Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

Jer wrote:
> Dude, if you don't take care of yourself good enough to avoid that
> problem in the first place, or aren't smart enough to avoid areas where
> it's impossible for someone else to help you in the second place, adios
> muchacho.

Are you saying that if you take good enough "care of yourself", you
won't suffer illnesses or debilitating conditions brought on by old age?
And you never travel in areas where there is no wireless service, or
where the nearest emergency care may be over 30 minutes away?
I think you're living in a dream world...

--
John Richards

---

› See More: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

On 8/6/05 11:07 AM, in article [email protected], "Tinman"
wrote:

> Jer wrote:
>> Tinman wrote:
>>> Proconsul wrote:
>>>
>>>> the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet.
>>>> We have always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so
>>>> but we will hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e.,
>>>> through private charity rather than government confiscation. My
>>>> quarrel is that we now also take
>>>> care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go
>>>> to work or starve....!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You have traveled so far off topic that it is laughable (the
>>> discussion is about cellphone coverage and you're talking about
>>> starving?!). If I believed in karma, I'd say that I wouldn't want to
>>> be you when:
>>> you happen to be traveling through a rural town, and as bad luck
>>> would have it, you have a mild heart attack. Your car slowly drifts
>>> to the side of the road and hits a pole. The friendly locals, not
>>> even aware of how little you think of them, rush to your aid. But
>>> alas, they have no way to contact emergency services (well, if they
>>> even have them, as in your view they probably aren't entitled to
>>> any). By the time they jump on the old mule and get help to you
>>> you've been
>>> deprived of oxygen for so long you have lost all motor control--a
>>> vegetable with a brain. You'll need lifetime care, but your insurance
>>> company won't cover you for life (not a good business plan). So
>>> you'll need help from "private charity." Oops, for some reason not a
>>> single "private charity" sees reason to care for you.
>>>
>>> That's karma. Have a great day.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, you're expecting someone else to make up for your shortcomings?
>
> So, you missed that Reading for Comprehension class? (I never once
> mentioned anything about "shortcomings," whatever the heck that was
> supposed to mean.)
>
>
>> Dude, if you don't take care of yourself good enough to avoid that
>> problem in the first place, or aren't smart enough to avoid areas
>> where it's impossible for someone else to help you in the second
>> place, adios muchacho.
>
> Gee, I wonder why we are helping those damn Russians. They should have
> known the bottom of the ocean is a dangerous place to be. Let 'em die!

The Russians aren't "entitled" to our help but as I pointed out, we are the
most compassionate people on this planet and it's always good to help out
those who are in peril through no fault of their own.....at the same time, I
challenge you to point out when all the disaster relief planes came from
Europe when there are floods, hurricanes and the like in America?? I don't
recall anyone ever doing anything to help us in recent times.....!

The Russians asked for help - why shouldn't we help them?

OTOH, I don't support providing "free" cellular phone service for the
Russians or allowing them to determine the terms and conditions under which
I sell that service to them......

PC



>

Proconsul wrote:
> On 8/6/05 10:03 AM, in article [email protected],
> "Tinman" wrote:
>
>> Proconsul wrote:
>>>
>>> The Feds didn't/can't confer any "right" on anyone
>>
>> To put it nicely, you've only got it half right. "Rights" don't need
>> to
>> be granted--they already exist. But government can, and has, enacted
>> legislation to limit or remove those rights (and let's not forget
>> about the judicial branch). While this ain't the place for a
>> discussion about Constitutional interpretation, suffice to say that
>> a number of our founding fathers were so concerned about certain
>> rights being taken away that they amended the Constitution from the
>> get-go. You know, that
>> little thing we often refer to as the Bill of Rights (which actually
>> merely prevents rights from being taken away--only to be trampled
>> upon
>> by the US SC).
>
> To put it nicely, I got it exactly right......

Nope. And you missed my point entirely.


> don't confuse "The
> Supremes" with "The Feds".

No such confusion in my book.


> The executive branch can't "confer"
> rights.

Never mentioned the executive branch.


> The legislative branch can't "confer" rights but can regulate
> Interstate Commerce.

I never said anyone could "confer" rights. And if you think that the
only thing the legislative branch is involved with, today, is interstate
commerce I have a nice bridge to sell you. Or you're a die-hard
Libertarian. I did point out that the founding fathers saw fit to
protect certain "rights" right from the get-go. I'm guessing I don't
need to explain how Constitutional amendments occur...

