Results 181 to 195 of 221
- 08-07-2005, 12:23 PM #181ProconsulGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
On 8/7/05 10:52 AM, in article [email protected], "clifto"
wrote:
> Proconsul wrote:
>> Cellular service is NOT a public utility, NOT a government regulated
>> monopoly; it is a private competitive business.
>
> Careful there; there's a fine line being tread. Cellular service uses
> scarce and extremely valuable public resources. That's not to say that
> all cell service is a "right", but then there are certain "rights" that
> can and should be mandated, such as free universal 911 service. If the
> providers can't or won't agree to such minimal giveaways, then get them
> the hell off our scarce frequencies and we'll put those to better use.
There are no "rights" associated with cellular service....and the silly
notion that some public resource is being "provided" by government is just
another liberal "stretch" of reality to give "govamint" yet another power it
doesn't have to regulate private business. Licensing, as a matter of ordered
regulation, to make order out of chaos makes some sense, but not when
"conditions" are included.
Carriers already have implemented, as a condition of licensing, free
universal 911 service. I see nothing else that would be "appropriate" for
the consumer to get for "free"....and I'll bet the carriers would have done
it without government mandate as a gesture of good citizenship.
> Note I said _minimal_ giveaways. Me, I'd throw in a few more (e.g. free
> service for police/fire/emergency for official business only), but
> there's a fine line being tread.
I noted what you said - perhaps you should have noted what I said.....
FWIW, free police/fire/emergency service is included in free 911 service....
As I said above, what else would be appropriate? Hint: The answer is
"nothing".....
PC
› See More: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
- 08-07-2005, 01:00 PM #182JerGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
clifto wrote:
> Proconsul wrote:
>
>>Cellular service is NOT a public utility, NOT a government regulated
>>monopoly; it is a private competitive business.
>
>
> Careful there; there's a fine line being tread. Cellular service uses
> scarce and extremely valuable public resources. That's not to say that
> all cell service is a "right", but then there are certain "rights" that
> can and should be mandated, such as free universal 911 service. If the
> providers can't or won't agree to such minimal giveaways, then get them
> the hell off our scarce frequencies and we'll put those to better use.
>
> Note I said _minimal_ giveaways. Me, I'd throw in a few more (e.g. free
> service for police/fire/emergency for official business only), but
> there's a fine line being tread.
>
In places I'm familiar with, public emergency service agencies get
discounted cellular service from one provider or another via a muny
contract. I don't know that it's a condition of their FCC operating
license, per se, but they don't pay retail.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
- 08-07-2005, 01:01 PM #183NotanGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
John Richards wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> > 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
>
> In case you didn't recognize it, that last sentence in my comment was
> a figure of speech known as hyperbole.
> My point is that rural folk often whine about things that city folk have
> (better cellphone service, better broadband internet service,
> better cable TV, etc), yet they don't want the things that go along with
> city life (increased crime, traffic congestion, smog, etc).
> Both living choices have advantages and disadvantages. Rural folk
> should not expect to get all the advantages and none of the disadvantages.
I'm familiar with hyperboles... If it was, it was subtle, and I missed it.
Exactly what "rural folk" are you referring to, as far as "whining?"
Is it first hand or just anecdotal? From my experience, I hear more whining
from the urban folk, complaining about traffic congestion, crime, etc.
And, yes, that's first hand.
Notan
- 08-07-2005, 01:18 PM #184JerGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
John Richards wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> John Richards wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> How does taking precautions and carrying supplies help you when you're
> unconscious from a heart attack or stroke?
>
It doesn't help you afterwards, only before, except that whatever load
or supplies one had become the onus or benefit of someone else. A
seriously impaired trekker in those remote areas of the world is soon
considered a meal under the circumstances you mention. Long term health
issues aside, the primary concern is snakes, spiders, and some flora
where exposure is fatal. Darwin is fair and unbiased. If one is
unwilling or incapable of dealing with nature on a level playing field,
one should stay on the porch and not run with the big dogs.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
- 08-07-2005, 05:18 PM #185Donald NewcombGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LhoJe.7864$p%[email protected]...
