Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in news:5q7l4l***ekcU1
@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.
["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.
> 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.
> > 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 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 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.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 17 Nov 2007 08:31:06 -0600 DTC wrote:
>
>> There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in
>> the world did you get that idea???
>
>
> There are several analog TV networks already in place: ABC, NBC,
> CBS... ;-)
In that context, yes...but to say its a data network as he implied, no.
>
> 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*.
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.
> > 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.
Oxford wrote:
> 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.
Then you should have included it in quotes and at least credit to the
web page you found it on any other citations.
> 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.
> > There are several analog TV networks already in place: ABC, NBC,
> > CBS... ;-)
>
> In that context, yes...but to say its a data network as he implied, no.
>
Linear Mode
