Next-up News n°221
rudkla - 2. Apr, 23:08
Mobile Radio (worldwide) - Mobilfunk (weltweit) Buergerwelle
Montag, 2. April 2007
Sonntag, 1. April 2007
M6 CAMERA CAFE L'ANTENNE RELAIS
- 1er AVRIL 2007 . . . Tout est dit !
- M6 CAMERA CAFE : L'ANTENNE RELAIS.
http://next-up.org/divers/M6CameraCafeAntennesRelais2007.php
- M6 CAMERA CAFE : L'ANTENNE RELAIS.
http://next-up.org/divers/M6CameraCafeAntennesRelais2007.php
rudkla - 1. Apr, 09:01
Donnerstag, 29. März 2007
Killing pests with radio waves
http://www.omega-news.info/killing_pests_with_radio_waves.htm
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=radio+waves
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=radio+waves
rudkla - 29. Mär, 23:23
Mobile mast bid refusal sparks appeal
By Chris Kearney
Mobile phone company Vodafone plans to appeal against a decision to block an application for a new mast in Oxford.
More than 1,200 people signed a petition organised by Marston resident Michael Haines against the proposal.
Vodafone wanted to put up a 33ft mast disguised as a telegraph pole in Jack Straw's Lane, near St Michael and All Angels Church.
But Oxford City Council turned down the scheme last week because of its design and location.
Vodafone spokesman Rob Matthews said the firm was disappointed as it believed a new mast would improve 3G coverage in the area.
He said: "We have reviewed our options for providing coverage to our customers in the area and have concluded the proposal in Jack Straw's Lane will have the least impact.
"Vodafone does not take the decision to appeal lightly, but we feel that this is the best option for providing optimum coverage for our customers."
Vodafone claimed it had written to residents, detailing the proposal and inviting comments, but had received no reaction.
The firm appealed against a decision to block plans for a mast in Jack Straw's Lane in 2005. It also lost the appeal.
Mr Haines said: "I managed to get 1,200 signatures from residents around Marston, and I think that the council should take notice of that.
"We feel that this mast is being forced on us and we don't want it - not to mention the possible health risks to those that live near it."
City council spokesman Louisa Dean said: "The officers made the decision to refuse permission due to the style of the mast. It would not have fitted in with the surrounding area.
"In addition we feel the applicant had given us insufficient evidence on the unsuitability of alternative sites."
Marston city councillor Mary Clarkson said: "The annoying thing about all this is that there is already existing planning permission in place for a mobile phone mast on top of St Michael's Church.
"It's not for Vodafone, but the company that applied for permission hasn't utilised it."
© Copyright 2001-2007 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.1293366.0.mobile_mast_bid_refusal_sparks_appeal.php
Mobile phone company Vodafone plans to appeal against a decision to block an application for a new mast in Oxford.
More than 1,200 people signed a petition organised by Marston resident Michael Haines against the proposal.
Vodafone wanted to put up a 33ft mast disguised as a telegraph pole in Jack Straw's Lane, near St Michael and All Angels Church.
But Oxford City Council turned down the scheme last week because of its design and location.
Vodafone spokesman Rob Matthews said the firm was disappointed as it believed a new mast would improve 3G coverage in the area.
He said: "We have reviewed our options for providing coverage to our customers in the area and have concluded the proposal in Jack Straw's Lane will have the least impact.
"Vodafone does not take the decision to appeal lightly, but we feel that this is the best option for providing optimum coverage for our customers."
Vodafone claimed it had written to residents, detailing the proposal and inviting comments, but had received no reaction.
The firm appealed against a decision to block plans for a mast in Jack Straw's Lane in 2005. It also lost the appeal.
Mr Haines said: "I managed to get 1,200 signatures from residents around Marston, and I think that the council should take notice of that.
"We feel that this mast is being forced on us and we don't want it - not to mention the possible health risks to those that live near it."
City council spokesman Louisa Dean said: "The officers made the decision to refuse permission due to the style of the mast. It would not have fitted in with the surrounding area.
"In addition we feel the applicant had given us insufficient evidence on the unsuitability of alternative sites."
Marston city councillor Mary Clarkson said: "The annoying thing about all this is that there is already existing planning permission in place for a mobile phone mast on top of St Michael's Church.
"It's not for Vodafone, but the company that applied for permission hasn't utilised it."
