Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Ron
    Guest
    On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:28:30 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hey, Oxford/Vic--what was that you were saying about WiFi is everywhere,
    >therefore there's no need to use cellular for internet access?
    >
    >Everywhere, right? That's what you said, right? I thought so.
    >
    >- - -
    >
    >Boston comes up short in Wi-Fi effort
    >Funding slow; plans for wide reach delayed
    >
    >By Robert Weisman, Globe Staff | April 4, 2008
    >The Boston Globe
    >
    >Boston's ambitious push to provide citywide wireless Internet access
    >is faltering: Fund-raising is millions of dollars short, the
    >volunteer heading the project may step down, and plans for universal
    >coverage are being scaled back and delayed.
    >
    >The group leading the effort acknowledges that it has raised only
    >"hundreds of thousands" of dollars instead of the nearly $15 million
    >it sought. And unlike its initial pilot project, which blankets the
    >Grove Hall neighborhood, the next phase will target only portions of
    >the Fenway and Mission Hill.
    >
    >City leaders insisted they aren't backing away from their ultimate
    >goal of Wi-Fi in every corner of Boston. Instead, they said, they're
    >adjusting their expectations and abandoning their original timetable
    >- which promised citywide access by 2008 - to refocus on a series of
    >neighborhood "bubbles" that test technology and business models.
    >
    >...
    >
    >http://www.boston.com/business/techn...04/boston_come
    >s_up_short_in_wi_fi_effort/



    It may not be "everywhere", but in many cities it's more places than
    3G is; with it's swiss cheese coverage.

    WiFi (often free and open) can be found in Restaurants, Coffee Houses,
    Libraries, book stores, Hotels, Malls, Hospitals, airports, colleges
    and universities, sporting venues, suburbs, neighborhood bubbles.


    http://www.auscillate.com/wireless/boston/



    See More: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?




  2. #2
    Charles
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    In article <[email protected]>, Ron
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > It may not be "everywhere", but in many cities it's more places than
    > 3G is; with it's swiss cheese coverage.
    >
    > WiFi (often free and open) can be found in Restaurants, Coffee Houses,
    > Libraries, book stores, Hotels, Malls, Hospitals, airports, colleges
    > and universities, sporting venues, suburbs, neighborhood bubbles.


    I see WiFi as a supplement to the phone data. The best of both world
    would be 3G and WiFi as opposed to Edge and WiFi. That is why I am
    waiting for the 3G iPhone. If I only wanted to do e-mail the Edge
    iPhone would be good enough for me.

    Also I think WiFi will be best for using at home and 3G everywhere
    else. Even looking at that list you link to, it is not that long. There
    may be a lot of places but it is not everywhere. And even when you have
    free hotspots you still may have to do some kind of log on which can be
    a pain. Most of the hot spots that people used to leave open were
    because they probably didn't know better. These days most of those have
    been locked.

    --
    Charles



  3. #3
    Ron
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:30:21 -0400, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Ron
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> It may not be "everywhere", but in many cities it's more places than
    >> 3G is; with it's swiss cheese coverage.
    >>
    >> WiFi (often free and open) can be found in Restaurants, Coffee Houses,
    >> Libraries, book stores, Hotels, Malls, Hospitals, airports, colleges
    >> and universities, sporting venues, suburbs, neighborhood bubbles.

    >
    >I see WiFi as a supplement to the phone data. The best of both world
    >would be 3G and WiFi as opposed to Edge and WiFi. That is why I am
    >waiting for the 3G iPhone. If I only wanted to do e-mail the Edge
    >iPhone would be good enough for me.
    >
    >Also I think WiFi will be best for using at home and 3G everywhere
    >else. Even looking at that list you link to, it is not that long. There
    >may be a lot of places but it is not everywhere. And even when you have
    >free hotspots you still may have to do some kind of log on which can be
    >a pain. Most of the hot spots that people used to leave open were
    >because they probably didn't know better. These days most of those have
    >been locked.



    NOT AT ALL THE CASE.



    Nope; last summer for instance when I was travelling between two
    locations in Miami, I pulled into a McDonalds parking lot, and
    instantly glomed onto their free WiFi, to send off a data file by
    email. Took longer to boot up that to get online.

    Then 2 months ago I stopped off at a DoubleTree hotel for a few
    minutes, where their wifi is free and open in their lobby, sat down in
    a posh leather chair, and onto the Internet I went.

    WiFi may not be everywhere, but its availability is usually far more
    predictable than 3G.

    And if one has ATT dsl at home, many of the "pay WiFi" sites are free
    with your ATT username and password if they are ATT sites.



  4. #4
    Charles
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    In article <[email protected]>, Ron
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > WiFi may not be everywhere, but its availability is usually far more
    > predictable than 3G.


    Maybe for your life. I am on trains a significant amount of time and
    there is no WiFi on the trains. Edge or 3g would be the only option. I
    need both 3G and WiFi.

    --
    Charles



  5. #5
    News
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    Charles wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Ron
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>WiFi may not be everywhere, but its availability is usually far more
    >>predictable than 3G.

    >
    >
    > Maybe for your life. I am on trains a significant amount of time and
    > there is no WiFi on the trains. Edge or 3g would be the only option. I
    > need both 3G and WiFi.
    >



    .... or on aircraft, or on the highways while moving.



  6. #6
    (PeteCresswell)
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    Per Charles:
    >need both 3G and WiFi.


    Is WiMax a "3G" network? Or is it a third type?
    --
    PeteCresswell



  7. #7
    Charles
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    In article <[email protected]>, PeteCresswell
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Per Charles:
    > >need both 3G and WiFi.

    >
    > Is WiMax a "3G" network? Or is it a third type?


    I think it could be if a cellular company decided to use it that way.

