Re: Rapid shutdown of AMPS within months (Steven Scharf dead wong again)

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:47740300$0$84234$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> I think that the government should have something similar to the REA.
> Maybe the RDA (Rural Digitalization Authority) that helps fund digital
> wireless coverage in rural areas where it is otherwise not cost
> effective.
>
>

Why are we so hell bent on installing short range digital when long range
AMPS has worked so good for years in markets where traffic is relatively
low and users are quite satisfied with the results? If it doesn't NEED
fixing, why can't we leave it alone?

Are we going to replace all those irrigation AMPS systems? At whos
expense, the farmers? The government (taxpayers)? The SELLphone
company's? Someone would have to pay.

The AMPS equipment is in place and obviously works quite well for these
rural areas where more power with better antennas works so well. Do we
HAVE to screw it up just to satisfy the city fanbois? No 200mw radios
with ****ty, near non-existant antennas, are going to give good service
in dense woods, massive ranches, over long ranges AMPS was made for.
That would be a gross error and an economic disaster for smaller carriers
who ALREADY have the AMPS system running fine. How stupid it is to try
to change it so some teenie bopper's little pink toyphone works without
an AMPS transceiver in it.

We already ****ed 'em one time when we destroyed the paging business,
with its great rural coverage with serious power from multiple
transmitters. Why again?


Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

Larry wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in news:47740300$0$84234$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> I think that the government should have something similar to the REA.
>> Maybe the RDA (Rural Digitalization Authority) that helps fund digital
>> wireless coverage in rural areas where it is otherwise not cost
>> effective.
>>
>>
>
> Why are we so hell bent on installing short range digital when long range
> AMPS has worked so good for years in markets where traffic is relatively
> low and users are quite satisfied with the results? If it doesn't NEED
> fixing, why can't we leave it alone?

Part of the reason is that consumers want small handsets. Even though
tri-mode handsets have longer AMPS range than CDMA or GSM range, it's
still a lot shorter range than the old 3 watt AMPS handsets.

> Are we going to replace all those irrigation AMPS systems? At whos
> expense, the farmers? The government (taxpayers)? The SELLphone
> company's? Someone would have to pay.
>
> The AMPS equipment is in place and obviously works quite well for these
> rural areas where more power with better antennas works so well. Do we
> HAVE to screw it up just to satisfy the city fanbois?

No, and AMPS is not going anywhere in the rural areas, it's going to be
around for years or decades. But for those people "just passing through"
it would be useful to have coverage.

It is my understanding that most/all of the major carriers,
verizon being one, have set their service to digital only for quite some
time now. Meaning that they do not sell any analog only phones. They
have only kept their analog network up because of law. Since, their
customers all live in their service area, and all their service areas
have been overlaid with digital, and all of their phones include digital
or are digital only, then, none of their customers will be affected by
an amps shutdown. They have no reason to keep amps up after the law
expires.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> It is my understanding that most/all of the major carriers, verizon
> being one, have set their service to digital only for quite some time
> now.

Verizon analog is quite alive and well in my neck of the woods in
north Texas.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>

Using a mobile phone before going to bed could stop you getting a
decent night's sleep, research suggests.

The study, funded by mobile phone companies, suggests radiation from
the handset can cause insomnia, headaches and confusion.

It may also cut our amount of deep sleep - interfering with the
body's ability to refresh itself.

The study was carried out by Sweden's Karolinska Institute and Wayne
State University in the US.

Funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, the scientists studied 35
men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45.

Some were exposed to radiation equivalent to that received when using
a mobile phone, others were placed in the same conditions, but given
only "sham" exposure.

Those exposed to radiation took longer to enter the first of the
deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one.

The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory
exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to
be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely
affected."

Researcher Professor Bengt Arnetz said: "The study strongly suggests
that mobile phone use is associated with specific changes in the
areas of the brain responsible for activating and coordinating the
stress system."

Another theory is that radiation may disrupt production of the
hormone melatonin, which controls the body's internal rhythms.

