[KLUG Advocacy] Re: Advocacy digest, Vol 1 #11 - 1 msg

[John Bridleman]

* Adam Williams (awilliam@whitemice.org) wrote:
> I'm not implying.  Whatever series of studies determined that,  but I
> assume they were looking at places like LA, NY, etc...  since most

They? They who?

> studies are.  This was also at least several years ago.  That a strong

most studies are ... what? I'm sorry. It's still early. I'm having a hard time following that last sentence.

> correlation between affluence and cell-phone coverage exists seems
> pretty obvious, at least to me.

Well, you certainly are going to have the affluent in the urban areas as well as the poor. I still don't think you can draw any conclusions from where the cell coverage is except that the cell companies are going to concentrate their resources where the population is the greatest. How else would you do it?

> I don't think any of the 'universal access' clauses apply to wireless
> (yet).  I could be wrong.

I'm not familiar with that. I can't get past the "supply/demand" argument.

> True, but in places like KZ and GR, the downtown "sprawl" is what?  A
> couple of miles (maybe).  Pretty easy to blanket all of that with
> coverage.

Exactly. So that's where I put a tower. Not in the middle of Eaton County.
--
John Bridleman / www.bridleman.org