    --
    Charles



  8. #8
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Is WiMax a "3G" network? Or is it a third type?
    >


    4G



  9. #9
    Charles
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    In article <[email protected]>, Larry
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > Is WiMax a "3G" network? Or is it a third type?
    > >

    >
    > 4G


    Whatever you want to call it there is no WiMax availability. And the
    first and only WiMax device was just announced. So real life wireless
    data service is either WiFi at hotspots or one of the cellular flavors
    of 3g or Edge. Both AT&T and Verizon plan to use LTE for their 4G. The
    GSM world plans to use LTE.

    Contrary to Ron, WiFi is not everywhere. It is only at hotspots. And
    there is a cost at a lot of hotspots. The cellular data networks work
    beyond hotspots, there are holes there too but at least you are not
    tethered to a hot spot. So preferably you want a device with both WiFi
    and with cellular data. Not WiMax because there is no available WiMax
    network.

    --
    Charles



  10. #10
    Charles
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    In article <[email protected]>, Larry
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The words change, but I've heard all this before amoung IMTS "Carphone"
    > users.
    >
    > "Not Cellular because there is no available Cellular network."


    That is nice bull**** but there is no available WiMax network now.
    Until then it is vapor. Also read this article. WiMax is still up in
    the air so to speak.

    http://www.cellular-news.com/story/30280.php

    --
    Charles



  11. #11
    DTC
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    Larry wrote:
    > Charles <[email protected]> wrote in news:060420082202329498%[email protected]:
    >
    >> Not WiMax because there is no available WiMax
    >> network.
    >>

    >
    > The words change, but I've heard all this before amoung IMTS "Carphone"
    > users.
    >
    > "Not Cellular because there is no available Cellular network."


    The RCCs really took the high road on that. For those of you born
    after the 50s, Radio Common Carriers were similar to the "B" side of
    cellular channels reserved for carriers that do not offer incumbnet
    land lines.

    > The Carphone guys said I was nuts. The damned thing only had a 10 mile
    > range from a 3W AMPS "spring" antenna.....unlike the 75 watt IMTS beast in
    > the trunk.


    That might have been a COAM unit (Customer Owned And Maintained) as
    the stock Motorolas were only 25 watts after the VHF duplexer. I think
    GE had a 70 watt unit with a Secode IMTS control head.




  12. #12
    The Bob
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
    news:060420082202329498%[email protected]:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Larry
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]:
    >>
    >> > Is WiMax a "3G" network? Or is it a third type?
    >> >

    >>
    >> 4G

    >
    > Whatever you want to call it there is no WiMax availability. And the
    > first and only WiMax device was just announced. So real life wireless
    > data service is either WiFi at hotspots or one of the cellular flavors
    > of 3g or Edge. Both AT&T and Verizon plan to use LTE for their 4G. The
    > GSM world plans to use LTE.


    Whatever you want to call it there is no LTE availability. And there are
    not any LTE devices announced. So real life wireless data service is either
    WiFi at hotspots or one of the cellular flavors of 3g or Edge.

    Be careful how you word things- as you can see, your own comments about
    WimAx sound pretty stupid when your own "network of the future is
    substituted."


    And actually, WiMax has been rolled out in at least three major markets by
    Sprint, although unannounced to the public. There is obviously some device
    in production that can use it, as they have paying customers testing the
    network and service.


    >
    > Contrary to Ron, WiFi is not everywhere. It is only at hotspots. And
    > there is a cost at a lot of hotspots. The cellular data networks work
    > beyond hotspots, there are holes there too but at least you are not
    > tethered to a hot spot. So preferably you want a device with both WiFi
    > and with cellular data. Not WiMax because there is no available WiMax
    > network.
    >


    Nor LTE (that "Own comments sounding stupid" thing again)



  13. #13
    The Bob
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
    news:060420082258582627%[email protected]:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Larry
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> The words change, but I've heard all this before amoung IMTS "Carphone"
    >> users.
    >>
    >> "Not Cellular because there is no available Cellular network."

    >
    > That is nice bull**** but there is no available WiMax network now.
    > Until then it is vapor. Also read this article. WiMax is still up in
    > the air so to speak.
    >


    Where is the up in the air part? Everything in the article points to a
    summer launch, which would be on target for the timeline annouced when
    Sprint made the decision to go with WiMax. Absolutely nothing about it
    being up in the air.

    > http://www.cellular-news.com/story/30280.php
    >





  14. #14
    Charles
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    In article <[email protected]>, The Bob
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Where is the up in the air part? Everything in the article points to a
    > summer launch, which would be on target for the timeline annouced when
    > Sprint made the decision to go with WiMax. Absolutely nothing about it
    > being up in the air.


    It was supposed to be launched in April. You didn't read the part about
    it being delayed? Again low reading skills on your part. The up in the
    air part was intended as humor but I guess that got by you.

    --
    Charles



  15. #15
    The Bob
    Guest

    Re: Hey, Oxford/Vic--WiFi everywhere? Say again?

    Charles <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
    news:070420080018429689%[email protected]:

    > In article <[email protected]>, The Bob
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Where is the up in the air part? Everything in the article points to a
    >> summer launch, which would be on target for the timeline annouced when
    >> Sprint made the decision to go with WiMax. Absolutely nothing about it
    >> being up in the air.

    >
    > It was supposed to be launched in April. You didn't read the part about
    > it being delayed? Again low reading skills on your part.


    Sprint moved the time line up AFTER the announcement, as I quite clearly
    stated above. It would appear that it is your ability to read that is at
    question.

    >The up in the
    > air part was intended as humor but I guess that got by you.
    >


    Careful- you'll hurt yourself if you keep putting on the brakes like that-
    there was no attmept at humor present, Chuckie.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast