in terms of view than the horrible swath that has been cut out to allow the land lines. Here they are, side by side; now which do you think is less offensive?

We've had the land lines cut through our woods all over the place like this for years and now we hardly notice them. Pretty soon you won't even notice those extra ten feet sticking up above the tree line that will probably be ordered to look like a pine tree anyway.

[Winni]

How in heck did we all live 10 to 15 years ago without cell phones. My suggestion is let's go back to those good ole days and use them just for our work environment.:)

They were called "phone booths"! Seen many lately? :) And, as I said, everyone on the lakes used marine radios; people just plain don't anymore. PWCs and snow mobiles hadn't been invented, and only a very few of us crazies went out white water canoeing back then! You rarely saw a kayak, though I did do it then. My emergency connection was a ham radio, but I had to be able to get back to my car to use it!

As much as I wish there were still only one stop light between my old house in Mt. Vernon (1978) and Nashua, Rt. 101A now has about 35 there. I'm afraid the wayback machine, as much as we all wish for it, has not been invented yet. ;) I'm with you on this one; life was better then, but whatcha' gonna' do?

[jrc]

How in heck did we all live 10 to 15 years ago without cell phones. My suggestion is let's go back to those good ole days and use them just for our work environment.:)

How did we live 100 years ago without cars, lets go back to horses. How did we live 60 years ago without antibiotics, lets go back to leeches. I could go on forever. :D

[Silver Duck]

I agree with MJP on this one. A dead spot in cellular coverage could very easily wind up causing a dead person, whether it's on the lake or on the road. Moreover, if you're driving, marine VHF is not a solution!

If the cellular companies are willing to foot the bill for improving coverage, there's really no excuse for playing games with people's safety!

Silver Duck

[RLW]

If the cellular companies are willing to foot the bill for improving coverage, there's really no excuse for playing games with people's safety!

Silver Duck

Who are you kidding, they don't do one thing in business for nothing as it gets passed onto you and me.:)

[jrc]

I agree with MJP on this one. A dead spot in cellular coverage could very easily wind up causing a dead person, whether it's on the lake or on the road. Moreover, if you're driving, marine VHF is not a solution!

If the cellular companies are willing to foot the bill for improving coverage, there's really no excuse for playing games with people's safety!

Silver Duck

Didn't mean to imply you shouldn't have cell phones, just that a VHF is a great safety device on a boat. A cell phone replaces part of that but not all of it. Maybe on an inland lake you can get by without VHF, and maybe the difference will diminish as cell coverage improves.

[Airwaves]

MJP I think you're misunderstanding my point about Marine radios. I advocate ADDING cellphones to your emergency arsenel, not replacing marine radios with a cell phone, especially if you boat (kayak) in areas where you don't have coverage!
Also, I want to get to 911 as fast as possible if I have an injury, not just the MPs. I think, from my experience, 911 is very good at getting Marine Patrol help when you need it. Also, they can connect quickly to the local police & fire and have the police or fire boats immediately dispatched in addition to the MPs.
Only if the cellphone works, as you pointed out. Even after hours using a Marine VHF if you can't raise Marine Patrol, and every other boater on the lake is ignoring you, you can raise Coast Guard Group Portland from Winni and have them relay your emergency but if you broadcast a Mayday you'll have more boats around you than you know what to do with in a fraction of the time it will take emergency personel to respond.
Also, if someone is in a boat in my area, hopefully they will see we are in trouble and also call 911 and, better still, come help!
Sure, if they SEE you, but what if they are just around the other side of the island, heading the other way. Nope, they won't see you, they could hear you using the radio, but won't hear you on the cellphone.
As for emergency personnel not carrying radios, apparently they are only in their vehicles,
That's just plain stupid!

Yes, cellphones are popping up everywhere, I even work with a number of folks who don't own landlines at all, just cellphones. My point is that if I am in trouble on the lake I want all the help I can get, and I want it immediately.

Perhaps the response time of the various towns or MP is good, maybe 5 to 8 minutes. Doesn't seem long does it. Can you hold your breath that long?

I am not saying don't take a cellphone with you on the lake, I am saying don't replace a marine radio with a cellphone and assume that you can contact emergency personnel or get help in an emergency.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck
I agree with MJP on this one. A dead spot in cellular coverage could very easily wind up causing a dead person, whether it's on the lake or on the road. Moreover, if you're driving, marine VHF is not a solution!

As I also said, I agree with MJP regarding the need for better cell coverage, but my comments re: Marine radios are for boaters on Winni, not commuters on 93, You're right, a VHF is not an option on the road but I'm talking about the lake.

[skisox24]

Hey, I hate cell phones, too. In fact, I hate all phones, including the hard wired type. But lets face it. We are all reacting to an issue that our children's generation won't identify with.

Let's be serious! Are these microwave towers any more unnatural than the telephone lightposts that carry utility service transmission lines to our homes? Boy are they ugly and intrusive. I am constantly reminded of Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon decades ago. He couldn't have completed that historic moment without leaving a boot print on the moonscape surface. Telephone poles and microwave towers are earth's equivalent. It's part of the landscape, get used to it.

[Eki]

Airwaves ... you said:

How about this for a compromise? Allow the cell towers to go up in Alton, keep them below 120' tall and they don't need to be lighted (doesn't matter how high on the mountain they are)

That would be incorrect because Alton Bay becomes an air strip in the winter (as can be seen from your marine nav maps). Now the surrounding topology (tree lines, mountain tops) define what needs and does not need lights

[secondcurve]

It's too bad that the wireless technology we use to today was adopted over the alternative satellite technolgy. Fom what I understand, in the early years satellite technology was not cost effective since by definition there were very few cell phone users. Oh, well.

[Winni]

Who are you kidding, they don't do one thing in business for nothing as it gets passed onto you and me.:)

Of course they don't! But, my point is we are not laying out thousands of dollars from the town coffers to get this service. The way companies like this, that construct the towers, get their money is to have cell companies like Verizon, US Cellular, etc. pay for a presence on the towers. Many cell companies can use one tower rather than having a tower for every cell company.

And, of course each of us pays a little more to the cell companies. But, I'd rather pay a penny or two more, and that's about what it amounts to when it's spread across all phone owners, than not have coverage.

As for the marine radios, I'm not saying "don't have them" and I'm not saying "intentionally use cell phones to replace them". I'm just saying the reality is that most people these days don't have them.

Our radio kicked the bucket a few years ago and, having cell phones by then, we just said, "The heck with it." If you want to have both, of course you should. All I'm saying is that we should face up to what is not function on how we would like it to be. Most people will not have them but will have cell phones and thus we should have all the coverage we can get at the lowest price with the least impact to nature.

I don't get what's wrong with my statements.:confused:

[Winni]

That's just plain stupid!



I'm sorry, Airwaves, what is "just plain stupid!"? ... what I'm saying or what they did? If it's what I'm saying, I'm only reporting what occurred. If it's what they did, I don't think it's stupid at all.

You weren't here. You don't know where the vehicles had to park. Neither of us knows what their radio reception was like that night for them. (My understanding is that varies greatly with changes in the weather, the time of day, and the ionosphere.)

But, as I keep saying, it is what the reality is/was, and it's not going to change to be what someone wants it to be. In all the confusion, for all I know, besides using my land line they may have run back to their vehicles and used their radios. I just don't know. I was pretty busy helping to hold a boat still, removing their boat canopy, stopping bleeding, mopping up blood, and trying to reassure people who were very scared and in a lot of pain.

All I know is what I observed. They tried to use cell phones standing on my dock and couldn't. My goodness, this seems to be making something so simple so complicated.

[Grant]

A simple solution: Erect the towers on lakefront property. It seems that most folks don't take much issue with people building large, ugly, obtrusive structures on the shores of the Lake.

[Airwaves]

MJP
I'm sorry, Airwaves, what is "just plain stupid!"? ... what I'm saying or what they did? If it's what I'm saying, I'm only reporting what occurred. If it's what they did, I don't think it's stupid at all.

What's just plain stupid is that EMTs or Police don't have portable radios! Or at least didn't in this case. Not what you're saying. If emergency services have issues with radio communications then they obviously need to install repeaters to handle the dead spots. (and considering the level of my RE tax bill they should certainly have the resources)

Bottom line is if you don't want to have a Marine radio on board that's your choice. I think it's a mistake for all the reasons we have both discussed.
Lack of cell coverage, lack of getting the word out to as many boaters as possible that you're in trouble, but it's your choice.

I just don't want anyone reading this to think that replacing their Marine radio with a cellphone will give them the same level of communitation with others in an emergency situation that they had with a Marine radio, it won't.

EKI wrote:
That would be incorrect because Alton Bay becomes an air strip in the winter (as can be seen from your marine nav maps). Now the surrounding topology (tree lines, mountain tops) define what needs and does not need lights
I was under the impression that anything built above the terrain that was less than 120' did not need to be lighted. On the other hand if a 120' tower is surrounded by 125' trees, an unlighted tower isn't going to be a factor for landing aircraft will it? :eek:

If the proposed tower is located in the take off or landing pattern for aircraft then that is an argument that would probably be successful in getting them to located it somewhere else.

[Winni]

EKI wrote:

I was under the impression that anything built above the terrain that was less than 120' did not need to be lighted. On the other hand if a 120' tower is surrounded by 125' trees, an unlighted tower isn't going to be a factor for landing aircraft will it? :eek:

If the proposed tower is located in the take off or landing pattern for aircraft then that is an argument that would probably be successful in getting them to located it somewhere else.

My understanding is that the proposed towers are to be 10' above the treeline.

[onthebay]

Just wanted to relay a funny (ironic) story. A friend of mine picked up his boat in from the marina out by Alton last year for its maiden run. It was out in the middle of the week and not in particulary great weather. Out in the broads his engine cut out and began smoking terribly (possible fire). He Couldn't open the engine Hatch because power was gone.
There were no other boats in site so he called Marine Patrol (cell phone) and spoke with a dispatcher. They told him that the only other MP boat on the lake that day was responding to a call on the other side of the lake and couldn't get to him for a while. Since they were both concerned that the engine fire could get out of hand. The dispatcher suggested that he put on his life jacket, jump overboard, swim away from the boat and wait for her call. :emb: :laugh:

[Grant]

If they are erecting any towers anywhere in the region, I'd certainly hope that they are carrying some GSM...GSM service is LAME on the eastern side of the Lake. Another reason to stay with Verizon if you are pondering a switch to Cingular or another carrier, and spend any time at the Lake when you need to be in contact via cell.

And, yes, I agree that it's a sad commentary on where our society has "progressed" when it's "essential" for people to remain so in touch. Case in point: I took off Monday and went fishing on the beach. Thanks to the cell phone, I fielded no fewer than five work-related calls...all of which could've been handled by someone else...or even dealt with the next day...

But I digress.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

I empathize with the people hurt in the boating mishap described by mjp. Bad weather and a boater out in poor visibility with almost no control of the boat hits an island that they didn’t see coming… So they want to use a cell phone to call “911” but there was no cell service. What would 911 do anyway? You don’t know where your boat is and neither do they. There is no cell phone locator system in place around the Lake.

The real concern as Airwaves pointed out, (msg #35) is that the responders did not have the necessary communications equipment to do their work as efficiently as possible. Their radios should provide them with proper coverage and back-up comm procedures. If not, that issue needs to be addressed. Blaming a delayed response on cell phone coverage that does not yet exist is a hard concept for me to embrace.

Monitoring VHF Marine Radio channel 16 can be very informative. You can hear severe weather alerts from the Captain of the Mt. Washington, Mighty Mo, Marine Patrol and other boaters. Your call for help can reach many people all at once – some may be close to you. The new Marine VHF-DSC system on Channel 70 can (if connected to GPS) transmit your exact location and a distress call with the push of a button (the DSC system is not currently monitored by Marine Patrol, Tow Boat US or SeaTow). More and more boaters though are discovering and using the DSC features of Marine VHF radio and do monitor for DSC distress and routine calls.

By the way, kayakers and others who get real wet while boating, most cell phones do not like water. There are various reasonably priced waterproof or submersible Marine VHF hand held radios you might consider.

Even if/when there is cell phone coverage, cell service is not always available and calls do get dropped and lost.

[Winni]

There is no cell phone locator system in place around the Lake.

By the way, kayakers and others who get real wet while boating, most cell phones do not like water.

Even if/when there is cell phone coverage, cell service is not always available and calls do get dropped and lost.

Regarding the above statements:

* The entire state, I believe, and if not the whole state at least most of it, has E911 locator capability. Most cell phones sold in the past few years even allow you to choose to have location on for anyone to find you or for only emergency (E911) location. Whether or not you choose to keep either or both on is up to you.

* Kayakers have for a long time now kept their cell phones in little waterproof and floatable containers attached to their person. At first we just hooked them to us, but now life jackets come with nice snug little covered pockets meant to hold your waterproof cell phone container containing your cell phone. I bought a new life jacket about 3 years ago and even that had one. I haven't seen a paddling jacket lately that doesn't have one of these.

* The final statement above, "...cell service is not always available and calls do get dropped and lost," is just one more great reason to get the towers! Let's fix the problem in the best possible way! What's wrong with having this in addition to your marine radios if you chose to have one and why not create the best possible odds for the cell phones to work when they are needed?

I guess I'm not really understanding why everyone is trying find workarounds or objections. No one is saying not to have marine radios if you want them; we're just saying why not make today's most common communication method as available as possible?

Sigh.....:rolleye1:

[Airwaves]

onthebay:
The dispatcher suggested that he put on his life jacket, jump overboard, swim away from the boat and wait for her call.
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?

[Waterbaby]

How in heck did we all live 10 to 15 years ago without cell phones. My suggestion is let's go back to those good ole days and use them just for our work environment.:)

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.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Regarding the above statements:

* The entire state, I believe, and if not the whole state at least most of it, has E911 locator capability. {snip}

* Kayakers have for a long time now kept their cell phones in little waterproof and floatable containers attached to their person. {snip}

* The final statement above, "...cell service is not always available and calls do get dropped and lost," is just one more great reason to get the towers! Let's fix the problem in the best possible way! {snip} No one is saying not to have marine radios if you want them; we're just saying why not make today's most common communication method as available as possible? Sigh.....:rolleye1:

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.

[mcdude]

A segment from another letter to the editor that appeared in The Baysider (http://www.thebaysider.com) on May 31.

The new Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance enacted by Alton's residents clearly prohibits the type of facility proposed by ICE. Instead, it encourages more targeted low powered and new systems such as Micro Cells and Repeaters. One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cover and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover. This is only one possibility. A RF Engineer specializing in Repeater Technology could provide several alternatives for service with safety. These avenues will not be explored by ICE because these options do not support their objective of obtaining critical real estate.

Under the Telecommunications Act (TVA) of 1996, the Federal Government has given Wireless Service Providers certain rights of redress if they feel local zoning ordinances or planning boards have prohibit ed adequate wireless service. Vertical real estate developers do not have these same rights. In an effort to merge the rights, granted by the TCA to wireless providers, with the desires of ICE, Rural Cellular Corp. dba Unicel is listed as a co-applicant. The applicant's attorney, Duval and Associates, has done this to blur the distinction between the two, but the difference between their objectives must remain clear. The objective of ICE is to create vertical real estate, whereas RCC's goal is to provide adequate service. Variances need not be granted to ICE in order for RCC to provide adequate service coverage. Duval and Associates have threatened to sue the town if they do not get their way. Furthermore, when asked if they would camouflage the towers, they flatly refused. These are not the actions of a benevolent service provider cooperating with the town, but rather a greedy developer who is trying to intimidate and bully the town into getting its way.

I applaud the ZBA, Planning Board and Town Attorney for taking the time to get it right. The learning curve on these issues is very steep. The developers and their attorneys are well practiced in twisting the TCA to intimidate small towns to get their way.

Gathered in one day is a signed petition of 152 Alton residents petitioning the Zoning Board to deny the variances for these cell towers. We ask that the ZBA and Planning Board to protect the well being of Alton's residents and the scenic beauty of Alton Bay while seeking the best and safest way to develop wireless service. Deny these variances!

