Welcome to Our WirelessAdvisor Community!

You are viewing our forums as a GUEST. Please join us so you can post and view all the pictures.
Registration is easy, fast and FREE!

Jonathan Kramer

A Sad Little Monopine

Sprint's design for this monopine was marginal, at best. The inferior branch coverage and lack of bark cladding are hallmarks of a less than great design. The wind-blasted panels stick out like, well, a sore thumb!

A Sad Little Monopine
Jonathan Kramer, Aug 27, 2005
City:
Hesperia
Overall Height (in feet):
40'-ish
    • RJB
      I can t see any panels what are you talking about lol
    • Jay2TheRescue
      Looks like a Charlie Brown Christmas tree. If we put a glass ball on it will it sag to the ground?
    • RJB
      Lol it does look like charlie brows tree lol
    • Andy
      They spent so much money on getting that camouflage up but they could have just put those panels on a normal monopole.
    • Jonathan Kramer
      Andy: So right, but unlikely to have received the same approval.

      It's the small things that make a big difference. I'm sure this site was, during the planning phase, described as a fully camouflaged design.

      As a wireless planner for governments, one of the reasons I hold out for very detailed designs and photo sims is to ensure that the project proposed and the project as constructed match up. I realize it drives the carriers a bit crazy, but avoiding a result like this site is a good reason to stick to our guns.

      I recently processed an application in one of my cities where the carrier proposed a monopalm in the middle of a grove of broadleaf trees. 'Hey, it's camouflaged' didn't cut it.

      Kramer's Third Law: "Camouflage AND Context...Camouflage AND Context..."

      Jonathan
      ------------------------------------------
      Kramer's First Law: It's virtually impossible for you to inspect your own system.

      Kramer's Second Law: It's virtually impossible for you NOT to inspect someone else's system.
    • ShoresGuy
      That site sure looks ugly to say the least. If it were completely covered with shrubbery and branches, it would look much better.
    • Jay2TheRescue
      We are the Knights that say Niegh! Have you any shrubbery?


      (Sorry, I couldn't resist...)
    • colowarrior
      why do they even make monopine's i mean they never really look real.
    • Jonathan Kramer
      Colo:

      Properly designed and constructed monopines can be very good wireless supports. The issues come down to branch count, branch coverage of the panels, starting height of the branches, bark cladding, panel socks, and other vegetation around the trunk.

      By the way, I separate design and construction because I've seen very good designs that were not properly translated to the constructed tree. In one case, recently, a city refused to sign off on a monopine that did not replicate the approved plans. The carrier, which I will NOT name, had to go back and spend $$$ to make the constructed tree look similar to the approved design.

      -Jonathan
    • colowarrior
      this one seems like it was poorly designed.
    • RadioFoneGuy
      they could have least when for a lower profile platform and smaller panels
    There are no comments to display.
  • Category:
    California (CA)
    Uploaded By:
    Jonathan Kramer
    Date:
    Aug 27, 2005
    View Count:
    9,969
    Comment Count:
    11

Copyright 1997-2022 Wireless Advisor™, LLC. All rights reserved. All registered and unregistered trademarks are the property of their respective holders.
WirelessAdvisor.com is not associated by ownership or membership with any cellular, PCS or wireless service provider companies and is not meant to be an endorsement of any company or service. Some links on these pages may be paid advertising or paid affiliate programs.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice