View Full Version : Cell phone tower on Clingman's Dome?
Pennsylvania Rose
07-17-2007, 13:57
Has anyone heard anything about this? My dh swears he heard on the radio a few weeks ago that a cell phone tower is going to be placed by the observation tower, but I after searching for an hour on the internet I haven't found any info. 'Course he could have been pulling my leg to get me riled up, and never let me in on the joke.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-17-2007, 14:04
I live in the area and have not heard this -- and the locals would be howling if they tried to put a cell tower up there. Personally, I wouldn't see a problem since there is already a tall structure on the dome. A cell tower atop the observation tower would make sense.
Plan was dropped 3 years ago.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2004-06-03-cingular-towers_x.htm
not sure if there is a tower around or not but a few weeks ago folks were using their cell phones in the parking lot. Now maybe it has always been that way but it was the 1st time I had noticed it
They better not put a cell phone tower up there. One of the highest peaks on the AT and in a national park no less! This can't happen can it?? What's next? a tower on Max Patch? Mt Washington?
Man, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see these god awful devices banned from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, that won't happen so can we at least keep the damn towers off of our most scenice mountain tops?
Is there such a proposal as we speak? If so I hope groups are fighting it!
David
Chaco Taco
07-17-2007, 16:03
You can get limited reception on top, but towards Mt Collins, the signal fades. I lost reception after Clingmans til I got to Mt Cammerer and then again at the river crossing after Davenport
I live in the area and have not heard this -- and the locals would be howling if they tried to put a cell tower up there. Personally, I wouldn't see a problem since there is already a tall structure on the dome. A cell tower atop the observation tower would make sense.
FD.. Just re read your post. I see a problem. It is one thing to have a ramp up to an observation tower..another thing to attached some huge tower on top of that just to provide service so the teens can yack in the mall.
One can't just say oh there is already something up there..so no prob putting a bunch of other stuff too. One has to draw the line somewhere..and don't even get me started on wind farms near the AT!
I for one, a life long New Englander, absolutely loved the Smokey Mountain National Park. I think that park is one of the treasures of the trail, of the south, and perhaps of the whole east coast. There are certain places where one must say enough is enough..no more structures no more roads..no more anything. If as you say the locals would howl if there were a cell tower proposal up there I say good! That shows that they care about the wilderness in there back yard!
David
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-17-2007, 16:29
FD.. Just re read your post. I see a problem. It is one thing to have a ramp up to an observation tower..another thing to attached some huge tower on top of that just to provide service so the teens can yack in the mall.This tower would be too far from any mall for teens to use :D. The reason I feel it would be a good idea is safety. There is virtually no signal in the GSMNP and tourists regularly get into trouble (run out of gas, have accidents, have car trouble, sudden illness, etc.) Cell service would dramatically improve the response time and ultimately make the rangers' job easier (when there is a wreck up there, someone has get off the mountain to call for help -- the traffic snarls are enormous -- there are often fender-benders in the snarled traffic)
While no one should go into the backcountry unprepared, the unexpected can and does occur. Cell service in this heavily used area would also likely get help to ill or injured hikers faster.
normally there is a ranger or volunteer up there everyday that can help with emergencies since they carry a walkie talkie
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-17-2007, 16:42
The ranger at Clingman's Dome could help at that site, but that doesn't help much if you have an accident halfway between The Chimney's and Newfound Gap or have a heart attack halfway between Cherokee and Newfound Gap. Those areas have no cell service currently and the lack of service has cost several people their lives. While I'm all for keeping the wilderness wild, I do feel some concessions need to be made for public safety. Putting a tower on the current observation tower at Clingman's dome would help give cell service to much of the area without destorying the view -- there is already a very tall structure towering over the trees there.
Why would they have to put a tower on a tower. Couldn't they put whatever doohickey they need right on clingmans dome? Or do I not have the foggiest idea of how a cell tower works? (hence the name 'doohickey')
Footslogger
07-17-2007, 17:00
Now there's a word I don't hear every day ...DOOHICKEY
Like that ...
