I don't think this helps or hurts us much. Not too many 450 foot ham
towers and I doubt if we'd be tagged for avian migration at 72 feet.
I've been to the Boundary Waters and I can see why there would be
opposition, but even slightly improved cell service will make the
wilderness (not a risk free experience regardless) safer and perhaps
allow more people to come, even if you can't totally rely on cell
service (I used to leave my cell phone locked in the car when I went;
carrying it in was pointless when I went). More people is not an
unmixed blessing, but some people are far too elitist about wilderness
-- everyone should experience it once or twice in their life and this
is one of the most accessible places to do it for a great many people.
Indeed, it is one of the most popular wilderness areas period.
Seems like a well-balanced decision to me.
Larry Wo0Z
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:25 PM, <jcjacobsen@q.com> wrote:
> How do to all.
>
> This was published recently in the papers. It could have a "positive" effect
> on we hams wanting to erect towers. Interesting reading. I'm sure it's not
> over yet, though.
>
> http://finance-commerce.com/2012/06/appeals-court-allows-att-cell-tower-near-bwca/
>
> 73 es GDDX to all
> K9WN Jake
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|