Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

Ah yes! Oxfartretard is so clueless that he can't even figure out how basic
things work. He should go home and shoot himself in the head!

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-68CA0E.22145017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
>> full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.

In article <SIOdnV7KbdkmddvanZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@trueband.net>,
"Edgar" <edgar@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Ah yes! Oxfartretard is so clueless that he can't even figure out how basic
> things work. He should go home and shoot himself in the head!


no one who top posts can be taken seriously.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

At 24 Nov 2007 21:43:28 -0500 james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> no one who top posts can be taken seriously.


Personally, I judge a person by the contents of his or her words rather
than where they decide to place them.

Top posting is far less annoying than, say, ignoring the rules of
capitalization.

In article <0172j.15$6U6.12@fe089.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 24 Nov 2007 21:43:28 -0500 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > no one who top posts can be taken seriously.
>
> Personally, I judge a person by the contents of his or her words rather
> than where they decide to place them.


i'm not at all surprised that's you'd overlook usenet guidelines and
courtesy.

> Top posting is far less annoying than, say, ignoring the rules of
> capitalization.

but, perhaps not as annoying as whining, eh?

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com

Google will file an application to participate in the 700MHz auction on
Monday, the company said in a news release. Google's application will not
include any partners.


http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._spectrum.html





"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> 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.
>
> Now you understand why Apple didn't want to be locked into the old 3G
> standard.
>
> As you may know, AT&T bought Aloha Partners 700Mhz... about 10 Mhz or
> about half the country. They need more. The market has vastly
> underestimated Steve's influence at AT&T as well as the money Apple is
> getting from AT&T.
>
> 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. 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..
>
> Apple could pull of the coup d'etat of the century, if they said, buy
> your cell phone and use our Wimaxx to dial any number in the US and
> receive any call fo the monthly price of $0 for 2 years.... the iPhone
> would be the hottest product even more so than the Razor was... just
> think of a cell that is free for 2 years.. that's huge... what does
> Apple gain from this...they could probably sell 100 million iPhones at
> $299 each over a 2 year period or less and own the cell phone market.
>
> Then charge $50 per month for unlimited calling plans... still a good
> deal... and half or more of that would be profit! At say $30 per month
> multiplied by 100 million iPhones that's 3 billion a month or 36 billion
> per year... or $40 per share in earnings added to whatever else they
> sell... you're talking a stock price over $1,000 a share... maybe even
> $1,500.
>
> If this takes 2-3-4-5 years... that's a 10 bagger! Apple will be the
> largest publicly traded company in the country and own both the computer
> and cell phone market.
>
> ---
>

Ness-Net wrote:

> Google will file an application to participate in the 700MHz auction on
> Monday, the company said in a news release. Google's application will
> not include any partners.
>
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._spectrum.html
>
>


Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog boys?






> "Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
> news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
>> 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.

News <News@Groups.com> wrote:

> > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._bid_for_700_m
> > hz_spectrum.html
>
>
> Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog boys?

how would anyone know? SJ doesn't pre-announce anything, so the press
can only make up theories, we'll only know for sure when / if Apple or
Google bids on the spectrum.

you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.

i realize you don't keep up with these tactical corporate events News,
but please learn a bit more about the situation before you post again.

Oxford wrote:
> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._bid_for_700_m
>>>hz_spectrum.html
>>
>>
>>Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog boys?
>
>
> how would anyone know? SJ doesn't pre-announce anything, so the press
> can only make up theories, we'll only know for sure when / if Apple or
> Google bids on the spectrum.
>
> you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
> case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
> things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.


Please share your info on bidder collusion with the SEC, DOJ and FCC.

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-E4CB20.09331901122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>> > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...oogle_to_bid_f
>> > or_700_m hz_spectrum.html
>>
>>
>> Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog
>> boys?
>
> how would anyone know? SJ doesn't pre-announce anything,


He pre-announces everything. Pre-market hype is what Apple is all about.
Hype the hell out of a product before the consumer gets it in their hands
and realizes what a piece of crap it is- that's the Apple way.


> so the press
> can only make up theories, we'll only know for sure when / if Apple or
> Google bids on the spectrum.

Google is bidding, Apple won't. Bank on it.

>
> you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
> case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
> things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.


Google has stated that their bid is being done without the intent to have a
partner in the venture.

>
> i realize you don't keep up with these tactical corporate events News,
> but please learn a bit more about the situation before you post again.
>

Physician, heal thyself.

In article
<linuxlovesosx-E4CB20.09331901122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:

> SJ doesn't pre-announce anything

Oh. You mean, like the iPhone.

The iPhone that he announced in, what--January? 2007, which wasn't
available until JUNE 30 of the same year?

Please tell us AGAIN how Steve Jobs doesn't "pre-announce" anything.

Remember, your words are recorded for posterity.

What will you say down the road when you want to backtrack on your claim?

News <News@Groups.com> wrote:

> > you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
> > case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
> > things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.
>
> Please share your info on bidder collusion with the SEC, DOJ and FCC.

neither Apple nor Google hold a majority of the cell market at this time
so the SEC, DOJ, FCC don't have any say in the matter.

you are talking if AT&T and Verizon did a tandem bid, not Apple & Google.

please learn about business before you post again.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> > SJ doesn't pre-announce anything
>
> Oh. You mean, like the iPhone.
>
> The iPhone that he announced in, what--January? 2007, which wasn't
> available until JUNE 30 of the same year?
>
> Please tell us AGAIN how Steve Jobs doesn't "pre-announce" anything.
>
> Remember, your words are recorded for posterity.
>
> What will you say down the road when you want to backtrack on your claim?

the iphone wasn't pre-announced it was simply announced. big difference.

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4CB20.09331901122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>> > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._bid_for_700_m
>> > hz_spectrum.html
>>
>>
>> Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog boys?
>
> how would anyone know?

google certainly would know who they're bidding with! (and they say they're
bidding without partners)
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/..._20071130.html


> SJ doesn't pre-announce anything, so the press
> can only make up theories, we'll only know for sure when / if Apple or
> Google bids on the spectrum.

there's no need to make anything up, as GOOGLE says they're bidding w/out
partners.

> you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners,

in some things maybe, but google says they're not bidding w/ any partners.

<snip>

Oxford wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>SJ doesn't pre-announce anything
>>
>>Oh. You mean, like the iPhone.
>>
>>The iPhone that he announced in, what--January? 2007, which wasn't
>>available until JUNE 30 of the same year?
>>
>>Please tell us AGAIN how Steve Jobs doesn't "pre-announce" anything.
>>
>>Remember, your words are recorded for posterity.
>>
>>What will you say down the road when you want to backtrack on your claim?
>
>
> the iphone wasn't pre-announced it was simply announced. big difference.


Announced, then unavailable for six months.

Available and unavailable. Big difference.

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
40E270.13435801122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:

> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>> > you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
>> > case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
>> > things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.
>>
>> Please share your info on bidder collusion with the SEC, DOJ and FCC.
>
> neither Apple nor Google hold a majority of the cell market at this time
> so the SEC, DOJ, FCC don't have any say in the matter.

And you just showed that you know nothing about spectrum bidding- we'll add
it to the long list of things you are clueless about. What you are
suggesting is bidder collusion and is against the law. Market share has
nothing to do with it, moron.


>
> you are talking if AT&T and Verizon did a tandem bid, not Apple & Google.
>
> please learn about business before you post again.
>

Yes you should.