MiFi purchase and contract options?

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:14 -0700, in
><[email protected]>, DevilsPGD
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In message <sLTXn.8277$3%[email protected]> Todd Allcock
>><[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>A good cloud service, like Exchange, uses the cloud as an intermediary
>>>between devices, as well as a backup. I sync two mobiles and three PCs
>>>with my cloud service. If my provider crashes e or vaporates tomorrow,
>>>my data is safe in five locations, any of which can restore the data to
>>>another server/provider.
>>
>>Sidekick was similar, except that data was lost after a reboot.
>
>The Sidekick data was recovered. The problem was incompetant
>administration by Microsoft, not the technology.
>
>>Although it's not as easy a reboot to lose your data in the event of an
>>Exchange failure, if the Exchange server comes back up with a blank
>>mailbox (using the same credentials) you'll lose all your data on the
>>device. Even worse, should you attempt to remove the account from your
>>device or change it to a new server, you'll again lose all your data.
>
>Not if it's backed up properly.

That's easier said than done on many devices.

>>The model of treating the server as authoritative is a good one in
>>general (SyncML is an example of the disaster that happens without an
>>authoritative owner)
>
>SyncML works quite well.

It can, if both the client and server happen to share a common set of
fields, have similar capabilities, handle all-day events similarly,
handle timezones similarly, and never happen to get out of sync.

Since this never actually happens unless you happen to have a client and
server written by the same folks, the real world is a bit messier.

Try supporting a Razr's native SyncML client on virtually any SyncML
server out there to see what I mean.

Oh, and a restore of either side to a backup made before the most recent
sync will result in a permanent out of sync situation unless the user
understands how to perform a one-way sync, or is willing to live with
(or fix) the duplicates created by a slow sync.

---

› See More: MiFi purchase and contract options?

Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:07:50 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Matching
>>> a wide range of frequencies is not.
>
> Hint: I do some antenna design in my spare time:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/>
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-periodic_antenna
>>http://www.radio-electronics.com/inf...g_periodic.php
>
> A log periodic antenna will not fit inside an iPhone. It's also
> rather directional, which is not what's needed in a cell phone. With
> small antennas, the efficiency is what usually goes down the drain
> first. Directionality goes next, as small antennas like to radiate in
> a spherical pattern, which mangles the SAR test. Most cellular
> antennas are loaded monopoles, PIFA, fractal, or just plain squashed
> into a pretzel. If I'm lazy, I just input the target specs into the
> modeling program, fire off the optimizer, and leave for a short
> vacation. When I return, I have a weird looking, best effort antenna,
> which usually works amazingly well.
>
> Incidentally, I have built LPDA antennas on e=10 ceramic substrates,
> which will reduce the size by about a factor of 4. However, for
> 800-1900MHz, it's still to big for inside a cell phone.
>
>>http://www.tpub.com/content/et/14092/css/14092_35.htm
>
> Close. That's a conical dipole. Inverting the cones results in a
> bi-conical, which is an excellent broadband dipole. However, it has
> the same problem as the LPDA. It won't fit.
>
>>http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/dow...nuals/DA25.pdf
>
> That's a discone. It's half a bi-conical, with a capacitive hat. It's
> one of the worst antennas ever sold, were it not for the advantage of
> having a huge bandwidth. For a base station, if you don't mind having
> all of your RF going well above the horizon, it's fine. That's why
> you see it at airports.
>
>>Here's your slot iPhone 4 antenna...nothing new...
>>http://archive.electronicdesign.com/.../figure_01.gif
>
> Hmmm.... 5 different antennas. Here's some exploded views of the
> iPhone that might help you identify which of the 4 antennas is in the
> iPhone 4:
> <http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Teardown/3130/>
> Hint: The stainless frame is not a patch antenna because it's no
> suspended above a ground plane. It's also not a loop because it's
> broken into 2 seperate antennas (one for BT and Wi-Fi, the other for
> cellular). There's no meandering line or slot.
>
> However, the iPhone 4 antenna might be a PIFA antenna, which is the
> "inverted F" in the picture. I can't tell from the photos or the FCC
> page. When I get my hands on an iPhone, or better photos, I can make
> a determination. I wouldn't be surprised if the frame antenna is just
> a piece of wire with a messy matching circuit.
>
>>http://ceta.mit.edu/PIER/pier86/10.08090701.pdf
>>very broadband antennas can be made for microwave frequencies from PC
>>board material.
>
> Yep. UWB antennas are difficult but possible. However interesting,
> the iPhone 4 is not a UWB device and only needs to operate on 800,
> 900, 1800, and 1900 MHz.
>
>>http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wip...band-tem-horn-
antenna/WO1997
>>012252A1.pdf
>
> That's a horn antenna. I'm trying to visualize how one would use a
> horn antenna with a cell phone. Certainly they're broadband, but are
> more suitable for illuminating a dish antenna, than cramming into a
> cell phone. Same problem as the others... too big and too
> directional.
>
>>Matching a wide range of frequencies isn't much of a challenge in
>>2010.
>
> It is difficult in a cell phone. If you don't care about size, shape,
> directionality, SAR, gain, and price, it's easy.
>
> Hint... do some searching in the IEEE Antennas and Propagation
> Journal:
> <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=74>
> Type "cellular antenna" into the search box near the top of the page.
> You won't get the contents, but the abstract should be sufficient for
> this exercise. 3800 articles.
>
>>Placing the antenna where it will have a reasonable chance of
>>radiating into space is becoming more and more of a political problem
>>as the greenies take over the political system.
>
> That's true for cell sites. I'm somewhat involved locally in the
> process. However, I don't think that politics had anything to do with
> the design of the iPhone 4 antenna.
>

Geez, Jeff....I was making a JOKE!

73 DE W4CSC

--
Global Warming and Creationism are to science what storks are to
obstetrics...

Larry

Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Where the FCC
> is going to find 500MHz of spectrum of uncontested spectrum needed for
> mobile and fixed wireless (actually for auction), is anyone's guess.
>
>

We just ran the analog TV broadcasters off a huge piece of real estate.....


--
Global Warming and Creationism are to science what storks are to
obstetrics...

Larry

Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it
> would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell.

Huh?? The broadcasters don't own the frequencies they've been using since
WW2. Those are all public airwaves. FCC doesn't need any permission as
the broadcasters are slaves to the FCC, not the other way around....

I think it should be a Federal felony to SELL the public's airwaves to
anyone or any entity. What the hell are they gonna sell next, Yellowstone
National Park?!

It's not theirs to sell, dammit. It's OURS.



--
Global Warming and Creationism are to science what storks are to
obstetrics...

Larry

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:29:10 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, DevilsPGD
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]> Larry
><[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>Ruling out other causes is very easy. Just pick up the cheapest free phone
>>ATT sells and dial out a call right next to iPhone 4. Does the call work?
>>Yes? Not the infrastructure or traffic's fault. That points it quickly at
>>the real cause of failures.....iPhone 4's defective antenna system.
>
>I had a friend down in the US try it. He can reproduce the signal drop
>problem fairly easily, but only when he's in an area with already
>marginal signal. Luckily his daily commute passes through just such an
>area so he's been able to test.
>
>The only way he can get the iPhone 4 to drop a call is to keep driving
>until his other phone drops a call, then grab his iPhone 4 the "wrong"
>way.
>
>If he leaves both sitting on the seat beside him, the iPhone 4 holds on
>to the call longer. If he holds it the "wrong" way, it's about 50/50
>which call drops off first but they're very close.
>
>Testing was done on a 3G Blackberry of some sort, I believe he's using a
>Bold these days.

So he's got a bum Blackberry too.

Ask him to try a better Nokia or Motorola.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Big part of the reason the Droid is such a smash hit is the excellent
> radio performance, which is no surprise given Motorola's expertise.

actually it's because verizon was selling them two for one and that
there aren't many other android options on verizon.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:37:11 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 04 Jul 2010 18:10:34 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> There was backup. There was also fault tolerance. The problem was
>> incompetant administration by Microsoft, not the Danger technology.
>
>It was both. There is no direct user backup with Danger/Sidekick- the
>server is the authoritative store, and only "backup." You're relying on
>the server to store your data.

