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

[Adam Williams]

>>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?

People who do studies.  When one reads about a study/survey in the press 
or something like a health study, it is almost always performed in a 
'major' city.  What I meant by the above was that sometimes I suspect the 
same study/etc in somewhere like GR or KZ might find different or less 
pronounced patterns.

>>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.

previous.sentance 9999 CNAME explanation.above;

>>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?

Right!  But the "urban area" of NY is very different in scope than the 
"urban area" of KZ.  Two or three towers may cover the entire area of KZ,  
giving everyone more-or-less uniform coverage 'in town'.  You need *alot* 
more towers to cover something like the "urban area" of NY or LA, so 
patterns of more-or-less coverage may exist.
 
>>>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.

Universal access is (very roughly) the ability to get a phone line 
anywhere.  The gov will often help defray the phone companies cost of 
running a cable out to that trailer park in the middle of the mohave.  
There is a surcharge on your phone bill that goes into that fund.
 
>>>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.

Right,  which is why I was proposing that west Michigan cities may not 
have the coverage patterns (biased) that 'real' cities do.  You put a 
couple of towers in the cities and your done.  Who cares about places like 
Montcalm county (where there aren't anything you or I would call a city).  
And that comes back to the pay-phone issue, and why their demise really 
stinks.