http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_17458631?nclick_check=1
We are deeply disappointed with the Planning Commissions decision, especially since some of the key factors in the decision of at least 1 commissioner were factually incorrect. But because the public comment period was over we were not given a chance to respond.
Here is a list of comments/issues that were raised during the discussion period that the residents were not allowed to respond to:
1. We only used 1 phone for our testing, and therefore our tests were invalid.
> We used 3 separate phones for testing - a low-end flip phone, a mid-range phone with voice and data, and a brand new LG Android smartphone.
2. We did not measure whether a data call could be completed.
> This was a new criticism made during the discussion period. Up until this time, the debate has centered on whether residents could reliably place a voice call from inside their homes, as a benchmark for reasonable signal access. Of course, the ability to complete a data call on a GSM/GPRS network (such as T-Mobile) is the same as a voice call, and we would be happy to go around the neighborhood and show that we can open a web page on the phone. We did manage to ask for this opportunity, but this was denied to us by the Commission.
3. We did not "measure data".
> This comment was made by the T-Mobile engineer, which the Commissioners misunderstood. What he was really saying is that we did not measure the signal quality, as the rate of data throughput is directly related to this. However, when performing our tests we recorded both whether a call can be made and *also* the signal level, and this was submitted to the Commissioners. All the homes we tested were able to get a high-quality signal inside, and therefore were able to receive a high level of data throughput.
4. Low coverage would lead to "dropped email".
> This comment was made by Commissioner San Fellipo, and was the basis for his decision. I should mention at this point that my company provides wireless email and other data synchronization solutions for mobile devices, and I can assure you this is not true. First, having a lower-quality signal may make the transfer process slower, but will not lead to loss of data. Even if the data call is dropped, the data is not lost - it can simply be downloaded again when the connection is re-established. It should also be noted that a dropped data (TCP) connection is not a rare event, and mobile carriers will actively force connections to close that they feel are idle or too long-lived.
5. A question was asked by Mr. Marsters as to what level of coverage is needed to meet the FCC E-911 requirements, and the conclusion was drawn that a higher level of coverage may be necessary to meet them.
> The FCC E-911 requirements simply define performance metrics for providing the *location* of callers dialing 911. As long as a phone call can be initiated, the requirement can be met. Actually the vendor that T-Mobile uses for their solution (TruePosition - www.trueposition.com) claims they can often locate the caller before the call is even completed.
6. A comment was made that since we did not re-submit our "balloon pictures", showing the true height of the tower and how it will impact views of the bay, that this was no longer a concern to the residents.
> Several of the residents made reference to the balloon pictures during the comment period. We did not re-submit the pictures because we assumed they were already part of the record. Obviously, we are deeply concerned with the aesthetic impact that this tower will have on the neighborhood.
No comments:
Post a Comment