Regardless, those "rights" are abstract concepts created by mankind. Our
law is based on what we "shall not" do, not what we must do (aside from
death and taxes). Ergo, the more "shall nots" that exist, the less
"rights" (I don't even like to use that term) we end up with.

So, I'm (obviously) not claiming rural communities have a "right" to
cellphone service. But I am saying that if it is better for the entire
ecosystem that we call the U.S., I'm all for ensuring those communities
are covered. I'm *not* talking about some off-the-grid outpost in BFE
that provides no benefit to the rest of the country whatsoever.


> The judicial branch can do ONLY what the
> legislative branch permits them to do, through inaction since
> legislation and/or amendment can trump "The Supremes". The problem is
> that our current leaders have no stones.....
>

Again, you missed the point entirely, and are (again) arguing some sort
of political agenda that you seemingly wish to insert into the
discussion.


>>> - however, by
>>> creating a public utility, like regular phone service and regulating
>>> "blessed" monopolies, the Feds can mandate that service be made
>>> "available" to all,
>>> but you still have to buy it, it doesn't come to you by
>>> "right".....! Don't forget that those who get the "breaks" simply
>>> have the cost of their service passed on to those of us who don't
>>> get "breaks". There
>>> is no free lunch and somebody has to pay for everything. As far as
>>> I'm concerned, if you can't afford a phone, do without......or
>>> better yet, get a job and earn the money
>>> to support yourself....! At the same time, we are a compassionate
>>> society,
>>
>> "We?" I don't see a shred of compassion coming out of you--so change
>> that to "you" (plural).
>
> Think more clearly and don't confuse an unwillingness to support the
> "unwilling" with a lack of compassion

No. You think more clearly. You're arguing about people who are
apparently leeches on society in a discussion about rural cellphone
coverage.

I travel all over this great country--big cities and small. I don't see
many (any?) homeless shelters in the rural communities I've been to, nor
people begging on street corners. You don't work, you don't eat. It is
in the large *cities* that the people you seemingly abhor are living.

Don't you find it a bit strange that you're arguing, apparently, against
social programs that primarily are used by people living in cities? Are
the people living in rural communities exempt from paying, within their
state and federal taxes, any monies that go to help the refuse-to-work
"leeches" that live predominantly in the cities? Didn't think so.

And for the record, I don't live in an area not well-covered as far as
cellular phones go. But I sure as heck like to have a cellphone that
works everywhere I go. If it costs me a few cents/bucks a month for that
insurance, so be it.


> - we are, individually and
> collectively, the most compassionate society yet to exist on this
> planet.

<Sigh> You really have a had big dip into that Kool-Aid, haven't you?

While the rest of the world recognized slavery as totally unacceptable,
how did the brandy new United States of America handle the issue? Was it
a solution, or just a compromise doomed to failure? How much
"compassion" was involved when we later fought each other, with more
Americans dieing than in any foreign war since.

Was it God who actually told our leaders, at the time, that Manifest
Destiny was the way to go? Would you call our treatment of the native
Americans as "compassionate."

But we sure are concerned about them "weapons of mass destruction." We
should be: we're the only ones to actually use nukes in warfare. Twice.
(Yes, it probably saved American lives, but the fact is we did indeed
use them--and for the record, today is the anniversary of the nuking of
Hiroshima.)

I could go on (and on and on). But the reality is that I love this
country as much as anyone. But I'm not going to spew out bull**** just
to make the country seem better than it really is. It only makes are
flaws--and we have them--that more obvious.


> Personally, I participate in both private charity and
> government confiscation. As do most people. I freely support the
> former but don't support being forced to participate in the latter.
>
>> You have traveled so far off topic that it is laughable (the
>> discussion
>> is about cellphone coverage and you're talking about starving?!).
>
> If you find the discussion "laughable", press DEL and move
> on...that's what I do.....
>

Huh? I personally enjoy a good comedy. And this is no exception. What do
you do, get up and walk out during the comedic portions of a movie? :-)


>> That's karma. Have a great day.
>
> I don't believe in Karma either - that's for those who eschew personal
> rectitude and think others have to take responsibility for their
> foolishness.....
>

You must have me mistaken for someone else. 'Cause in reality my beliefs
are a lot closer to yours than you may think. I just don't think you
showed much compassion in expressing them, and that you veered off-track
(i.e., blaming rural communities for the social programs that primarily
benefit city-dwellers).