Russ Wilson

Alton Bay

Russ Wilson
Alton Bay
May 31, 2006



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

[Winni]

I can understand using cells for emergencies, but for everyday use? I have heard conversations that should have been kept private, ...I actually consider these public conversations an intrusion into my own life.

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

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...

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

Where is the relaxation time? Where is the private time? And where is the family time?

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:

[Winni]

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.

[mcdude]

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:

Where are the other towers on the lake located?

Who's choice? Your's or mine?

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.

[Airwaves]

Skip of SQ writes:
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.
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 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.
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)

[jrc]

...I'm beginning to look at cell phones as an intrusion to "polite society"....

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.

[Skip]

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 :)

[Airwaves]

Skip wrote:
First, Marine Patrol boats do indeed in many cases carry and utilize marine radios. Some of the smallest aluminum boats have no fixed radios, as they move up in size they 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
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!

[Winni]

Skip of SQ writes:
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.


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.

[Winni]

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?

[Skip]

...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?...

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

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Airwaves
Skip of SQ writes:
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.

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.

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

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 (http://www.hello-radio.org/)

[fatlazyless]

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!

[Winni]

When regular communications systems fail, HAM RADIO works. for information about this great communications hobby visit: Ham Radio (http://www.hello-radio.org/)

Have had HAM license since 1978.

[Skip]

... Skip has unique knowledge, talents and abilities. I enjoy his participation in the forum...

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:

[Eki]

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

[jrc]

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

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

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

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 (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=DiRico%20AND%20Tower%20AND%20height&s_dispstring=DiRico%20Tower%20height%20AND%20date( all)&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no)

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.

The people who want to build these cell towers for us are doing us a huge favor. I personally have trouble putting that sentence together with Industrial Communications and Electronics.

[Airwaves]

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.

[Sandy Beach]

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: ?

[Bubba]

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.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

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.

[Winni]

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!

[Winni]

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:

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

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 be 10 feet above the tree line, for cell relays only, and…..
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.

Why isn’t the safety of everyone, with a technology now available to us, the ONLY issue here? I just don’t get it. 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.

These scare tactics are just ridiculous!!! {snip} but we aren’t going to allow people to have cell service? 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.

…At the very least, admit what the real issue is and be honest about why you are objecting!

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

[Mark]

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

Find CaseLaw Appeal (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=941471)

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

[nj2nh]

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

[mcdude]

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....

The hysteria over the proposed cell phone tower in Alton is directly traceable to anti-tower websites. The rhetoric from these sites is the same fear and doom propaganda that has been disproven hundreds of times, yet this is regularly regurgitated as factual.


Anyway, I digress...

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

McD

[Winni]

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

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.

[mcdude]

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

[Rayhunt]

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...

[Weirs guy]

Id really like to see statistics on how many lives were spared by cell phones in emergencies.

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.

[Winni]

Id really like to see statistics on how many lives were spared by cell phones in emergencies.

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?

[Skip]

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?

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?

[Rayhunt]

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

[mcdude]

Link to photo that Winni placed above...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=790&stc=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....
In reference to the courtesy photo that accompanied the June 22nd editorial sheet, a picture is worth a thousand words, this time just one "deception." The cell tower depicted here opposite exit 28 on Route 93N is not in a residential area threatening the health and well being of the residents. Secondly, its location is off and next to a major highway, not affecting any view shed or devaluing anyone's property. Finally, those supposed "landlines" referred to in the photo are in actuality high tension electric power transmission lines and not telephone landlines used for communication. Local government has no control over their placement. They are federally mandated and exempt from local zoning. Local governments do, however, have some control over the siting and appearance of cell towers. Alton Bay's scenic vistas need not be marred to provide adequate cell service!

More adequate cell phone coverage would be nice, however, I reiterate my position, like Russ Wilson I say
Alton Bay's scenic vistas need not be marred to provide adequate cell service!

[fatlazyless]

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.

[Winni]

Link to photo that Winni placed above...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=790&stc=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

In response to Russ Wilson's comments:

First: The whole "threatening the health and well being of the residents" argument is just baseless and has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. Also, if you want to talk "health", think about the fact that trees, like the ones ripped down for lines on poles, are what process the CO2 we all emit. So, do you really want to get into the "health" argument?

Second: If you don't think that picture is "affecting any view", then you're living in a different state than I am! I think that view, especially of the large swath of forest torn up the side of the mountain, is significantly more offensive than the 10' that the Alton cell towers would be sticking up above trees. Who cares if they are electric or phone lines? Tearing up the hillside for lines on the land is much more offensive to me. I find it particularly offensive as I'm driving toward the North Country anticipating a view of beautiful mountains.

Third: This marring "Alton Bay's scenic vistas" argument is really getting ridiculous. Should we not allow Gunstock to exist because it needs a tower on top due to flight paths? This is really about a couple people's individual property values. We actually don't even know if they will decrease. Hey, someone who wants to buy them may just come along and say, "I get great cell service here so I can work from home! Hurrah!"...and it will increase the value! (No sillier an argument than how much it will ruin Alton's views in my opinion.)

All joking aside, the studies have been done; the arguments have been made. Read through the forum and stop rehashing the same stuff over and over. We need cell coverage and this is the best, if not perfect, way to get it. In a year or so no one will even notice these towers are there.

Honestly...once again I ask, shall we all go back to kerosene lanterns and messenger pigeons so we can rip down all the ugly poles and lines covering massive amounts of our state and every roadway in it?

[Winni]

One more note to Mr. Wilson...do hope you don't have a microwave oven in your house! Just think of the damage we must be doing by just about every structure in America having a microwave oven! Remember when they first came out how we were warned fiercely about the health risks? Yeah...and that's why just about everyone has one in their home/office/RV/school/restaurant/etc. today. They didn't go away and neither are cell phones going away, regardless of how much so-called-safety hype Mr. Wilson is spewing forth in his "Baysider" article. Sure, maybe the earliest, earliest microwave ovens had some leakage, but we're way past that stage with cell phones and cell towers.

I would so much like to get rid of the $60 - $70 land line charge I pay in addition to our $70 per month cell phone charge, but I can't. I can't because I need/choose to have and use a cell phone (for safety as well as convenience) and have no service at my home. I wouldn't need a land line phone if I did.

Addtionally and again, I will not be swayed by the naysayers on the safety issue. People who cause accidents due to talking on their phones while driving (anything) are being stupid, reckless people. People who are using them inappropriately in restaurants and other public places are being rude and thoughtless.

It's not the cell phones that are having poor judgement. Gosh, if that were true, because motorcyclists chose not to wear helmets, perhaps we should prohibit the use of motorcycles in NH....hey, now there's an idea worth pursuing! Oh yes, and all that noise, trash, and congestion (not to mention the ten deaths this year!) they generate during Motorcycle Week, well that's the motorcycles' fault, right, not the drivers?! (Just making a point; don't blast me for an analogy!) :D

[Gavia immer]

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.
What IS the tree line? Is that number taken from a view from the highest tree on the slope?

The average height of all the trees in Alton? The height of Alton's average pine trees? Or the tallest pine tree on record? The tallest pine tree is Maine's, at 240'.

How about a definitive number?

[JG1222]

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h124/JG12221222/Avatars/BeatDeadHorse.gif

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people that are complaining about these cell phone pine trees are some of the same people that would be complaining how BAD cell service is when they're on their drive up to the lake for the weekend. The difference is they want to put the tower in "your backyard". If they were installing another one of these towers on 93 in Concord, you probably wouldn't care so much, yet you'd appreciate the added convenience. The same debate has been made about prisons, long before cell phones were even invented. "There should be more prisons - just don't build one next to me."

At least they are taking steps to minimize the appearance. Let's face it, six months after they put it up, you'll never notice it as much as you THINK you will. Since Memorial Day, I've driven up to the lake three times, and it wasn't until I read this thread that I even remembered that there are 3 HUGE radio towers for WGIR on the way up. I passed them each time (up and back) and never noticed them - not once.

It's as simple as this - If you don't like the Pine-O-Matic cell phone towers, vote "no" when you have the opportunity. If you don't have the opportunity to vote directly on the issue, call your selectmen, representative, etc. and let him know your opinion on the issue. THIS is the way you might actually affect some change.

Cell phones aren't going away. Hell, let's say we could wave a magic wand and they would - people would find something else to complain about. "Man, those CB radio waves from the guy next door are bleeding over into my cable TV. Boy, remember the 'good old days' when we still had cell phones?"

If your argument is about the "technology", then while we're at it let's eliminate other such nuisances as ATM's, portable defribulators, FM radios, ABS brakes, side curtain airbags - all the things that make our lives easier and potentially save our lives. Plus, all this "evil" technology isn't really being forced on us like some might suggest - we're buying this stuff and asking for more (There's a reason why I don't make a living manufacturing and selling Monkey Fondling Reciprocating Transducers - nobody's buying them. But cell phones are another story - show me a family with kids that doesn't have at least two).

You know, it WAS a lot nicer back in the "good old days". Hell, there was a lot less noise on the lake when everyone was sailing or paddling. It's just funny that some of the same people that are beating this dead horse about "why do people need to talk so much on their cell phones while at the lake anyway" are some of the same people who just cruised into Meredith Bay using their GPS navigation system on their fuel injected Sea Ray while listening to their iPod.

[Commodore]

This is a very long thread with some passionate and informative posts.

Ms. Winni. The story of your husband's cellular experiences after an accident at the end of 11-D was interesting. He could not reach 911 on the cell. You claim "No Signal" but it might have been no connection to the E911 system. An inability to connect to 911 does not necessarily mean no cell coverage. He managed to get a cell call through to you with information about the situation and his location. Enough for you to find him, right where he said he was. So what if he could not be seen from route 11, he told you he was at 11-D. So there was some cellular coverage at his location. Even if it was roaming it was coverage. The police would have found him at the end of 11-D just like you found him. If he had not wasted his cell signal on the call to you he could have reached 911 and saved time.

What if he had used that cell call to dial 911 instead of calling you? He would have had his call and location go right to the 911 call center. If the cell system has enough signal to contact you it should contact 911 too, right?


Ms Winni, you seem to want this proposal to go through regardless of any other solution. You claim that the only objections to the new cell towers are the aesthetics and the claim about RF health hazards.

You are a Ham Radio yet you use terms that are not accurate and you do not answer all the legitimate questions put to you. You say the proposed cell towers will be for cellular relay only. A cell relay tower does not take calls from cell phones, it merely relays a group of calls and data from one cell receiving and transmitting site and sends it to another relay or to the switching system.

You talk about the, "Tree line". When asked for clarification about the height of the towers you repeat, 10 feet above the tree line. Tree line is the area on the mountain where the trees stop growing. You don't mean that you probably mean tree tops but you don't answer the questions.

Your description of telephone lines that are really high voltage lines also shows a lack of technical expertise. Maybe you did not want to bring in the topic of radiation concerns from high voltage lines or you just don't know the difference.

Using microwave ovens as an example of misplaced RF concerns is not a fair comparison. What is the frequency difference between microwave ovens and cellular phones? Not close is it. Ever see a sign in a fast food restaurant warning patrons with pacemakers that a microwave oven was in use? Must be some RF concerns there. Do you keep away from all radiation? How about 60Hz?

Ms. Winni, how can you ignore the questionable ethics and tactics in the history of Industrial Communications and Electronics?

Please review this thread and answer the unanswered questions as best you can. Try to keep an open mind. There can really be more than one solution to better cell coverage than this one proposal.

[John A. Birdsall]

I have a cell phone for use for the summer. I had to call my daughter in Newmarket from Alton Bay. Could not get on (I have Verison) It took me to Chichester before I could get on. However I can call her from Norwich CT and have no problem. If towers is the problem and they can be so they are not unsightly then do it. I know they have talked about putting a tower in our church tower and the church would get some revenue from it.

Communications has been moving the last few years at an unbelievable state and we have to learn to use it and move along.

[Grant]

...I had to call my daughter in Newmarket from Alton Bay. Could not get on (I have Verison) It took me to Chichester before I could get on. However I can call her from Norwich CT and have no problem. ...

John -- Verizon is the BETTER choice in the Lakes Region. I had them for years, and rarely had a problem. About five years ago, I switched to Cingular because Verizon got ZERO reception in my new office building. But with Cingular, I was put on the GSM network, which at the time had not been built out. Well, in New Hampshire, it still isn't built out. If the towers will host some GSM traffic, it will benefit a lot of visitors. The GSM coverage vanishes north of the Epsom circle, and reappears in sparse little pockets north or Wolfeboro. Decent but spotty GSM coverage on the eastern side of the lake. Verizon is good on the eastern side.

[Winni]

Ok, I have some serious nit-picking to respond to, but I won't quote all of Commodore's criticism, just the parts I will respond to, as it would make my response too large. If you do not want to read through all this nonsense, I suggest you just go to the hearings, do some listening, and even state your case, that is, if the governmental types ever get around to letting the public speak. However, I could not let Commodore's response go, as his main goal seems to be to discredit me and not to put forth a substantial argument opposing the proposed towers. So, I guess I'll give it a go, though this is going to turn out to be ridiculously long.

"If he had not wasted his cell signal on the call to you he could have reached 911 and saved time." This is just a ridiculous statement! You don't have the facts clear. As I stated, he did try 911 before he tried me and he did not get a signal. It was not because he was unable to connect to E911; it was because the signals are so spotty in this area. You can take 1/2 step away and find a signal, then move another 1/4 step and loose it. In a high tension type situation like an accident, it can be very frustrating. I know this to be true because while I was waiting around for the paper exchange once I got to the scene, I took out my phone and tested the signal strengths. Baby steps made the difference.

"The police would have found him at the end of 11-D just like you found him." Wrong again; they were really ticked off that they went flying by the end of 11-D when they came back and I first stopped the policeman. He clearly was relieved that I could bring him to where the accident scene was and complained right along with me about the terrible cell coverage. The only reason I even knew which end of 11-D to go to (because the connection dropped before my husband could say more) was that I knew he was coming home from the Gilford end not the Alton end. The police wouldn't have known that.

"Ms Winni, you seem to want this proposal to go through regardless of any other solution. You claim that the only objections to the new cell towers are the aesthetics and the claim about RF health hazards." You clearly have not done your homework. These are not the objections I focused on, they are what the opponents (i.e. abutters) are objecting to.

"You are a Ham Radio..." Sorry, no; I have no dials, buttons, or readouts, and am not attached to an antenna. If you really knew what you were talking about, you would have said, "You are a Ham..."

"... yet you use terms that are not accurate and you do not answer all the legitimate questions put to you. You say the proposed cell towers will be for cellular relay only. A cell relay tower does not take calls from cell phones, it merely relays a group of calls and data from one cell receiving and transmitting site and sends it to another relay or to the switching system." NO KIDDING! Really; gosh...I didn't know that! Honestly, if you think I didn't know that then you are really looking for something to pick at. Yeah, we all go around calling them "cell relay towers" instead of "cell towers". Gosh, and I thought there was a little guy sitting up on top of the tower answering my phone for me, too! Would you like me to name the seven original communication layers for you too?

"You talk about the, "Tree line". When asked for clarification about the height of the towers you repeat, 10 feet above the tree line. Tree line is the area on the mountain where the trees stop growing. You don't mean that you probably mean tree tops but you don't answer the questions." You know, I really think you ought to attend some of the hearings before you try to do me in. I'm a hiker from way back (say, how many 4000 footers have you done?) and I am well aware of what a "tree line" is on a mountain top. Unfortunately, the ZBA and legal-type talkers at the meetings are (yes, improperly, but never-the-less are) using this phrase to mean the visual line made by the top of the trees. I'm thinking maybe they just don't want to spout out the words, "Visual line made by the top of the trees..." every time they want to reference it; 'ya think?

"Your description of telephone lines that are really high voltage lines also shows a lack of technical expertise." No, it means you (and a bunch of other people) missed the point. It did not/does not matter what those lines are on the land/ground poles/towers. The point of the picture was that lines that must connect to each other and run along towers/poles on the ground necessarily must have huge swaths of trees cut out around them and are much more grotesque than a simple stand alone tower (be it cell "relay" or anything else). (Hmm......funny one of the two largest companies building air and space craft in this country, which I will not name, used to pay me whole bunches of money to head up the technology areas of entire sites for many years. Glad to hear you are a better judge of my abilities, since you know me so well, than they were!)