[MORE]

John Navas wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>
>
> Using a mobile phone before going to bed could stop you getting a
> decent night's sleep, research suggests.
>
> The study, funded by mobile phone companies, suggests radiation from
> the handset can cause insomnia, headaches and confusion.
>
> It may also cut our amount of deep sleep - interfering with the
> body's ability to refresh itself.
>
> The study was carried out by Sweden's Karolinska Institute and Wayne
> State University in the US.
>
> Funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, the scientists studied 35
> men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45.
>
> Some were exposed to radiation equivalent to that received when using
> a mobile phone, others were placed in the same conditions, but given
> only "sham" exposure.
>
> Those exposed to radiation took longer to enter the first of the
> deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one.
>
> The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory
> exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to
> be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely
> affected."
>
> Researcher Professor Bengt Arnetz said: "The study strongly suggests
> that mobile phone use is associated with specific changes in the
> areas of the brain responsible for activating and coordinating the
> stress system."
>
> Another theory is that radiation may disrupt production of the
> hormone melatonin, which controls the body's internal rhythms.
>
> [MORE]
>


Then I guess we shouldn't leave the cell turned on lying on a bedside
table unless it's wrapped in two layers of tin foil.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:52nip35g3mft1c9pmktovhvsa6c4qs5ljf@4ax.com...
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>

I can't take an article like that seriously when it gives no quantatative data
whatsoever. Did using phones reduce deep sleep by an hour? 10 minutes? 30
seconds? And sentences such as, "...researchers said they could not rule out
the possibility that long-term [cell phone] use may raise the risk of cancer"
is a rather meaning statement as well, because you could substitude almost
anything for "cell phone" and have some researcher testify to it.
("...reserachers said they could not rule out the possibility that long-term
Usenet use may raise the risk of cancer!")

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:52nip35g3mft1c9pmktovhvsa6c4qs5ljf@4ax.com:

> Funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum,

WARNING - The SELLphone industry wants to turn down the transmitter
power output, yet again. It's the ONLY reason for these false flag
ops....to scare them into allowing us to go to 50 milliwatts for more
profits.

One more time, I invite you to boot Google Earth and search for:
Robin Lane, Hamburg, NY 14075
To the west of Robin lane is a field full of antennas for WWKB, formerly
WKBW, a 50,000 watt DIRECTIONAL ARRAY of 3 towers pointing this massive
RF power directly into the houses on Robin Lane.....Fifty THOUSAND
WATTS! I doubt they can even turn off the flourescent lights for all
the induced RF power in the house wires. That's plenty enough to burn
fingers on a chain link fence in those back yards just East of this
massive AM - FM (100KW FM) source.

Did any of the SELLphone industry researchers ask anyone on Robin Lane
if they had trouble sleeping in this 24 hour, 365 day/year massive,
CONTINUOUS RF field? Of course not. If they did they would come to a
conclusion the company couldn't use to reduce the transmitter power for
more profits again....rendering your range even less, of course, than it
is now.

I bet everyone on Robin Lane is asleep, right now, at 2AM ET as the warm
RF field from KB's massive Harris DX-50 solid state blowtorch radiates
through their bodies all night, every night, unlike your SELLphone's
little intermittent pulses to let the system know it's still laying
there, charging we hope.

Bull****.....more SELLphone bull****.

I used to sleep quite well, propped up in my chair at the controls of a
5,000 watt directional array with towers on both sides of the building
while playing NBC network to the city....occasionally missing a local
spot...(c; RF in the building burned your fingers if you touched the
wrong metal things. I think it PUT me to sleep! The telephone
technicians refused to fix anything in our basement after getting burned
from the phone wires...hee hee. Three of the antenna counterpoise
cables went over your head in the basement. We hung our coats on them.

"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:13piqtdja3vt4c9@corp.supernews.com:

> the possibility that long-term [cell phone] use may raise the risk of
> cancer"

What raises the risk of cancer is taking a vaccine injection loaded with
cancer-causing LIVE virii from the major drug companies, mixed in with the
dead virus you're taking the injection for.

There was a very disturbing video posted on
alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries not long ago on this very subject.
Very disturbing because it had a banned segment from Merck's best scientist
casually talking about it and not realizing he was being taped before a PBS
interview.