'Slogger
generoll
07-17-2007, 17:01
The biggest problem with a cell phone tower is that it would clash with all the dead trees up there.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-17-2007, 17:03
They would have to build one of those buildings you see at the base of cell towers for the electronics, but I wouldn't think they would have to go much higher than the top of the observation tower sitting atop the highest point in the GSMNP for the antenna.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-17-2007, 17:04
The biggest problem with a cell phone tower is that it would clash with all the dead trees up there.It could be made to look like a dead tree :D
The ranger at Clingman's Dome could help at that site, but that doesn't help much if you have an accident halfway between The Chimney's and Newfound Gap or have a heart attack halfway between Cherokee and Newfound Gap. Those areas have no cell service currently and the lack of service has cost several people their lives. While I'm all for keeping the wilderness wild, I do feel some concessions need to be made for public safety. Putting a tower on the current observation tower at Clingman's dome would help give cell service to much of the area without destorying the view -- there is already a very tall structure towering over the trees there.
what about the areas along the AT that have no cell service..should cell towers be installed along the trail for those emergencies you listed above??
Interesting map of chell phone coverage in the USA and nearby Canada:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/26/wireless-vacation-blackberry-tech-intel-cx_df_0426getoffthegridland.html
Obviously it is not 100% accurate because it is such a large scale (e.g. there are places just up the road from where I live that does not get cell phone coverage that are shown to have converage), but it is interesting.
Notice the biggest pocket of wide no cell phone coverage in the Eastern US? Maine!
I am sure it is not a coincidence, but it conforms to the famous Earth at night photo, too:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights2_dmsp_big.jpg
As I said before, we are becoming increasingly connected. Those who choose to NOT be connected 24/7 are becoming the odd balls. I hate to say it folks, but it is only a matter of time until some sort of communication is available in most national parks..at the very least in the campgrounds.
Luddites like some of us (and I include myself in that statement. :D) who choose to not be connected at all times will be increasingly rare.
There are always going to be places where if you have a medical emergency you are going to be in trouble. I think it's an acceptable risk.
I crossed Max Patch on a beautiful summer day back in June 2001. Sunshine, puffy clouds, pleasant temps and a breeze. I'd never been there before, and was enchanted...til I got to the top and there was some moron bellowing into his cell phone telling his wife every bit of minutiae of his trip.
Thank God for places where there is no cell coverage!
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-17-2007, 17:39
what about the areas along the AT that have no cell service..should cell towers be installed along the trail for those emergencies you listed above??If there is nothing already over the treetops, I don't feel anything should be added.
I also don't like to come up on people talking on cell phones on the trail and wouldn't want to see towers added in less heavily used areas. The GSMNP is one of the most visited parks in the US - accidents and medical emergencies are a daily occurance when you have thousands of tourists. If there wern't so many people in the area, I wouldn't want to see any cell towers added.
Well..I can only reflect on the fact that there were no cell phone towers for hundreds of years. Why are they all of a sudden so necessary?
There are places.. where you accept a certain risk when you venture out in exchange for being in a remote area. For example, Baxter State Park (which thank god prohibits cell phone use) 100 mile wilderness, mahoosics, white mountains, the smokies. People have to be able to take care of them selves when they go into the back country and not presume that you can just dial up for help any ol place and time. Furthermore, the smokies are well patrolled by rangers..or at least by doscent volunteers (those folks who talk to us about not tenting but don't have enforcement powers).
For me... the saftey argument just doesn't wash. If people want to camp out with help always at the ready..then how bout tenting in Central Park? As I said before.. certain places just need to be left alone!
Yes there are dead trees atop Clingmans Dome..and there is a road to near the top and there is an observation tower that is taller than the trees. But there is no tower 100-300 feet or so tall which there would be if a cell tower were to be built. They are always tall.
David
"I am sure it is not a coincidence, but it conforms to the famous Earth at night photo, too:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011...2_dmsp_big.jpg"
I know I see it, but I don't believe it. Cannot even begin to imagine from how far off and from what angle you would have to be to be able to capture all of those continents in the same photo. Am I missing something?
