I didn't explain myself very clearly in my last post and apologize to those who felt I had missed the (very well done) FAQ on this matter.
It was my understanding from the FAQ that the Hanover tower could transmit adequate radio signal up the drainages which form the topographical hand where most residences are sited in town. A higher tower is sought further upland to strengthen this signal and reach some of the areas not in line of sight to Hayes Hill. While I haven't seen the signal propagation maps that show the coverage this proposed tower would reach, I can imagine it covers substantially more area while still leaving some "shadows" along valleys.
My question was whether we have discussed coordinating a common tower much higher upland, towards the Sharon, Strafford, Thetford, boundaries that could provide a similar coverage overlap for Norwich, but also significant coverage for one or more of these neighboring municipalities. The advantages, to my mind, would be 1) the opportunity to share the acquisition, construction, maintenance cost with one or more neighboring towns; 2) the ability to get a tower much higher in total elevation (potentially creating greater line of sight coverage) without being so much higher above the surrounding tree line so the visual impact is reduced; 3) utilizing that expanded multi-town line of site coverage to co-locate cell phone transmitters, further offsetting our cost through leases to the cell phone providers; and 4) by sharing a single common sight at a much higher elevation with one or more of these other towns, we reduce the total number of these towers Upper Valley residents will have to look at over the years.
I didn't see that idea addressed in the FAQ and hope someone can tell us whether that idea is on the table. I had read the original consultants report to suggest the public works site had been the sole location considered in town as this would save us land acquisition costs. Again, kudos to Tom Gray for showing so much patience and receptivity in running this town committee.
It was my understanding from the FAQ that the Hanover tower could transmit adequate radio signal up the drainages which form the topographical hand where most residences are sited in town. A higher tower is sought further upland to strengthen this signal and reach some of the areas not in line of sight to Hayes Hill. While I haven't seen the signal propagation maps that show the coverage this proposed tower would reach, I can imagine it covers substantially more area while still leaving some "shadows" along valleys.
My question was whether we have discussed coordinating a common tower much higher upland, towards the Sharon, Strafford, Thetford, boundaries that could provide a similar coverage overlap for Norwich, but also significant coverage for one or more of these neighboring municipalities. The advantages, to my mind, would be 1) the opportunity to share the acquisition, construction, maintenance cost with one or more neighboring towns; 2) the ability to get a tower much higher in total elevation (potentially creating greater line of sight coverage) without being so much higher above the surrounding tree line so the visual impact is reduced; 3) utilizing that expanded multi-town line of site coverage to co-locate cell phone transmitters, further offsetting our cost through leases to the cell phone providers; and 4) by sharing a single common sight at a much higher elevation with one or more of these other towns, we reduce the total number of these towers Upper Valley residents will have to look at over the years.
I didn't see that idea addressed in the FAQ and hope someone can tell us whether that idea is on the table. I had read the original consultants report to suggest the public works site had been the sole location considered in town as this would save us land acquisition costs. Again, kudos to Tom Gray for showing so much patience and receptivity in running this town committee.