"Maybe you did not want to bring in the topic of radiation concerns from high voltage lines or you just don't know the difference." Or...maybe I did not want to bring in the RF issue because it is a non-issue, i.e. the government has ruled it so and in reality, it is so. I'm not going to waste space here rehashing that yet once again.

"Using microwave ovens as an example of misplaced RF concerns is not a fair comparison." Once again you miss the point! (Perhaps you have issues with abstract concepts?) The comparison was not about output! The comparison was to point out that people were scared to death of microwave ovens when they first came out until they realized they were virtually harmless to individuals using them and now they are everywhere. The same will be true of cell phones and cells towers soon. People will get over this silliness about RF. (Note: this is known as an "analogy".)

"Please review this thread and answer the unanswered questions as best you can." Not worth my time and effort to keep repeating (pun intended) myself and the answers others have already given. Instead, why don't you, "Try to keep an open mind," and go to the hearings instead? Why also don't you delve into the stacks and stacks of material available at the Town Hall on all this and then maybe you can answer your own questions, because I think the important ones have already been answered sufficiently.

"There can really be more than one solution to better cell coverage than this one proposal." Yes; it would be nice to get one (as in one, once!) that actually works, though. As far as I can see from the multiple engineering studies, the proposed solution is the best so far.

So, any more arrows you want to throw at me? Go for it. (Oh yes, and if you would like some grammar and punctuation tutoring, I'm available for that as well.) Maybe someone else can pick up my side of it if anyone out there cares. I'm pretty sick of all this. Yes, I am "passionate" because all I really want is for MY CELL PHONE TO WORK!

If you actually read through all this and made it to this point, I thank you and congratulate you on your endurance!

[mcdude]

Looks like some kind of tower has been erected. Not sure if it is a cell phone tower or not. This tower is located on the east side of the bay toward the Alton Village end and the photo is taken from the west side of the bay from Alton Mountain Road. Regretfully my camera only has a 7.5X zoom so the photo isn't the clearest. Has anyone noticed it from the lake?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/519/medium/IMG_7753.JPG

[GWC...]

Looks like some kind of tower has been erected. Not sure if it is a cell phone tower or not. Has anyone noticed it from the lake?
Maybe if it were painted day-glow orange, it will be easier to see from the Lake and where you took this picture.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/519/medium/IMG_7753.JPG

[mcdude]

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider

Provisions of Ordinance 603 must be revisited

To the Editor:

Over the past several months, the Town of Alton has been confronted with a troublesome, contentious issue over granting a variance to a Zoning Regulation that governs installation of Cell Phone Towers. A Cell Tower Operator, who earlier sought permission to erect new towers in Wolfeboro, was rejected by their town's Planning Board and ZBA. They then turned to Alton and have made application to locate two towers in town on Miramichie Hill in the Lakeshore Residential Zone and at the old campgrounds off Robert's Cove Road.

The issue is still under consideration by Alton's ZBA and presumably, a ruling will be forthcoming in the short term. Originally, the Applicant submitted his request in late 2005 for a variance in the "use" and "area" provisions of the prevailing Zoning Ordinance 270, which limited locating cell towers to only four outlying overlay districts in town, all in the Rural Zone.

In March 2006, the Alton voters, at the urging of the Planning Board, were presented with a warrant article recommending a new Ordinance 603 to supersede Ordinance 270 that had been in effect from 1999 through 2005. The new Ordinance that was passed by the voters, allows permitting of towers virtually anywhere in town but limited to no more than 10 feet above the tree line. With the location regulation no longer a hindrance as to where a tower could be erected, the Applicant immediately revised his application to pursue a single variance to install 120-foot towers in the above-mentioned locations.

In the March 2006 election, the article to be voted on had as a rationale the following: "The purpose of this new ordinance is to improve wireless service in the area and provide alternatives to tall towers with less visual impact upon the town." Limiting the height of the towers is an attractive provision of the new regulation, however, the voters were unaware that the devil was in the details of the proposed new ordinance.

Regrettably the Planning Board's warrant article did not identify a major change in the location provision of the ordinance that would allow towers to be erected in any district of the town including all four Residential Zones. The Lakeshore Residential Zone is now subject to having towers erected up to within fifty (50) feet of public waters including Lake Winnipesaukee. Sadly, proponents of the new measure were outside the voting station urging people to vote for the new ordinance as an improvement over the predecessor Ordinance 270. Without benefit of knowing the implications of the significant revision to the location provisions, some voters believe they were duped into supporting a flawed ordinance that now allows possible encroachment of these towers into the residential areas. Moreover, there were many specific protective provisions in the old Ordinance 270 that were eliminated. They included preserving hilltop appearance and skyline views of traditional areas of the town as well as protecting abutting property values.

Lake Winnipesaukee is unquestionably one of the premier lakes in New England. It offers recreation for the townspeople and it is a major attraction to visitors who enjoy boating and other activities. It is home to a few remaining summer camps for youngsters and vacation facilities for many NH and out-of-state people who summer here each year. The lake and the surrounding areas retain their pristine unspoiled beauty for all to enjoy, thanks to the efforts of town officials who, in past years, have protected the lake by controlling developments in the lakeshore area.

Winnipesaukee is also a boon to the local economy with multiple marinas, motels and rental cottages as well as numerous restaurants and other businesses that benefit from the Lake's popularity. It unmistakably is Alton's treasure when it comes to supporting the Town. Of the town's total collection of nearly $16 million in property taxes, approximately $12 million comes from lake properties. It is the tax base for the town that generates the bulk of the funds for schools, the municipal budget and all other town services. In every sense, it is Alton's greatest resource.

Now we have on the books a Zoning Ordinance that overrides all other residential regulations. If the variance currently under consideration is approved, and should this new ordinance remain intact, it would establish a terrible precedent of allowing commercial enterprises into the Lakeshore Zone and potentially, it could ruin the scenic beauty of the Lake. Alton has a huge landmass, one of the largest in the state, and there are numerous sites in the outlying rural zone where these towers could be located and offer improved cell phone service without disturbing the Town.

Concerned with this prospective development, the writer conferred with many people in town and especially those who wish to protect our Lake. There is a strong sentiment that certain provisions of the new Ordinance 603 must be revisited and revised to void repeat attempts to locate cell towers in or around residential areas and eliminate the threat to the beauty of Winnipesaukee. Who in their right mind wants to see towers popping up around the lake with their flashing lights disturbing the surrounding environment?

The writer met with the Planning Board to urge the planners to consider changes to the new Ordinance 603. We suggested that the protective and preservation provisions of the old ordinance be reinstated and that cell towers only be permitted in the rural parts of town away from the residential areas. Unfortunately, the Planning Board declined to take any action.

The next meeting was with the Board of Selectmen, who were not enthusiastic about addressing the issue and advised that the Planning Board had unilateral authority to handle zoning issues, and that the selectmen were not empowered to get involved. We subsequently learned through the New Hampshire Municipal Association that, in fact, under state law the selectmen were privileged to get involved and could initiate action leading to reconsideration of certain provisions of the new ordinance.

With this information, we submitted a letter on July 17, setting forth proposed changes to amend the new ordinance, together with a specific request that the selectmen move forward with the Planning Board to schedule a public hearing and put before the voters in March 2007, a warrant article calling for an Amendment to Ordinance 603. At another meeting with the selectmen on August 7, they again elected not to take up the issue and instead, suggested that under state law, we could petition the Town to allow a warrant article to be put before the voters next March.

The requisite number of registered voter signatures was obtained and the petition was submitted on August 14. However, the Town advised that such a petition cannot be legally accepted any earlier than 120 days in advance of the election, thus the petition must be resubmitted in early November. Regrettably, most of the seasonal taxpayers who are concerned with this issue will not be able to attend the public hearing sometime in the winter months and registered voters who go out of state for a few months will possibly not be able to participate in any of the proceedings. Any surprise in how Alton handles its affairs?

As matters stand, we will resubmit the petition in the fall and expect the Town will honor the request for this ballot initiative. Meanwhile the ruling on the current application will be the subject of a hearing scheduled for Sept. 12 at 6:30 p.m. Interested parties are encouraged to attend and if so inclined, participate in the public input portion of the meting. Otherwise for those people who are concerned about this issue, but do go away, write a letter to the Planning Board and arrange for your absentee ballots.

Alden L. Norman

Alton Bay

Alden L. Norman
Alton Bay
August 30, 2006

[GWC...]

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider
The new Ordinance that was passed by the voters
Have to wonder if "the writer" has a problem with Democracy.


Letter to the Editor of The Baysider
The lake and the surrounding areas retain their pristine unspoiled beauty for all to enjoy, thanks to the efforts of town officials who, in past years, have protected the lake by controlling developments in the lakeshore area.
So, Cell towers are spoilers and McMansions are not?

[John A. Birdsall]

Isn't it surprising that something that is needed, these toweres, for communications in this new day and age and people complain what they look like. I seen these poles sticking out of the woods, big deal, the woods are still there. How about the cutting of trees off a mountain to install new homes, or cutting mountains aside to make highways wider?

I think a requirement of these towers to be painted/coated a Army Green would be an improvement rather than aluminum

How about these areas on 28-A that have been trees removed for houses but then they stop the work. Or all them trees taken down for mcmansions all around the lake.

I have heard it said on this forum that cell phones are not needed on or around the lake. This coming from people who use the internet. Why is it that your means of communications has to be the one that controls how everybody communicates?

I hate cell phones, why, because in and around Alton Bay they do not work. They could be a big asset out on the lake if you break down and need a tow boat, or help. I noticed lately that waving a paddle does not work anymore.

[Mee-n-Mac]

{snip} I noticed lately that waving a paddle does not work anymore.

Well that's probably true. But in true Nawlins fashion you could flash your, err, well maybe not you, but someone could flash their, err, well, aahh, hmmm, well you know and that would certainly get some attention. Now that I think of it even I could flash my, err, hmmm, well, "parts" and perhaps get some attention. Mind you it wouldn't be helpful attention or even welcome attention but I'm pretty sure the MP would be along in short order to find out what the problem was. ;)

[RLW]

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider
Quote:
Provisions of Ordinance 603 must be revisited


I being a non-resident, I guess those that fall into that category can justt complain and/or agree with the writer. I myself feel that if one believes in what the writer put on paper should follow the mans words. He appears to have put many hours into the reseach and going to meetings. This way of trying to be heard in a postive way.:liplick:

[upthesaukee]

The Baysider recieved on 9-7 has a rather lengthy letter to the editor disagreeing with Mr. Norman's points, so this is not the only side of the coin. I do not subscribe so I can't copy and paste, and could scan it and paste it, but quite frankly it is a rather long letter and don't feel that I should take up the space in this thread with it.

I just have to smile as I look across the bay and really have to look for the tower that is pictured above, but can see the houses on Lakewood drive from nearly the end of the bay (5 mile away) and can see them also from Rte 11 just after entering Alton from New Durham. The blight of having a couple of cell towers is far less disruptive to the views around the lake than is clear cutting done so that the house(s) erected will stand out for all to see. (wouldn't be so bad if they would landscape the properties like Mr. Bahre has, but then again I digress.

Until such time as we are willing to look skyward and on a clear night, say "Oh look, Verizon 12 satellite and Nextel 22 are nearly aligned...Karma must be pretty good tonight"... we may just have to put up with a few towers. All the talk of the megatowers referenced earlier are from units in major metropolitan area, and are highly unlikely to be seen in NH at all, nevermind in the lakes area.

My humble opinion, we need the towers, and they can be constructed in a manner as to be minimally intrusive.

Upthesaukee signin' off the soap box!!!:emb:

[DNH]

Wow-
Following this whole Cell Phone Tower Controversy. I must say both sides are making very good points. I read one good post and agreed with it, then the next well thought out post and agreed with that. And so on & so on it went.
I never thought I would put so much thought into cell phone towers. But lately I have in following this particular thread.
As much as people say they "hate" cell phones, nearly everyone uses them, nearly everyone can hardly remember life without them. Whether these towers are erected or not, everyone's lives will move on. I don't believe anyone will have a monumental life change as a result of them. (Except for the arguements as to the use of them in emergency situations.)
As I read over the posts back & forth in this particular part of the forum I can't help but think: "How truly wonderful is it that we (as Americans) live in a place where the 'biggest' concern is how the view from our homes (or vacation homes or boats or waverunners etc) might be 'destroyed' by a cell phone tower?"
I don't know, but so close to the eve of the anniversary of the most horrific terrorist attacks on American soil I can't help but wonder: Aren't there far bigger things to be this passionate and worried about? Does anyone see the Warthogs fly overhead in NH on their practice/ training mission while endless arguements are continuing about the de-beautification of the hillside.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be both sides represented in the arguement. It is important. Just don't forget to keep things in perspective here. We are extremely fortunate- they could be far worse.

[mcdude]

Quotes from "The Baysider"

The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment combined on the night of Sept. 12 to jointly hear the site plan and area variances necessary to construct the two communications facilities, one at 486 East Side Drive (Route 28A), and the other at 1439 Wolfeboro Highway (Route 28).

Prior to that meeting, the applicant will perform a balloon test at the proposed site, scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 30, beginning at 9 a.m. Board members will meet at Town Hall at 8:30 a.m. that morning, to distribute lists of various vantage points from which to observe the balloons.


One of the 18 properties listed in the PowerPoint presentation was shown to belong to David and Marilyn Slade, and Delaney said they weren't interested in doing business with Industrial Communications.

But the Slades were in the audience, and David Slade testified that he had never been contacted by the company. The Slade property abuts the proposed facility on East Side Drive.

Slade questioned that the company didn't perform due diligence in fully exploring all its options, and said the company should use several smaller facilities to provide coverage without affecting view sheds

another indication of the questionable practices of Industrial Communications?

Donald Cody, director of operations for Industrial Communications, described the monopole towers as being five feet wide at the base, and tapering to 18 inches wide at the top, so, he suggested, when the board and public view the balloon test, which will use a four-foot wide balloon, he asked that they keep in mind that the tower won't be that wide.

But resident Russ Wilson said that was misleading. Yes, the tower itself might be only 18 inches wide, but it will be festooned with communications equipment. "Those antennae stick out from the tower about six feet," in three directions, forming a triangle about 12 feet wide, "so when you have a four-foot wide balloon, they're much smaller."


http://www.lwa.org/gallery/albums/album01/aac.sized.jpg
Photo of a recent balloon test conducted on Lake Wentworth in Wolfeboro. Photo by NomdePlume

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Not only is the 4 foot balloon smaller than a cell antenna array, the support structure (tower) is much thicker than the balloon tether. Plus the array, as I recall, is supposed to consist of 4 tiers of cell antenna banks.

The tower is supposed to be 5 feet at the base tapering to a foot and a half at the top. How big is the balloon tether? I'll bet it's less than an inch.

Now, if the tower top (balloon) is going to be just 10 feet above the tree tops they might be hard to see.:laugh:

---------

If, as Winni claims, the 2 locations are the ONLY places guaranteed to provide full service to Alton Bay then what's with the 18 properties mentioned? And what about the earlier (rejected) application to erect those 2 new towers in Wolfeboro to provide that coverage?

There are still many unanswered questions raised in this thread.

[Merrymeeting]

While I'll admit to not liking the towers in general, I also am like many in that I don't notice them for the most part and like the fact that I can spend more time at the lake when being able to take work calls from there.

However at night, one in Alton is more noticable than most I've seen. Can anyone explain why it needs the garrish white strobe light as opposed to the more normal, less offensive red beacon?

[Rocky]

Sure, the "tree" cell phone towers are fugly, but are the gaudy McMansions devouring Lake shoreline any prettier? Honestly? Folks are more willing to ensure ocean-going 30+ ft. cigarette boats blasting by their shores at 60+ mph than they are a relatively inconspicuous tower. Frankly, I'd rather see fewer BMF boats (and their trailers along 93), and enjoy some better cell reception.