As for the cell tower, I think one on Clingman's would be fine, since there is a structure already in place and you can't really see the Dome from too far off anyhow. Can't see what harm it would do? (famous last words)
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-17-2007, 19:53
I kind of get the feeling that y'all think I feel this cell tower is needed for hikers. I'm thinking more about those in cars who are out sightseeing and have an accident or a medical emergency. They don't leave their cabin or hotel rooms prepared for these things. Highway 441 is the only road thru the GSMNP - it is a narrow, two-lane road without a shoulder and with hundreds of blind curves and hills. LIttle River Road (connect the north and outh ends of the park) is even more difficult to drive and two people have already run off it and drowned in seperate accidents this year. Many of the tourists are inexperienced at driving under such conditions -- accidents abound and they are often head-on accidents or car-in-swift-river accidents. It is not uncommon for them to wait well over an hour for help to arrive because of the lack of cell service in the area. People die because of this wait.
If this was a hiking-only area, I would be against adding a cell tower, but it isn't. It is an area where thousands of tourists gather and drive - many of them elderly, infirmed or with children. Before I retired, I worked in the foster care system. We used to get at least one set of kids a week in temporary care because the family had been in an accident, mom & dad were in the hospital and all their relatives were in Japan or California or somewhere way off. The county north of mine (which has Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge) got even more children.
I agree with your rationalization, Dino, but was too lazy to type it out.
If for hikers, no.
If for millions of tourists, yes.
I agree with Dino too. Not to take advantage of modern technology in order to save lives is crazy.
I kind of get the feeling that y'all think I feel this cell tower is needed for hikers. I'm thinking more about those in cars who are out sightseeing and have an accident or a medical emergency. They don't leave their cabin or hotel rooms prepared for these things. Highway 441 is the only road thru the GSMNP - it is a narrow, two-lane road without a shoulder and with hundreds of blind curves and hills. LIttle River Road (connect the north and outh ends of the park) is even more difficult to drive and two people have already run off it and drowned in seperate accidents this year. Many of the tourists are inexperienced at driving under such conditions -- accidents abound and they are often head-on accidents or car-in-swift-river accidents. It is not uncommon for them to wait well over an hour for help to arrive because of the lack of cell service in the area. People die because of this wait.
If this was a hiking-only area, I would be against adding a cell tower, but it isn't. It is an area where thousands of tourists gather and drive - many of them elderly, infirmed or with children. Before I retired, I worked in the foster care system. We used to get at least one set of kids a week in temporary care because the family had been in an accident, mom & dad were in the hospital and all their relatives were in Japan or California or somewhere way off. The county north of mine (which has Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge) got even more children.
driving thru the park is no different than driving on any country road. Actually it is easier than a country road because of everyone driving so dang slow. I know you have driven the Tail of the Dragon. That is a lot worse than what the park has to offer.
You can't keep protecting people from themselves.
minnesotasmith
07-18-2007, 02:39
I understand that years ago, that park rangers would take a look at your pack before they let you in to go hiking, to see if you were equipped well enough to be reasonably safe. Thing is, they periodically caught druggies' stashes, and being LEOs, had to arrest them. TSHTF over this, and the rangers had to stop screening out idiots from hiking there.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-18-2007, 04:53
driving thru the park is no different than driving on any country road. Actually it is easier than a country road because of everyone driving so dang slow. I know you have driven the Tail of the Dragon. That is a lot worse than what the park has to offer.
You can't keep protecting people from themselves.While it is true that we have some roads that are much worse than 441 and Little River Road in these here parts (cue the bangos ;)), by the grace of God most tourists from the flatlands don't ever get on those. The Dragon (http://www.rhiannondaugherty.com/images/TODmap.jpg) has killed three people (http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/NEWS/70714029) and maimed at least four (one likely isn't going to survive :() last week alone - this isn't uncommon (http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050417/NEWS/504170304) This is another area that would get more coverage from a tower on Clingman's Dome (however, many of the motorcyclists carry portable CBs so it isn't as critical in that area). I understand The Hellbender (Deals Gap to Fontana) also claimed a few lives lately.
generoll
07-18-2007, 07:20
I really don't want to make things difficult for Mssrs Darwin and company and I noted a very unscientific decline in the number and quality of donor organs when helmet laws went into effect, but I do like to be able to hit a cell from time to time. Cingular certainly wasn't talking about putting up a tower for my convenience, but I would find it useful if they could put one on the present tower on the Dome. Most days the haze from auto exhausts and coal fired power plants is such that you wouldn't notice the tower from any distance anyway. How many of you have been offended by the tower and webcam on Lookrock? Did you even know it was there?