> Once again the lawyers got out their
> >magnifying glasses and found how the licensees could sham this regulation
> >but the intent was still there. ...
>
> Citation please.
As you are probably aware, BB PCS licensees were required to provide service
to some percentage of the population of their licensed area. Do you recall
NextWave? The company that bid the C-block licenses through the roof and
then defaulted but cried to a bankruptcy judge and got the bill cut to about
10c on the dollar?
Well, to meet the FCC's service requirements they got a few engineers with a
CDMA SOW (Site On Wheels) and drove it from BTA to BTA setting up in high
population areas. They would then transmit a private test signal and drive
around the area mapping the signal strength. They were then able to swear
(if necessary) that NextWave provided a wireless signal to X% of population
of that BTA. After that, they would move on to the next BTA. AFAIK, NextWave
never really had one single subscriber before they sold off their licenses
at a huge profit. And the lawyers chortled all the way to the bank, having
used the bankruptcy courts to fleece the public treasury.
A web search for "NextWave" will probably reveal the details.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
- 08-07-2005, 05:26 PM #186Donald NewcombGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BF1B9FBA.3FF7%[email protected]...
> There are no "rights" associated with cellular service....and the silly
> notion that some public resource is being "provided" by government is just
> another liberal "stretch" of reality to give "govamint" yet another power
it
> doesn't have to regulate private business. Licensing, as a matter of
ordered
> regulation, to make order out of chaos makes some sense, but not when
> "conditions" are included.
It's not silly at all. As I said before, the ether is the property of the
people ('ager publicus'), not the corporations'. The government acts as the
trustee of the people's commonwealth and licenses it's use for the public's
benefit, not for private gain. Every license granted must demonstrate that
it benefits the public. If you disagree with this, I'm sorry, but you are
also disagreeing with the law, which is your right, but it won't get you
very far.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
- 08-07-2005, 09:02 PM #187John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:18:03 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:LhoJe.7864$p%[email protected]...
>> Once again the lawyers got out their
>> >magnifying glasses and found how the licensees could sham this regulation
>> >but the intent was still there. ...
>>
>> Citation please.
>
>As you are probably aware, BB PCS licensees were required to provide service
>to some percentage of the population of their licensed area.
Citation please.
>A web search for "NextWave" will probably reveal the details.
That's your job, not mine.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-07-2005, 10:00 PM #188Donald NewcombGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:dXzJe.7979$p%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> That's your job, not mine.
Sorry, you don't pay my hourly rate.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
- 08-07-2005, 11:26 PM #189John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 7 Aug 2005 23:00:51 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:dXzJe.7979$p%[email protected]...
>>>> Citation please.
>>>
>>>As you are probably aware, BB PCS licensees were required to provide service
>>>to some percentage of the population of their licensed area.
>>
>>Citation please.
I didn't think so.
>>>A web search for "NextWave" will probably reveal the details.
>>
>>That's your job, not mine.
>>
>Sorry, you don't pay my hourly rate.
Likewise, particularly when it's your claim, not mine.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-08-2005, 05:40 PM #190Joseph HuberGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:26:38 GMT, John Navas
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
"Donald Newcomb" wrote:
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Citation please.
>>>>As you are probably aware, BB PCS licensees were required to provide service
>>>>to some percentage of the population of their licensed area.
>>>Citation please.
>I didn't think so.
>>>>A web search for "NextWave" will probably reveal the details.
>>>That's your job, not mine.
>>Sorry, you don't pay my hourly rate.
>Likewise, particularly when it's your claim, not mine.
Instead of spewing "Citation please", why don't you provide some
evidence to back up your claim? Through your statements, you are
implying, and thus claiming, that Donald's claims are inaccurate, or
even false. Evidence Please?
Joe Huber
[email protected]
- 08-08-2005, 06:37 PM #191John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:40:58
-0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:26:38 GMT, John Navas
>"Donald Newcomb" wrote:
>>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Citation please.
