Welcome to Vodafone Community
We see a lot of posts on here from customers moaning about the coverage in their area - usually with good reason.
However, what people all too often forget about is that the networks always have an uphill battle with local authorities and resident during the planning process. We all want a good mobile signal but we don't want a mast anywhere near us. This story is typical
As customers we need to get real - if we want to use phones we need to have masts in as many places as possible.
Or do we? Thoughts?
We do see posts from people who want masts on their private land - I wonder what happens to those.
I remember the NIMBY name ”opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away“
"Proved over and over"? Not sure about that. At the moment, we just don't know. There seems to be some well demonstrated health effects from phones, reducing sperm count being one, and some not so well proven effects, but which still give cause for concern.
Being a recent convert to smartphones I love mine, and want coverage. But I wouldn't want to live or work near a mast. I am that nimby! Although I'm not an expert on the technology, I imagine that one way to minimise exposure while maximising coverage would be to force companies to share masts. I'd heard this was going to happen in remote areas anyway.
The biggest problem in addressing concerns over EMF health effects is that no company or umbrella organisation wants to admit that there might be a problem, whether that's mobiles, cordless, or wifi. As a result they won't take even the simplest steps towards reducing exposure such as putting an on/off switch or a signal strength control on wifi routers.
It's impossible to prove that something doesn't do something - you can only prove that it does. The total absence of proof from multiple investigations that phone masts have any affect health, including fertility, is as good as you're ever going to get.
If you want coverage and a smartphone then you have to accept that the landscape will be covered with phone masts and accept them just as we learned a long time ago to accept electricity pylons.
Networks do share masts but not the equipment on the masts.
And I've never seen a Wi Fi router that didn't have an on/off switch.
It's a great debate.
I understand that there are certain reasons people don't want masts everywhere because of potential health risks, or the fact it may be an eyesore.
However if you look at somewhere like Madrid, considered one of the most beautiful cities to visit and is covered in masts, compared to London then you can see why people say coverage is better over there.
At the same time, it's proven that people that live in Spain have a healthier and longer life than us brits.
They also have a lot more flexibility and less red tape to go through when applying for a mast location.
Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.
Jeffkin, without wanting to get off topic, I'm surprised that you have never seen a wifi router without an on/off switch. I only ever recall seeing one model with an external switch, and that was a long time ago. My current Netgear router doesn't. Switching of the wifi signal is solely via the router's control panel 'pages' in my internet browser. I would be genuinely interested to know if you come across any makes and models with external switches and could let me know.
Another problem for people trying to minimise exposure to EMF's is that some wireless modem/routers don't actually turn off the wifi when you think you are turning it off. The switch-off control disables the wireless information, but leaves the carrier wave still transmitting. BT confirmed this for me recently while they were trying to sell me a package.
My BT Home Hub has an external on/off switch. Certainly the Draytek routers I've used a lot in the past have them as well. I don't have any other routers to hand to check.
I never turn my router off. I never turn my desktop off. I never turn my phone off.
My broadband supplier (PlusNet) specifically recommends NOT turning your router off overnight in order to keep the connection up and running and the system not thinking there's a fault and reducing the speed.
It's well known that turning a router on an off will stop you getting the best speed out of a broadband line.
It needs to be constantly on to get the best out of it.
A new story I'm reading this morning about a small group of residents who are protesting about the siting of a new mast in Petts Wood in South East London near Bromley.
If you want to be able to use your mobile phone you are going to have to accept that we will see a growing number of masts just as we saw with electricity pylons and phone poles.
Vodaphone do not care where they put their HUGE masts, they DO NOT CARE what they do to people, what it means to them. We live semi rural and i have no issues with mobile coverage. Once again they prat on to planning about a MUST in the area. This is what a Disgusting piece of equipment from Vodaphone went up near my home today, refused by 13/13 councillors, what can us locals do against companies like this who do not give a damn? On the other side of this grass verge, the other side of my estate is 2 other phone masts, EE own one of them and they too have gone to the planning directorate who will say yes to that one being made bigger and taller in order to tick his government done list. When they put the planning in they tell you they are going to 'mast share' so why then do EE need to make theirs bigger when VODAPHONE has just ignored the locals here - it is so sad that these companies can do this. You should be ashamed
Any doubts about the fears surrounding mobile phone masts, have a look at the legislation below...
Why is it inevitably Vodaphone who insist on siting their masts in close proximity to houses, I live in the country and Vodaphone insist that there is only one location for the mast, really - in an area measuring 12km by 18km.!
almost all the village are against the location which is compounded by most of the village using EE, strangely EE don't have any hideous prominent mast yet manage to provide a good signal and great reception....
I totally agree but it should also be appreciated that communities do not want the imposition of eyesores in their lively villages. A mobile phone mast simply does not fit in visually in many locations. A sympathetic considered approach would cause far less public dismay and may even get better revenue by local populations changing to a supplier who does consider visual aspects as well as the feelings of local people. Failure to do so will undoubtably reduce the revenue of firms who ignore local feelings.
In Dorset EE see to be winning over huge shares of users by being thoughtful and not imposing ugly masts structures just because they can !
With the greatest of respect the villagers and yes, that includes me want a better phone signal. Living in a lively area of Dorset there are masses of area for such a mast, local land owners have offered suitable land but Vodaphone insist on a very large very visible mast in the middle of the village. We are so incensed that many of us have changed over to EE who do provide a good signal locally with no intrusive mast. We are not trying to stop progress but want a balanced approach, something that seems lacking in the actions Vodaphone are taking in this village.
should Vodaphone be successful the door will be open for every village to be forced to accept a mast close to houses, this when there is huge amounts of more suitable land locally but away from houses.
You might have a good signal but there are obviously people in your area that don't. Its attitudes like this that are keeping millions of people in so called Not Spots. A mobile signal these days is not a luxury but an essential service and to that end more masts need to be erected and upgraded. I suggest you come to terms with it and stop castigating companies who are doing what their customers want them to do.