Two Speed
07-18-2007, 07:32
Ya'll do realize the antennea could be attached to the existing tower, don't you? It's done all the time in metro areas; look at some of the taller buildings. The major problem with that is making sure the existing structure can bear the additional load. Given that the arrays really aren't all that heavy that's usually not a problem.
I'm not a fan of cell phones, but frankly, I'm pretty sure coverage could be provided in that area without building a new structure.
I know I see it, but I don't believe it. Cannot even begin to imagine from how far off and from what angle you would have to be to be able to capture all of those continents in the same photo. Am I missing something?
I suspect it is a composite photo as the whole world would not be in night at once. :) Cool photo, though.
anyone seen the cell towers in Calif that are made to look like trees..just driving by you really don't notice it until someone says something about it
Two Speed
07-18-2007, 12:44
Yeah, they've tried that around Atlanta. Unfortunately our canopy trees don't generally run in the 150 to 180' range so they kinda stick out.
I have no problem w/ a cell tower, just hide the darn thing. :banana
"I am sure it is not a coincidence, but it conforms to the famous Earth at night photo, too:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011...2_dmsp_big.jpg"
I know I see it, but I don't believe it. Cannot even begin to imagine from how far off and from what angle you would have to be to be able to capture all of those continents in the same photo. Am I missing something?
Fom what I remember, the Earth at night photo was a composite photo taken over several hundred passes from a variety of satellites. All of the photos were then merged to create an overall picture of the Earth at night, without cloudcover.
Thanks, to all who replied about the photo. Not very visual so I thought maybe it could be possible, but my brain told me no.
Good brain.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-18-2007, 14:11
Yeah, they've tried that around Atlanta. Unfortunately our canopy trees don't generally run in the 150 to 180' range so they kinda stick out.And they look really funny in Atlanta.
Skidsteer
07-18-2007, 18:15
Ya'll do realize the antennea could be attached to the existing tower, don't you? It's done all the time in metro areas; look at some of the taller buildings. The major problem with that is making sure the existing structure can bear the additional load. Given that the arrays really aren't all that heavy that's usually not a problem.
I'm not a fan of cell phones, but frankly, I'm pretty sure coverage could be provided in that area without building a new structure.
I really doubt the existing tower would pass the structural. The weight of the mounts and antennas are generally centered but the coax is usually routed up one face in a narrow path called a wave guide.
It's entirely possible that the tower would fail an analysis as is. The wind loading up there is likely pretty serious.
saimyoji
07-18-2007, 18:48
http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2006/06/cell_towers_flo.html
Would this be preferable?
saimyoji
07-18-2007, 18:51
Sorry, wrong link:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-01-30-cellular-balloons_x.htm
The Scribe
07-18-2007, 18:58
For example, Baxter State Park (which thank god prohibits cell phone use)
David
Spent last week there. There is some signal. The kiddos in the next cabin called mom to tell her they were about to leave.
Also, got to listen to a large party use the walkie-talkie feature of their Nextel phones to check on each group's hiking progress.
When we checked into Kidney Pond. The Ranger said nothing about cells being banned. What he said was, "be considerate. I had to go out to the lawn the other day and stop a guy from walking around yelling, 'CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?'"
The Scribe
07-18-2007, 19:02
They better not put a cell phone tower up there. One of the highest peaks on the AT and in a national park no less! This can't happen can it?? What's next? a tower on Max Patch? Mt Washington?
David
I mean this tongue in cheek, but have you been to Mt. Washington?!?!? It's a little better without the Channel 8 transmitter and building, but not much. I haven't been up there for three years almost, so I don't know if it's still there, but when the TV building burned, they left the mess up there for a long time. And since the generator for all the summit stuff was in it, they put a replacement generator right on the entrance porch to the summit building. Then covered it with ugly plywood.
I mean this tongue in cheek, but have you been to Mt. Washington?!?!? It's a little better without the Channel 8 transmitter and building, but not much. I haven't been up there for three years almost, so I don't know if it's still there, but when the TV building burned, they left the mess up there for a long time. And since the generator for all the summit stuff was in it, they put a replacement generator right on the entrance porch to the summit building. Then covered it with ugly plywood.
Yup... I have been up to Mt Washington several times..most recently last summer. I know there is an auto road up one side and a cog railway up the other and several buildings on top.
