Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

DTC

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?

Ness Net

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

As we all know by now - Oxtard is (always) wrong.

Here is the real deal...



Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in
an auction be held in the U.S. in January

The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners,
according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Ness Net

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

As we all know by now - Oxtard is (always) wrong.

Here is the real deal...



Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in
an auction be held in the U.S. in January

The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners,
according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <7cG%i.60018$.prodigy.net >,
DTC <> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>
> [snip drivel}
>
>
>
> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>
>
>
> My gawd...you are so clueless.

OK, so that last link is to a forum which, apparently, simply takes the
Usenet articles and places them into its forum structure.

DTC

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.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <7cG%i.60018$.prodigy.net >,
DTC <> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>
> [snip drivel}
>
>
>
> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>
>
>
> My gawd...you are so clueless.

OK, so that last link is to a forum which, apparently, simply takes the
Usenet articles and places them into its forum structure.

CozmicDebris

Oxford <> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
:

> 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.

DTC

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <7cG%i.60018$.prodigy.net >,
> DTC <> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>
>> [snip drivel}
>>
>>
>>
>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>
>>
>>
>> My gawd...you are so clueless.
>
> OK, so that last link is to a forum which, apparently, simply takes the
> Usenet articles and places them into its forum structure.


And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.

DTC

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <7cG%i.60018$.prodigy.net >,
> DTC <> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>
>> [snip drivel}
>>
>>
>>
>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>
>>
>>
>> My gawd...you are so clueless.
>
> OK, so that last link is to a forum which, apparently, simply takes the
> Usenet articles and places them into its forum structure.


And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.

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.