> You have a nice day, too......

I certainly will!


--
Mike

On 8/6/05 11:53 AM, in article [email protected], "Tinman"
wrote:

<lots of "stuff" snipped>


> You must have me mistaken for someone else. 'Cause in reality my beliefs
> are a lot closer to yours than you may think. I just don't think you
> showed much compassion in expressing them, and that you veered off-track
> (i.e., blaming rural communities for the social programs that primarily
> benefit city-dwellers).

It's clear that you chose to infer a good deal that I didn't imply - I never
even mentioned rural communities versus city dwellers. I don't make that
distinction - I see no reason to subsidize anyone, no matter where they
live...no matter who they are....no matter what their status in life may
be....!

The salient point, i.e., the nature of cellular phone service remains
unresolved herein with respect to who has any "right" to demand that Verizon
provide them service based on their whim as the consumer. That's nonsense -
it has always been nonsense and it always will be nonsense....

Interestingly, I also came to the conclusion that your beliefs and mine
aren't that far apart but I wonder why you take such issue with the obvious.
Chalk it up to the inherent problem common in this medium which is that of
painting a picture that is seen the way you perceived it to be seen when you
painted it......

PC

Proconsul wrote:
>
> Interestingly, I also came to the conclusion that your beliefs and
> mine aren't that far apart but I wonder why you take such issue with
> the obvious. Chalk it up to the inherent problem common in this
> medium which is that of painting a picture that is seen the way you
> perceived it to be seen when you painted it......

That is one way to look at it. But I think I'm gonna chalk it up to
being late for the party. (I humbly admit to not even knowing about the
Verizon incident--I just skimmed through a few of the posts and happened
to zero in on yours.)


--
Mike | Last words of Thomas Grasso, executed in 1995:
| "I did not get my Spaghetti-O's, I got spaghetti.
| I want the press to know this."

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:25:41 GMT, "John Richards" wrote:
>Jer wrote:
>> Mr. Barton said the requirement for universal service was a necessity
>> back in the 1920s when telephone service was rare in rural areas and
>> needed subsidies to be built.
>>
>> But now many rural customers pay less than half as much for basic local
>> telephone service as urban customers, he said.

Just because phone service *might* cost less in rural areas doesn't
mean it's due to subsidies. Living costs are lower in rural areas.
With what I paid for my average suburban house here in DFW, TX, I
could have bought 8-10 houses of similar size and age in the rural ND
town that I grew up in.

>Is this true? If so, it's a travesty on the subsidy system.
>I don't see rural folk agreeing to take half of the smog, crime and
>traffic jams of the cities.

Through federal motor fuel taxes, the rural folks are subsidizing the
road construction that goes on in the big cities to help alleviate the
traffic jams. I can guarantee you that there are no multi-billion
dollar "high-five" highway interchanges in ND.

Joe Huber
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, jr70
@blackhole.invalid says...
> Jer wrote:
> > Mr. Barton said the requirement for universal service was a necessity
> > back in the 1920s when telephone service was rare in rural areas and
> > needed subsidies to be built.
> >
> > But now many rural customers pay less than half as much for basic local
> > telephone service as urban customers, he said.
>
> Is this true? If so, it's a travesty on the subsidy system.
> I don't see rural folk agreeing to take half of the smog, crime and
> traffic jams of the cities.
>
>
Certainly not true in Texas--at least not for 20 years. My parents
lived 15 miles out of town for years and for the last 10 years at least
they paid every bit if not more for the basic service than I did in
DFW--for LESS service (basically a party line but with a blocker on the
post to prevent the phone from ringing when another phone on the line
was called--but you still could hear the other party if you picked up
the receiver). Since then they lived in a small town (1200+) and then
in an assisted living center in another rural area (so three different
phone companies) and in the last two cases paid about $30/month before
taxes/fees for basic private line service (I know since I paid the
bill).
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