But there is NO atenna several hundred feet tall. If cell phone towers were only like 10 feet tall..then I would not mind so much.
Skidsteer
07-18-2007, 22:38
Yup... I have been up to Mt Washington several times..most recently last summer. I know there is an auto road up one side and a cog railway up the other and several buildings on top.
But there is NO atenna several hundred feet tall. If cell phone towers were only like 10 feet tall..then I would not mind so much.
If cell phone towers were ten feet tall we wouldn't have as much demand for vasectomies.
Ramble~On
07-23-2007, 04:56
Ummmmmmmmmm,
There's already a tower on Clingman's Dome and I'm not talking about the observation tower....actually...If I remember right there's more than one.
There are all sorts of "doo hickies" on the towers, utilities. Not sure if this is used solely by the park service or not...but I don't see any need to build more of these....although, it does appear a lot of people aren't or weren't aware they were already there so....if the park were able to generate income by renting space on the existing towers ? and cell service inside the park were to be increased or in most cases created...I see no harm in that.
Not wanting to spark a debate about cell phones but they are a reality and won't be going away anytime soon. As mentioned in this thread...alot of tourists are unable to call for help when they need it. I live about 30 miles from Clingman's Dome and would see more good coming from a tower up there than harm. I'd rather there not be any towers and frankly I'd like to see all roads in the park closed to motorized vehicles...but the world doesn't revolve around any of us.
generoll
07-23-2007, 05:28
A very logical and well thought out response, SW. As such it has no place in a thread such as this. ;)
Frolicking Dinosaurs
07-23-2007, 06:58
::: Dino thanks SW for his contribution - very well said :::
Midway Sam
07-23-2007, 18:57
I spent a wonderful 3 days in the Smokies sectioning from Newfound Gap to I-40. I had an opportunity to sit and chat with a park Ridgerunner for a couple of hours and this subject came up. As much as he hates the "technology of the outdoors", he is actually in favor of a UNIVERSAL cell tower, meaning not just a AT&T or Verizon or Sprint or whatever, but one that all the companies can put equipment on and provide their service to the park visitors, regardless of their carrier. As he put it "cells in the woods is a fact of life now, people are gonna use them." he also stated "cell phones have saved lives in this park."
Skidsteer
07-23-2007, 19:26
I spent a wonderful 3 days in the Smokies sectioning from Newfound Gap to I-40. I had an opportunity to sit and chat with a park Ridgerunner for a couple of hours and this subject came up. As much as he hates the "technology of the outdoors", he is actually in favor of a UNIVERSAL cell tower, meaning not just a AT&T or Verizon or Sprint or whatever, but one that all the companies can put equipment on and provide their service to the park visitors, regardless of their carrier. As he put it "cells in the woods is a fact of life now, people are gonna use them." he also stated "cell phones have saved lives in this park."
The vast majority of cell towers are already 'universal' to use your term. All the carrier has to do is be willing to pay the lease.
Ramble~On
07-23-2007, 19:41
I had my land line turned off over a year ago.....I just wasn't using it anymore...I use my cell...
How many trees were cut to be used as telephone poles ?
I can deal with cell towers...
How many phone lines cross the AT ?
How many telephone poles are visible from the AT ?
How many telephone poles/lines can you see from where you are right now ?
A lot of people are unaware that there is a tower on Clingman's Dome.
The towers intrude on maybe 4 degrees of a 360 degree view.
Yeah, I'd rather they weren't there...but I'd rather not see telephone poles and phone lines all over the earth either..
The GSMNP is the most visited of the parks and the elevation and twisting, turning nature of the roads equates to lots of accidents not to mention all sorts of other needs for there to be a means of quick communication.
I spend a lot of time in the park and on the roads around the park. Like Midway Sam points out...cell phones have saved lives in the park.
The vast majority of cell towers are already 'universal' to use your term. All the carrier has to do is be willing to pay the lease.
And you the consumer then pay for it VIA roming rates, so, if your ever roming, just think that there is someone out there who gets service just fine where you stand.
A cell phone tower on Clingman's Dome would not be that bad, I hear the summit is somewhat developed already, a tower could not possibly hurt. Is there one on Washington? The only thing not up there these day is a car retailer, but thats soon to come, people drive up in one car, and drive down in another, I can see the commercial now...
Kirby