Oxford

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx.
>
> False...There is no such thing as a "network already built out".
>
> > Instant nationwide network that goes
> > through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
>
> False...There is no such thing as an "instant network".
>
> > So reception is
> > better, distance travels longer and
>
> False (in your context)...Any distant reception requires a high gain
> antenna mounted on a roof in most cases. Unlike the internal antenna of
> a cellular handset.
>
> > coverage is nationwide just as
> > analogue TV is
>
> False...UHF television coverage is not "nationwide", its mostly in urban
> areas.
>
> > and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> > what cell phone companies compete with
>
> False...the backhaul costs to the back bone would be similar.
>
> > you only need 1/4 of the sites
> > as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use.
>
> False...You're making the simplistic assumption based on signal lever
> propagation and ignoring topographic terrain issues.
>
> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.

i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.

Ness Net

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...


ALL horseshit snipped.....

Oxy - where DO you get this crap? Some blogger unencumbered by
the thought process or actual reality? Cite your source or STFU...

There actually was a good article today on this subject and Google.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178158/?wpisrc=newsletter

iPhone mentioned as one of the CLOSED platforms that Android will crush.

Another tidbit contrary to Oxy's contention that Apple dictates all.

...."a once-radical company like Apple, when it launched the iPhone, bowed
to the carriers instead of trying to fight them."

Ness Net

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...


ALL horseshit snipped.....

Oxy - where DO you get this crap? Some blogger unencumbered by
the thought process or actual reality? Cite your source or STFU...

There actually was a good article today on this subject and Google.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178158/?wpisrc=newsletter

iPhone mentioned as one of the CLOSED platforms that Android will crush.

Another tidbit contrary to Oxy's contention that Apple dictates all.

...."a once-radical company like Apple, when it launched the iPhone, bowed
to the carriers instead of trying to fight them."

Oxford

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> > through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
> > better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
> > analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> > what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
> > as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
> > which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
> > expenses, etc..
> >
> Don't make yourself look even more clueless than you already look by
> parroting marketing speak you don't understand.
>
> The existing TV network isn't two way. It consists of a minimal amount
> of high powered transmitters which are one way only and in no way can be
> easily converted to do anything related to two way without almost a
> complete rebuild and the addition of a significant amount of sites. An
> "Instant network" is only bait marketing speak for clueless fanbois like
> you.
>
> Actual installations require almost a similar amount of equipment (and
> maintenance) as cellphone data systems because sufficient sites have to
> be installed to receive the signals from the weaker mobiles.

it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.

Oxford

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> > through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
> > better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
> > analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> > what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
> > as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
> > which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
> > expenses, etc..
> >
> Don't make yourself look even more clueless than you already look by
> parroting marketing speak you don't understand.
>
> The existing TV network isn't two way. It consists of a minimal amount
> of high powered transmitters which are one way only and in no way can be
> easily converted to do anything related to two way without almost a
> complete rebuild and the addition of a significant amount of sites. An
> "Instant network" is only bait marketing speak for clueless fanbois like
> you.
>
> Actual installations require almost a similar amount of equipment (and
> maintenance) as cellphone data systems because sufficient sites have to
> be installed to receive the signals from the weaker mobiles.

it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.

Oxford

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx.
>
> Ok, now you have real showed your ignorance.
>
> There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in the
> world did you get that idea???
>
> Oh, you're thinking that there there is a vast nationwide coverage of
> UHF TV stations out there...sorry, UHF is mostly in built up urban
> cities using a max of five MEGAwatts (circular polarization), but it
> could adapted to ten megawatts in one plane. You don't seem to
> understand that two-way communications requires reciprocal power levels.
>
> And they are NOT "networked" together. The ONLY thing already in
> place...are a few towers in urban areas, but no radio infrastructure in
> place.
>
> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.

that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

Oxford

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx.
>
> Ok, now you have real showed your ignorance.
>
> There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in the
> world did you get that idea???
>
> Oh, you're thinking that there there is a vast nationwide coverage of
> UHF TV stations out there...sorry, UHF is mostly in built up urban
> cities using a max of five MEGAwatts (circular polarization), but it
> could adapted to ten megawatts in one plane. You don't seem to
> understand that two-way communications requires reciprocal power levels.
>
> And they are NOT "networked" together. The ONLY thing already in
> place...are a few towers in urban areas, but no radio infrastructure in
> place.
>
> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.

that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

DTC

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...yer still clueless for
buying into that.

DTC

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...yer still clueless for
buying into that.

Ness Net

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-320858.09401817112007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net...
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

YOU cite something (and like it was yours) - it makes YOU clueless!!

It DOES prove that YOU know nothing about the subject(s) you prattle on
about.

It DOES prove that YOU post complete bullshit.