Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

Oxford

DTC <> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> > 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> > of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> > sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> Yahoo message board -
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> [quote]
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> > The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
> > day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
> > cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
> > must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
> > experience. And here's the best part.
> > 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.
>
>
> Authored by: By Cade Metz in San Francisco
> [quote]
> The FCC calls the 700-MHz band "beachfront property." As TV stations
> vacate this wireless real estate, making the move to digital
> transmission, it could potentially house a nationwide wireless network
> that's faster than WiFi and more adept at passing through walls.
>
> Would you like salsa to go with the egg on yer face?

why are you so obsessed with me?

Oxford

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

> > And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.
>
> Oxfart posts something here, and when questioned about its source, goes
> to that forum and says "but look, it's published elsewhere"--when in
> reality that "forum" simply reposts whatever anyone posts to the Usenet.

they are not talking about that elmo. what i posted came from yahoo's
message board, not usenet. learn to read.

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

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

> > And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.
>
> Oxfart posts something here, and when questioned about its source, goes
> to that forum and says "but look, it's published elsewhere"--when in
> reality that "forum" simply reposts whatever anyone posts to the Usenet.

they are not talking about that elmo. what i posted came from yahoo's
message board, not usenet. learn to read.

CozmicDebris

Oxford <> wrote in
news:.qwest.net:


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

No- you're clueless on a totally different level. You don't have any clue
at all about the technology, as shown by your blind acceptance of
information found in the net. This thread has cemented the fact that you
know nothing and havew no first hand experience with any of this stuff.
You are simply an adolescent fanboi who gets all information from someplace
else, without knowing the accuracy of that data.

DTC

Oxford wrote:
> why are you so obsessed with me?

Why are you so obsessed with making yerself look like a fool, fool?

DTC

Oxford wrote:
> why are you so obsessed with me?

Why are you so obsessed with making yerself look like a fool, fool?

Oxford

Jack Hamilton <> wrote:

> Oxford <> wrote:
>
> >i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
>
> Why don't you just tell us who the author was?

it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
found it.

Yahoo message board -
Posted by "ace_92029"
"http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029

i did feel like digging it up, so now go ***** at the author, not me. i
was just the carrier pigeon.

Oxford

Jack Hamilton <> wrote:

> Oxford <> wrote:
>
> >i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
>
> Why don't you just tell us who the author was?

it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
found it.

Yahoo message board -
Posted by "ace_92029"
"http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029

i did feel like digging it up, so now go ***** at the author, not me. i
was just the carrier pigeon.

Oxford

DTC <> 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.