Our City Online

Messageboard

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 114 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Bring Google Fiber to Central Ohio #1030777

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Follow-up on Capaciti: this page indicates that their coverage area for CMH is indeed just downtown:

    Capciti coverage in CMH

    in reply to: Israel Palestine Conflict #1030728

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    [“Israel & Palestine: a very short introduction” video]

    The video starts out pretty well– but then it goes off the rails and misconstrues (or completely omits) actions taken by either side in the last few decades. It completely omits the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (with the concomitant abandonment of Jewish settlements there) and the associated results (the rise of Hamas and rockets shooting into civilian Israeli populations). It omits ridiculous pre-conditions (raised by the Palestinians) to even sitting down to talk about a solution. It subtly implies that Israel is bulldozing the Palestinians into oblivion (when such “bulldozings” are isolated and typically involve eminent domain and/or zoning violations — and follow only after judicial proceedings, just like what happens in the US).

    There are plenty of things that the Israelis have done (and continue to do) wrong in recent history (with regard to the Palestinians) — but this video is as simplistic and lopsided as one from an ultranationalist Israeli source, omitting key balancing facts/arguments in an attempt to portray one side as being the unprovoked aggressor.

    Make no mistake: there is posturing and “playing to the faithful” on both sides of the conflict — indeed, the vicious cycle is that increasing tensions bolsters the position of certain hardline factions on both sides, which means these factions become more popular/powerful, which means increased tensions, …

    And as with most complex problems, trying to simplify it by portraying one side as being at fault (and thus a simple solution being to punish the economy/people of that side) isn’t going to help. Making it easier/safer for moderate folks on both sides to work for a compromise will. Carrots, not sticks.

    in reply to: 9-story cell tower proposal for 3005 Indianola (near Studio 35) #1029110

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Update on cell tower proposed for Studio 35 corridor: The applicant didn’t appear before the CAC last night, instead opting to send comments to the CAC chair.

    The CAC (with members citing the lack of apparent hardship given the availability of the I-71/315 corridors as well as the statements from a fire fighter about the inherent danger of a tower in close proximity to residences) voted against both variances required for the tower. The next (and final) step in the variance process is the BZA meeting in late August.

    in reply to: 9-story cell tower proposal for 3005 Indianola (near Studio 35) #1029105

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    If microcells are cheaper and faster to construct, require less energy to run, and 2-3 can provide the same coverage as a macrocell, why is TMobile itself set on getting this macrocell tower in this location?

    That’s the $64K question. After repeated attempts/requests, we’ve been unable to talk to any actual T-Mobile engineering/planning staff, so we’re left to speculate:

    1. Dealing with a single property owner is simpler than dealing with 2 or 3.
    2. Dealing with an unsophisticated property owner — unaware of the going rates for cell tower leasing — is cheaper than dealing with one that has a property management organization that can tap contacts to determine an appropriate (read: “more expensive”) fee structure.
    3. Dealing with a property owner who is apparently unconcerned with aesthetics allows them to do pretty much whatever they want.
    4. Dealing with a sole-proprieter is simpler/faster than dealing with a corporation or government organization (the latter two being the typical property owners in the more appropriate areas along I-71 and 315) with respect to gaining approval to use their property.
    5. The actual tower owner (which would not be T-Mobile) can market the tower for simultaneous use by other carriers and reap a windfall.
    6. The agent/planner in charge of the project was ignorant of how much Clintonville folks care about their neighborhood (this speculation based on the agent’s repeated assertions early on that he was certain that no one would oppose the tower)
    7. T-Mobile (per the agent’s use of the term “unproven technology” with respect to microcells) is apparently familiar only with outdated equipment/technologies from the late 20th century (and hasn’t bothered to visit Houndogs– corner of Dodridge & High — to look up at the chimneys atop of the side facing Turkey Hill — and see what 21st century urban cell phone sites look like).
    8. Perhaps T-Mobile isn’t actively involved with the site selection and gave general parameters to the agent (e.g., “hey, we need to cover this area better; you go find a site or two or three and we’ll get the engineers involved after you have lease — and property/zoning restrictions– in-hand”), leaving the agent to fulfill the requirements using whatever minimal effort he felt appropriate.
    in reply to: 9-story cell tower proposal for 3005 Indianola (near Studio 35) #1028658

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Update: the CAC’s zoning & variance committee unanimously opposed the variance requests for the proposed tower. The CAC takes up the issue this week. Details are in .

    in reply to: 9-story cell tower proposal for 3005 Indianola (near Studio 35) #1027328

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    [Reminder with additional info from meeting with cell tower agent]

    In case you missed it, there’s a 100-foot cell tower proposed for installation behind the coffee house on Indianola. They need 3 variances (including one to suspend the requirement for setback of towers from residences). The CAC’s zoning & variance committee will vote on the variances at 7:30 pm tomorrow at the Clinton Heights Lutheran Church (corner of Clinton Heights & High).