The server was (a) fault tolerant and (b) backed up.
The fault was entirely Microsoft.

>> >A good cloud service, like Exchange, uses the cloud as an intermediary
>> >between devices, as well as a backup. I sync two mobiles and three PCs
>> >with my cloud service. If my provider crashes e or vaporates tomorrow,
>> >my data is safe in five locations, any of which can restore the data to
>> >another server/provider.
>>
>> It makes sense to maintain your own backup,
>> just as it makes sense to replicate your backup in the cloud.
>
>Except Sidekick users don't have those options. They can't make their
>own backups, unless there are third party tools for that I'm unaware of.

Which is why the Microsoft foulup was so intolerable.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:46:19 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 04 Jul 2010 07:39:34 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >Thankfully, HTC includes a Field Test app with their devices. I'm only a
>> >few taps away from knowing what the score is, regardless of what the bars
>> >say.
>>
>> Yep -- HTC makes great phones, which is why Apple has decided it has to
>> compete in court instead of just in the market. On my HTC phone: Menu >
>> Settings > About phone > Status > Signal strength (currently -89 dBm 12
>> asu).
>
>In my experience, HTC makes mediocre phones, built-into decent mobile
>computers. Sadly my Sony Xperia X1 is even more mediocre than usual.

My T-Mobile myTouch 3G 3.5mm Jack (aka HTC Magic) is very good.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:29:01 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:37:11 -0600, in
><[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>At 04 Jul 2010 18:10:34 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>
>>> There was backup. There was also fault tolerance. The problem was
>>> incompetant administration by Microsoft, not the Danger technology.
>>
>>It was both. There is no direct user backup with Danger/Sidekick- the
>>server is the authoritative store, and only "backup." You're relying on
>>the server to store your data.
>
>The server was (a) fault tolerant and (b) backed up.
>The fault was entirely Microsoft.

<http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/15/microsofts-pinkdanger-backup-problem-blamed-on-roz-ho/>

...

With Microsoft frantically trying to associate its Danger fiasco with
everyone else possible in the industry, and particularly upon its
direct competitors Sun and Oracle, it failed to point out that an
awful lot of enterprise datacenters are running Sun and Oracle, and
yet there aren’t regular outages that last for weeks and announce
having lost all their users’ data. In fact, the losses Microsoft
experienced (and its shoulder shrug response to T-Mobile’s million
Sidekick users) are virtually unprecedented in the industry.

...

It was Microsoft management.

According to the source, the real problem was that a Microsoft
manager directed the technicians performing scheduled maintenance to
work without a safety net in order to save time and money. The
insider reported:

“In preparation for this [SAN] upgrade, they were performing a
backup, but it was 2 days into a 6 day backup procedure (it’s a lot
of data). Someone from Microsoft (Roz Ho) told them to stop the
backup procedure and proceed with the upgrade after assurances from
Hitachi that a backup wasn’t necessary. This was done against the
objections of Danger engineers.

”Now, they had a backup from a couple of months ago, but they only
had the SAN space for a single backup. Because they started a new
backup, they had to remove the old one. If they hadn’t done a backup
at all, they’d still have the previous backup to fall back on.

“Anyway, after the SAN upgrade, disks started ‘disappearing.’
Logically, Oracle [software] freaked out and started trying to
recover, which just made the damage worse.”

The problem with this report is that is places the blame, not on a
complex Oracle deployment, not on bad SAN hardware or a firmware
glitch, not a disgruntled employee with inappropriate levels of
access to a mission critical service, but squarely upon Microsoft
management.

