Anyone Notice AT&T Cell Reception Worse On Route 30 North Of The Covered Bridge Recently?

by BusyMom | Questions & Answers | 3726 Views

Not that it’s ever great along the Route 30 corridor, but suddenly my phone isn’t picking up signals in places along there where signals had actually improved starting last winter.  Maybe a tower or minicell is malfunctioning?

Comments | 5

  • Submitted by Fisherman on October 6, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    ATT Reception

    I don’t know about RT 30, but if find it terrible in the south end of town. I have decided to dump ATT, but do not know which service is best.

    • Submitted by SK-B on October 6, 2015 at 7:20 pm

      ATT coverage

      Around the hospital and nearby, I have found it nearly impossible to get a signal. I would expect cell phone communication to work anywhere in town.

  • Submitted by eschmitt on October 9, 2015 at 5:08 am

    sigh

    This is a good moment to recall that the Selectboard opposed a cell tower installation in town recently.

    “Donna Macomber said she felt strongly that a 120 foot tower with a capacity to rise to 140 feet should be opposed. She called it an eyesore for Putney Road, and didn’t buy the explanation that small gaps in coverage were a bad thing. “No crimes or fires go unattended due to lack of cell phone coverage” in Brattleboro, she said.”

    Just let the stupidity of that statement sink in for a moment while we are unable to make/receive phone calls nor have access to data connections through large swathes of town in 2015.

    The selectboard may want to wake up and realize some of us conduct business via our phones, using both voice calls and internet access, and being unreachable in chunks of town is actually a problem and makes one question why they moved to town from the boonies if the cell service is just as bad… (and we actually have poorer roads and fewer services for twice the tax rate…)

    • Submitted by cgrotke on October 9, 2015 at 6:30 am

      Just to be clear...

      They opposed the aesthetics of a single tower in a very visible location.

      Not all towers.

      They even requested to see if this new equipment to be colocated on another existing tower, but it wasn’t good enough for AT&T (a company that has been shown to facilitate NSA spying on Americans, btw)

      The coverage this tower (which will be built, I’m sure, despite some objections) would improve is along 91, especially on the bridge. For all those important middle of the bridge while driving calls. : )

      Not sure if it would help Rt 30, or why existing service on Rt 30 seems to have suddenly changed?

      • Submitted by eschmitt on October 10, 2015 at 7:35 pm

        By all means push to have the

        By all means push to have the necessary eyesore of cell phone towers be as minimally intrusive and as aesthetically acceptable as possible. I’d support that effort.

        Thats not what I’m jabbing them for.

        I’m jabbing them for the crimes and fires part of the statement. That to me indicates an extremely myopic and outdated perspective.

        In 2015 it is necessary and desirable to have cell phone and data coverage be as complete as possible.

        And yes, speaking as one who has yet to figure out how to add more hours to the day so I can get all my work done, I often knock out listening to voicemail/making calls to suppliers and customers while on the road using a hands-free bluetooth system. So having a call drop every few miles in a somewhat densely populated town is a major frustration. Not having access to my e-mail or internet due to a lack of data access in large swatches of town is also an issue.

        Offices are becoming mobile. Make the cell tower as unobtrusive as possible, but don’t claim that we don’t need the coverage.

Leave a Reply