CozmicDebris

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

> Well, here's the word. <snip>

Damn- you really are that stupid. You made at least a half-dozen basic
technical areas in this drivel. In addition, you made almost as many
incorrect assumptions about basiuc technology and spectrum knowledge.

You really don't know anything.

George

Oxford 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.

George

Oxford 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.

DTC

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.

DTC

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.

Larry

Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in news:5q7l4lFukekcU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the
US. When
> will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the
Universe, you
> screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the
rest of
> the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the
US
> complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they
travel?
>
>
>

All these odd modulation schemes and incompatible systems is used
in the USA to prevent, or at least retard, churning, Simon.
There are more SELLular companies than there are customers all
trying to provide minimal service at maximum profits, so the
customers all hate their carrier, as you can easily see on these
newsgroups. So, to prevent customers from jumping ship at the
first opportunity, we invented incompatible phone systems and the
government lawyers at FCC are constantly bribed to allow it,
unlike broadcasting where FCC forces them all to use the same TV
and Radio standards, for instance. So, the American consumer is
screwed and the country is sinking under the weight of dead
SELLphones noone wants or can use. FCC cooperates further
forcing us to "upgrade to GPS", in the name of the bogus
"Homeland Security", the extension of the false flag operation of
9/11, an inside job, not Arabs with boxcutters.

Profits are way up....service is way down. Hell, Verizon doesn't
even provide internet service to its SELLular customers.

73 DE W4CSC



Larry
--
Xterm IS the ultimate video game...(c;

Larry

Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in news:5q7l4lFukekcU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the
US. When
> will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the
Universe, you
> screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the
rest of
> the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the
US
> complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they
travel?
>
>
>

All these odd modulation schemes and incompatible systems is used
in the USA to prevent, or at least retard, churning, Simon.
There are more SELLular companies than there are customers all
trying to provide minimal service at maximum profits, so the
customers all hate their carrier, as you can easily see on these
newsgroups. So, to prevent customers from jumping ship at the
first opportunity, we invented incompatible phone systems and the
government lawyers at FCC are constantly bribed to allow it,
unlike broadcasting where FCC forces them all to use the same TV
and Radio standards, for instance. So, the American consumer is
screwed and the country is sinking under the weight of dead
SELLphones noone wants or can use. FCC cooperates further
forcing us to "upgrade to GPS", in the name of the bogus
"Homeland Security", the extension of the false flag operation of
9/11, an inside job, not Arabs with boxcutters.

Profits are way up....service is way down. Hell, Verizon doesn't
even provide internet service to its SELLular customers.

73 DE W4CSC



Larry
--
Xterm IS the ultimate video game...(c;

Steve Sobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-11-17, Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote:

> Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the US. When
> will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the Universe, you
> screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the rest of
> the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the US
> complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they travel?

While I agree with you that the usage of different frequencies is stupid
(with the exception of 1900, supposedly because 1800 was already in use
by the military), I would like to point out that every GSM phone I've owned
since switching to T-Mobile USA in 2005 has been a quad-band phone, rendering
that problem irrelevant.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Steve Sobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-11-17, Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote:

> Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the US. When
> will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the Universe, you
> screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the rest of
> the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the US
> complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they travel?

While I agree with you that the usage of different frequencies is stupid
(with the exception of 1900, supposedly because 1800 was already in use
by the military), I would like to point out that every GSM phone I've owned
since switching to T-Mobile USA in 2005 has been a quad-band phone, rendering
that problem irrelevant.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

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.