This management decision was (allegedly) made by the same group
within Microsoft that authorized spending $500 million to acquire
Danger and take on accountability for its SLA with T-Mobile, botched
the development of Pink, spent three years and untold sums developing
the Zune brand so that users could sit through TV-style ads before
launching Chess on a handheld, lost billions on Xbox and set a new
‘low-water mark’ in consumer device reliability, boondoggled Windows
Mobile to the point where even Gartner can’t say nice things about
it, and which has responded to the criticism of Apple’s App Store by
launching its own software store with far more rules, significant new
fees, and far fewer desirable offerings.

This latest report does not exactly fail to fit in with the general
incompetence that emanates from Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices
Division. Rather, it seems entirely credible given the increasingly
toxic relationship that has been brewing between Microsoft’s
reality-challenged managers and its often frustrated engineers.


Perhaps those same folks were more recently working for BP.

--
John

"There are three kinds of men.
The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
-Will Rogers

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:11 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it
>> would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell.
>
>Huh?? The broadcasters don't own the frequencies they've been using since
>WW2. Those are all public airwaves. FCC doesn't need any permission as
>the broadcasters are slaves to the FCC, not the other way around....
>
>I think it should be a Federal felony to SELL the public's airwaves to
>anyone or any entity. What the hell are they gonna sell next, Yellowstone
>National Park?!
>
>It's not theirs to sell, dammit. It's OURS.

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of USA. All your bases belong to us.

In 1996, Nextwave won a digital cellular spectrum auction. They paid
a down payment, and immediately defaulted on the remaining $4.7
billion. Nextwave never used the frequencies for anything. The FCC
decided that non-payment was sufficient grounds for revoking their
license. The issue went to the Supreme Court, which inexplicably
ruled that Nextwave has some kind of right to the frequency and that
the FCC could not revoke the license or re-auction the frequencies
while Nextwave was in bankruptcy. Essentially, the Supremes gave
Nextwave the right to resell the licenses for which they hadn't paid.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextWave_Wireless>
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-653.ZO.html>

Roll forward to 2004, and Nextwave sells most of the spectrum to
various cellular providers for a substantial profit. Some of the
proceeds went to the FCC to pay off the 1996 spectrum auction.
<http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3343541/FCCNextWave-Deal-to-Free-Up-Spectrum.htm>

Now, tell me again how the FCC can do anything they want with the
peoples frequencies?

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:29:01 -0700, in
> <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The server was (a) fault tolerant and (b) backed up.

really? your reference says exactly the opposite.

> >The fault was entirely Microsoft.

that is very clear.

> <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/1...ackup-problem-
> blamed-on-roz-ho/>

> According to the source, the real problem was that a Microsoft
> manager directed the technicians performing scheduled maintenance to
> work without a safety net in order to save time and money. The
> insider reported:
>
> “In preparation for this [SAN] upgrade, they were performing a
> backup, but it was 2 days into a 6 day backup procedure (it’s a lot
> of data). Someone from Microsoft (Roz Ho) told them to stop the
> backup procedure and proceed with the upgrade after assurances from
> Hitachi that a backup wasn’t necessary. This was done against the
> objections of Danger engineers.

first you say it was (b) backed up, then you cite a source that says
that they halted the backup procedure before it completed because
hitachi said a backup was not necessary.

that means it was *not* backed up.

> ”Now, they had a backup from a couple of months ago, but they only
> had the SAN space for a single backup. Because they started a new
> backup, they had to remove the old one. If they hadn’t done a backup
> at all, they’d still have the previous backup to fall back on.

a backup from a couple of months ago is not a backup, even if they
hadn't removed it.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:34:45 -0600, in
<mKkYn.9497$3%[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not arguing with any of that- I'm just saying any server-based system
>that doesn't let me also backup my data locally if I choose, is
>fundamentally flawed.

If it won't let us do whatever we need or want -- I don't know one way
or the other -- then for us it is fundamentally flawed, and we shouldn't
use it.

But it's not fundamentally flawed for those who lack the skill or desire
to backup themselves, which I'd guess(tm) is the great majority of the
target market -- for them it's well-designed, and ultimately worked as
intended.

>Danger's accident-waiting-to-happen met
>Microsoft's best accident facilitators and disaster ensued. On any other
>platform, (except maybe Android, and Microsoft's Kin, the latest version
>of Sidekick) I could disconnect from the server completely, use locally
>stored data only, and ride out the outage.

