Seamless Wireless Service or No Cell Tower – Which is More Important? [POLL]
You may be living in an area where your cell service is spotty.
What would correct that might be a cell tower being place nearer to where you live.
Often times unsightly and, as some contend, dangerous to your health, you have to ask yourself whether it’s more important to have seamless cell service, do without the cell tower; or at the very least, minimize them.
T-Mobile and Bridgewater may reach a settlement in the lawsuit filed by the wireless telecommunications company last year that includes building a cell tower on township property after years of fighting the proposal.
Last year, T-Mobile filed suit on Sept. 27 after the Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment denied its application to build a 130-foot cell tower on the property of the Green Knoll Fire Co. on North Bridge Street.
A letter sent to the U.S. District Court in Trenton on Thursday states an alternative location has been identified that may have the potential to settle the dispute.
“In the interest of settling this action, the Township of Bridgewater offered to make available to T-Mobile an alternative location on public property for a proposed wireless communications facility,” according to the letter.
“T-Mobile has investigated the viability of that alternative location and has determined that, provided certain specifications can be met by the township, it is suitable for T-Mobile’s needs,” the letter reads.
While the letter does not specify the proposed property’s location, T-Mobile and Bridgewater “are in the process of reviewing the specifications T-Mobile requires to determine whether the potential settlement path is viable for both the township and the board.”
In the zoning board’s denial of T-Mobile’s application, it stated its concerns centered around the height of the cell tower, and it said the tower could have a detrimental effect on the surrounding residences and street scape.
But T-Mobile, in its lawsuit, said the antenna, which would be disguised as a flagpole and topped with a three-foot antenna to act as a backup for the fire company’s emergency dispatch communications, “is the least intrusive means within the surrounding area to remedy T-Mobile’s significant (coverage) gap and provide service consistent with FCC license requirements and to meet consumer demands.”
Wow, disguised as a flagpole. That’ll really blend in, won’t it now. I’m surprised they didn’t go with the “faux tree” look.
But aesthetics isn’t the only reason.
There’s also the possibility of too much radiation permeating the surrounding area leading to a host of maladies.
Residents would be rightfully concerned about that.
But given the times we live in, and the demands we place on our ability to rely on cell phone technology; should we shrug our shoulders and come to grips with the fact that cell towers are here to stay, or fight the intrusion of cell towers in our communities?