Just MHO...
I'll second that!!

[Tired of Waiting]

Well you can blame it on us.

OK Mee-n-Mac it's all your fault:laugh:

To tell you the truth I hate the looks of them. Being an outside person I like the nice prestine woods and view, I like lakes with no homes on them but I get neither. I don't have a cell phone and never have. I hate to be interrupted when I don't want to be.

But as some say, progress is forcing it upon us just like all the other unsightly views we now have to put up with. To a person like myself the world is getting uglier all the time with objects of "progress."

All I wish for is that the towns that permit them control where they are put, how they look, read how high etc. and that the companies that own them abide by the wishes of the folks who live around them. I know, I'm in a dream world. It might be, but it's getting uglier and further away from the dream.:(

ToW

[mcdude]

Results of the October 10 Planning Board Meeting.....

The Baysider
.....The news was both good and bad for the applicants, with the Planning Board members finding that the Roberts Knoll site, on Route 28, had little visual impact, while the Miramichie Hill site, on East Side Drive, was visible from many viewsheds, especially from Lake Winnipesaukee.

Planning board member Jeanne Crouse said there was "no way to enter or exit Alton Bay" and not plainly see the balloons on Miramichie Hill.

But the impact on the viewshed wasn't the only thing Planning Board members took issue with. They were unanimous in finding that the applicants did not investigate the possibility of a network of smaller towers to provide adequate coverage, and the board also found that the applicants failed to make adequate inquiries to local property owners to compile a list of possible sites. Both of those complaints, and the fact that both proposed towers exceed the limit of 10 feet above the average tree canopy, and that the Miramichie tower negatively affects the viewshed, all violate the town's new telecommunications ordinance.

Planning Board Chairman Jeremy Dube said the "spirit" of the new ordinance is for the town to have coverage, but for that coverage to be achieved by many shorter towers, instead of a few taller towers.

Planning Board Member Tom Hoopes elaborated, saying the ordinance seeks to "make facilities available all over town, as long as they are invisible."

Donald Cody, director of operations for Industrial Communications, said he was "willing to work" with the town on disguising the towers as trees, but he wasn't as excited about continuing to pursue other locations, or the possibility of using more numerous, but shorter, towers in place of the two 120-foot towers he has planned. "The by-law asks that we notify potential sites within the area. We have done that. We have looked at alternative sites, there simply aren't any alternative sites," Cody said.

After the meeting on Oct. 10, the boards weren't sure what to do next. The Planning Board made its findings, but was counseled by the town attorney Mark Sessler to not deny the site plan yet, but simply table the discussion until the Zoning Board of Adjustment could look at the applications. However, ZBA member Timothy Kinnon noted that, until the Planning Board has formally denied a site plan, the ZBA has no legal framework to address the case.

"This whole thing is weird – it's all Attorney Sessler's weaving," Dube said.

The Planning Board voted to continue the meeting until it could gather more explicit directions from Sessler.

[GWC...]

Results of the October 10 Planning Board Meeting.....

Planning Board Member Tom Hoopes elaborated, saying the ordinance seeks to "make facilities available all over town, as long as they are invisible."

After the meeting on Oct. 10, the boards weren't sure what to do next. The Planning Board made its findings, but was counseled by the town attorney Mark Sessler to not deny the site plan yet, but simply table the discussion until the Zoning Board of Adjustment could look at the applications. However, ZBA member Timothy Kinnon noted that, until the Planning Board has formally denied a site plan, the ZBA has no legal framework to address the case.

"This whole thing is weird – it's all Attorney Sessler's weaving," Dube said.
The Baysider
It would seem that Alton needs to be renamed Sesslerton...

[mcdude]

A little bit of background on Industrial Communications (http://www.thefoxbororeporter.com/news2.htm)

[Winni]

The blight of having a couple of cell towers is far less disruptive to the views around the lake than is clear cutting done so that the house(s) erected will stand out for all to see. ...
My humble opinion, we need the towers, and they can be constructed in a manner as to be minimally intrusive.


I'm not going to say much more on the cell tower issue either. You've all heard my arguments for them too many times. I just want to say that I agree with Upthesaukee and thank him for his synopsis. I just hope people come to their senses soon and get a grip on reality. I just don't see the problem with a little pine-tree-like tower poking above the trees. And, I do see the problem with the massive clear cutting and monster homes blighting the shores of our beautiful Lake.

Why don't people put safety before so-called luxury is my question? I just don't get it. Well, I guess I just don't get many people's ideas of why their personal wants come before the safety and needs of the greater whole.

[SIKSUKR]

Winni,although I don't necessarily support either side of this issue,maybe this will help you see someones elses pov.
You ask:"Why don't people put safety before so-called luxury is my question? I just don't get it. Well, I guess I just don't get many people's ideas of why their personal wants come before the safety and needs of the greater whole".
I think a lot of people think cell phones are more of a convienence than a safety item.I think one could argue both sides as has already been done in this thread.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

A little bit of background on Industrial Communications (http://www.thefoxbororeporter.com/news2.htm)

mcdude linked to an interesting article from the October 19, 2006 e-edition of the Foxboro (MA) Reporter. The report changes weekly. They have no on-line archive and the link no longer yields that article. Without editorializing I'll present it as published. By the way, at the Oct 2006 hearing the proposal was approved. Presented here with the permission of the Foxboro Reporter:

The Foxboro Reporter Week of October 19, 2006

By Frank Mortimer
In 1983, the Foxboro Zoning Board of Appeals granted Francis J. DiRico a special use permit to build and operate a 350-foot communications tower on Dudley Hill off Hill Street.

In 1986, without a building permit, DiRico extended the tower to 450 feet plus a 20-foot antenna -- and later sued the town after the building inspector ordered him to reduce the structure to the allowed height. DiRico tonight (7:30 p.m., Oct. 19, at Town Hall) is scheduled to appear before the board again, with plans to replace the existing tower which stayed at 450 feet in a settlement of his court case a decade ago.

Concerned residents are mounting an information campaign focusing on DiRico's new plan and noting his record of legal compliance when building towers in Foxboro and other communities.

"Owner of towers skirts height laws," was the headline of a 1993 Boston Globe article that reported on DiRico's communication's tower building activities in Foxboro, Quincy and in other states.

A resident is circulating copies of that article along with a flyer urging residents to attend tonight's zoning board public hearing.

Residents are concerned about radiation emissions, emissions inspections, construction plans, recent modifications on a shorter tower on the site, and the height of the proposed structure.

"Is it time to re-address the lowering of the tower to 350 feet?" the flyer asks.
The 6.4-acre parcel is located within the R-40 residential district near homes in Dudley Hill Estates.

DiRico's company, Industrial Communications of Marshfield, seeks a special use permit to build a 450-foot replacement wireless communications tower on the existing parcel and, once the equipment transfer is completed, take down the old tower.

The "face size" of the tower -- the distance from leg to leg -- would increase from 52 inches to 60 inches to allow for installation of a safety ladder inside the tower.

According to DiRico's filing to the board, the existing tower is a lattice with three legs and six anchor points. The new tower would be a lattice with three legs and three anchors for support.

DiRico's filing states that the existing tower legally can and will continue to operate "if the requested approvals are denied."

But since the tower was built in 1983, the filing says, design standards for telecommunication equipment and towers have changed four times and DiRico has improved the tower over time by adding more achors [sic] and guy wires. Nonetheless, it says, the "existing tower cannot be improved to meet today's standards."

A divided zoning board in 1993 turned down DiRico's request to modify his earlier permit and allow the tower to remain at 450 feet. "This construction was done without a building permit and in violation of the Special Use Permit granted in 1983" that decision states.

DiRico sued then board members David J. Brown, Lynne S. Mitchell and Joyce M. McDonough. As part of the board's agreement to settle the case and leave the tower and antenna at 470 feet, DiRico agreed to donate $15,000 to the town tree fund. He agreed to "limit the radio frequency radiation emissions from the tower below 25 percent of those allowed at any time by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Radio Frequency Exposure Limits for members of the general public."

And he agreed to conduct an inspection of the radio frequency emissions from the tower at least yearly (and pay for up to one additional inspection per year if asked by the building commissioner) and report the results within 10 days to the building commissioner.

Four such annual studies -- performed in 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2006 -- were on file in the inspection department, according to the leaflet circulating among residents, which questioned whether the studies are being done each year as required in the settlement.

Attorney Frank Spillane, representing DiRico, on Monday said he did not know whether his client has complied with the annual inspection requirement but that he would have that information in time for tonight's hearing.

[mcdude]

Thanks Al.
:cool:

[mcdude]

From the Baysider 11/09/06
Police: Can you hear us now?
Planning Board may need a bouncer
by Adam Drapcho
Staff Writer (http://www.thebaysider.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Adam%20Drapcho&-nothing)write the author (adamd@salmonpress.com)
http://www.thebaysider.com/images/z.gifNovember 09, 2006
ALTON — Even for an issue that has proven to be generally contentious, the cell tower meeting on Nov. 2 set a new standard for raucous discourse. Highlights of the short meeting included the town attorney shouting down the applicant's attorney, and the Planning Board chairman calling Alton police to remove the applicants from the meeting.

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

[upthesaukee]

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

I wasn't there, but I understand that there was at first some discussion of why the topic was being brought up because at the last meeting it was to be passed to the ZBA. Once they got by that, I guess things got interesting.

The town wants more info on how more numerous but smaller towers would work, which would be more in line with the town's cell tower ordinance, with the study paid for by the town. In the meantime, it would be tabled.

The applicant's attorney was not happy with the topic being tabled for another month and seemed to blame the town attorney for them not being informed. Published reports indicate that there was a good amount of shouting, and when the chairman of the board tried to cut off the conversation, it continued and the police were then called to remove the applicants.

From the reports I read, and some scuttlebutt from a couple attendees, it certainly was not conversation between two or more adult and respectful representatives of both sides, and is unfortunately what is becoming a more common sight in the political arena at any level.

Hope I can make the November 30th meeting... Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and some real progress, rather than regression, can be made.

[ApS]

Rather than being discarded, your out-dated cellphone or video phone can be donated to a soldier.

http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/

[rrr]

thanks APS! I have a bunch. I will drop them off before the week is out.

[mcdude]

From the Baysider...

ZBA grants one cell tower variance
by Adam Drapcho
Staff Writer (http://www.thebaysider.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Adam%20Drapcho&-nothing)write the author (adamd@salmonpress.com)
http://www.thebaysider.com/images/z.gifDecember 07, 2006
ALTON — It was incremental progress, but after about a year of meetings, it was progress nonetheless for the applicants who wish to build two 120-foot tall telecommunications towers in Alton.

At a Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on Nov. 30, the ZBA granted a height variance for one of the proposed towers, for the proposed Roberts Knoll location in northern Alton. The board will meet on Monday, Dec. 11, to discuss the height variance needed for the second proposed site, on Miramichie Hill near Route 28A.

After receiving the height variances, the applicant – Industrial Communications – will have to go before the Planning Board to get the site plans approved. The possibility exists that the applicant could have to go back before the ZBA, should the Planning Board find further variances to be necessary.

Milestone passed

"I half-heartedly wanted to say 'Happy Anniversary,' since we've sat here for a year now," said Earl Duval, an attorney representing Industrial Communications.

According to the town's recently adopted telecommunications ordinance, cell phone towers may be constructed nearly anywhere in town, but they are restricted in height to being no more than 10 feet higher than the average tree canopy of the site.

Duval called the ordinance "fatally flawed," due to its height restrictions. At only 10 feet taller than the average canopy, Duval said the towers wouldn't be able to provide adequate service. "It does not work," he said.

ZBA members had fewer concerns about the Roberts Knoll location, mostly because of the result of a balloon test held in September, when Industrial Communications released colored balloons tethered to the height of the proposed towers. While the balloons at the Miramichie Hill location were easily visible from many places around Alton Bay, the Roberts Knoll balloons were only visible from a nearby gravel pit and the Roberts Knoll campground.

Sylvia Leggett, owner of Roberts Knoll Campground, who will be leasing the land for the proposed cell tower, spoke in favor of the height variance. Leggett said improved cell phone service in town would help the town's "tourist-friendly" image. "It would provide a great service for the residents and the tourists," she said.

Other residents, however, spoke in response to Duval calling the ordinance "fatally flawed." Resident Charles Weston commented that other towns in New Hampshire have similar ordinances limiting tower height. "Apparently the towers work in other towns, and don't have a problem with the '10-foot over' height." Resident David Slade made a similar comment.

Russ Wilson said all the evidence against a 10-foot over height is theoretical. "In real life it's going to work."

"It's not within the purvey of this board to decide whether or not this ordinance is fatally flawed," stated ZBA member Timothy Morgan. "It's the law of this town until someone other than us decides that it's fatally flawed."

The board ultimately decided to grant a height variance for the Roberts Knoll site, but only with the stipulation that the tower will be camouflaged to look like a tree, and that no lights are to be placed on the pole unless required so by a governmental agency.

The board began discussion about the height variance for the second proposed tower, but ran out of time before deliberations could begin.

Hobey Livingston, a local aviation enthusiast, said he can see hundreds of lights and vertical obtrusions dotting the landscape, including lots of telephone poles. "Yes, I can see the poles from my plane, should I be offended by this?" What's the remedy, he asked, ripping out the telephone infrastructure, and forcing residents to turn off their lights at night? He urged the board to grant a height variance, because the taller tower will be able to support several phone companies. "It will prevent the building of more towers, instead of having each carrier come in and build their own tower," he said.

Resident Alden Norman questioned whether the Miramichie Hill facility would indeed fill the "coverage gaps" that the applicants have described along Routes 28 and 11. Once these towers are permitted, Norman foresaw more companies looking to follow.

"This is just the start of several towers. More towers are on the horizon, you folks have to be cognizant of setting a precedent," Norman said.

Slade, whose property abuts the proposed Miramichie Hill site, offered extensive testimony arguing that the proposed facility would diminish his property value. Slade also said that the applicants hadn't explored alternative sites, as he felt the ordinance required them to do. Both of Slade's opinions were contested by the applicants.

The Dec. 11 ZBA meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m.

[mcdude]

Ron actually looks forward to viewing beautiful new cell phone tower from his picture window.....

Cell tower is a public safety issue

To the Editor:

It's frustrating to watch the goings-on regarding approval for a cell tower or two in Alton Bay. Between the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, and the Town Solicitor, nobody can even agree on whose court the ball is now in. No wonder people are screaming at each other at these meetings.

Obstacles to the tower range from the health risk of 'microwaves' (ridiculous) to the tower's impact on the 'viewshed.' Although I have yet to see a study that declares cell towers unsightly, or at the very least less beautiful than other antennas, the appearance of a cell tower from vantage points within the Alton Bay area is already decided to be detrimental. Yet I wonder? Will a single tourist not come to Alton because these cell towers are in-place?

I live on 28A in a 'no signal' area of town, directly across the street from the proposed site, and I am quite anxious for the new tower on Route 28A to be approved and built. In fact, I look forward to seeing this beautiful new tower from my picture window!

Furthermore, the Town's 'Personal Communications Ordinance' shouldn't even come into play here, this is a public communications issue. We're not talking about some private citizen's HAM Radio antenna. In fact, the lack of cell coverage in this area is a public safety issue, and therefore it is in the best interest for all that this application breeze through the approval process.

Ron Pearson

Alton Bay
Ron Pearson
Alton
December 06, 2006

from the Baysider.

[RLW]

It appears that everyone that has concerns is because of the view. Just think, if this is a problem they can get a rebate off of the view part of their taxes. :D

[idigtractors]

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

I guess it didn't get that hot as I see that the subject stopped in Dec. 06. Did you get towers or not and was there more said from those that opposed it??

[This'nThat]

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

[fatlazyless]

The Town of Ashland gets $1200/month rent for the cell tower near exit 24 in the Ashland waste water treatment facility which is on the Pemigewassett River. It certainly upset many of the Town of Bridgewater residents who have homes directly across the river and get to look right at the cell phone tower. About two years ago, the Ashland selectmen decided that the tower view being imposed on neighboring Bridgewater, across the narrow river, was not a reason to not let the tower be built. It's in a spot where no Ashland residents have much of a view.