Android devices are easily backed up by the user locally (to SD) or over
the air. "There's an app for that." But I'd guess(tm) the great
majority of Android users will never do that, relying instead on Google
sync (which I think a better bet than Microsoft) and on luck.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:11 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, Larry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it
>> would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell.
>
>Huh?? The broadcasters don't own the frequencies they've been using since
>WW2. Those are all public airwaves. FCC doesn't need any permission as
>the broadcasters are slaves to the FCC, not the other way around....
>
>I think it should be a Federal felony to SELL the public's airwaves to
>anyone or any entity. What the hell are they gonna sell next, Yellowstone
>National Park?!
>
>It's not theirs to sell, dammit. It's OURS.

Actually it is, because they is us.

--
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:48:26 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, Jeff Liebermann
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:11 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it
>>> would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell.
>>
>>Huh?? The broadcasters don't own the frequencies they've been using since
>>WW2. Those are all public airwaves. FCC doesn't need any permission as
>>the broadcasters are slaves to the FCC, not the other way around....
>>
>>I think it should be a Federal felony to SELL the public's airwaves to
>>anyone or any entity. What the hell are they gonna sell next, Yellowstone
>>National Park?!
>>
>>It's not theirs to sell, dammit. It's OURS.
>
>Welcome to the Peoples Republic of USA. All your bases belong to us.
>
>In 1996, Nextwave won a digital cellular spectrum auction. They paid
>a down payment, and immediately defaulted on the remaining $4.7
>billion. Nextwave never used the frequencies for anything. The FCC
>decided that non-payment was sufficient grounds for revoking their
>license. The issue went to the Supreme Court, which inexplicably
>ruled that Nextwave has some kind of right to the frequency and that
>the FCC could not revoke the license or re-auction the frequencies
>while Nextwave was in bankruptcy. Essentially, the Supremes gave
>Nextwave the right to resell the licenses for which they hadn't paid.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextWave_Wireless>
><http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-653.ZO.html>

Like it or not, that's how bankruptcy works. It was an asset of the
estate. The same thing would have applied for *any* asset purchased but
not yet fully paid for -- prior owners (owners no longer) of those
assets become *creditors*, and without some sort of security agreement,
just *unsecured* creditors (at the end of the line). I haven't read the
case, but my guess(tm) is that the FCC was effectively claiming some
sort of bankruptcy exemption, which is why it lost.

>Roll forward to 2004, and Nextwave sells most of the spectrum to
>various cellular providers for a substantial profit. Some of the
>proceeds went to the FCC to pay off the 1996 spectrum auction.
><http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3343541/FCCNextWave-Deal-to-Free-Up-Spectrum.htm>
>
>Now, tell me again how the FCC can do anything they want with the
>peoples frequencies?

That example proves only how bankruptcy works, and the FCC might well
have avoided the problem by writing a proper security agreement.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

atec7 7 > wrote:
> David wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> David <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Strange why people are just complaining about the new phone, my 3GS
>>>> has always dropped signal strength remarkably if I hold it with my
>>>> hand around the top half/
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that it will go from 3bars to no bars depending on
>>>> how I hold it, and that is with a case on it
>>> I bet you haven't actually logged and tracked your experiences.
>>>
>>> Your phone will go from 3 bars to no bars sitting on a table, not
>>> moving, with NO ONE touching it. Case or no case.
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with you and how you hold the phone, and
>>> everything to do with....AT&T.
>>
>> Gee whiz I doubt that. Considering I am thousands of KM away from
>> them living in the land of Oz I think it more likely it is to do with
>> the design of the phone.
>>
>> And with laying down it doesn't change
>>
>> David - who wonders where people get such strange ideas from...
> Both my Lg and HTC phones woop the 4 phone on transmission and currently
> the few aps I use on my normal phones are free . no thanks apple it's a
> dud imho

"Woop the 4 phone"??????

Please provide a translation to English.