Cell site density in the city?

[adgsteve]

I need to ask... I've posted 42 cell sites so far and all of them are within a 6 mile half circle of my house. (I live on Puget Sound so there's nothing west of me but water) And there are a few more that I haven't photographed yet.
Does that seem like a lot more than other places? Or do other cities have that high a density of cell sites too? I don't travel much so I don't really know.

[Andy]

New York City, Los Angeles, Atlanta are probably all areas with more cellsites in a smaller radius than in your area, even though it seems like there's a lot of towers in your area. Are you in a very busy area with businesses/malls/stores/freeways?? That would explain it.

[adgsteve]

Originally Posted by Andy84094

New York City, Los Angeles, Atlanta are probably all areas with more cellsites in a smaller radius than in your area, even though it seems like there's a lot of towers in your area. Are you in a very busy area with businesses/malls/stores/freeways?? That would explain it.

Not really, it's mostly residential. But there are a couple small shopping areas, and an industrial area borders it. I am thinking that the terrain has a lot to do with it also, since West Seattle is all hills and dales. I did think that it seemed like a lot, but I haven't been to any other major cities in years so had nothing to compare it to. BTW found a bunch more today..a little further away...sheesh.
Thanks for the reply Andy.

[Fire14]

I know within 6 miles of me there are alot of towers & I think I have missed some in the pictures I have taken. If I go into Newark or Elizabeth I could nail alot more then the few I did. I guess it depends on the population & amount of building etc...

[adgsteve]

Would you believe that I've heard complaints from people in West Seattle that they have poor coverage. Say What?????

[hillbilly44]

Terrain has alot to do with the number of cell sites along with frequency bands (800/1900Mhz), plus traffic (number of calls per site). As data increases in demand you'll see more sites to increase thru-put speed.

[RJB]

Does it have to do with future growth numbers as well?? Do they want to stay ahead of the population growth?

[NYCDru]

Nope. More like rush hour/lunch network congestion. In NY that means 6am to about 9pm...seriously. Also, Terain and in building coverage.

[Blue_Tech]

Staying "ahead of the curve" is nice on paper, but prohibitively exspensive. At least from an infrastructure point, technology is another thing. At $750,000 per site (turnkey), letting that much money sit dormant for 4 years with the possibility of never even needing it, no way.

Dont forget all the other tower reliant industries out there. Forestry, aviation, landline telco's, cable and television broadcasters, radio broadcasters, emergency services repeaters, the list goes on and on. Actual number of cell sites in a given area could be very little compared to all the others around it, depending on local industry.

[RJB]

Originally Posted by Blue_Tech

Staying "ahead of the curve" is nice on paper, but prohibitively exspensive. At least from an infrastructure point, technology is another thing. At $750,000 per site (turnkey), letting that much money sit dormant for 4 years with the possibility of never even needing it, no way.

Dont forget all the other tower reliant industries out there. Forestry, aviation, landline telco's, cable and television broadcasters, radio broadcasters, emergency services repeaters, the list goes on and on. Actual number of cell sites in a given area could be very little compared to all the others around it, depending on local industry.

Good information right there.

[hasak]

My neighbor has worked in the telecom industry for the past 7 years. Currently he is with a company that contracts out to the big wireless carriers.

His job? renegotiating cell antenna leases. Apparently, there is a surplus of antennas that warrants this.

The wireless carriers identify which sites they don't need, and his company approaches the property owner. They are coerced into taking less money for rent. If the property owner contests, he is told that the wireless carrier will remove the antenna because they have enough other sites.

That should answer your question....
because I have been coming to similar conclusions after hearing what my neighbor does for a living.

[pbw]

Originally Posted by adgsteve

I need to ask... I've posted 42 cell sites so far and all of them are within a 6 mile half circle of my house. (I live on Puget Sound so there's nothing west of me but water) And there are a few more that I haven't photographed yet.
Does that seem like a lot more than other places? Or do other cities have that high a density of cell sites too? I don't travel much so I don't really know.

Not seen this myself but I am told in Raliegh NC that there are 75 Nextel sites in a 15 miles radius. I'd have to look at my data for Washington, DC, other major areas I have been to do not seem to have that kind of density. I thought Raliegh was extreme because even downtown Atlanta did not seem to have that many sites (and most were monopoles, not rooftops!). Atlanta suburbs are a different matter but DT proper....

[larry]

Originally Posted by adgsteve

I need to ask... I've posted 42 cell sites so far and all of them are within a 6 mile half circle of my house. (I live on Puget Sound so there's nothing west of me but water) And there are a few more that I haven't photographed yet.
Does that seem like a lot more than other places? Or do other cities have that high a density of cell sites too? I don't travel much so I don't really know.

Considering that there are/were up to 7 different wireless providers in some regions I don't think that's a very high number at all. We probably have a couple hundred cell sites within a 6 mile range here in the Los Angeles area.

[Andy]

Yeah, Los Angeles area is scary, lol, so many cellsites, they're everywhere you look- and that's just the sites that are not camouflaged, there's tons of sites you don't even see while driving that are hidden somewhere.

[LandinOKC]

Hello everybody,

I have a property I need to be approached about. Can you tell your friend? 5940 NW 120th Ct., Okla. City, 73123
owner: swingingmonkeys@msn.com
I own free & clear. Need to lease property. No sites in this zip listed on list from this forum. Closest is 73122 (2) and at Putnam City North High School. Commercial, vacant, unincorporated.
Lat. 35.59271 Long -97.62157, Elev. 1230 photos & mapping at www.oklahomacounty.org real estate number R143197010

[LandinOKC]

Photos of site at 5940 NW 120th Ct., OKC, OK 73123 that I need to lease. I am the landowner, no carriers/hidden towers on lot. Lat. 35.59271 Long. -97.62157 Elev. 1230

[ShoresGuy]

Originally Posted by adgsteve

I need to ask... I've posted 42 cell sites so far and all of them are within a 6 mile half circle of my house. (I live on Puget Sound so there's nothing west of me but water) And there are a few more that I haven't photographed yet.
Does that seem like a lot more than other places? Or do other cities have that high a density of cell sites too? I don't travel much so I don't really know.

Well Europe and especially any major European city is bound to have a large amount of cell sites located very close to one another. Most of the time you have numerous rooftop sites and then as you leave the cities, you get mostly large lattice/mast sites that range from covering a radius of at least 5-10 km mostly along the major Autobahn routes. In mountainous regions like the Eifel southwest of Bonn especially in places like Bitburg and Sprangdahlem (where there are still active USAF bases), you'll have mast setups on top of high mountains which cover a broader area.

[chuikov]

In very dense urban areas, most carriers will have a site every 2-5 blocks. At least one building I know of in NYC houses two sites for the same carrier. That same carrier had about 400 sites in Manhattan, Bronx and Western Brooklyn alone, and that was three years ago. Including the other carriers licensed in the area there must be alot of additional sites in the area.

[FieldTek]

Not sure about other technologies, but with CDMA the cell site "breathes" meaning the radius gets smaller as more subscribers are using it. Also a lot of RF Engineers (who usually decide what areas a site will be built) are attempting to keep up with subscriber demands for coverage in homes and buildings where they work. This might partially explain why most metropolitan areas and some smaller areas have so many towers.

[walkguru]

6 miles from my place there no cell sites, zero, nada. the closest tower is about 10 miles away. you are so blessed.

[John Sprung]

Originally Posted by FieldTek

Not sure about other technologies, but with CDMA the cell site "breathes" meaning the radius gets smaller as more subscribers are using it. Also a lot of RF Engineers (who usually decide what areas a site will be built) are attempting to keep up with subscriber demands for coverage in homes and buildings where they work. This might partially explain why most metropolitan areas and some smaller areas have so many towers.

With every cell technology, there's some fixed maximum number of calls that a site can handle at once. IIRC, something like 168 is typical. In densely populated places like Manhattan, call volume rather than RF propagation is the limiting factor.

Here in LA, most buildings are one story, few are over two, and they tend to have land around them. So here, RF is more likely the limiter. I have a couple sites about a mile away, but a clear line of sight to one about two miles away, which is probably what covers my place.



-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Originally Posted by hasak

My neighbor has worked in the telecom industry for the past 7 years. Currently he is with a company that contracts out to the big wireless carriers.

His job? renegotiating cell antenna leases. Apparently, there is a surplus of antennas that warrants this.

The wireless carriers identify which sites they don't need, and his company approaches the property owner. They are coerced into taking less money for rent. If the property owner contests, he is told that the wireless carrier will remove the antenna because they have enough other sites.

That should answer your question....
because I have been coming to similar conclusions after hearing what my neighbor does for a living.

Looking at the FCC lists for my neighborhood, there are a lot of sites that are inactive or terminated, etc. Sometimes they're right next to each other. Mostly they're dinky little buildings, like 26 ft. high.

So, it looks like there's been a shake-out of early sites, and the carriers are cherry-picking the better and higher locations.



-- J.S.

[bobolito]

I think NYC beats Los Angeles in tower density, which means NYC should be the most cellsite-dense city in the US, and probably, the world!. With all the skyscrapers and tighter population density, I don't think it matters where you are in NYC you are always within line of sight of cell panels. Almost every corner has a building with panels on it. In the 13-mile long Manhattan island alone Cingular has over 500 sites. So imagine if you add the other carriers.

[Jonathan Kramer]

Originally Posted by John Sprung

Here in LA, most buildings are one story, few are over two, and they tend to have land around them. So here, RF is more likely the limiter. I have a couple sites about a mile away, but a clear line of sight to one about two miles away, which is probably what covers my place.
-- J.S.

John, maybe that's true in the Melrose/Windsor area , but there are quite a number of areas in L.A. where a mile to a site is a no-go because of users/site density. I suspect the users/site density along Melrose goes up just a tad at night and over the weekend, eh? Same as where I live in Santa Monica.

Best...