.

Where Are Stoneham's Cell Phone Dead Zones?

Let us know what parts of town have the worst cell phone reception by posting a comment below.

No matter how high-end the iPhone 5 or other cell phones may be, there are still dead zones. With that in mind, we'd like to know: Where are Stoneham's cell phone dead zones?

Which cell phone network do you have, and where in Stoneham do you typically lose service? Let us know what street(s) or area of town have poor cell reception by posting a comment in the comments section below.

We'll compile a recap story for next week.

Meg September 18, 2012 at 11:09 AM
AT&T: Franklin Street between the high school and Dunkin Donuts, and the same area on Spring street. Also, 93 N right at Spot Pond before the exit for 28.
Karen Rondeau September 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM
My family has AT&T and I can't wait to get rid of it. I can't reach my child at the High School - because there is no reception. South School isn't any better either. I live on Dean St. and sometimes can't even get reception in my house. My husband has been reporting these dead zones and poor reception to AT&T for over a year and nothing has been done to improve our service.
Laura September 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Verizon - "the dip" on Spring St by the old Gays Flower Shop is a drop zone and I have heard people with other carriers experience it also.
Tara September 18, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Franklin Street by the High School, further down by Walsh Ave and on Walsh Ave I too have AT&T
Mike September 18, 2012 at 01:36 PM
93 along Spot Pond Broadway Field Keene St, Seward Rd., MacArthur Rd. (Areas between Elm St. And Broadway)
Sarah Nelson September 18, 2012 at 06:39 PM
No AT&T around Pine and Middle Streets. We're switching providers as soon as we get the iPhone 5.
Charlie McGrath September 18, 2012 at 06:42 PM
AT&T - Sucks, but Pine Street is a dead zone....
Charlie McGrath September 18, 2012 at 06:43 PM
I'm almost debating the early termination fee just to get rid of AT&T....
Heather September 18, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Sprint - Marble St and the cross road Park St.
jared September 18, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Why, so they can build a cell tower where it doesn't belong...watch our health and property value decline even more?
Diana Crowe September 18, 2012 at 09:02 PM
I cannot get reception for my AT&T service on Gavin Circle, Landers Rd and most of Spring St.
Witold Witkowski September 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM
I have to confirm, Sprint does go all crazy in that intersection.
Witold Witkowski September 19, 2012 at 12:49 PM
At the risk of starting an internet flame war, I have to disagree. There is no evidence (that is reproducible and has merit) that non-ionizing radiation has any deleterious effects on cell tissue when the transmitter is placed a few feet away. Radiation follows the inverse square law, so when you double the distance, you get 1/4 of the power. I would argue that putting up more towers in discrete locations would be "more healthy" as the transmitter in your pocket doesn't have to turn on full blast to reach the distant receiver.
jared September 19, 2012 at 01:11 PM
Prove it. Where are the years of research. Would you put one in your backyard? I turn my cell phone off at home unless it is truly necessary to have it on. Not an Internet war, just my opinion.
Witold Witkowski September 19, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Jared, I don't like proving things, I like giving supporting evidence. I found some research, but its pay-walled so it would be of little use to post the links here. However, lets do some maths. The battery in my phone claims to be 3.8volts and 1500millamps. So thats ~5.7 watt hours. My phone lasts about 24 hours until the battery gives up the ghost completely. So that's 0.23 watts/hour. Lets be (very) generous and say half of that is radio transmissions. That's 0.11 watts/hour. Watts are a unit of power, and radiative power falls off following the inverse square rule. So, lets assume a point source on the phone antenna, with the antenna being about 1 inch from my body (holster). For simplicity, I'll assume that the interaction surface of the propegating signal is a sphere, so Intensity(Power) = S/(4*pi*r^2). In this case, at 2.54 cm, with a signal (S) of 0.11watts, we divide that by (4 * 3.1415 * 2.54^2). That comes out to be around 81. So 0.11watts divided by 81 is 1.35milliwatts. Continued...
Witold Witkowski September 19, 2012 at 02:13 PM
With the phone at one inch away from my body, using worst (and frankly impossible) case numbers, the total power reaching your skin (Ghz radio doesn't penetrate well, thats why your hand can block signal) is less than one order of magnitude higher than cosmic background radiation (usually cited as microwatts). Honestly, the medium voltage transformers plugged into your wall charging your phone probabbly have a higher RF footprint at a lower, more penetrating frequency than your phone. But I don't feel like doing that math right now. Hope that helps.
jared September 19, 2012 at 03:15 PM
How close would you want one to your house?
Witold Witkowski September 19, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Jared, Here are all the antennas in the Stoneham area: http://tinyurl.com/stonehamtowers Here are all the antenna towers in the Stoneham area: http://preview.tinyurl.com/stonehamtowersites

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something