"$1200 per month and no Ashland townies are forced to see it....what's not to like? All in favor, say aye. Now, that's good town planning!"

Probably, the tall white steam colored plume of smoke that rises upward from the nearby Bridgewater Power Plant was a strong arguing point. "Well Mel, if Bridgewater can locate their huge property tax paying power plant right up close to Plymouth and Ashland, then why don't Ashland locate their ugly new cell tower in that spot right by the river where it only can be seen from the Bridgewater side! Makes sense to me Mel, plus of course Ashland sure could use the rent money, now that the wool mill has closed up and sent all their wool machines to China, ayuh!

Up the road in Waterville Valley, the town just got through removing every single standard wood utility pole and street light fixture because the wood poles were unsightly and threw off too much light. All the street lights were making it tough to view the night skies and surrounding mountains at night. Instead of wood street lamps, there are now these colonial style, low light emmitting,, tall-but not as tall, charcoal grey colored outdoor street fixtures. Never seen anything like them anywhere else. For cutting down on night time light pollution, they are a very big improvement.

Every cable, telephone and power line in the 525 acre town of WV was relocated underground maybe 10 years ago, and now there's low light, designer street lights. How about that!

[upthesaukee]

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.
approval was given for the tower at Robert's Cove campground off rte 28, but denied for the East Side Drive location (28A).

Sooooooo, coverage in the Bay area will be limited to line of sight coverage from the towers on Prospect Mt, until you get out by the mouth of Alton bay, where you can pick up coverage from Wolfeboro.

It seems that the voting majority would rather not have our scenic vistas spoiled with a cell phone tower, but have no problem with a McMansion clear cutting a hill side:( . Ya gotta love it.

[LIforrelaxin]

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

No it is not rediculous..... it is a sad sign of our times when people don't know how to deal with a minor inconvience.... People are too used to being in touch 24X7..... If people need to be in constinent contact then they should have a land line.....

My phone stays in my truck or boat glove box when I am at the lake....and if I check it once over a weekend that is too much..... If people can get a hold of me then it is not really a vacation.....

I like the convience as much as the next guy.... but I also don't think my phone has to work every where I go, and I personally would rather it not.....

Like many things in life we have taken something that was ment as a convience and turned it into a necessity..... life has become so expensive, because of the stupidity of the American public, allowing themselves to think that the modern conviences, can not be lived with out... ( and before anyone attacks me for saying this I count myself in that as well )

[hockeypuck]

..... If people can get a hold of me then it is not really a vacation.....

LIforrelaxin, you're 100% correct about the above, but the convenience of a cell phone has allowed many a businessperson to enjoy time at the lake,that they never would have been able to enjoy if they were tied to a land land. Cellphone + laptop + fax + printer = office. Now we have the convenience of a mobile office almost anywhere in the world and no one knows if you're sitting on your boat on Robert's bay, Jost Van Dyke in the British Virgin Islands or at your desk in Boston. It's a cheap way to run a business and increase productivity(profits) so we can afford those taxes. True the "Vacation" may not be the same as a no cell one, but you can have a whole lot more of them. Not to mention the enhanced safety factor.

[Argie's Wife]

As an Alton resident who lives in a cell signal void area, this is a really frustrating issue. I totally sympathize with the NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard) people who don't want some butt-ugly tower in their view - I really do... :(

But...

We have a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) here with limited options who isn't allowing Metrocast Cable phone in the area AND is rather expensive to have as a utility - it seems everything is a long distance call with them! I've had several locals comment that as soon as a tower goes up, they're planning on dumping Union Telephone for their cell carrier for cost savings.

Additionally, whenever we have a power outage there is a safety factor - and we were impacted by this a few weeks ago.

In early October there was a nasty thunderstorm that came through the area. It included high winds and we had a microburst tornado touch down in our back yard - we had seven trees fall on our house in this less than fun event - causing over $10K in damage (home & property & tree removal costs). I had NO WAY to get in touch with anyone until power was restored. I was home with a 2 year old and a little freaked out by the whole thing. I'm thankful it wasn't any worse than it was but the "what ifs" run through my mind, especially where I have two young children. :eek:

Although I may take some heat for this, there's a "greater good" that should be considered in this issue. I haven't been following this closely enough to know what designs have been explored, etc. or what other locations might have been considered but I am for having a tower here Alton.

[idigtractors]

As an Alton resident who lives in a cell signal void area, this is a really frustrating issue. I totally sympathize with the NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard) people who don't want some butt-ugly tower in their view - I really do... :(

But...

We have a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) here with limited options who isn't allowing Metrocast Cable phone in the area AND is rather expensive to have as a utility - it seems everything is a long distance call with them! I've had several locals comment that as soon as a tower goes up, they're planning on dumping Union Telephone for their cell carrier for cost savings.

Additionally, whenever we have a power outage there is a safety factor - and we were impacted by this a few weeks ago.

In early October there was a nasty thunderstorm that came through the area. It included high winds and we had a microburst tornado touch down in our back yard - we had seven trees fall on our house in this less than fun event - causing over $10K in damage (home & property & tree removal costs). I had NO WAY to get in touch with anyone until power was restored. I was home with a 2 year old and a little freaked out by the whole thing. I'm thankful it wasn't any worse than it was but the "what ifs" run through my mind, especially where I have two young children. :eek:

Although I may take some heat for this, there's a "greater good" that should be considered in this issue. I haven't been following this closely enough to know what designs have been explored, etc. or what other locations might have been considered but I am for having a tower here Alton.

Thank you for speaking up. You mentioned several things that I hadn't even thought of and I guess one of them is We have a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) here with limited options who isn't allowing Metrocast Cable phone in the area AND is rather expensive to have as a utility - it seems everything is a long distance call with them! I've had several locals comment that as soon as a tower goes up, they're planning on dumping Union Telephone for their cell carrier for cost savings. That is a big problem in the Alton area. :)

[mcdude]

-- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible.
Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.

[Weirs guy]

No it is not rediculous..... it is a sad sign of our times when people don't know how to deal with a minor inconvience.... People are too used to being in touch 24X7..... If people need to be in constinent contact then they should have a land line.....

I understand your reaction, but since my wife drives, sometimes with our babies, through the Alton dead spots daily I would beg to differ that this is a "convenience". Is your argument more based towards the ability to disconnect from the world, or the towers ruining the view? Its too bad that even the tree looking ones look nothing like a tree.

Did we have cell phones a few years ago in case of emergencies, no. But where does it stop? Do we remove all the airbags, seat belts, stop lights...

[GWC...]

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.This should also yield a monthly check of around $1200,
if it proved to be an acceptable location for a tower. :rolleye2:

[LIforrelaxin]

I understand your reaction, but since my wife drives, sometimes with our babies, through the Alton dead spots daily I would beg to differ that this is a "convenience". Is your argument more based towards the ability to disconnect from the world, or the towers ruining the view? Its too bad that even the tree looking ones look nothing like a tree.

Did we have cell phones a few years ago in case of emergencies, no. But where does it stop? Do we remove all the airbags, seat belts, stop lights...

My arguement is more based in people inability to disconect from the world.
I have no issues with the cell towers persay... do they stand out, yep... and that is the price people pay for convience. Would I stop a tower from going in, no... if it is what a majority of people want....

What I don't like is people stomping there feet and crying because the world isn't just the way they want it. Dead spots are something people just need to except. Would I feel bad if your wife and kids where stranded in the dead zone... sure especially if it was at night.... but then again that is why I stop for people if I think they are in danger.... A courtesy that many have forgotten how to extend. As technology has advanced we have a become a less interactive and friendly society.

If people think a dead zone in Alton is bad what do they think of entire regions of Northern Vt and NH that are dead...... When I traveled from Burlington to Winnipesaukee there where many miles where my cell phone did not get a signal. One of my routes had me out of touch for over an hour.... It was a nice drive on a fairly busy road.... and no one was screaming about the injustice of it... it was just a dead zone.... If you saw someone in trouble you stopped to make sure they where ok....

[Weirs guy]

What I don't like is people stomping there feet and crying because the world isn't just the way they want it.

Isn't that kinda the point behind progress though? To improve society by making things the way the majority wants to make life easier/safer/more fun? I'm not advocating a Wal-Mart in every town on every corner, but this is a mater of both safety and convenience, especially for those of us who live here year round.

However I do agree with you, "as technology has advanced we have a become a less interactive and friendly society."

[This'nThat]

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.
Wouldn't bother me a bit. There are a whole lot of ugly, noisy things along the lake -- a cell tower is one of the least objectionable. Let's get the towers up!

[ApS]

"...Would I stop a tower from going in, no... if it is what a majority of people want...."
A tower on top of Rattlesnake Island would allow reception around the whole lake. :D ;)

[hockeypuck]

Put me down for a cell tower in my yard. A friend in Connecticut along I-91 bought a small (110 ft by 100 ft) piece of property with a small building on it for $65,000 a few years ago. Now he rents the building out for $1,000 a month and a cell tower was built, with 5 different cell servers attached, brings in a nice $70,000 per year! Every time a server adds another antenna the monthly charge goes up by about $1200. WOW! Ideal location, highway on one side, railroad tracks on other, no close neighbors. At first there was an annoying hum from the power shed, but this has been eliminated. Yes they are not natural, looking, but neither is a power boat, jet ski or ski lift.

[idigtractors]

Boy did I open a can of worms. This subject has been sitting on the shelve for almost a year and now look how it has sprung alive again. :laugh:

[GWC...]

A tower on top of Rattlesnake Island would allow reception around the whole lake. :D ;)
This would require some minor degree of revenue comprehension
on the part on the membership
and that is something that seems to elude them. :eek: :rolleye2:

[Argie's Wife]

FYI - this is still tied up in court....

[idigtractors]

FYI - this is still tied up in court....

May I ask, what part of it or the whole thing. Is it in court because of the town or the people that want to install it/them??? :)

[ApS]

This would require some minor degree of revenue comprehension on the part on the membership and that is something that seems to elude them.
I was only semi-serious.

However, the lease could "sunset" after a few years, the Trust could use the money, and it could bridge a technology gap with fewer towers.

In the meantime, I don't see any mention here of "In-Home Towers". My cellphone didn't work even after a new tower went in just two miles away.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070710/070710_both_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg
http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/10/264629.aspx

[dpg]

I agree with Winni, everyone wants the coverage, nobody wants the towers. Everybody wants alternative power sources but nobody wants to look at wind turbines. Everyone would love gas to drop to 1.50/gal but everybody will not stop buying the V8's. We control our own destiny folks we just don't know it. Well we may know it but we don't do anything about it.

[LIforrelaxin]

I agree with Winni, everyone wants the coverage, nobody wants the towers. Everybody wants alternative power sources but nobody wants to look at wind turbines. Everyone would love gas to drop to 1.50/gal but everybody will not stop buying the V8's. We control our own destiny folks we just don't know it. Well we may know it but we don't do anything about it.

Dpg you are right people want to complain, but very few want to act when they find it negatively impacts there life.....

Now on to other business, lets not condem all V8s.... I for one get better mileage then some V6s with my V8.......

[Argie's Wife]

I was only semi-serious.

However, the lease could "sunset" after a few years, the Trust could use the money, and it could bridge a technology gap with fewer towers.

In the meantime, I don't see any mention here of "In-Home Towers". My cellphone didn't work even after a new tower went in just two miles away.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070710/070710_both_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg
http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/10/264629.aspx


That's a nice idea but T-Mobile doesn't cover Alton at all - not one iota. Maybe some other companies will get on board with that idea...


And to the poster who asked for more details about the cell tower court case - let me find out some more facts before I post on that aspect of it. (I don't want to misinform anyone and haven't paid close enough attention to who is taking who to court, etc.) ;)

[LIforrelaxin]

That's a nice idea but T-Mobile doesn't cover Alton at all - not one iota. Maybe some other companies will get on board with that idea...


I am not completely sure here but I don't think it matters that T-mobile doesn't cover Alton, because everything goes back through your high speed connection according to the article. So for those that have T mobile, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they have poor or no signal at home/camp... However if you hardly ever leave Alton, then it would be no more then a fancy home phone.....

On the other side of this if other companies get on board with this it would be a great thing......I have to agree with you there....

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I was only semi-serious.

However, the lease could "sunset" after a few years, the Trust could use the money,

APS,
Do you know how many acres (no pun intended) the Trust owns?

[Weirs guy]

I am not completely sure here but I don't think it matters that T-mobile doesn't cover Alton, because everything goes back through your high speed connection according to the article. So for those that have T mobile, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they have poor or no signal at home/camp... However if you hardly ever leave Alton, then it would be no more then a fancy home phone.....

On the other side of this if other companies get on board with this it would be a great thing......I have to agree with you there....


Color me too lazy to look this up myself, but I've never seen this before. T-Mobile's service lets you bost your signal with a wireless router?

[LIforrelaxin]

Color me too lazy to look this up myself, but I've never seen this before. T-Mobile's service lets you bost your signal with a wireless router?

Look up in the thread to APS last post there is a link to the article....The service doesn't bost your signal persay.... but give you kind of your own personal tower in your home.... It does mention that it only works with certain phones....

[mcdude]

Unicel's new tower is now operational along Rt. 28 in Alton.

See CITIZEN ARTICLE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080820/GJBUSINESS_01/1965/-1/CITNEWS03)

[Audiofn]

You can buy something like this and have it profesionally installed.

http://www.wi-ex.com/Page3429.aspx

If you have patchy coverate lots of my customers have been happy with their more DIY units.

[RLW]

Unicel's new tower is now operational along Rt. 28 in Alton.


That's super, but how many in the area use Unicel's???? I have never heard of it or is another name for a well known comPany??.:)

[mcdude]

one sentence, towards the end, more or less sums up my feelings on this matter
"Over the last four years, the gap in coverage has become less and less significant," said Slade, adding that the real tragedy would be to spoil the sight for nearly antiquated technology.

...and once it goes up it won't be coming down anytime soon!

From the Laconia Citizen Oct. 1, 2009

Standoff over cell tower plan continues
Alton:
<SCRIPT>document.title = unescape("Standoff%20over%20cell%20tower%20plan%20continues") + " - Fosters";</SCRIPT>
<TABLE><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD>By GAIL OBER
gober@citizen.com (gober@citizen.com)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Thursday, October 1, 2009
<TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width=250 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=250><TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=205 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=205>http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=FD&Date=20091001&Category=GJNEWS02&ArtNo=710019664&Ref=AR&MaxW=250
DARYL CARLSON/CITIZEN PHOTO VISITORS TO Alton Bay enjoy the view on an early fall day.
</B>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
It was 1953 when David Slade's grandparents bought the old farmhouse or "manor" on Miramichie Hill.

For Slade, his five siblings, his wife and his two children, Miramichie Hill is 55 years of memories and where he and his wife Marilyn hope to retire.

"I remember Rev. [Peter] Bolster conducting my grandfather's funeral from the front porch and telling me how James McDuffy chose the sight on the direct orders of the king of England as the first place in the area to settle," Slade said of his 1783 home.

Many years later, Slade now finds himself in a battle against the power and might of a cell tower developer and two wireless providers.

While Slade isn't the first and won't be the last New Hampshire abutter to play the not-in-my-back-yard role in a cell tower dispute, he said his case is different because the town's land boards said "No" to the developer, but, for a reason about which he can only speculate, the town of Alton appears willing to ignore the land boards and negotiate a compromise.

And they don't want to talk about it.

"All I can say is there is no settlement," said Town Administrator Russ Bailey, who said because the issue is a pending lawsuit he cannot comment further, nor could anyone in the planning office.

According to the mountain of paperwork filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the cell tower proposal first came about in early 2004 when RCC Atlantic Inc., a Minnesota cellular provider, began its search for a site to close what it said were significant gaps in the cell phone coverage around Route 28.

At the time, Alton zoning ordinances allowed for cell towers in four overlay districts — none of which RCC (D.B.A. Unicel) and Industrial Communications & Electronics — a "vertical site" developer — said were locations that would close the gaps.

RCC and ICE filed for a zoning variance in September 2005 after identifying two spots in Alton — one on Wolfeboro Highway and one on 486 East Side Drive or Miramichie Hill — as the two sites that would be "ideal." Both required variances from the zoning board.
Also in late 2005, the town was under an "interim growth management ordinance" or moratorium on new development, so the town planner could re-evaluate the long-term growth needs of Alton and propose relative zoning ordinances. The public hearings continued, although no decisions could be made.

On March 14, 2006, Alton voters overwhelmingly approved a zoning change that would allow cell towers in the entire town, with a few exceptions, but would restrict their height to 10 feet above the average height of the tree canopy to avoid what is called "the lollipop effect."

The problem, independent engineer Mark Hutchins determined, is that the Miramichie Hill tower needed to be 120 feet tall to work — double the 61-foot average tree canopy determined by forester Peter Farrell.

In May, the planning board and the ZBA joined together and, in November 2006, ordered a second evaluation of the Miramichie Hill site. After the second "Hutchins report" the boards issued a joint finding sending the request back to the ZBA for a variance and tabling the planning board site plan review until when, and if, the ZBA agreed to the variance.

On Dec. 11, 2006, after two members of the planning board — Jeanne Crouse, an abutter who recused herself from all the proceedings, and Thomas Hoopes — testified against it, the ZBA denied the variance, saying the proposed tower met none of the requirements.

In January 2007, RCC and ICE requested a rehearing which was denied on Feb. 12. According to the pleadings, ICE and RCC gave the town until Feb. 23 to file a written response but said the response was dated March 13, 2007.

On March 21, 2007, ICE and RCC — now joined by USCOC of New Hampshire Inc. (D.B.A. U.S. Cellular) — filed suit against the town alleging, among other things, that Alton zoning regulations are hostile to all cell tower development because, at a minimum and according to an independent engineer, a cell tower must be 15 to 20 feet above the average tree line to be effective.

During oral arguments for a motion for summary judgment or a statement of facts, the court denied ICE, RCC and USCOC's argument that they met their burden for the tower and must be given the variance, but made no ruling on their claim that the town's zoning ordinances were "hostile" to all cell tower development.

The Slades petitioned the court on June 15 to be included as intervenor. The court allowed them to intervene with the agreement of the town and over the objections of ICE, RCC and USCOC.

The next time Slade heard from either side was when he learned from a joint status report filed on Aug. 14 that the two sides were in settlement negotiations, with the town saying it will agree to a 100-foot tower if the cell companies agree to never ask for a taller tower.

"I don't think they can settle this without me," Slade said Monday when questioned if the board of selectmen — all lawsuits are under the jurisdiction of the selectmen, Bailey said — are negotiating because of the expense the town will incur in fighting what he calls a David-versus-Goliath battle.

When asked if a settlement is on the table because of the potential costs of litigation, Bailey said he could not answer that question.

"[If this is the case] I am willing to make an extraordinary contribution to the town to defer these expenses," Slade said.

Slade's other theory is that some selectmen believe Alton "needs to come into the 21st century" despite ruining his view as well as that of the "entire bay area."

To that argument, he said, there are other, less invasive, ways to cover most of the gaps.

"I think they're acting like emperors, not selectmen," said Russ Wilson, who lives in Alton Bay and said Miramichie Hill is what he sees from his living room window. "I also think this is an end run around the planning process."
Wilson testified at length against the tower but thinks the selectmen cannot enter into any agreement because any change to the proposed zoning variance should go back through the planning and zoning process.

Both said this is the big-hammer technique typically used by wireless developers to get what they want.

"I guess I really am David," Slade said.

Both men also said that both the town and the cell companies are missing the big picture because of the advances in wireless technology in the time since the process began.

"Over the last four years, the gap in coverage has become less and less significant," said Slade, adding that the real tragedy would be to spoil the sight for nearly antiquated technology.

Slade said he would soldier on, regardless of what agreements or settlements the town and ICE RCC and USCOC reach.

"Don't forget, I am a party in this suit," Slade said.

<!-- Article.pbo END -->

[Argie's Wife]

Interesting, the timing of this article, as the Alton Selectman who is mentioned in your above article was removed from his position as the vice chair in last night's meeting. One of the reasons given in the article for the "demotion", if you will, is comments he supposedly made as a representative of the selectmen - including comments about the cell tower issue.

You can read the article about the meeting HERE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091001/GJNEWS02/710019668/-1/CITIZEN) in The Citizen.

Last I knew, this was still all tied up and not going anywhere fast. :rolleye2:

No surprise, really.

On the other hand, I've heard that schools and municipal properties are renting out the tops of their buildings, flag poles, utility poles, etc. as "mini towers". From what I hear it brings in revenue and meets coverage needs - plus there's no butt-ugly tower in view. I wonder if this has ever been considered?

I realize Alton is a very large town - the most paved road of any NH town - but perhaps this would help in the village because there is little/no service here. (Try making a cell phone call by the Alton Fire Department area sometime - grrrr!)

[Airwaves]

Please explain to me why a cell tower, providing cell phone service, is bad?

[Slickcraft]

The Alton zoning ordinance allows cell towers in all zones of the town in an effort to allow a mature build out of wireless services. Zoning also allows antennas (service facilities) on existing structures, buildings, utility towers, etc. The current applicant did consider but rejected locations such as the Town Hall bell tower.

Alton zoning does restrict antenna height to 10’ above tree line and is almost an exact copy of the zoning in several southern NH towns. The current applicant proposed two very tall towers each allowing several carrier’s antennas as well as “back haul” microwave antennas. They applied to the ZBA for dimensional variances to allow the two tall towers. One in a more remote hard to see area was approved. The 2nd would be near the lake in full view and that variance was not approved by the ZBA. The applicant appealed in Federal court.

The applicant never investigated the possibility of a meeting service with an additional lower tower as the tall tower “vertical real estate” concept is more lucrative.

In my opinion the applicant is simply pouring money into this hoping that in time the Town will fold.

[jrc]

Judging by the windmill thread, all the applicant has to do is put a couple of big blades on the cell tower.

[Grady223]

are a great place to put cell towers. Usually, the cell company buys a fiberglass steeple to repace the existing steeple and the equipment goes inside. Another place often used down by us (Bucls County, PA) is an unused farm silo. Cell company puts their tower inside and maintains the silo - not a bad deal for the farmer. Then again, you could hide them in the new windmill farm going up on Rattlesnake! ;)

[Sandy Beach]

I did not realize that Alton cell tower installations and locations were still an issue.
I get pretty good coverage on my Verizon in Alton Bay and the areas of Alton where I drive.

The cellular companies have the resources to outlast opposition and eventually get their way. They get their funding from the money we pay for cell service to hire lawyers to fight against any opposition.

"Can you hear me now?" (means you couldn't hear me before :laugh: )

[mcdude]

From the Baysider 10/08/09
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=bottom><TD colSpan=2>Abutter raises concern over proposed cell tower settlement
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



October 06, 2009
ALTON — As far as East Side Drive resident David Slade knew, Alton's Board of Selectmen seemed to be holding all the cards in the Miramichie Hill cell tower case until this spring.

Everything seemed to be going so well, in fact, that when Slade and his fellow abutters heard the news over the summer that the selectmen had switched gears and chosen to pursue a settlement with the plaintiffs, they were dumbfounded.

"I'm just scratching my head, wondering why the board of selectmen are doing a 180," Slade (who has been granted intervener status in the lawsuit, along with his wife) said during a telephone interview late last month.

The origins of the lawsuit date back to 2004, when RCC Atlantic, Inc., a Minnesota-based cellular phone service provider associated with Unicel, began searching for a suitable site for a tower that could close what were described at the time as significant gaps in coverage along Route 28.

In September of 2005, after identifying the Miramichie Hill site on East Side Drive and another site on the Wolfeboro Highway as the two best options, RCC and its site developer, Industrial Communications & Electronics, Inc. (ICE), applied for a variance from the zoning board that would allow them to construct towers on the two properties (which were not located in one of the four overlay districts zoned for cell towers at that time).

With the town under an interim growth management ordinance at that time that placed a moratorium on new construction, the zoning board was prohibited from making any decisions on the proposal.

During the town elections in March of 2006, held in the midst of the ongoing public hearings, voters approved a change in the zoning ordinance allowing towers to be constructed throughout the entire town, but restricting their height to no more than 10 feet above the average tree line.

After granting a variance for the Wolfeboro Highway site, the zoning board, together with the planning board, ordered a second evaluation of the Miramichie Hill site by engineer Mark Hutchins in November of 2006.

Upon reviewing Hutchins' report, the two boards jointly decided to table further planning board hearings and remand the issue back to the zoning board.

With opposition to the proposal widespread among abutters and other concerned residents (including two members of the planning board), the zoning board voted in December of 2006 to deny the variance for the Miramichie Hill site.

After their request for a re-hearing was denied in March of 2007, RCC and ICE filed suit against the town in U.S. District Court on grounds that Alton's zoning regulations were hostile to cell towers.

According to the findings of a third-party engineer hired by RCC and ICE, cell towers must have a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of clearance above the tree line in order to provide effective service — nearly double the 10-foot limit imposed by the town's zoning ordinance.

After hearing oral arguments from both sides, the court found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient proof that they should be granted the variance.

The court made no ruling, however, on the plaintiffs' claim that the town's zoning ordinance was hostile to cellular service providers.

Over the plaintiffs' objections, the court granted the Slades' petition to be included in the case as interveners in June of 2007.

According to Slade, the next time he or his wife, Marilyn, heard anything about the case was in August of this year, when they received notice that attorneys for both the town and the plaintiffs had filed a joint status report stating that negotiations for a possible settlement were under way.

"An agreement in principle has been reached between the Applicants [or plaintiffs] and the Town with respect to certain issues, but the parties are unable to agree to all terms necessary to complete a settlement," the status report, filed on Aug. 14, reads.

According to the report, the major sticking point has been the fact that the town has asked RCC and ICE to limit the height of the tower to 100 feet.

The plaintiffs, however, have continued to argue that the tower would need to be at least 120 feet high in order to provide effective service.

"The Town wants the Applicant to agree that it will not seek to locate a wireless facility on the property greater than 100 feet in height, and seeks to enforce this by a restrictive covenant or other encumbrance to be placed upon the subject real property itself to provide finality and to avoid future litigation," the report states.

Town Administrator Russell Bailey and Selectman Pat Fuller confirmed last week that settlement negotiations are under way, but both said they could not comment on the case until a final agreement has been reached.

Explaining that his historic 18th Century home on East Side Drive has been in his family since the early 1950s, and that the proposed tower would be within 100 feet of the stone wall at the edge of his property, Slade said his chief concern about the possible settlement is the fact that the selectmen appeared, to him, to be overriding the authority of the zoning and planning boards.

Concerned that the zoning and planning boards might not have been notified about the settlement negotiations, Slade recently sent a letter to the planning office encouraging members of both boards to make their opinions known if they disagree with the selectmen's actions.

"Equally as troubling as the proposal [for a 100-foot tower] itself is the fact that the Selectmen are also apparently considering asking the Court to order that a permit be granted without returning this matter to either the Zoning Board or the Planning Board for further consideration or input," Slade wrote in the letter.

"These two Boards," he added, "are charged with the enforcement of local land use ordinances and regulations and also provide protection for the Town, its residents, land owners and visitors against improper or detrimental land uses. In my opinion, that would include the construction of the cell tower, and I assume that the Planning Board and Zoning Board members would agree, as demonstrated by their unanimous decision in opposing this matter."

"It's puzzling to me why all this is happening, given the circumstances," Slade said during the recent telephone interview, adding that the question on his mind is why the selectmen felt pressured into reversing their position on the case.

Given the fact that the zoning board granted RCC and ICE a variance for construction of the Wolfeboro Highway tower, he felt the plaintiffs would be hard pressed to demonstrate open hostility toward cell towers on the town's part.

Financial resources should also not be a concern for the selectmen, he said, since he has offered on several occasions to contribute money out of his own pocket toward the town's defense.

Voicing his belief that by settling with the plaintiffs, the town would simply be giving RCC and ICE what they want, Slade said the decision to pursue a settlement he did not feel was necessary had left him feeling "quite uneasy."

"I'm just very nervous, and feeling quite insecure," he said, adding that he was pinning his hopes on the dispute over the height of the tower as one final opportunity for the selectmen to "put things on the right track."

Brendan Berube

[laketrout]

I am not happy to have the tall cell towers although they can be made to look like trees. There are cell towers in most of the region and the rest of the lake. Alton is the only area that has poor reception or none at all. As for "gabbing" call it progress. They said the same when "talkie movies" came out in 1929. I usually have my phone off, that said I would like to use it when in Alton. Better if my phone acutally works with a signal.

[mcdude]

Please explain to me why a cell tower, providing cell phone service, is bad?

I'll take a stab at this even though I know that any debate will never be won or lost on this forum and I generally avoid contentious topics. It's sad but in the tone of some recent speed limit or restaurant threads I expect to get totally attacked for expressing my minority opinion.

I think most of us have spent a fortune on summer places or to move to the lake to get away from the the hectic city/urban life. We want to enjoy the peace and quiet of the lake and get back to the simple things and enjoy the beautiful views no? Instead you get up to the lake and you are surrounded by the people/things you are trying to get away from such as fast/noisy boats, power tools and machinery at all hours of the day and night, traffic, etc, etc. I call it the increasing urbanization of the lake. Do you really want to destroy the ridgeline of Alton Bay forever with an ugly cell phone tower? Once it gets put up ...it ain't coming down anytime soon.

Now let me go back and quote from post #1
The new Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance enacted by Alton's residents clearly prohibits the type of facility proposed by ICE. Instead, it encourages more targeted low powered and new systems such as Micro Cells and Repeaters. One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cover and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover.

If we wait a few years there will be the technology to avoid tall cell phone towers all together. We managed all these years without cell phones. Why are we in such a hurry to be plugged in 24/7 at every conceivable location? Use your land line for a few more years until the micro cells and repeaters are commercially available/feasible! Why are people in such a hurry to make Alton Bay look like Mass or New Jersey? I just don't get it.

BRING IT ON FOLKS!!

[LakeSnake]

+1

Thanks

[nj2nh]

Why are people in such a hurry to make Alton Bay look like Mass or New Jersey? I just don't get it.

I just have to say this.

Why does everyone always pick on Massachusetts and New Jersey? We don't like the cell towers down here in Jersey either. Do you really think we like the visual blight on our landscape? The ones that pretend to be trees look like nothing more that giant mascara wands. Yuck.

We aren't the Garden State for nothing, though. There are miles of gorgeous rolling hills, dozens of secluded campgrounds, plenty of beautiful state parks and, yes, farms. Hundreds of them. And miles and miles without a single cell phone tower. There are deer in our backyards. There are bears in our garbage and I live in suburbia.

By the way, I live 20 minutes from New York City and can't get a signal in my own house despite the apparent glut of cell towers that you all seem to believe we have. Well, we don't. They put them along ugly highways or at the local recycling center. Not in the woods. Not in the backyards. And not where it blocks the view.

As for Massachusetts, where I spent 26 years before moving to Jersey, well, DITTO.

If you haven't been here in Jersey in a place other than driving on the turnpike or in Elizabeth or Newark, then you don't know a thing about us or our state. This is the last place where I ever wanted to live. I know better now. It isn't the lake by a long stretch and never will be, but it isn't too bad at all. It isn't where I plan on living out my senior years either. But, please, enough already.

nj2nh

P.S. One way or another, there will be probably be a cell tower in Alton if the company wants it enough. Federal law prohibits a town from saying no in the end which is why my town eventually gave in. Neither visual, home value nor the imagined health concerns are valid excuses. You can complain and argue all you want, but it is inevitable if the company is willing to push it.

[Argie's Wife]

Alton is a big town... 82.2 square miles (63.1 square miles is land) and there's many places that a tower could be placed. Towers can be camouflaged, made to look like parts of buildings, silos, etc.

Forgive me for making this simpleton suggestion, but is the proposed location the ONLY choice in this town? Seems they (the cell company) can alter their plan a bit to make more of a win-win situation... I'd love to have my cell work better or be able to consider a different service provider - Verizon is sorta pricy!:rolleye2:

Maybe it's me, but I think power lines and TV ariel antennas are way fuglier than cell phone towers... really... Wonder if the previous generations took issue with those going up... ;)

[SIKSUKR]

I'll take a stab at this even though I know that any debate will never be won or lost on this forum and I generally avoid contentious topics. It's sad but in the tone of some recent speed limit or restaurant threads I expect to get totally attacked for expressing my minority opinion.


First of all McDude, almost more than any member, you have earned the right to voice any opinion you have loud and clear. The outstanding contribution you have brought to this site with your incredible collection of lake memorbelia is very much appreciated and in my mind, makes you a great spokesman on this subject. Whether I agree with your opinion or not does not matter. I myself have also backed away from the afore mentioned threads.

[jmen24]

First of all McDude, almost more than any member, you have earned the right to voice any opinion you have loud and clear. The outstanding contribution you have brought to this site with your incredible collection of lake memorbelia is very much appreciated and in my mind, makes you a great spokesman on this subject. Whether I agree with your opinion or not does not matter. I myself have also backed away from the afore mentioned threads.

I second this post.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Church Steeples
are a great place to put cell towers. Usually, the cell company buys a fiberglass steeple to replace the existing steeple and the equipment goes inside. Another place often used down by us (Bucls County, PA) is an unused farm silo. Cell company puts their tower inside and maintains the silo - not a bad deal for the farmer. Then again, you could hide them in the new windmill farm going up on Rattlesnake! ;)

A cell tower being hidden in a church steeple or a silo sounds great!

I'd rather not have a farm of windmills on Rattlesnake Island thank you! I would be willing to consider a cell phone tower that might also serve as a lookout tower. It would have to benefit to the association in some way. I would prefer that it be made to look something like Abenaki Tower, blending in and looking as if it had been there for a long time.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/528/medium/176IM001021_crop.jpg
Abenaki Tower

Much of the lake view from Rattlesnake Island is obstructed by trees and I'm not crazy enough to risk life and limb for a better shot. :laugh:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/506/medium/09-25--08_039-2.jpg ('http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15603')

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/506/medium/09-25--08_022-2.jpg ('http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15602')

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/506/medium/09-25--08_034-2.jpg ('http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15601')

[Gearhead]

I've got a good idea, let me know what you think.

I've got this towering white pine in my back yard; tall and ugly. What if I call ICE up and tell them to replace the big dumb-looking tree with an exact replica cell tower. Just put all the fake branches on one side, and just put a couple of broken-off ones on the other sides. It's got to be over 100 feet tall, and it's in the same area as the disputed location. It won't even change the landscape, and they'll pay ME $1,600 or so a month to look at it.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

I've got a good idea, let me know what you think.

I've got this towering white pine in my back yard; tall and ugly. What if I call ICE up and tell them to replace the big dumb-looking tree with an exact replica cell tower. Just put all the fake branches on one side, and just put a couple of broken-off ones on the other sides. It's got to be over 100 feet tall, and it's in the same area as the disputed location. It won't even change the landscape, and they'll pay ME $1,600 or so a month to look at it.

Let us know how you make out! :D

It seems very silly that with all the technology we have, the fake tree cell towers look so stupid. Why is that?

[Argie's Wife]

I'll take a stab at this even though I know that any debate will never be won or lost on this forum and I generally avoid contentious topics. It's sad but in the tone of some recent speed limit or restaurant threads I expect to get totally attacked for expressing my minority opinion.

I think most of us have spent a fortune on summer places or to move to the lake to get away from the the hectic city/urban life. We want to enjoy the peace and quiet of the lake and get back to the simple things and enjoy the beautiful views no? Instead you get up to the lake and you are surrounded by the people/things you are trying to get away from such as fast/noisy boats, power tools and machinery at all hours of the day and night, traffic, etc, etc. I call it the increasing urbanization of the lake. Do you really want to destroy the ridgeline of Alton Bay forever with an ugly cell phone tower? Once it gets put up ...it ain't coming down anytime soon.

Now let me go back and quote from post #1


If we wait a few years there will be the technology to avoid tall cell phone towers all together. We managed all these years without cell phones. Why are we in such a hurry to be plugged in 24/7 at every conceivable location? Use your land line for a few more years until the micro cells and repeaters are commercially available/feasible! Why are people in such a hurry to make Alton Bay look like Mass or New Jersey? I just don't get it.

BRING IT ON FOLKS!!

No attack here but a respectful disagreement of sorts.

Please keep in mind that I'm writing from a local's point-of-view.

I hate it that my sister and I both have Verizon and although she lives just 7 minutes from me, I can't call her on her cell phone because they just don't connect unless we're well out of Alton-proper. Even a landline to cell is bad. Of course, landline to landline is fine.

I plan the times I can makes calls when I'm on the road by where I am in relation to all the dead-zones. My cell is used #1 for work and I am mainly self-employed these days. Communication is key to my business, as you can imagine is true with any business. I am often on the roads - whether for work, school, the kids', or whatever. My cell has to work.

For the reasons I cited earlier in this thread - cost, lack of options, etc., - I would love to drop Union Telephone from my list of monthly bills and just have my cell but really can't right now because of these dead-zone issues. I use my cell especially for my long-distance calls and those same calls would cost me more if I were to use my landline. (And before anyone suggests a VOIP option, I do use Skype when I can but it's still not free.)

I think that with today's technology and some creative engineering, perhaps there's a way to well-disguise the thing so that it's more palatable for all. We do need better service in this area and better options would be welcome. I don't want to see a tower anymore than anyone else does but there's got to be some happy-medium we can find with this issue.

At the writing of this post, the local high school is considering wind turbines and are doing a study on them. I have to wonder if those turbines could be utilized as mini-towers to help with the problem. Several mini-towers in town, well disguised, could make a great difference and bring in revenue.

By the way - as far as the technology going away anytime soon - don't bet on it. We are very far behind the times in comparison with the way most European countries are using their cell phones and have a lot of catching up to do. You are correct that once a tower goes up it's not coming down anytime soon.

In short, we don't have the infrastructure now that supports 10+ year old technology, such as G3 networks, never mind anything more advanced than that. Besides, Americans do not give in to the new technology as quickly as other countries - hence us just now going to digital televisions (and little implementation of fiber optic networks.)

[nj2nh]

I commented on this twice before, but will try one more time.

Here in Jersey (yeah, I know, yuck), people in my town fought tooth and nail to keep out the cell tower for a whole slew of reasons. In the end, we got the tower.

Under federal law, as I understand it, there is no standing to object to a cell tower. Health concerns are rejected. Home value concerns are rejected. Asthetics are rejected. If the company wants the tower, they will get it. Where it goes is a different story, but there will be a tower in Alton one way or another in one place or another.

As for whether Alton needs one, heck, yes. Last week, we lost our power here at my house in Jersey (yeah, I know, yuck). I have a wall mounted phone that I kept for just such situations. However, instead of electric back-up through the phone lines, my wall phone is now battery powered because I have FIOS. The battery only lasts six hours. Six hours after the power went out, so did the phone. My only recourse was my cell phone. The power at the lake goes out ALL THE TIME. Eventually, the phones will, too. What would you all do then?

One last point. Many phone companies are beginning to cut back on land line commitments. My parents have had no amount of trouble getting their lines repaired. The company (Verizon) keeps telling them just to get cell phones. Geez. Eventually, cell phones will be the only option. Better to have the tower now than to be scrambling later.

nj2nh

[OCDACTIVE]

I will be honest, I read many of the above posts but not every one word for word so I apologize in advance if someone already mentioned this. But there is already a camoflage tower at the base of red hill. You can see it if you come from Moultonboro ctr. head towards Ctr. Harbor, coming down the hill right before the Village Kitchen. It is certainly much higher then 10 feet above the tree line and is disguesed as a pine tree. It looks out of place but from the lake you can't see it. Nothing like those pictures of the radio towers. My only question is do they change the leaves for the seasons LOL.. (sarcastic question)

Now I will get flamed for this, but in my line of work I do everything 100% by phone. I don't know how I could conduct business without it. I have even had to resort to the crackberry (term for blackberry). I unfortunately have it on almost 24 / 7 whether I like to or not. I am very polite and take my conversations elsewhere if I am in a resturant etc and I do not have it on some annoying ringtone for everyone else to hear but I am for the towers. I need full coverage on the lake. There are too many dead zones even with Verizon (best carrier there thus far).

Flame away... 3,2,1, :D

[jmen24]

I will be honest, I read many of the above posts but not every one word for word so I apologize in advance if someone already mentioned this. But there is already a camoflage tower at the base of red hill. You can see it if you come from Moultonboro ctr. head towards Ctr. Harbor, coming down the hill right before the Village Kitchen. It is certainly much higher then 10 feet above the tree line and is disguesed as a pine tree. It looks out of place but from the lake you can't see it. Nothing like those pictures of the radio towers. My only question is do they change the leaves for the seasons LOL.. (sarcastic question)

Now I will get flamed for this, but in my line of work I do everything 100% by phone. I don't know how I could conduct business without it. I have even had to resort to the crackberry (term for blackberry). I unfortunately have it on almost 24 / 7 whether I like to or not. I am very polite and take my conversations elsewhere if I am in a resturant etc and I do not have it on some annoying ringtone for everyone else to hear but I am for the towers. I need full coverage on the lake. There are too many dead zones even with Verizon (best carrier there thus far).

Flame away... 3,2,1, :D

I do not think you are in the minority. I also use the crackberry for work and I am plugged in 24/7, 76% of my clients own second homes and those are the ones we work on, so when they come up on Friday night and call or email on Saturday I can respond quickly, in my line of work that is a MUST.

Having service everywhere keeps me plugged in but also allows me to play during work hours. It funny cause when the owner and I are out playing golf with some friends that also own a real estate company in the area we have to remind each other that it is our turn to hit because we are all emailing while playing. I know NO CELLS ON THE COURSE but that allows us to play during hours, after hours is a different story.

If I do not want to be bothered while on vacation I just set the profile to quiet and communicate with email and text. My office voicemail also sends any messages to my phone for listening while out of the office.

Whats the saying, you have to pay (be plugged in) to play

[Skip]

In depth article in this morning's Citizen regarding the ongoing dispute over the proposed Alton cell tower. Full story can be read HERE. (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091029/GJNEWS02/710299694/-1/CITIZEN)

[ApS]

"...Then again, you could hide them in the new windmill farm going up on Rattlesnake...!" ;)
I like the way you think. :D

"...I'd rather not have a farm of windmills on Rattlesnake Island thank you...Much of the lake view from Rattlesnake Island is obstructed by trees..."
Some lake view from the top of Rattlesnake Island could be accomplished by selective-removal of a very few trees, and replacing them with a cell tower: Myself ;) I think the new cell tower on Rattlesnake should be designed to look like a swimmer's snorkle. :eek2:

From a Wolfeboro and Tuftonboro viewpoint, Rattlesnake Island looks much more like a snorkler than an alligator—or a rattlesnake.

I think it looks like Hillary—whilst snorkeling—but maybe that's just me :D

[RLW]

Why not build towers like the one below. It's funny looking and we can laugh instead of crying over the dam tower.

[EllyPoinster]

Why not build towers like the one below. It's funny looking and we can laugh instead of crying over the dam tower.

Great idea - disguising it as a light pole!

[RonP]

As a year round resident of Alton Bay, it kills me that this small town has spent $181,129 of taxpayer dollars fighting construction of a cell tower that the majority of full-time and seasonal residents of this town want and need. I work from home, have no cell coverage here, and the monopoly granted Union Telephone leaves me few options to reduce communications costs that run in the hundreds of dollars per month out of pocket. Beyond that, my Union Telephone issued phone number cannot be ported to a VoIP carrier such as Vonage; I am told that Union Telephone "OWNS" my phone number! What is going on here! This town's ridiculous stand against needed technology presents a safety issue to residents and passers by, and the exclusionary town ordinance that limits cell tower height to 10' above the tree line (note to idiots who write ordinances: trees grow, cell towers don't) has personally cost me many thousands of dollars in communications charges and lost business over the past ten years. To add insult to injury, my tax payments are funding this assault on my finances and my business for one of the most ridiculous reasons I have ever heard; "people will be able to see it". $181,129 in wasted taxpayer dollars sure could have been put to much better use; textbooks for the school kids, needed repairs to Alton Central School, a couple of teacher's salaries, road repairs to name a few. It's time those of us who pay taxes to this town stand up to town officials who waste public funds spending other people's money! This is an outrage !!

The following is from the Citizen

Alton Bay Cell tower dispute may be headed to court
Alton:

By GAIL OBER
gober@citizen.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009

The battle between the three companies and the town's selectmen over the proposed cell phone tower on Miramichie Hill will likely go court.

Town officials said Monday the Alton taxpayers have spent $181,129 defending the decision to deny the variance, a despite numerous and recent efforts, have still not reached an equitable settlement with them.

"I really can't comment on anything about the suit other than how much we've spent so far in legal bills," said Town Administrator Russ Bailey.

The Citizen has also learned the previous legal firm that represented the applicants — Industrial Communications and Electronics, the actual builder of the tower, and two cell phone companies, RCC Atlantic [d.b.a. Unicel] and USCOC [d.b.a. U.S. Cellular] — advised the applicants to fight the 2006 ordinance saying "unless you can say with absolute certainty that there are no other sites available in the entire town of Alton, obtaining a variance may be quite difficult."

"All that would be needed to defeat the application would be one available property that could host a tower 10 feet above the tree line," wrote attorney Earl W. Duval of Duval & Associates shortly before Alton voters passed the revised Zoning ordinances in March of 2006.

It was almost five years ago when Industrial Communications and Electronics, a tower contracting firm, chose Miramichie Hill in East Alton as one of two spots where a cell tower would bridge the gaps in cell phone coverage along parts of Route 28.

At the time, in 2005, a tower on Miramichie Hill would have involved a zoning variance because it was not in one of four "overlay districts" that allowed cell towers. The town was also under an "interim growth management ordinance" that prevented any new construction until the March 2006 elections when voters approved new zoning ordinances.

Voters overwhelmingly adopted the new zoning ordinances that allows cell towers in all areas of Alton, with a few exceptions, but restricted their height to 10-feet above the average tree canopy.

The problem, said independent engineers, was the Miramichie Hill tower needed to be 120 feet tall to be effective — 61 feet above the average tree canopy and still required a variance.

After the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the Miramichie Hill variance in December 2006, the cell tower companies switched legal firms to Steven E. Grill of Devine, Millimet & Branch of Manchester and filed suit against the town.

The cell tower companies and their developer are challenging that the revised Alton Zoning Regulations of 2006 "effectively prohibit" cell towers throughout the entire community — a violation of federal law.

However, according to the applicants' previous attorney, "Case law has said time and time again that it is in the discretion of the community to choose whether it wants taller but fewer towers, or shorter, but more numerous towers," said Duval in the internal memorandum to the cell tower companies that was admitted into evidence after it was accidentally included in a file during the discovery portion of the suit.

Further muddying the legal waters is abutter David Slade who successfully petitioned the court to intervene and become a co-defendant with the town of Alton.

"I really don't think they can settle this without me," said Slade who has offered financial assistance to the town to offset its soaring legal costs.

Slade has described his battle against the cell tower companies as a David-versus-Goliath-type battle where the cell tower companies have deep enough pockets to continue to fight in court for what they want, often forcing small communities with limited resources to knuckle under their wishes.

Slade has also questioned whether or not the selectmen have the legal right to override a zoning board decision with a negotiated settlement, saying he would think any change in the planning proposal, such as reducing the height of the proposed tower, would need to be reevaluated by the land boards.

[upthesaukee]

RonP: first comment from me: in your commentary, the three letter acronym on about the fourth or fifth line may be OK in texting, facebook, myspace, email, etc., but would probably be considered inappropriate by most posters in the forum. Maybe an edit and delete would be better there :rolleye1:.

