Steve - I appreciate the time you took to post this afternoon.
With respect to due diligence, could you please share with us all the source for your conclusion that "there is no single ideal site" for a tower in Norwich? I am aware our Town Manager has insisted this is the case, but I have been asking for an engineering report or propagation study to substantiate this conclusion for months and no one has shared anything publicly up to this point.
I'm also confused by the second premise of the paragraph below. If we are creating a synchronized network with surrounding towers, why does this tower have to be so extremely tall and expensive? If it only need complement the coverage provided by these other towers, surely, we could find a site for a tower more in keeping with the height restrictions our own zoning regulations set out and our town has already enforced upon Verizon when they built their tower seven years ago.
Please, please, make public the engineering and propagation studies that substantiate the claims you've just made.
From: Stephen Flanders
To: "norwich@lists.valley.net"
Subject: [Norwich] A towering question
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:30 -0400
Here are my answers to questions that CC and others raise:
What about a better site?
There is no single ideal site for a reasonably priced communications tower
in Norwich. That¹s why the town manager worked with surrounding towns to
create a synchronized network that will provide higher communications
reliability and coverage, using seven networked antennas. This means that a
Norwich antenna must only complement the coverage provided by other
antennas. If one antenna had to provide complete coverage in town, it would
have to be tall enough to look down into all Norwich¹s many valleys. It
would be extremely tall and expensive.
With respect to due diligence, could you please share with us all the source for your conclusion that "there is no single ideal site" for a tower in Norwich? I am aware our Town Manager has insisted this is the case, but I have been asking for an engineering report or propagation study to substantiate this conclusion for months and no one has shared anything publicly up to this point.
I'm also confused by the second premise of the paragraph below. If we are creating a synchronized network with surrounding towers, why does this tower have to be so extremely tall and expensive? If it only need complement the coverage provided by these other towers, surely, we could find a site for a tower more in keeping with the height restrictions our own zoning regulations set out and our town has already enforced upon Verizon when they built their tower seven years ago.
Please, please, make public the engineering and propagation studies that substantiate the claims you've just made.
From: Stephen Flanders
To: "norwich@lists.valley.net"
Subject: [Norwich] A towering question
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:30 -0400
Here are my answers to questions that CC and others raise:
What about a better site?
There is no single ideal site for a reasonably priced communications tower
in Norwich. That¹s why the town manager worked with surrounding towns to
create a synchronized network that will provide higher communications
reliability and coverage, using seven networked antennas. This means that a
Norwich antenna must only complement the coverage provided by other
antennas. If one antenna had to provide complete coverage in town, it would
have to be tall enough to look down into all Norwich¹s many valleys. It
would be extremely tall and expensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment