Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkassis | Hacker News Reader

The city wasn't built with cell phone coverage in mind. I can understand that they need to put antennas in weird locations to offer coverage.

I don't get what is so appalling about this. They are doing their best to avoid making it a blemish on the roof of that building.

View on HN

Sure, but I don't see why this translates into AT&T having the right to put up towers. If there's poor AT&T service in Harvard Square and customers complain, AT&T can simply direct them to petition the zoning board to allow them to put up towers. That way the issue can be resolved using local politics instead of lawsuits.

Sure, but I don't see why this translates into AT&T having the right to put up towers.

I don't either, but apparently the federal government disagrees. The article doesn't cite this "law," however.

If there's poor AT&T service in Harvard Square and customers complain, AT&T can simply direct them to petition the zoning board to allow them to put up towers. That way the issue can be resolved using local politics instead of lawsuits.

More than likely, customers would just jump ship to Verizon instead, which is the last thing AT&T wants.

Given the vast number of iPhones I see in Harvard Square every day (probably about 40% of all visible phones), I don't know if Verizon is necessarily the logical end here.

It might be if Verizon gets the iPhone by the end of this year or early next year.

My point is, people don't take kindly to companies trying to pass the buck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com