We don't often stop and think about the exoskeleton of a technologically advanced environment, but even as some organizations are taking steps to help smart infrastructure fade into the background, there is still the issue of its presence, and the balance between the quality of life its services provides and that which its presence takes away.

This article on 3G towers in Sweden points to this very issue. It talks about where 3G towers are placed, the public pushback on their presence by the relatively affluent who are seen mast the most likely customers of these services, and the already blighted landscape of poorer areas where communication services take-up can sometimes be the most rapid.

One quote is telling:

In some meetings with residents, he said, he felt he was risking "life and limb." But he said that now acceptance of the trappings of a wired society has grown.

"If you want broadband and to be able to work from home, then you have to allow for the infrastructure to be there," he said. "I think people are beginning to appreciate this."

I know of a man who allowed a 3G tower to be placed on his rural land in SW Sweden for the money, and the ultimately sold up and left due to animosity from neighbors, who believe the tower is an ugly eyesore in some otherwise pleasant countryside. Friends of mine bought the house and live there now, in the shadow of the tower. Ironically, the tower is so close it doesn't provide them really any additional benefit - their house is at its base and pretty much below the signal - the tower itself was probably placed to benefit the residents of Helsingborg nearby.

(Image: amigadave/Flickr).