First: Why don’t the owners of cell phone towers put their names on them. I’d be much more likely to go with, say, Verizon if every time I turned a corner, I said “Hey, another Verizon tower?” I assume there is a good reason that they don’t do this though.
Second: As I was returning from my trip to Florida, I saw something interesting. It was on the side of the interstate in Michigan I believe. A big sign that read “Cell Phone Tower Rentals.” Now, why in the world would I want to rent a cell phone tower??? I even saw one of them. It was very short for transport, but I could see that it telescoped up to a decent height. Any ideas??
First. Not all towers are owned by the one company. They share towers to reduce cost.
Second. Dunno.
It probably has something to do with keeping our landscape pristine. It’s bad enough that we see those towers on every available mountain ridge but turning them into billboards would be one amazing eye-sore. I know that in parts of PA and NJ cell phone towers have to be ‘disguised’ to look like trees. Unnaturally tall trees with a painted trunk and perfectly symmetrical branches, but obviously someone has it in their head to keep the damn things subtle.
Well I imagine the rentals are for special events. I remember that when Woodstock was up to (the former) Griffis AFB in Rome they put up several temporary cell phone towers so that people would be able to get a line out on their cell phones without overburdening the local system.
-
-
- True Stories: I have a relative who lives in Shiloh, IL. Shiloh is a dinky town on a hill overlooking Scott AFB. When cellphone companies came to town a couple years ago to build a couple of towers, everybody assumed they’d lease part of the elementary school’s land, because much of it was unused, much of it was far from the school buildings and playground, and it was the highest-elevated property in town. It has line-of-sight range over the entire area of Scott AFB.
~
The mayor wouldn’t have it, though, and he was the one who issued zoning permits. He said it would be unsightly, unsafe in the event of lightning strikes, and possibly a radiation health hazard. He strictly refused to allow it on school property.
~
Funny thing, the only location he would issue a permit for was literally in his own backyard. He keeps the $2000-per-month lease fee for himself, and furthermore, he lives in the middle of a residential area one block north of east main street. So you can tell where the mayor lives, by the two cell-phone towers in his backyard. - DougC
- True Stories: I have a relative who lives in Shiloh, IL. Shiloh is a dinky town on a hill overlooking Scott AFB. When cellphone companies came to town a couple years ago to build a couple of towers, everybody assumed they’d lease part of the elementary school’s land, because much of it was unused, much of it was far from the school buildings and playground, and it was the highest-elevated property in town. It has line-of-sight range over the entire area of Scott AFB.
-
-
-
- True Stories: I have a relative who lives in Shiloh, IL. Shiloh is a dinky town on a hill overlooking Scott AFB. When cellphone companies came to town a couple years ago to build a couple of towers, everybody assumed they’d lease part of the elementary school’s land, because much of it was unused, much of it was far from the school buildings and playground, and it was the highest-elevated property in town. It has line-of-sight range over the entire area of Scott AFB.
~
The mayor wouldn’t have it, though, and he was the one who issued zoning permits. He said it would be unsightly, unsafe in the event of lightning strikes, and possibly a radiation health hazard. He strictly refused to allow it on school property.
~
Funny thing, the only location he would issue a permit for was literally in his own backyard. He keeps the $2000-per-month lease fee for himself, and furthermore, he lives in the middle of a residential area one block north of east main street. So you can tell where the mayor lives, by the two cell-phone towers in his backyard. - DougC
- True Stories: I have a relative who lives in Shiloh, IL. Shiloh is a dinky town on a hill overlooking Scott AFB. When cellphone companies came to town a couple years ago to build a couple of towers, everybody assumed they’d lease part of the elementary school’s land, because much of it was unused, much of it was far from the school buildings and playground, and it was the highest-elevated property in town. It has line-of-sight range over the entire area of Scott AFB.
-
I just read a news story this morning about a company that owns all kinds of towers (broadcast, microwave, etc.) and leases them to communication companies. I would assume they don’t plaster their name all over the towers because no one outside of the industry would care that the tower is an AAT.
I often wondered the same question about radio towers. Why not identify the station call letters? This seemed to be a practice back in the early part of the 20th century.
My conclusion (unsubstantiated) is that FCC regs or some other law prohibits it.
Actually, here in Columbus OH, there is at least one radio/TV tower that has the call letters on it, in bright red neon: WBNS
There is a company here in NC called SpectraSite that owns thousands of cell phone towers all over the US. They lease space on them to the various cell phone companies.
Right now that company is in big trouble financially - their stock is way down. I think their problem was they built or bought too many towers.
Couple of theories:
-
Adding signage (advertisment or whatever) to a tower would increase windage and increase the likelihood of storm/wind damage; unless you built a bigger/stronger/uglier (and much more expensive) tower.
-
Tower “space” could be rented out to users of other comm systems (on different freqs); similar to electric companies renting space on their poles to telephone and cable TV companies. Tall buildings rent space to radio broadcast media, NWS weather stations, and yes… cell phone companies.
Couple things.
First, as noted, at this point a majority of cell-phone towers belong to a few (four, actually) companies, which lease them to multiple carriers. And of course no one outside the industry cares whether a tower is owned by Crown Castle or Spectracite, as long as it has one’s own provider’s antenna hanging on it.
Second, whilst the OP might be more inclined to use a cell-phone from a provider who made their name prominent, the fact is that most people find towers in their neighborhoods to be a nuisance (even if they use it for their cell service). So there is actually reverse goodwill by labeling a tower.
At least in the UK, the twin factors of fears about cancer from the radiation and the fact that the masts are regarded as blights on the landscape would appear sufficient reason for companies avoiding plastering their logos across them. Who wants that sort of PR?
Here is an article on SpectraSite. Their stock is down 93% this year. They own 8,000 cell towers.
http://newsobserver.com/business/story/1387707p-1422307c.html
Funny, at first glance I thought “Two Cell Phone Tower” was a name for the upcoming (and highly anachrosnistic) Lord of the Rings sequel. Get it?