Tinman wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>>Tinman wrote:
>>
>>>Proconsul wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet.
>>>>We have always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so
>>>>but we will hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e.,
>>>>through private charity rather than government confiscation. My
>>>>quarrel is that we now also take
>>>>care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go
>>>>to work or starve....!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You have traveled so far off topic that it is laughable (the
>>>discussion is about cellphone coverage and you're talking about
>>>starving?!). If I believed in karma, I'd say that I wouldn't want to
>>>be you when:
>>>you happen to be traveling through a rural town, and as bad luck
>>>would have it, you have a mild heart attack. Your car slowly drifts
>>>to the side of the road and hits a pole. The friendly locals, not
>>>even aware of how little you think of them, rush to your aid. But
>>>alas, they have no way to contact emergency services (well, if they
>>>even have them, as in your view they probably aren't entitled to
>>>any). By the time they jump on the old mule and get help to you
>>>you've been
>>>deprived of oxygen for so long you have lost all motor control--a
>>>vegetable with a brain. You'll need lifetime care, but your insurance
>>>company won't cover you for life (not a good business plan). So
>>>you'll need help from "private charity." Oops, for some reason not a
>>>single "private charity" sees reason to care for you.
>>>
>>>That's karma. Have a great day.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>So, you're expecting someone else to make up for your shortcomings?
>
>
> So, you missed that Reading for Comprehension class? (I never once
> mentioned anything about "shortcomings," whatever the heck that was
> supposed to mean.)
>
>
>
>>Dude, if you don't take care of yourself good enough to avoid that
>>problem in the first place, or aren't smart enough to avoid areas
>>where it's impossible for someone else to help you in the second
>>place, adios muchacho.
>
>
> Gee, I wonder why we are helping those damn Russians. They should have
> known the bottom of the ocean is a dangerous place to be. Let 'em die!
>
>


Well, they didn't learn their lessons from their Kurst disaster, did
they? If you have a flat without a spare one time, who gets trashed
when it happens again?

Note to Russia: log on to eBay, search for surface rescue ship, or
subsurface 911 cellular coverage.

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

John Richards wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Dude, if you don't take care of yourself good enough to avoid that
>> problem in the first place, or aren't smart enough to avoid areas where
>> it's impossible for someone else to help you in the second place, adios
>> muchacho.
>
>
> Are you saying that if you take good enough "care of yourself", you
> won't suffer illnesses or debilitating conditions brought on by old age?
> And you never travel in areas where there is no wireless service, or
> where the nearest emergency care may be over 30 minutes away?
> I think you're living in a dream world...
>


I often travel in areas where the nearest paved road (or any other human
encroachment) is hundreds of miles away. I also take the necessary
precautions to provide myself with whatever I think I may need for
supplies. I volunteer for this opportunity, therefore I can't be a
victim. Darwin thrives where I go.

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

John Richards wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Mr. Barton said the requirement for universal service was a necessity
>> back in the 1920s when telephone service was rare in rural areas and
>> needed subsidies to be built.
>>
>> But now many rural customers pay less than half as much for basic local
>> telephone service as urban customers, he said.
>
>
> Is this true? If so, it's a travesty on the subsidy system.
> I don't see rural folk agreeing to take half of the smog, crime and
> traffic jams of the cities.
>


I don't either. In fact, I see people doing what they have to do to
live off the grid precisely to avoid that crap in the first place.
Personally, I don't blame them for feeling that way. I have family
members that couldn't care less about anything associated with urban
life, they're happy with it. It all depends on what one expects from
society, and they don't expect much.

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

Proconsul wrote:
>
>
> On 8/6/05 10:49 AM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
> wrote:
>
>
>>Proconsul wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On 8/6/05 6:12 AM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tropical Haven wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because
>>>>>>subscribers
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the
>>>>>>boonies,
>>>>>>and thus is taking longer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think it's more expensive, I think it's just less profitable.
>>>>>
>>>>>TH
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Same difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not so, the difference is "night and day".......
>>>
>>>If'n you don't grok the difference between cost and profit, you better never
>>>try to run a business.....
>>>
>>>IF there were sufficient demand for service in any area, urban or remote,
>>>that folks were willing to PAY FOR, the "expense" of putting up the towers,
>>>etc., would simply be a function of the rates charged in order to generate
>>>profits. Higher expenses merely result in higher rates....!
>>>
>>>PC
>>
>>I guess my terse comment was a bit too short. I didn't intend to infer
>>that expenses and profits existed for the same reasons - they don't -
>>only that they're welded together near the end of a quarterly report.
>
>
> My additional comments were more for others than for you - as I see it, you
> "grok" reality better than most who post here......
>
> PC
>
>


FWIW, I love the grok term. It's been a while since I cranked up the
Way Back machine.