© Copyright 2001-2007 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.1293366.0.mobile_mast_bid_refusal_sparks_appeal.php
rudkla - 29. Mär, 13:18
Council blame for mast error
By Jonathan Bunn
RESIDENTS could be in line for a compensation payout after a council blunder led to a phone mast being erected close to their homes.
Despite initial denials, the council has admitted it missed a deadline to refuse mobile phone giant O2 permission to put up the mast in Markhouse Road, Walthamstow.
Epping Forest Council recently paid a total of £2,500 to ten residents in Waltham Abbey when it made the same mistake, but larger amounts have been awarded elsewhere.
In 2003 the Local Government Ombudsman ordered Swindon Council to pay seven families between £10,000 and £20,000 to compensate them for the decrease in value of their homes when an administration error meant a mast was installed nearby.
O2 was within its rights to erect the 15 foot mast in Markhouse Road and insist it will not be taken down.
A letter from the council apologising to residents has been delayed, suggesting the council is treading carefully with the possibility of legal action and a costly payout looming.
Residents were shocked when the mast appeared overnight just before Christmas and initially planned to seek an injunction preventing it being switched on. The plan was ditched, however, when it emerged there was no time to pursue the action.
Tony Alvaranga, 42, who can see the mast from his home in Samantha Close, said: "There was a commitment by the planning office to write to residents who had objected to the mast application - that commitment has not been met.
"I believe a first letter was withdrawn at the eleventh hour and another one was going to be sent, but until Monday we had not received it.
A council spokesman confirmed a letter of apology will be sent to residents and said the authority was currently assessing the implications of its mistake.
© Copyright 2001-2007 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1292552.mostviewed.council_blame_for_mast_error.php
--------
The 'Swindon' case is the leader (attached).
The potential for recompense via the court also exists although, to my knowledge, this has not yet been tested. The Bardsey case in the Court of Appeal (Feb 2005) refers. This concerned an application for prior approval and the LPA’s failure to notify any decision to the operator within the 56-day deadline - hence approval being deemed. In their findings, the three judges (one on whom had sat on the Harrogate case’) declared that the failure to notify was an effective an effective disenfranchisement of the claimant’s right to have her concerns on health and devaluation of her property taken into account and that, consequently, her Article 6.1 rights under the Human Rights Act to a fair hearing had been breached. As stated by Lord Justice Waller, "It seems to me clear that Dr Nunn's Article 6 rights were here infringed. She and others affected had the right to make representations to the LPA on the effects on health and on the appearance of the mast as it affected them and the value of their homes. In this instance she was deprived of her right under Article 6 to such a determination”. And Lord Justice Laws, "At paragraph 22 my Lord concludes that Dr Nunn was deprived of her right under ECHR Article 6 to a determination of her claims relating to health, the appearance of T-Mobile's mast and its effect on the value of her home and the homes of others. If I may say so I think that is entirely right.........”. Dr Nunn had the right to expect an effective decision by the LPA and thereafter the opportunity to present her objections in the event of an appeal. The incompetence of the LPA denied these rights.
It follows that if an LPA fails to take health fully into account (and, indeed, property devaluation) then it runs the risk of a claim in the County Court from every affected resident.
See further definition on the Planning Sanity website.
David
Compensation for phone mast blunder
Families living near a mobile phone mast have been awarded £117,000 in compensation.
Seven families will get between £10,000 and £20,000 depending on their proximity to the 20ft telecoms mast in Swindon.
Swindon Borough Council was ordered to pay the compensation after its planners failed to object to the One2One mast within the necessary 28 days due to an administration error.
The award is thought to the first of its kind.
Local Government Ombudsman Jerry White found the council guilty of maladministration causing injustice and has ordered the payment of compensation for the loss in value of the homes affected.
But most families said they would much rather the mast was removed.
This was our ideal home, but from our back garden and my daughter's bedroom all you can see is this mast
Melanie Hall, resident
Melanie Hall, one of six residents to bring the complaint against the council, said: "It should not have gone ahead in the first place, it's a residential area.
"This was our ideal home, but from our back garden and my daughter's bedroom all you can see is this mast.
"The compensation doesn't mean much to us really, ideally we wanted the mast to come down."
A spokeswoman said Swindon Borough Council had apologised to the families for the error - which was caused by the application being put on the wrong pile of paperwork.
This delay meant One2One - now named T-mobile - could put the mast up even though planners had objected.
Council chief executive Simon Birch said: "The council has accepted the ombudsman's findings in full and has offered affected householders compensation.
"The council has introduced new procedures for dealing with future applications for telecommunications development to prevent this maladministration happening again."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/3041309.stm
Published: 2003/05/19 16:22:57 GMT
© BBC MMIV
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
RESIDENTS could be in line for a compensation payout after a council blunder led to a phone mast being erected close to their homes.
Despite initial denials, the council has admitted it missed a deadline to refuse mobile phone giant O2 permission to put up the mast in Markhouse Road, Walthamstow.
Epping Forest Council recently paid a total of £2,500 to ten residents in Waltham Abbey when it made the same mistake, but larger amounts have been awarded elsewhere.
In 2003 the Local Government Ombudsman ordered Swindon Council to pay seven families between £10,000 and £20,000 to compensate them for the decrease in value of their homes when an administration error meant a mast was installed nearby.
O2 was within its rights to erect the 15 foot mast in Markhouse Road and insist it will not be taken down.
A letter from the council apologising to residents has been delayed, suggesting the council is treading carefully with the possibility of legal action and a costly payout looming.
Residents were shocked when the mast appeared overnight just before Christmas and initially planned to seek an injunction preventing it being switched on. The plan was ditched, however, when it emerged there was no time to pursue the action.
Tony Alvaranga, 42, who can see the mast from his home in Samantha Close, said: "There was a commitment by the planning office to write to residents who had objected to the mast application - that commitment has not been met.
"I believe a first letter was withdrawn at the eleventh hour and another one was going to be sent, but until Monday we had not received it.
A council spokesman confirmed a letter of apology will be sent to residents and said the authority was currently assessing the implications of its mistake.
© Copyright 2001-2007 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1292552.mostviewed.council_blame_for_mast_error.php
--------
The 'Swindon' case is the leader (attached).
The potential for recompense via the court also exists although, to my knowledge, this has not yet been tested. The Bardsey case in the Court of Appeal (Feb 2005) refers. This concerned an application for prior approval and the LPA’s failure to notify any decision to the operator within the 56-day deadline - hence approval being deemed. In their findings, the three judges (one on whom had sat on the Harrogate case’) declared that the failure to notify was an effective an effective disenfranchisement of the claimant’s right to have her concerns on health and devaluation of her property taken into account and that, consequently, her Article 6.1 rights under the Human Rights Act to a fair hearing had been breached. As stated by Lord Justice Waller, "It seems to me clear that Dr Nunn's Article 6 rights were here infringed. She and others affected had the right to make representations to the LPA on the effects on health and on the appearance of the mast as it affected them and the value of their homes. In this instance she was deprived of her right under Article 6 to such a determination”. And Lord Justice Laws, "At paragraph 22 my Lord concludes that Dr Nunn was deprived of her right under ECHR Article 6 to a determination of her claims relating to health, the appearance of T-Mobile's mast and its effect on the value of her home and the homes of others. If I may say so I think that is entirely right.........”. Dr Nunn had the right to expect an effective decision by the LPA and thereafter the opportunity to present her objections in the event of an appeal. The incompetence of the LPA denied these rights.
It follows that if an LPA fails to take health fully into account (and, indeed, property devaluation) then it runs the risk of a claim in the County Court from every affected resident.
See further definition on the Planning Sanity website.
David
Compensation for phone mast blunder
Families living near a mobile phone mast have been awarded £117,000 in compensation.
Seven families will get between £10,000 and £20,000 depending on their proximity to the 20ft telecoms mast in Swindon.
Swindon Borough Council was ordered to pay the compensation after its planners failed to object to the One2One mast within the necessary 28 days due to an administration error.
The award is thought to the first of its kind.
Local Government Ombudsman Jerry White found the council guilty of maladministration causing injustice and has ordered the payment of compensation for the loss in value of the homes affected.
But most families said they would much rather the mast was removed.
This was our ideal home, but from our back garden and my daughter's bedroom all you can see is this mast
Melanie Hall, resident
Melanie Hall, one of six residents to bring the complaint against the council, said: "It should not have gone ahead in the first place, it's a residential area.
"This was our ideal home, but from our back garden and my daughter's bedroom all you can see is this mast.
"The compensation doesn't mean much to us really, ideally we wanted the mast to come down."
A spokeswoman said Swindon Borough Council had apologised to the families for the error - which was caused by the application being put on the wrong pile of paperwork.
This delay meant One2One - now named T-mobile - could put the mast up even though planners had objected.
Council chief executive Simon Birch said: "The council has accepted the ombudsman's findings in full and has offered affected householders compensation.
"The council has introduced new procedures for dealing with future applications for telecommunications development to prevent this maladministration happening again."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/3041309.stm
Published: 2003/05/19 16:22:57 GMT
© BBC MMIV
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
rudkla - 29. Mär, 10:00
Mittwoch, 28. März 2007
Stars keep up pressure on phone mast company
nlnews @archant.co.uk
28 March 2007
ACTORS Neil Morissey, Joe McGann and Cliff Parisi are pictured (left to right) with Lynne Featherstone MP
THE fight isn't over yet - that is the message from TV stars, residents and Lynne Featherstone MP to a mobile phone company wanting to erect a mast outside their homes.
Residents of five roads in Stroud Green - including actors Neil Morissey, Joe McGann and Cliff Parisi - have united and won the backing of the Hornsey and Wood Green MP against Hutchison 3G's plans to install a 13.5 metre-tall mobile phone mast on a covered reservoir in Mount View Road.
Although Hutchison 3G recently won its appeal to overturn Haringey Council's rejection of the mast and base station, residents remain against it.
At a demonstration by the proposed site on Sunday, residents from Mount View Road, Womersley Road, Ferme Park Road, Ossian Road and Mount Pleasant Villas were joined by Ms Featherstone to show their solidarity.
Robin Derham, co-ordinator of the Mount View and Womersley Roads Neighbourhood Group, said: "These masts are being foisted on communities against their wishes, and the 'precautionary approach' to their location - advocated in the Stewart Report - is simply not being observed.
"The whole process appears to be weighted against us, and the only chance of overturning the decision is by judicial review, which can be a cripplingly expensive gamble.
"Ordinary people should not have to suffer the burden of costs to defend the air around them."
A 250-signature petition has been gathered against the mast, which would sit in a conservation area if built, just 20 metres from the nearest homes and 200 metres from St Peter In Chains RC Primary School.
Ms Featherstone added: "Until we are 100 per cent certain of the effects on people's health, I fully support a precautionary approach. Masts should not be built within feet of people's bedrooms as will be the case here. The mast will also spoil one of Haringey's best views over the city.
"The fact that residents are being forced to launch an expensive court action shows yet again how unfair our planning system is for the people who will be most affected by new developments. It is a real case of David versus Goliath and developers cannot be allowed to get away with this."
As the mast has already been given Government approval through the planning inspector, it could be erected at any time.
Copyright © 2007 Archant Regional Limited. All rights reserved.
http://tinyurl.com/2uqqtj
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Lynne+Featherstone
28 March 2007
ACTORS Neil Morissey, Joe McGann and Cliff Parisi are pictured (left to right) with Lynne Featherstone MP
THE fight isn't over yet - that is the message from TV stars, residents and Lynne Featherstone MP to a mobile phone company wanting to erect a mast outside their homes.
Residents of five roads in Stroud Green - including actors Neil Morissey, Joe McGann and Cliff Parisi - have united and won the backing of the Hornsey and Wood Green MP against Hutchison 3G's plans to install a 13.5 metre-tall mobile phone mast on a covered reservoir in Mount View Road.
Although Hutchison 3G recently won its appeal to overturn Haringey Council's rejection of the mast and base station, residents remain against it.
At a demonstration by the proposed site on Sunday, residents from Mount View Road, Womersley Road, Ferme Park Road, Ossian Road and Mount Pleasant Villas were joined by Ms Featherstone to show their solidarity.
Robin Derham, co-ordinator of the Mount View and Womersley Roads Neighbourhood Group, said: "These masts are being foisted on communities against their wishes, and the 'precautionary approach' to their location - advocated in the Stewart Report - is simply not being observed.
"The whole process appears to be weighted against us, and the only chance of overturning the decision is by judicial review, which can be a cripplingly expensive gamble.
"Ordinary people should not have to suffer the burden of costs to defend the air around them."
A 250-signature petition has been gathered against the mast, which would sit in a conservation area if built, just 20 metres from the nearest homes and 200 metres from St Peter In Chains RC Primary School.
Ms Featherstone added: "Until we are 100 per cent certain of the effects on people's health, I fully support a precautionary approach. Masts should not be built within feet of people's bedrooms as will be the case here. The mast will also spoil one of Haringey's best views over the city.
"The fact that residents are being forced to launch an expensive court action shows yet again how unfair our planning system is for the people who will be most affected by new developments. It is a real case of David versus Goliath and developers cannot be allowed to get away with this."
As the mast has already been given Government approval through the planning inspector, it could be erected at any time.
Copyright © 2007 Archant Regional Limited. All rights reserved.
http://tinyurl.com/2uqqtj
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Lynne+Featherstone
rudkla - 28. Mär, 23:53
Take Appropriate RFID Precautions
http://www.rfidupdate.com/articles/index.php?id=1327
--------
RFID and the End of Privacy
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/3494652/
--------
RFID and the End of Privacy
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/3494652/
rudkla - 28. Mär, 22:53
Cloonlyon residents protest against proposed mast
by Brenda Carney
Residents from Cloonlyon held a demonstration outside the offices of Galway County Council on Monday in protest against a proposal to build an 02 phone mast in the area.
Residents from Ballygar say the visual impact of the 36-metre phone mast will be incredible.
Cloonlyon resident Majella Grogan said the mast would be 210 metres from her back door. British guidelines stipulated that a phone mast should be at least 500 metres away from a dwelling, she claimed.
"It's too near our house and it's too big," said Ms Grogan. "No conclusive research by an independent body has gone into looking at the effects of having a phone mast so close by. Any studies done before have been funded by telecommunications companies," she claimed.
However, a spokesperson for 02 said that 02 endeavoured to minimise the environmental impact and visibility of its mobile infrastructures. 02 also complied with all Irish and EU health and safety legislation and all relevant industry health and safety standards. Health and safety issues were of prime importance to 02 Ireland, which was conscious of its responsibility to customers and the general public, they said.
02 Ireland said its nationwide network of base stations "adhere to the strictest of standards set by the International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and supported by the World Health Organisation.
"The communications regulator, ComReg, also audits 02 base stations to ensure full compliance with international standards and guidelines. Independent analysis from ComReg has shown that 02 sites operate thousands of times below safety standards set by the ICNIRP."
Omega read "Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?" under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/ and
"Competing interests, conflicts of interest: Who's funding WHO?"under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3347390/
Galway County Councillor Tom Reilly gave his full backing to the protestors, saying he fully supported the plight to have the mast relocated. He called on Galway County Council not to grant permission on the basis of the submissions made by the Cloonlyon group.
"02 should think seriously about health not money. There is a serious visual impact on this community," said the councillor.
A petition with over 850 signatures was handed into the council and a decision is expected to be made in relation to either granting or refusing permission to 02 in the coming weeks.
http://www.galwayindependent.com/news/10995.html
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Ballygar
Residents from Cloonlyon held a demonstration outside the offices of Galway County Council on Monday in protest against a proposal to build an 02 phone mast in the area.
Residents from Ballygar say the visual impact of the 36-metre phone mast will be incredible.
Cloonlyon resident Majella Grogan said the mast would be 210 metres from her back door. British guidelines stipulated that a phone mast should be at least 500 metres away from a dwelling, she claimed.
"It's too near our house and it's too big," said Ms Grogan. "No conclusive research by an independent body has gone into looking at the effects of having a phone mast so close by. Any studies done before have been funded by telecommunications companies," she claimed.
However, a spokesperson for 02 said that 02 endeavoured to minimise the environmental impact and visibility of its mobile infrastructures. 02 also complied with all Irish and EU health and safety legislation and all relevant industry health and safety standards. Health and safety issues were of prime importance to 02 Ireland, which was conscious of its responsibility to customers and the general public, they said.
02 Ireland said its nationwide network of base stations "adhere to the strictest of standards set by the International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and supported by the World Health Organisation.
"The communications regulator, ComReg, also audits 02 base stations to ensure full compliance with international standards and guidelines. Independent analysis from ComReg has shown that 02 sites operate thousands of times below safety standards set by the ICNIRP."
Omega read "Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?" under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/ and
"Competing interests, conflicts of interest: Who's funding WHO?"under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3347390/
Galway County Councillor Tom Reilly gave his full backing to the protestors, saying he fully supported the plight to have the mast relocated. He called on Galway County Council not to grant permission on the basis of the submissions made by the Cloonlyon group.
"02 should think seriously about health not money. There is a serious visual impact on this community," said the councillor.
A petition with over 850 signatures was handed into the council and a decision is expected to be made in relation to either granting or refusing permission to 02 in the coming weeks.
http://www.galwayindependent.com/news/10995.html
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Ballygar
rudkla - 28. Mär, 17:51