Joel Koltner wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:52nip35g3mft1c9pmktovhvsa6c4qs5ljf@4ax.com...
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>
>
> I can't take an article like that seriously when it gives no quantatative data
> whatsoever. Did using phones reduce deep sleep by an hour? 10 minutes? 30
> seconds? And sentences such as, "...researchers said they could not rule out
> the possibility that long-term [cell phone] use may raise the risk of cancer"
> is a rather meaning statement as well, because you could substitude almost
> anything for "cell phone" and have some researcher testify to it.
> ("...reserachers said they could not rule out the possibility that long-term
> Usenet use may raise the risk of cancer!")

Dr. Dean Edell had a good laugh at that "study" a couple of days ago. A
sample size of 71!

Maybe it was an effort by the industry to get people to use more peak
minutes, and less "free" night minutes.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:53:16 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> had a flock of green cheek conures squawk
out:

> Funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, the scientists studied 35
> men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45.
>

Study group not large enough.


--

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:53:16 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory
>> exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to
>> be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely
>> affected."
>
> [snip]
>
> So GSM 850 is the culprit. I am safe with my 1900MHz only phone.

Or with CDMA. Much lower radiation than GSM in either band.

Maybe Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel can turn this study to their advantage
in their marketing materials.

"Fewest Spurious Rads"
"Fewest Rads per Call"
"Less Rads in More Places"
"It's the Radiation"
"Least Powerful Network"

(yeah I know that the current unit of radiation is the gray, but rad
sounds much better).

g wrote:
> I like that. The script for the actor promoting it goes..
>
> "It's the Radiation!" (yawn)

I forgot, "Fewest Dropped Rads."

The CDMA carriers can follow Cingular's example in "Fewest Dropped
Calls" and commission a study on radiation. Then no matter what the
results of the study show, they can come up with some way of
interpreting the study to build a marketing campaign upon "Fewest
Dropped Rads." If they need help in this, they can hire the marketing
person from Cingular that came up with "Fewest Dropped Calls." If the
company doing the study claims that the carriers are misinterpreting the
study, it makes no difference.

By the way, whatever happened to the Sprint and Cingular lawsuits over
"Fewest Dropped Calls" and "Most Powerful Network?" I never saw any news
stories about how these were resolved.

In article <52nip35g3mft1c9pmktovhvsa6c4qs5ljf@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Using a mobile phone before going to bed could stop you getting a
> decent night's sleep, research suggests.

Now we know what's caused your problem.

SMS wrote:
> I forgot, "Fewest Dropped Rads."
>
> If they need help in this, they can hire the marketing
> person from Cingular that came up with "Fewest Dropped Calls." If the
> company doing the study claims that the carriers are misinterpreting the
> study, it makes no difference.
>
> By the way, whatever happened to the Sprint and Cingular lawsuits over
> "Fewest Dropped Calls" and "Most Powerful Network?" I never saw any news
> stories about how these were resolved.

I don't know what happened WRT any pertinent lawsuits but I'd have to
say the "fewest dropped rads" may have more merit than "fewest dropped
calls" at least from a technical efficiency perspective.

The fundamental problem with getting 3G and beyond coverage is "dropped
rads", or somewhat more precisely, the excess propagation loss due to
real terrain and environments. If we were on a flat earth with no
obstacles, we'd already have 4G anywhere we wanted it. It's the "dropped
rads" that are preventing it. Typical cell links can have all but one
millionth (-60 dB) of the power that would have arrived in a LOS/flat
earth environment actually get to the phone. Those "dropped rads" are
the difference between 10 kBs (voice) and 10 Gbs (I-don't-know-what
application).

However, the term "rad" or "radiation" is a tough one to market. It's
going to take all that they can muster to spin it so that it is
palatable. The public in general doesn't seem to like words like
"nuclear" and "radiation" that relate to the unseen. Thus anything that
uses them becomes suspect.

The really big source of radiation we all share, the sun, delivers
roughly one KILOWATT every square meter on the earth. It is the
identified cause of all sorts of skin problems, cancers, melanomas etc.
It is arguably a million times worse than cell phones in regard to the
energy delivered yet we absorb it, bask in it and relish the charring
(OK, "tan") it produces on our bodies. In it's absence people pay money
to go sit under other radiation to get the same effect. BUT, mention an
unseen form of 'radiation' and everything changes, 'nuclear' families
and 'radiant' smiles notwithstanding.

g