    If you can spare 15 minutes to attend and show your support for our neighborhood, that’d be great (you don’t even need to speak in front of the committee or anything — your presence with the rest of the neighbors will send the message). Dana reminded us that the meeting will be efficient, so don’t be late.

    It’s worth mentioning that the the business located at the proposed location (the coffee house) is not the owner of the location and thus shouldn’t be subjected to negative attention — the owner is actually the gentleman that owns/runs the Imperial Cleaners dry cleaning store next door.

    To get an idea of what the tower will look like, there’s a one near the railroad at Weisheimer & Indianola that is of similar height.

    For some background on our interaction with the cell tower’s representative, here’re my notes from a meeting we had with him a couple of weeks ago. Libby and Dana arranged a meeting between some of the neighbors and the variance-requesting agent — the idea was to be able to gather information and so the agent could have folks understand the need).

    My take– the agent last night said so many seemingly contradictory things that we aren’t really sure where or what the exact need is. He said that putting a tower [with a range of multiple miles] near 71 (1000′ to the east) was too far away from the coverage area, that putting a tower at the corner of ENB & Indianola (1500′ to the north) was too far away from the area, but that the intended tower would replace the site at Weber&Calumet (1500′ to the west). We repeatedly tried to get him to tell us what the coverage area was and he deflected (probably because he had no idea– being that he handles real estate, I’m sure has never talked to the T-Mobile RF engineer(s) working this project, let alone seen a coverage map or drive-testing results for the project area; his job is to get that tower installed Right There — not to understand why or what the alternatives are — and he’ll say whatever it takes to make that happen).

    We asked him why they couldn’t use the existing site (the smokestack at Weber&Calumet) and he said that it was falling down (which we’ve heard is untrue); then he said that it wasn’t good enough for deploying the LTE equipment (which seems odd, since the variance pack’s mast drawing shows only a single additional antenna pod per cell for LTE); then he said that the school system would only grant them a 6-month lease (which also seemed odd — we’re trying to get a real estate person at CCS to let us know what they actually said) and that “they” wanted something longer term; then he said something about the density of subscribers requiring more towers (seemingly implying that the site at the school would stay and that the new tower would be additional instead of a replacement).

    I asked why they couldn’t use less intrusive microcells (see http://bit.ly/IndyMicrocell or http://www.unisonsite.com/pdf/resource-center/Think%20Small%20Unison-whitepaper-7D.pdf ) — his replies indicated that he had no idea what I as talking about (he first confused femto/pico cells with microcells and then he thought I was talking about distributed antennas) . Then he said they wouldn’t work because they would not cover the area. Which took us back to the “What IS the area?” and more deflection.

    Microcells are truly the answer — from the second page of the Unison whitepaper (http://bit.ly/IndyMicrocell ):

    As carriers look to shrink cell sites, microcells provide a mid-sized option. Frequently employed in urban and suburban areas, microcells offer a coverage radius of less than a mile in diameter. They can be seen mounted on street lights, traffic lights, billboards, bridges, tunnels and flag poles, to name a few. Their less obtrusive size and appearance can make compliance with local ordinances easier. Usually, the installation of three microcell sites can cover the same service area as a large macrocell, but at a lower total cost and quicker installation timeframe. The base station equipment and electrical powering costs for microcells are far less than their larger counterparts.

    If the agent is to be believed (with respect to what antenna placement will and won’t provide proper coverage as well as the increased subscriber density), the area in question is seemingly under a mile in diameter and has lots of subscribers — and is thus perfect for a microcell or two (or three).

    But, to mangle a parable, if your livelihood is to sell hammers, your incentive is to convince everyone that their problem is a nail. So I don’t expect the agent to go back to T-Mobile and ask them about microcells; there’d be no profit in that for an agent who specializes in real estate and zoning for cell towers.

    As a several of us have often said, Clintonville is often the “test case” for doing the right thing — we overthink everything, we scream bloody murder when we see/feel injustice, we want the best that there is for our community, and we just won’t let things go. So we’re likely setting the tone for what will happen elsewhere in Columbus with respect to in-fill cellular service — and we thus need to aim high.

    in reply to: Indianola Corridor Plan #1025297

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    The original doc has disappeared from the columbus.gov website, but you can still find it at https://web.archive.org/web/20061010090528/http://assets.columbus.gov/development/planning/IndianolaCorrPlana.pdf

    Oh, and just to help other folks who might be searching for it — it’s also known as the Indianola Avenue Corridor Plan (and it was superseded by the Clintonville Neighborhood Plan).

    in reply to: 9-story cell tower proposal for 3005 Indianola (near Studio 35) #1025011

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    All the other carriers locate their towers in the industrial corridor along I-71, in the commercial corridor along 315 and/or use less hideous microcells strategically placed on existing structures (in fact, T-mobile already has a site on the smoke stack of the school just down Weber Rd). Towers like this are wholly inappropriate for residential areas — which is why the zoning code is the way it is — can you imagine locating a 100′ cell tower in the middle of German Village or Italian Village? If you had a choice between buying/renting a house with a cell tower in the backyard and one without, which would you buy/rent? How much extra would you pay for an equivalent house without a cell tower in the back yard?

    The area to be used is about 1/20th of the commercial strip that includes Studio 35 and many new businesses like art galleries, co-working space, etc. It’s like a burgeoning mini Short North. Can you imagine taking out 1/20th of the Short North — right in the middle of it and right as it was starting to develop — to use as a cell site?

    The cellco folks obviously thought that nobody would be paying any attention (and that they could save a few bucks by not putting a tower or two in more appropriate areas). Allow me to be the first to greet them with “Welcome to Clintonville”.

    in reply to: Gypsy Moth Aerial spraying meeting tonight 2/12 #559028

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Want to help get Gypchek used in central Ohio? Contact your representatives — check http://bit.ly/Gypchek4ODA for more information.

    in reply to: Bring Google Fiber to Central Ohio #508386

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Achekov said:
    Not only that, but it’s also a way to get upwardly-mobile 20-somethings to consider housing in North Linden. How’s that for win-win?

    Sounds awesome. Is anyone besides me interested in pushing this?

    in reply to: Bring Google Fiber to Central Ohio #508378

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Walker said:
    I’m a pretty heavy internet user and rarely do I need to stream/download so much stuff that a jump from 50mbit to 100mbit would make any practical difference.

    You know it’s more than just the size of the pipe, right? It’s also decreased latency — so instead of taking 10 seconds to load every page of some insanely over-complicated web site that has to make multiple dips back to the cloud before rendering even a single pixel, it takes 5 (and when you’re clicking around trying to get your direct-flight plane ticket at the cheapest price, every second counts!).

    Just like with CPU speed, RAM access time, and disk seek time — there is no such thing as too fast.

    in reply to: Bring Google Fiber to Central Ohio #508374

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Ned23 said:

    I guess the bottom line is, what can we do?

    Item #1 and item #2 from the previously mentioned article[/url] are done and done (from what I understand, anyone can purchase ROW on the OBT and AEP poles around town; and OUPS (Central Locating Service) has prints that show all the utilities around town). Item #3 seems more of a “the city’s government needs to make getting google fiber a priority” (e.g., stop wasting time/money on getting direct flights and invest that effort into wooing google).

    What can you do? Call or email Troy Miller — he’s chair of the City Council’s Technology Committee. Tell him you want Google Fiber in Columbus.

    in reply to: Bring Google Fiber to Central Ohio #508373

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    geoyui
    I’m not sure if you’re arguing to get google fiber, or if you just want to argue about why CMH doesn’t have more nonstop service.

    My original post said

    Instead of screwing around trying to get more direct flights to Columbus in some Rube Goldberg scheme to create jobs, why doesn’t Coleman spend that time/money making Columbus the kind of place that actually merits direct flights — by getting Google Fiber in here?

    And now we’ve come full circle.

    in reply to: Bring Google Fiber to Central Ohio #508370

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    geoyui said: Google fiber and the travel habits of startups will not sway airlines to send more planes to Columbus (there are so many more important factors involved).

    You’re right. And the lack of a slew of non-stop flights into Columbus isn’t why people are staying away in droves. And having a bunch of non-stop flights doesn’t mean people will actually want to come into your city to spend/do-business (see Newark/EWR as prime example).

    But Google Fiber will make the environment more desirable for people to move/stay here and for businesses to keep/locate their employees here. And those people/employees will want to go places. And if there is enough travel to a specific destination, airlines will schedule direct flights.

    geoyui said:
    People who travel for leisure and business (with established clients/companies) make up a majority of the daily travellers.

    Right again — so how does that enter into the discussion of whether or not to go out and [try somehow — by giving subsidies? — to] get more direct flights? If those people are coming, they’re coming because there is something here worth coming for (customers, entertainment, recreational opportunities, a great haircut at Longview Barbershop, or whatever). I hardly think the speed bump of having to change planes in ORD is what’s keeping all those Bay Area folks from deciding to vacation in Columbus.

    in reply to: Bring Google Fiber to Central Ohio #508357

    Mister MooCow
    Participant

    Mister Shifter said:
    34 new cities announced. None in Ohio :(

    Instead of screwing around trying to get more direct flights to Columbus in some Rube Goldberg scheme to create jobs, why doesn’t Coleman spend that time/money making Columbus the kind of place that actually merits direct flights — by getting Google Fiber in here?

    Build it and they will come…


    Grazing in a field of dreams, waiting for third-world connectivity until the cows come home…

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 114 total)

Subscribe below: