Use it to look up Verizon towers and it only finds 56 in the entire state of
California. Somehow I doubt its accuracy! Thanks for explaining why the
results were so sparse.
Gregg Hill
> Not only that but in some markets carriers use other methods of
> coverage besides towers such as microcells, cable boxes, and rooftop
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> registered either (no matter what their height is). So using
> berkana.com is not a very accurate way to find coverage.
Bob Smith - 30 Oct 2004 12:30 GMT
> Use it to look up Verizon towers and it only finds 56 in the entire state of
> California. Somehow I doubt its accuracy! Thanks for explaining why the
> results were so sparse.
>
> Gregg Hill
Oh, it's an accurate database. It just shows who owns the towers, not whose
antennas are on the towers.
Bob
larryt510@hotmail.com - 30 Oct 2004 18:57 GMT
> > Use it to look up Verizon towers and it only finds 56 in the entire state
> of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Bob
Problem is it doesn't even come close to listing every cell tower that
exists (no matter who owns it). I know of many towers here in So. Cal
that are not registered with the FCC.
Steve Sobol - 30 Oct 2004 18:12 GMT
> Use it to look up Verizon towers and it only finds 56 in the entire state of
> California. Somehow I doubt its accuracy! Thanks for explaining why the
> results were so sparse.
There are an awful lot of VZW towers that aren't owned by VZW and therefore
won't show up as VZW towers. Same for most other carriers.

Signature
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.