Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

George <[email protected]> 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.

---

› See More: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

DTC <[email protected]> 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.

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <[email protected]> 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.

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*.

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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.

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <[email protected]> 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.

Then you admit you bought into his dribble.

My gawd...you are so clueless.

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

>i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.

Why don't you just tell us who the author was?

Oxford wrote:

[snip drivel}

http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3

Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...

http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r

My gawd...you are so clueless.

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author
> was clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
>

No- you're clueless on a totally different level. You don't have any clue
at all about the technology, as shown by your blind acceptance of
information found in the net. This thread has cemented the fact that you
know nothing and havew no first hand experience with any of this stuff.
You are simply an adolescent fanboi who gets all information from someplace
else, without knowing the accuracy of that data.

"DTC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7cG%[email protected]...
> Oxford wrote:
>
> [snip drivel}
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>
> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>
> My gawd...you are so clueless.


And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at the
top.

Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "DTC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7cG%[email protected]...
>> Oxford wrote:
>>
>> [snip drivel}
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>>
>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>>
>> My gawd...you are so clueless.
>
>
> And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at
> the top.


I know. Isn't that funny. Its gonna take more than hand cleaner to wipe
that egg off his face, ya think?

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 - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
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.

http://tinyurl.com/ywpwdn
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?

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...l?tk=nl_dnxnws

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 wrote:
> In article <7cG%[email protected]>,
> DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>
>> [snip drivel}
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>>
>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>>
>> 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.