Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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


So you are acknowledging that you are just a clueless fanboi with no
credibility who simply parrots stuff because you don't have the
knowledge to check your sources and your only purpose for posting is to
annoy people here who have a stronger technology background than you but
who don't drink apples' kool aid?

When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.

George

Oxford wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, you were the author. Those were your words. You didn't quote
anyone or provide any sort of reference that it wasn't the result of
*your* research and validation.

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.

Oxford

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> > 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...

correct, but the author's info wasn't linkable, so i left it off.

at least he is right on track, in 60ish days we'll know for sure if
Apple can't pull it off, if so, the entire cell market vastly changes.