Second, you may not be aware, but since the recent purchase of Union telephone by TDS, Metrocast has finally been able to offer digital telephone to residents in TDS's areas, including portaging your number. If you choose not to do Metrocast, and want Vonage, I would assume that if Metrocast can portage, then Vonage should be able to.

I happen to live off the lake in Alton on the west side of the bay, and if that cell tower on the east side had been approved, I would have great coverage at my house. Right now I only have one bar in the house, and one to two outside in the front yard. Go up my road a quarter of a mile, and I have 5 bars!. I shared your frustration.

So, I suggest contacting the carrier of your choice and hopefully you can get the ball rolling towards a better communication situation for you.

Welcome to the forum.

[RLW]

Alton now does have new ways to have their phone service and a additional one coming the end of April first part of May. If you have MetroCast, they offer a fine phone service at a reasonable cost of $44.95 for unlimited calling anywhere in the US also gives about 12 different free options with it (KEEP YOUR OLD NUMBER). The end of April the new phone company owners are coming out with a complete new line of phone, internet an what ever else they can pass on, at good competitive prices. This info was given to me by a customer rep of TDS (Telecommunications Corp.) the new company owners.:) Just wait and keep the faith, good things will come (Hopefully).

[webmaster]

You all should really consider using OOMA (http://www.ooma.com) if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

[RLW]

You all should really consider using OOMA (http://www.ooma.com) if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

Thanks for the info Don, but I do have one question. Do they work (out going) when one loses power as in my case I had to drop MetroCast as it would not work during the power outage and it is needed for the alarm system and medical reasons. If one is full time residency and has power backup most all cable units will work.:)

[Sunbeam lodge]

You all should really consider using OOMA (http://www.ooma.com) if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

This sure sounds like something I could use.
I have a home on the lake and in Florida and currently have land line phones in both locations In addition to 2 mobile phones.
When i leave for the winter I either have to shut down the phones and pay to have them reinstalled when I return or put them on a vacation plan that is not too expensive but by the time they add all the fees it adds up.
I then have to do the same thing when I return.
I also have to do the same thing with the TV and internet.
There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

[RLW]

There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

Yep, I have just one. Stay at the lake all year round and then you do not have all the connecting/dis-connecting fees.:)

[webmaster]

Would I need a separate unit for FLa?No, I'm pretty sure you could take the box back and forth with you. It's small and once it's set up would just need to be plugged in to power, internet and a wall jack. It should work anywhere on the Internet.

The only small problem could be the Enhanced 911 listing. If I remember correctly, you can select to have your number associated with your address for the 911 system when you register your OOMA. If you were going to move the box around you should probably not use the 911 listing.

[upthesaukee]

This sure sounds like something I could use.
I have a home on the lake and in Florida and currently have land line phones in both locations In addition to 2 mobile phones.
When i leave for the winter I either have to shut down the phones and pay to have them reinstalled when I return or put them on a vacation plan that is not too expensive but by the time they add all the fees it adds up.
I then have to do the same thing when I return.
I also have to do the same thing with the TV and internet.
There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas
Internet connection is internet connection, and I would not think that your change in location would have an effect, other than having to change your IP address with OOMA. One thing to remember is that if you are portaging your number, and friends are calling you from a landline without unlimited long distance calling, if your number is NH and you are in FL, those FL friends will be paying long distance to call you, and vice versa. We have friends that had NH cell phones, and when the moved down south, they kept the phones. Friends down there were getting long distance charges for a call from across the street. :(

[webmaster]

those FL friends will be paying long distance to call you, and vice versa.(True, except for the vice versa. There are never any long distance charges for calls you make using OOMA.

[upthesaukee]

True, except for the vice versa. There are never any long distance charges for calls you make using OOMA.
I should have continued on after viceversa... if in NH with a FL number, folks up here would be long distance. my bad.

[webmaster]

Thanks for the info Don, but I do have one question. Do they work (out going) when one loses power as in my case I had to drop MetroCast as it would not work during the power outage and it is needed for the alarm system and medical reasons. If one is full time residency and has power backup most all cable units will work.:)The OOMA does need power but so do your cable modem and router. If internet and phone service are critical I would plug all 3 into a battery backup unit.

[SIKSUKR]

I just like listening to the radio commercials. I would try OOMA but I signed for Comcast triple play for 2 years.

[granitebox]

I've been using OOMA for almost 2 years. I can't recommend it enough. We've had no problems.

Regarding power outages - unless you have a analog phone any cordless phone in the house will cease to function when the power goes out.

[codeman671]

OOMA sounds great, I may try it at our home. I'd like to try it at the lake but we have satellite and it is rather finicky. Also, with the bandwith limits set by Hughes I am not sure how it would work. The latency may pose a problem.

[RonP]

I just like listening to the radio commercials. I would try OOMA but I signed for Comcast triple play for 2 years.

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !! :liplick:

[mcdude]

from Today's Citizen

Cell tower dispute nearing an end
Alton:<TABLE><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Selectmen have reached a tentative agreement with the cell tower companies that want to build a tower on Miramichie Hill, but the attorney for abutter David Slade said his client isn't ready to sign on.

On March 3, selectmen agreed with Industrial Communication and Electronic, Inc. and two cell companies, RCC Atlantic [d.b.a. Unicel] and USCOC [d.b.a. U.S. Cellular], that a 100-foot tower could be built on the property at 486 East Side Drive.

As part of the agreement, the town also agreed that there would be "no just cause for further delay" and that the decision of the Alton Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 13, 2007 to deny the applicant's request for a height variance of 120 feet is meaningless.

The parties agree..." that further meetings, hearings or decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment would serve no useful purpose..." read the consent decree that has not been signed by a federal judge.

Slade lives next door and his family has owned the abutting property since 1953. Late last year, he successfully petitioned the court to intervene and his lawyer Paul Fitzgerald said he doesn't think the project can go forward without his client's agreement.

When he filed his petition to join the suit, Slade said the town of Alton, like so many other small towns, has waged a David-vs. Goliath-type battle against the deep-pocketed cell tower companies.

As of Oct 2009, Alton taxpayers had spent $181,000 in legal fees trying to uphold the Zoning Board's decision.

When the property was first identified as a site, it was not in one of the four areas designated by Alton's zoning ordinances that would be acceptable for cell towers.

In March of 2006, voters adopted new zoning ordinances that allow cell towers to be erected but restricted their height to 10 feet above the average tree canopy. The proposed ICE tower was initially 120 feet, or 61 feet above the tree canopy, and still required a variance.

Should the judgment and order be signed, the Zoning Board's denial of a variance for a 120-foot tower is vacated and amended to modify to grant the height variance to 100 feet with a full antenna array on the top so the entire structure is no more that 103 feet.

The agreement also stipulated that after five years the height of the tower may be extended provided the applicants received a variance from the Zoning Board.

The agreement further stipulates that ICE will submit revised plans and the Planning Board shall not act to reduce the maximum height of the tower or the antenna or seek to change the configuration as submitted by the applicant on June 19, 2006.

Fitzgerald said the court has given some time for his client to file a memorandum as to why he opposes the agreement.

Selectman Pat Fuller said that until a judge actually signs the order, she cannot comment.

Zoning Board Chair Paul Monzione said overall he had been very impressed with the Alton ZBA consistently applying the zoning laws, but said this could be a rare instance when complicated issues of federal law "can overwhelm and are inconsistent with local law."

Sometimes settlements are in the best interests of the town, Monzione said, adding that although he hasn't read the proposed order it appears the town's zoning laws will remain intact.



<!-- Article.pbo END -->

[RLW]

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !! :liplick:

You do, but it is under the name of MetroCast.:)

[Argie's Wife]

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !! :liplick:

Yes - the Metrocast 3-in-1 package is available as of February. Call them for more information and to get it installed. YEA!

[Gearhead]

Are we EVER going to get a cell tower in East Alton??? In a month or two the leaves will begin to open and I will once again lose my cell service. Grrr! I think there's only one person in the whole town against it.

[Merrymeeting]

The following headline was in this weeks Baysider. Full story on page 14

AT&T expanding coverage in Alton, New Durham
REGION — AT&T announced the expansion of its
mobile broadband network
in New Hampshire

The story doesn't have any details on when, how, or exactly where. Does anyone know?

[winniforlife]

Oh how I would love to have ATT service in West Alton... to use my iphone at the Marine would be wonderful!! Thanks for the update! :)

[upthesaukee]

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice


for location, put in "sthy 11" and Alton Bay 03810. You can navigate the map using the arrows and see your "coverage".

Good luck. Great Marina, lousy cell coverage.

[Merrymeeting]

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice


for location, put in "sthy 11" and Alton Bay 03810. You can navigate the map using the arrows and see your "coverage".

Good luck. Great Marina, lousy cell coverage.

Good info. But that shows what is in place now. Not what is planned.

[mcdude]

From the 6/2 Baysider

Another cell tower ruling
This ruling nullifies prior approvals
BY TIM CROES
Staff Writer
ALTON — A decision was handed down by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on
May 19 on the proposed cell phone tower in Alton that nullifies the prior local and
court approvals that would have allowed the construction of the tower at 486 East
Side Drive. The case has been in the court system since 2005, when Industrial Communications and Electronics, Inc. proposed a tower in Alton for two wireless companies. David and Marilyn Slade, whose property abuts the proposed tower, objected to the construction of the tower because it would stand in line of the panoramic view of the lake and the surrounding mountains. The company determined that the tower would need to be 120 feet above the ground and applied for a variance to the zoning board of adjustments and were denied.
The company then sued the town. The town then began to negotiate a settlement
with Industrial Communications and the co-plaintiffs, the wireless companies,
which the Slades opposed. An agreement was made between the company and the
town to vacate the board’s decision and permit a 100-foot tower without further meetings. The ruling on May 19 allows for the Slades to continue the suit even though an agreement between Industrial Communications and its co-plaintiffs and the town was reached.

[Argie's Wife]

Am I understanding this correctly that the construction of the town can't begin until the lawsuit with Mr. Slade has been resolved?

[Gearhead]

I have NO coverage at my home on the east side. Will aluminum foil and an umbrella work?

Maybe I'll call Mr. Slade and ask if he gets reception at HIS house. Oh wait- he lives in New Jersey!

[nvmbr9]

Live free or die usually works but there are exceptions

Big ugly houses that break treelike on ridges. Number one eyesore. If you have a big view...well, we have to see you too. Wait till they build at alpine meadows in Alton and wolfeboro...you'll see from Meredith

White or bright color houses on lake. This isn't Wellesley...paint it dark and leave the trees. You will be cooler. More private. It's a win win. Go dArk and blend in and u can build as large a house as u want

Cell towers....about 100 on list. No worse than telephone poles I'd done right.

[fatlazyless]

Am I understanding this correctly that the construction of the town can't begin until the lawsuit with Mr. Slade has been resolved?

Most likely, that's a typo and should say "construction of the tower can't begin," and yes, that reads to be the case here.

So, three cheers for the Slades and they did a big legal service to everyone in the area who did not want an ugly cell phone tower intruding into their big view. Way-to-go Mr Slade!

If you need to make a phone call, then go use the local pay phone!

[PapaDon]

If you need to make a phone call, then go use the local pay phone!

Have you noticed that there are very few pay phones left? If you do find one, you'll be lucky if it works. The last booth I found (next to the laundromat near Patrick's Pub in Gilford) had no phone, just wires sticking out. It's hard to find one, even harder to find a working one.

[trfour]

Yup. Kinda looks like Ma'cell phone took the market over lately! The local pay phone has gone the way of the dinosaur.

I would bet though that FLL has a few quarters left!...:)... Over.

Terry
______________________

[fatlazyless]

The Town of Center Harbor has a working Fairpoint payphone right near the tennis courts and softball field that's attached to a utility shed which has got to get very little use. Surprisingly and on the opposite end of the frequency of payphone use, someone at either the Gilford Wal-Mart or the landlord of the property made a business decision to have the two payphones right next to the Wal-Mart entrance removed, so all that's left are the unused mounting plates. That seems crazy. There's probably still lots of folks who like to get a quick quote on a stock price who cannot afford or want a cell phone.

[mcdude]

From the Baysider

Cell Tower Issue Appears Resolved
Planners
approve
amended
site plan
BY TIM CROES
Staff Writer
ALTON — The Alton Planning
Board met for three
hours on Tuesday, Nov. 20,
and may have finally resolved
the cell phone tower
issue on East Side Drive.
A proposal was brought
forward by Industrial Communications
and Electronics,
Inc., Unicel and U.S. Cellular
to request for an amended
site plan to be able to secure
an alternative access to
the approved cell tower site
on property located on Bowman
Road.
The company requested
that a pair of waivers be approved
for the project pertaining
to landscaping and
the location of buildings,and
both these waivers were approved.
A letter was read into the
record from David Slade that
stated that he would not appeal
the decision of the Federal
Court ordering a tower
to be built at East Side Drive
at a height of 100 feet.
The board approved the
amended site plan with several
conditions precedent
and several subsequent conditions


Cost David Slade BIG BUCKS to fight this and appears that he lost?...or were concessions made?

[CateP]

Funny there is so much concern over cell towers and not so much about the clear cutting that went on over there.

[mcdude]

Baysider 1/10/13

Company expects cell tower
to be up by spring
BY TIM CROES
STAFF WRITER
ALTON — In November,
the Alton Planning Board
reviewed the case of the
proposed cell phone tower
for hopefully the final time.
The multi-year battle for
the construction of this cell
phone tower has gone in
front in many different
courts and has been appealed
many times by the
different parties, but hopefully
now the tower will be
constructed and the many
holes in the cell phone service
in Alton will be closed.
The cell phone tower was
first proposed by Industrial
Communications in September
2005 to be constructed
at 486 East Side Drive.
In reviewing the case, the
planning board received a
letter from David Slade saying
that he was no longer going
to object to the construction
of the cell phone
tower in Alton, with plans
for the access road to now
be located on Jude Hill
Road.
According to Kevin Delaney,
an Engineering and
Regulatory Compliance
Manager, at Industrial Communications,
there is some
simple paperwork that
needs to be completed, including
getting a building
permit approved before the
company can start constructing
the tower.
Delaney said that he
hopes that the project will
start within the next month,
and the first step will be
clearing a 100-foot by 100-
foot where the tower will be
constructed.
Delaney is hopeful that
the tower will be up and
running by this spring. According
to Delaney, the companies
that will be utilizing
the new cell phone tower
will include Verizon, U.S.
Cellular and AT&T.

[Belmont Resident]

Baysider 1/10/13

I noticed there was a thumbs down on the original post, just curious as to why.
Whenever I'm in the Alton area I'm always wishing I had better service.
28 between Alton and Wolfeboro has a lot of dead zones.

[upthesaukee]

...it was our beloved McDude, and mean that in all sincerity, does not like cell phones and cell towers, and was worried it detract from the beauty of our mountains.

As one who will highly benefit from this tower, I respectfully disagreed with my friend, and felt that the building of homes on Lakewood were far more detrimental to the beauty of the bay.

[Belmont Resident]

...it was our beloved McDude, and mean that in all sincerity, does not like cell phones and cell towers, and was worried it detract from the beauty of our mountains.

As one who will highly benefit from this tower, I respectfully disagreed with my friend, and felt that the building of homes on Lakewood were far more detrimental to the beauty of the bay.

OK, I did not follow that thread at all, but for someone who has given up their land line 10 years ago for the much cheaper cell phone service, I'm all for towers.
Personally I'm so used to seeing them everywhere now that it makes no difference where they put them. I'd much rather see a cell tower then a wind tower or continuous power lines across the skyline.
My .02

[sfloodmd]

Is there any new info about the new tower going in in Alton? I'm trying to decide about switching from Sprint to either Verizon or ATT and would be interested if anyone knows if this tower will service any or all of those.

[BroadHopper]

Is there any new info about the new tower going in in Alton? I'm trying to decide about switching from Sprint to either Verizon or ATT and would be interested if anyone knows if this tower will service any or all of those.

I called the Sprint support number and told them that Sprint coverage is very spotty in NH. They told me to turn on the roaming feature and that they would waive the roaming charge. I picked up Verizon coverage.

[riverat]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15581