[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Cell site

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unnecessary

[edit]

The following sentence was tacked onto the end of the "Place in the wireless network" section, and I removed it.

"A controversial issue is whether there is a correlation between radio transmission and the risk of cancer. Safety regulations exist to protect the public from extensive exposure to radio waves emitted by cell sites."

Seeing how the section is of a purely technical nature, concerning the cell tower's role in the wireless network, the sentence in question was out of place. However, there's certainly room for someone to create an entire section dedicated to said risk.

I am of the opinion that since the Mobile phone article already deals with this issue, and since there is indeed a large article dedicated solely to it (Mobile phone radiation and health), that it is not necessary to dump more arguments into this article. That being said, if someone wants to create another section for this article, go for it. Just put it where it belongs. KYJustin 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Tshire777 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cell" Undefined!

[edit]

The first sentence says

"A cell site is a site where antennas and electronic communications equipment are placed to create a cell in a cellular network for the use of mobile phones."

But it doesn't say what a "cell" is. That should definitely be a definition: the fundamental element of a cell phone network!

GreenAsJade 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Sites and Real Property

[edit]

As the copyright holder for this text, I give my permission for wikipedia to publish this entry under the GNU License Agreement. I invite people to add or make changes to this entry, but to delete would be a shame as it is important information for people interested in learning more about cell sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Towermeister (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! 79.103.188.125 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own this article, so you can't 'invite people' to edit the article. Everyone can edit it and many have.
The text on the page to which the reference is linked is clearly marked as copyrighted at the bottom of the page. There's even a link to a Terms of Use page down there, which clearly states all text on the site belongs to a company and is not licensed under the GFDL. We have a procedure to follow for copyright waiver, and this anonymous claim of copyright possession and waiver is insufficient.
At the same time, it's clear this text and the links added are here for the purpose of advertising the site and the company, which is not permitted regardless of copyright status. Most editors who add advertisements make a claim that whatever they're adding is "important information to educate the people" or some variant of that phrase. If the link and/or text is added back to the article, it will be removed. Persistent violators of either our advertising policy and the three revert rule can be blocked. KrakatoaKatie 07:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Real property refers to real estate, definitely not "copyright for text". =) — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Feedback 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li-Ion?

[edit]

Why is there a link to Li-Ion in "See also"? I fail to see the connection between them (oh yes.. some of the equipment in a cell site uses Li-Ion batteries but that is not reason enough..) 90.190.228.23 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and removed it - it has indeed nothing to do with the article at hand Tauntz (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum GSM cell site signal range

[edit]

The maximum range of a mast (where it is not limited by interference with other masts nearby) depends on the same circumstances. Some technologies, such as GSM, have a fixed maximum range of 40km (25 miles), which is imposed by technical limitations.

Does anyone know where that info came from? It's clearly wrong since I'm constantly using a cell tower thats more than 80km away (Finland, Hanko to Tuksi, Estonia) and the signal quality is very good (have no way to measure it but it's 3-5 bars (medium to maximum) on a 1 year old nokia phone). Tauntz (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the technical reason why it shouldn't work is Timing advance. --Mdwyer (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which in itself is outdated information. GSM has had extended cell range capability since the late nineties. Motorola gave a press release in '98 of a cell that was 120km. 217.152.112.163 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polarization and Antenna Characteristics

[edit]

There is nothing about the polarization or characteristics of the antennas on cell towers. Should we add a section about antenna characteristics?--Geremia (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of a Cell Site

[edit]

I think we need to include information from this site http://www.steelintheair.com/Cell-Phone-Tower.html . It breaks down the parts of a Cell Site, which would be useful for people trying to learn about how a Cell Site functions. I don't know where you would insert it in the current article. --13:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)65.51.87.2 (talk)

Multiple carriers?

[edit]

Article should explain: In practice, does every carrier have access to every cell tower? Perhaps there is some sort of automatic payment mechanism if an AT&T customer uses a Verizon cell tower? Or does every carrier really build out its own cell tower network? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safety

[edit]

I'm not really keen to the workings of Wikipedia, but I have heard a lot about these things not being safe to live by, can we get a section in here researching some of that? 174.49.150.27 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut text

[edit]

I removed the following text:

"That is 0.01 Watt per square meter. There is no temptation to use more power. The entire idea of a "cell" phone system is to create small "cells" that don't interfere with each other.
The average energy received over the entire earth is about 250 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day, ignoring clouds.[1] So, on a day with no clouds, the average electromagnetic energy received from the Sun is 25,000 times that received near a cell phone tower."

There's definitely an implied argument here that cell sites pose no health risks. It's fine for Wikipedia to cite notable sources with this opinion, but it can't be asserted by Wikipedia, especially not in the form of original research.

Wikipedia can't speak as to what various cell providers may or may not have the "temptation" to do. If a company or industry association makes a statement as to its intentions, we can report and cite it.

Regarding insolation, first this isn't that relevant of a comparison. The insolation is the total amount of electromagnetic energy at *all frequencies* - so this includes visible light, UV, infrared, etc. A relevant comparison would be the amount of microwave radiation coming from the sun vs. the amount from a cell tower.

More importantly though, any such comparison is original research unless it's been published in a reliable source. Even if one cites sources for such a comparison, it would still fall under WP:SYN. -Helvetica (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Insolation

Cell site/Cell tower

[edit]

The third sentence of paragraph one states that "A synonym for 'cell site' is 'cell tower'. This is incorrect. While it's true that the contractors responsible for erecting the tower and installing the antennae mean "cell tower" when they say "cell site", the person responsible for site acquisition is referring to the land or location, the network installer is referring to the site hut (which contains the electronics), the cell site technician is referring to the entire installation, and the network switch technician is referring to the electronics and antenna configuration.Ricthree (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference question

[edit]

Can this be used as a reference?--Wyn.junior (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If its used to reference a part of (added) text in the article, yes, prob make a new section, Drone mesh networks. Mion (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or should it be Blimp mesh network, see [1]]. Mion (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spy agency setup

[edit]

Regarding section about NSA using their own cell base stations deployed and used to monitor calls:

This is not exactly new information, back in 1995, wasn't this the same procedure that was used (though - not by the NSA, - I believe the FBI) to capture Kevin Mitnick and to monitor/recover the Nokia cellphone signal code [to monitor any transmissions to/from those phones] (Viewed using the good old simple classic TCPDump) and yes, a, "Fake mobile base station" which I believe was inside a parked Van.

→http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#Computer_hacking← Yazz.aka (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--This is my very first time using talk, on my first day with a Wikipedia account, so apologies if this isn't the correct format to criticize the article. but I suggest at least adding this fact to pre-ammend or replace the comment, as it's (if I may) the current overly-ignorant mans FAD: I am referring to; people talking about information "according to documents leaked to Die Spiegel" with the context that this information is shocking and new, while I shouldn't need to say it's anything except new Shouldn't we be referencing documented history and not documented history of conversations with some guy and this is what he said. I propose documented hearsay breaks the no original research Wikipedia rule.Yazz.aka (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<rant> Apparently this guy was a prior-NSA gone whistle-blower that spoke out about a year ago. I had several TS/SCI read-in's, some for just short of 10 years, (though with a different Intel. Agency) so I have no opinion on anything work-related - cannot confirm or deny, but when I see information that was big news when I was not yet in high-school - being re-reported like this - and this guy receiving credit for exposing decades old public knowledge I cannot contemplate how it seems reporters are re-reporting decades old information and passing it off as new.Yazz.aka (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--This is nearly as bad as the fake shock of the patriot act. It just wrote in paper that we could do what a large percent already did habitually with no fear of reprisal. Yes I know documentation - but this is not a suggestion for the article. Yazz.aka (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a conspiracy nut I'd almost suspect his entire whistle-blow was a distraction giving information already discovered in a compressed package to distract us from say, anything that was really even TS and not TS awaiting approval to have it's classification downgraded as it's only TS in name not fact anymore... </rant> Yazz.aka (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, see, Wikipedia:Bold and just edit that section, but to split the 2 , your example is a perfect sample of earlier use of the technology, Der Spiegel article mentioned something different, that this tool is standard equipment for today and is daily used by a lot of organisations (just like roque access points), so its more about the scale of the use. Cheers Mion (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cell site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cell site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cell site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cell site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

Some more pictures need to be added on this page.But on the other side the page is fine with me. Tshire777 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cell_site&oldid=1200727302"