Sooke, BC rejects plan for Freedom Mobile cell tower due to health and aesthetic reasons

Comments

  • James Vincent

    How childish, there is no health issue related to Cell masts. FM transmitters bang out much more radiation than cell sites & no one complains about them. The residents need to get over it or don’t complain about lack of signal, as stated coverage remains a problem. Freedom should just go ahead with it regardless.

    • FlipFlopcarrot

      They just can’t go on about it otherwise they will be hit with court charges and other expenses which will be added cost to the company

    • Concerned Alumni

      We will all be suing the property owner you can guarantee it. You want one in front of your view window??

    • Robert Quickert

      There is no basis for a suit. Tower regulations from Industry Canada permit the erection of towers that follow the regulations. And the owner of a private property is entitled to use it as they see fit, including as the site of a tower.

    • somebody else

      You do realise cell towers broadcast horizontally and not vertically over a long distance right? Just because it’s within view, doesn’t mean it’s gonna “radiate” you to death. That BUNK is old, cellular devices don’t kill people.

    • somebody else

      Freedom mobile HAS to continue with the expansion otherwise people won’t be able to use their service IN that area. That tower isn’t being built OVER somebody’s home, or in place of their home.

    • John Lofwire

      Build an illegal tower near by home and then complain when its destroyed..

    • somebody else

      …that would get you landed in jail for property damage and not to mention other homes destroyed if it falls in their path.

    • freddyba

      Plus they put a Wifi Router in their livingroom beside the couch…..

    • somebody else

      xD

    • somebody else

      right on, the carrier needs to build out the network and paranoid ‘hatters shouldn’t be getting in the way. It’s bunk when it comes to mobile devices killing people (unless you shove it down somebody’s throat).

    • James Vincent

      Hi. Sorry I’ve Just spotted your reply. It was proven in Europe some years ago there’s no health risk from cellular tech, but that seems to have been ignored. The Mobile Operators do get a hard time from the public, councils for planning & Health so called professionals!

  • Collin dubya

    20 people out of 13,000 signed a petition??? Id say they don’t have the mandate to block it.

    • SV650

      No, 20 people in the immediate vicinity of the rural location where the tower is proposed signed. The vast majority in the townsite likely don’t know or care about the installation.

    • somebody else

      I doubt they give a fork. If it means a carrier offering far better value for the money, they aren’t going to object to a new tower.

    • John Lofwire

      The law say thats the ppl directly affected by it have a word to say.
      What you against democracy?

      Then i should tell all carrier they can come and put antenna all around your house ?

    • Robert Quickert

      Those who might potentially use the services enabled by the tower also should have a say in the matter. Any private harm must be measured against the public good. And a telecom network, licensed by the Federal Government, that is unable to put up its network is a sham. That’s why the Industry Canada tower rules exist.

    • somebody else

      precisely.

    • somebody else

      It’s not against democracy, it’s harming the carrier’s ability (freedom mobile) to provide adequate coverage to customers traveling TO that area. Read up on industry canada’s tower rules, and drop the bunk.

    • Tony Shi

      Omg, I have nothing to do but sipping sweet tea all day and complaining about my husband. My life is so important and you should all worry about me. And I know although I have zero proof on how cell towers affect my health, I’m going to complain because I want to feel like I’m contributing to my society. In fact if I thought cell towers are harmful, I might as well not use wifi, microwaves, or even go outside since all of that involved radio waves just like cell towers… Fist world problems

    • mooney7

      You appear to be a deluded wireless addict. Perhaps a by product of your grossly over stimulated DNA. Perhaps your should wire up your router, get your brain working again and search for some independent research on the matter.

    • somebody else

      I am around a smartphone every day, a microwave every day, two routers, multiple laptops, two desktops, not to mention over 5.9 MILLION cellphones (besides my own) from people using them daily, even LTE connected vehicles, public transit (they use smartphone modems to be able to use presto), don’t forget the millions of households using wireless routers and microwave ovens…

      I have yet to find any HARD EVIDENCE to backup any “radiation/cancer” claims from reputable sources. Until then, it’s all BUNK and an old legend.

    • mooney7

      Clearly you have done no research of your own and simply spout industry lies and talking points. As of this post I see there are about sixty comments and you’ve made twenty three of them.
      Are you getting paid for each one or working on a flat rate?

    • somebody else

      Nobody is warning me about “potentially harmful technology” that has been around since the early 70’s and (for routers) early to late 90’s. I am not ignoring anything. Cellular smartphones, smartwatches and tablet PC’s (android, QNX, windows, gnu/linux) aren’t going away anytime soon, nor are microwave ovens or wireless routers, or any form of broadcast equipment.

      I’m not getting “paid” to post comments anywhere, regardless what website or platform I use. I work at a cleaning agency and they pay far more than a “shill” would get (try a few nickles per comment). Unless you can “prove” that I’m getting paid, be my guest.

    • pentioner

      To the non believers-Cancer dose not grow overnight ,Comment again from your cancer bed in a few years time !!!

    • somebody else

      Refer to my reply: Sorry, but I’m not going to be protesting cell tower construction, microwave oven use or cellphone use anytime soon. I don’t intend to get rid of my electronic items either. Wanna live ‘radiation-free’? Ditch all modern conveniences and live like the amish. Hint: they still die of cancer.

    • jo

      Those 20 people are the ones that live around where the tower is to be erected; every household in that very rural locale except the person who is being paid to have the tower on his property.

    • somebody else

      I say they were wearing a tinfoil hat to claim it affects one’s health. LOL

    • pentioner

      To the non believers-Cancer dose not grow overnight ,Comment again from your cancer bed in a few years time !!!You may be sorry you didn’t wear a tinfoil hat !!

    • somebody else

      Sorry, but I’m not going to be protesting cell tower construction, microwave oven use or cellphone use anytime soon. I don’t intend to get rid of my electronic items either. Wanna live ‘radiation-free’? Ditch all modern conveniences and live like the amish. Hint: they still die of cancer.

  • Ipse

    I guess the question is…would those 20 townfloks oppose a Telus tower as well? How many of those do they already have?

    • somebody else

      I would imagine them all WORKING for telus… 😉 (including their foil hats)

  • Brian

    This just once again demonstrates why it is unrealistic to expect new entrants to compete with a 50-100 year headstart at building infrastructure.

    That monopoly granted infrastructure needs to be taken back into the public trust, where it was built, and then provided to all comers.

    The network needs to be community property and providers compete on services and pricing not on how much network they have.

    It’s additionally wasteful to have 3, 4, 5, etc. networks all overlapping each other in all of the Metro areas and leaving the rural areas underserviced. Money would be much better spent on one single far reaching, high quality network.

    • John Lofwire

      Okay then the government need to buy back all those network and pay everything thats was put to build them ( beside what was subsidised by the government. )

    • somebody else

      Robelus got a big subsidy to build their network out (FREE, literally), freedom mobile (then WINDmobile) had to build it from the ground up, without any such subsidy. Totally NOT fair. 🙁

    • somebody else

      Well said, and I want that to happen too.

  • specialk2000

    Tower sharing needs to be forced!

    • John Lofwire

      Tower sharing sure.

      As long as any maintenance fee of those tower and transport line get shared as well.
      Same for tower upgrade of hardware and any employee used to manage them.

      Thats something smaller carrier dont want to pay they just want a super low flat rate.

    • Goran Mihajlović

      …have there been any “other” carriers in Canada that demanded below cost fees for tower sharing?

    • John Lofwire

      Verizon did… and they even asked government to support them by forcing it.

      Thats the only case i know but i would not be surprised if there is more.

    • Brandon Arneson

      Tower sharing is bad because it would mean freedom mobile couldn’t offer unlimited data like they do now, I know you get unlimited data while roaming out of their coverage areas if your on the Cross Canada 49 plan that was offered to Alberta in may2015,the new Canada150 plan or the Everywhere59 plan but tower sharing sounds like it would take that away and that’s the last thing I would want because I’m on the Everywhere59 plan and I enjoy it a lot.

    • John Lofwire

      Unlimited non throttled data is unsustainable at low price point but throttled down is possible (like 5 mb sec minimum as anything under this make internet way too slow.)

      Like 40-50$ for low tier with 6gb not throttled and then its slow down.

      Then make it possible to add data or take more data (unthrottled ) if you need more high speed.

      Thats can easily be done as proven in others country.

      I may work for one of the big 3 but I am for lower pricing and tower sharing if each carrier pay its part for the whole network they gonna use.

    • Brandon Arneson

      Well I have the $10 3gb data add on with my Everywhere59 plan and I have a total of 11gb on freedoms 3G and LTE networks and for roaming I have 1gb at high speed. I do agree that the throttling needs to stop and I think it needs to be changed to depriortization like all the USA carriers do because your data is usable, I know freedom is trying to severely limit how much data you can use but the speeds they throttle to are terrible. I’ve asked them to seriously consider changing to depriortization and get rid of the 2G and pre 2G throttling and I even said it would get them more customers and prevent people from leaving their services, they have made sure my feedback is passed along, one other person also agreed with me. The carriers in the USA don’t care how much data people use so why should freedom care that someone used 100+GB on their 3G network back when they first launched and throttle the data as slow as it can get

    • somebody else

      You don’t realise or get it, that AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint (CDMA) and Verizon (CDMA/LTE) are BIG national networks with plenty of spectrum, and turn huge budgets/profits every year.

      They can afford to allow people to use unlimited high-speed data, but here in canada, robelus will not allow such things. The other thing, 2G is limited to 208Kb (kilobits) per second, 3G’s bare-minimum is 256K. Please read-up and educate yourself on these things. Freedom mobile isn’t going to get rid of their fair usage policy, unless you want overages. Constantly complaining each month gets tiresome especially if things won’t ever change.

    • Brandon Arneson

      Freedom mobile would never start to charge overage fees if they switched to depriortization for their data instead of throttling because if they did then they would be going against everything they stand for which is what makes them a unique alternative carrier. I never once said I wanted them to get rid of their fair use policy I just wanted them to follow what T-Mobile and cricket do in the USA and give you usable data speeds past your full speed allotment.

    • somebody else

      Realise that will never EVER happen in canada unless robelus choose to do that, which they never will to begin with.

    • Brandon Arneson

      You do realize it is Not the big3 that allow it, its called freedom mobile made a deal with them to offer unlimited data with a full speed allotment while roaming and I’ve had it on 4 of their plans, the Alberta only Cross Canada 49 plan from may2015, Everywhere60,Everywhere 55 and finally the current plan I’m on which is their Everywhere59 plan plus they offer it on their $55 Canada 150 plan that thy are offering.

    • somebody else

      Fully aware of that and there is no need to explain yourself. You aren’t getting drilled. I was explicitly talking about “unlimited full speed data”. That never happens in canada.

    • Brandon Arneson

      Actually your wrong the 3G minimum speed is 384kbps which is UMTS

    • somebody else

      Nope, as far as I could tell, telus’s maximum speed when they first launched hspa+, it was 256 Kb minimum, 1 mbps maximum.

    • Brandon Arneson

      2G is from 56kbps to 220kbps

    • somebody else

      3G starts at 256K and goes up to 42 mbps (dc-carrier), or 24 mbps single carrier.

    • somebody else

      freedom mobile already offers a full speed allotment, then it’s slowed down during the remainder of the billing cycle. I just wish the big three would offer the same, but it’s a long-shot (and only available through rogers subsidiary chat-r).

    • Brandon Arneson

      Yea and everything on their in zone plans are only usable inside the cities they say is allowed and chatr limits your max speed to 3mbps down and up then throttles to 64kbps when your out of their zones u have roaming charges on the rogers network. Freedom mobile throttles to 256kbps download and 128kbps upload

    • somebody else

      Still better than rogers’s gridlock.

    • James Vincent

      Tower/mast sharing means that both companies pays 50% towards building it. Not 100% of the cost. If two companies got together & agreed to share all of the sites that would be a massive saving. So that saving could be passed onto the customers, like unlimited services. Mast sharing can only be a good thing. All 4 Mobile Network Operators here in UK have done it & it’s benefited everyone

    • Brian

      Now you are on the right track. But you have not taken it far enough.

      How about taking your point to the next logical level? Let’s not just stop at tower sharing but instead jump right to network sharing… Imagine the economics of one really, really good truly nation-wide network. Imagine how plentiful and well covering a network would be if all 3-4 carriers were contributing their investment into a single network instead of building 3-4 overlapping networks.

      Mobile companies should not be competing on bandwidth and coverage. That should be common (i.e. run by a non-profit organization and rented out) to all mobile companies (and I would argue with the money that is currently being poured into 3-4 overlapping networks being put into a single network, that single network would be better than any of the existing 3-4 overlapping networks we currently have), and instead, the mobile companies should be competing on services and pricing, etc.

    • Brian

      How is one related to the other? Why does sharing a tower have any impact on what plans a provider can offer?

    • somebody else

      That has NOTHING to do with tower sharing.

    • Robert Quickert

      Someone wishing to put up a tower actually does have to show to Industry Canada that they have considered tower sharing. Tower sharing is not some magic bullet, though. Towers can only support so many carriers/transmitters, and a carrier’s wireless network architecture (available frequencies, adjacent towers, etc.) may also constrain using an existing tower.

    • somebody else

      100% agree. But you know, robellus won’t allow it.

  • FlipFlopcarrot

    And this is another reason why the costs will never come down in Canada. To minimise any negative externalities tower sharing should be made mandatory otherwise there will be very few competitors and we would continue to pay higher price for the services.

    • John Lofwire

      Rogers bell and Telus already own antenna at those place.
      They only update them with new tech.

    • naviz

      Telus just installs microcells now every block or so on Hydro poles, that way they don’t need any approval whatsoever.

    • somebody else

      Gets me wondering… Why hasn’t that small ‘tinfoil hatted’ community (all but ONE resident) complained about the big three and their towers? lol

      OR is it that they all work with bell telus and rogers, and are pissed about freedom mobile’s expansion plans? hahaha xD

  • Rob Fuller

    I support their objective but have to wish Freedom could actually get a signal to me in Kitsilano!

    • somebody else

      Same, they NEED to build more towers, and not let tinfoilers get in the way.

  • pentioner

    One dose not know the adverse health effects until they have lived close to a tower. I lived by one for a year and it has left me EHS,Hyper Sensitive to Electromagnetic fields.It’s difficult for me to shop in a store that has WiFi ,GOOLE the symptoms that people complain about when sensitive.

    • somebody else

      I live between 30 towers, and I have NOT experienced any of those symptoms. It’s all bunk, but then again, it’s actually something ELSE causing that problem. I also have a few routers in the house, again, no problems and they run 24/7.

    • Janis

      That is your choice! You can fill your home with radiation all day long and take the chance that you won’t develop cancer in 10 years. We want our right to decide what we are willing to expose our bodies to.

    • somebody else

      There is no ‘cancer’ coming from modern technology or radiation. It is simply high frequency radio waves. Fyi, everything moves at a frequency, right down to the molecular level. We just can’t see it. Wanna call that “radiation” too? Wanna start boycotting hospitals too? Come on, you won’t die from being near or around, or using modern technology.

  • The unbridled enthusiasm by some commentators to increase electro-smog radiation even more, is born out lack of knowledge, not science.

    There is ample of scientific medical evidence of adverse biological effects from 24/7 cell tower radiation, but the telecom industry keeps hiding behind Canada’s grossly outdated ‘Safety Code 6’.

    Take a moment and educate yourself of the medical concerns, regarding electro-smog radiation by international medical organizations.
    To simplify, just add the word: ‘CELL TOWER RADIATION’ to any of these organizations in your search:

    Environmental Health Trust

    The International Doctors Appeal 2012

    The American Academy of Environmental Medicine

    The American Academy of Pediatrics

    Arizona Center of Advanced Medicine

    For anyone interested reading medical literature on cell tower and EMF radiation, search for:
    GUIDELINE OF THE AUSTRIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF EMF RELATED HEALTH PROBLEMS AND ILLNESSES (EMF SYNDROME)

    For cell tower studies, proving adverse health effects, just type in:
    NAILA CELL TOWER STUDIES

    Beware what you wish for!

    • somebody else

      Sorry, but unless there is any proof (hard-evidence) that cellphones cause cancer or emit harmful doses of radiation, i’m still going to keep using mine, along with the tens of millions of other people world-wide. It’s bunk.

  • somebody else

    It’s nothing but hogwash, if cellphones caused “cancer” due to “radiation”, they wouldn’t even be sold or even allowed on the markets, same for microwave ovens, etc., etc. All of this paranoia has been debunked YEARS ago.

    • You really believe that it is wise to blindly participate in this uncontrolled, and unauthorized biological experiment?
      Do not let the convenience of “modern” technology cloud your judgement.

    • somebody else

      If you want to ditch modern technology or conveniences, then live like the amish do. No electricity, no appliances, just bare basics. Plus, they still die of cancer. X-Rays throw extremely high amounts of ‘*radiation*’ into your body to see things we don’t with the naked eye. What about CT scans? Guess you gotta boycott or protest against hospitals next?

      I’m not blindly participating in any “uncontrolled unauthorised biological experiment” it’s called reality, and technology isn’t going away anytime soon unless we get a really large EMP or solar flare that knocks it ALL out.

  • somebody else

    SOOO many *tinfoil hat wearing* people, so how do you expect to get a signal if you won’t allow freedom mobile, per industry canada’s tower building rules, to expand to build out? You had better not complain and moan about no signal, roaming or any of that. Double the fact that robelus already **HAS** towers in the same areas, or near them.

    Better ditch your modern appliances, fridges, stoves, televisions and technology… They all have **”RADIATION”** coming out of them… xD

    • Janis

      SOOO many Industry Trolls on this site!!!!

    • somebody else

      Can you prove that I am an “industry troll”? I work at a cleaning agency, and $2 above minimum wage is what I earn. Trolls get paid little to nothing to troll, a nickle per comment, or jack.

      I have been using computers, laptops, tablets, modems, routers, microwaves and phones since 2005, but have been around them since age 2. You can’t kill somebody unless you hit them with a laptop in the head using blunt force, same for anything else really. Wanna boycott modern technology or conveniences? Live like the amish do, but they still die of cancer.