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

John Richards wrote:
>
> Jer wrote:
> > Mr. Barton said the requirement for universal service was a necessity
> > back in the 1920s when telephone service was rare in rural areas and
> > needed subsidies to be built.
> >
> > But now many rural customers pay less than half as much for basic local
> > telephone service as urban customers, he said.
>
> Is this true? If so, it's a travesty on the subsidy system.
> I don't see rural folk agreeing to take half of the smog, crime and
> traffic jams of the cities.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or what.

(Let me preface this with the fact that we've just moved from the suburbs
of a very large city, to the mountains of Colorado. We're *at least* 15
to 20 minutes away from anything, which, in my opinion, qualifies as "rural.")

1) I'd love to see statistics, backing the statement, "But now many rural
customers pay less than half as much for basic local telephone service as
urban customers." While it may be true in isolated areas, the phone companies
could care less where you live. In fact, some rural areas are charged *more*
for service, as it's considered more costly to service those areas.

2) Your comment, "I don't see rural folk..." is ridiculous. By definition,
rural areas *don't* have the smog, pollution, etc. of cities. That's part
of the reason people live there.

Have you lost your mind?

Notan

On 8/6/05 12:27 PM, in article [email protected], "Tinman"
wrote:

> Proconsul wrote:
>>
>> Interestingly, I also came to the conclusion that your beliefs and
>> mine aren't that far apart but I wonder why you take such issue with
>> the obvious. Chalk it up to the inherent problem common in this
>> medium which is that of painting a picture that is seen the way you
>> perceived it to be seen when you painted it......
>
> That is one way to look at it. But I think I'm gonna chalk it up to
> being late for the party. (I humbly admit to not even knowing about the
> Verizon incident--I just skimmed through a few of the posts and happened
> to zero in on yours.)

Well, it does keep things from getting too dull.....

PC

On 8/6/05 1:08 PM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
wrote:

<snip>

>>> I guess my terse comment was a bit too short. I didn't intend to infer
>>> that expenses and profits existed for the same reasons - they don't -
>>> only that they're welded together near the end of a quarterly report.
>>
>>
>> My additional comments were more for others than for you - as I see it, you
>> "grok" reality better than most who post here......
>>
>> PC
>>
>>
>
>
> FWIW, I love the grok term. It's been a while since I cranked up the
> Way Back machine.

It puts things in perspective - especially when you are dealing with those
who don't "grok" what grok means.....

As one character from Robert A. Heinlein's novel ³Stranger in a Strange
Land² says:

'Grok' means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of
the observed - to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group
experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy,
and science - and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as
color means to a blind man.

In common usage, "Do you grok?" seems close in meaning to "Do you get it?"

RIP - Robert A. & Ginny Heinlein

PC

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BF1A299D.3E19%[email protected]...
> There is no free lunch and
> somebody has to pay for everything.

Yep.

> As far as I'm concerned, if you can't
> afford a phone, do without......or better yet, get a job and earn the
money
> to support yourself....!

Yep.

>At the same time, we are a compassionate society,
> the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet.

"We" as in the US or "we" as in Western Civilization?

>We have
> always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so but we will
> hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e., through private charity
> rather than government confiscation. My quarrel is that we now also take
> care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go to
work
> or starve....!
>
> Cellular service is NOT a public utility, NOT a government regulated
> monopoly; it is a private competitive business.

But it is a business which makes extensive use of a government-granted
exclusive license to use a part of the public commonwealth known as "the
ether". Just as someone leasing public range-land or public mineral rights
for their own private gain may find that the public, through the government,
places conditions on their license/lease, there may be conditions placed on
the license of "the ether", in addition to the payment of the fee. I'm sure
you will be shocked to learn that some of these conditions are of a social
nature. In fact, every license granted by the FCC must demonstrate that it
benefits not just the licensee but also the public. (Although, in truth this
is often a sham.) To the extent that a business is not competitive, due to
the limited number of such exclusive licenses granted, it tends to become
monopolistic in practice and government intervention may be necessary to
correct that situation.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net