>>>>>As you are probably aware, BB PCS licensees were required to provide service
>>>>>to some percentage of the population of their licensed area.
>>>>Citation please.
>>I didn't think so.
>>>>>A web search for "NextWave" will probably reveal the details.
>>>>That's your job, not mine.
>>>Sorry, you don't pay my hourly rate.
>>Likewise, particularly when it's your claim, not mine.
>
>Instead of spewing "Citation please", why don't you provide some
>evidence to back up your claim?
I made no claim.
>Through your statements, you are
>implying, and thus claiming, that Donald's claims are inaccurate, or
>even false.
No, I merely asked for substantiation of an unsubstantiated claim.
>Evidence Please?
Evidence of what? If Donald's claim is accurate, he'll presumably have no
trouble supporting it. When he didn't do so, my level of skepticism
increased, and since he was the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on
him, not me.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-08-2005, 08:34 PM #192Joseph HuberGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:37:56 GMT, John Navas
>>Instead of spewing "Citation please", why don't you provide some
>>evidence to back up your claim?
>I made no claim.
You certainly did make an implied claim, whether you realize it or
not.
>>Through your statements, you are implying, and thus claiming, that
>> Donald's claims are inaccurate, or even false.
>No, I merely asked for substantiation of an unsubstantiated claim.
Doesn't look that way from here. Instead of politely asking for
substantiation, you phrased your "requests" (i.e. "Citation please"
several times in the post) in a rather indignant, provocative manner.
When Donald refused to play along, you responded with "I didn't think
so", a sarcastic statement intended to prove that his statements were
inaccurate or false, since he apparently couldn't provide proof for
them. I'd be interested to hear your interpretation...
Joe Huber
[email protected]
- 08-08-2005, 09:22 PM #193John NavasGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:34:50
-0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:37:56 GMT, John Navas
>>>Instead of spewing "Citation please", why don't you provide some
>>>evidence to back up your claim?
>>I made no claim.
>
>You certainly did make an implied claim, whether you realize it or
>not.
I disagree. You're reading things into what I wrote that aren't really there.
>>>Through your statements, you are implying, and thus claiming, that
>>> Donald's claims are inaccurate, or even false.
>>No, I merely asked for substantiation of an unsubstantiated claim.
>
>Doesn't look that way from here.
You are of course welcome to think whatever you want.
>Instead of politely asking for
>substantiation, you phrased your "requests" (i.e. "Citation please"
>several times in the post) in a rather indignant, provocative manner.
That's your perception. Perceptions can and do vary. My perception is that
you're picking an inappropriate fight with me simply because you don't like
what I had to say.
>When Donald refused to play along, you responded with "I didn't think
>so", a sarcastic statement intended to prove that his statements were
>inaccurate or false, since he apparently couldn't provide proof for
>them.
It was simply intended to show that he completely ducked the question,
creating a presumption that he didn't have anything to back up the claim.
>I'd be interested to hear your interpretation...
"You asked for it, you got it!"
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-09-2005, 06:12 AM #194Donald NewcombGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Puhleez..."Citation, please". How much more polite can you get? Maybe
> "Citation, pretty please"?
It's just John's manner. Like a child who's learned that he can always get a
response by just asking "Why?" to every answer. Most of us who have been
here for a while understand and tune it out. Let it drop. One thing's for
sure, if you don't, John will keep it going until the cows come home. He
seems to have a lot of free time.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
- 08-09-2005, 07:48 AM #195JerGuest
Re: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones
Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Puhleez..."Citation, please". How much more polite can you get? Maybe
>>"Citation, pretty please"?
>
>
> It's just John's manner. Like a child who's learned that he can always get a
> response by just asking "Why?" to every answer. Most of us who have been
> here for a while understand and tune it out. Let it drop. One thing's for
> sure, if you don't, John will keep it going until the cows come home. He
> seems to have a lot of free time.
>
I would submit he has a lot of free time because he's not doing someone
else's homework.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Similar Threads
- LG
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.nokia
- alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat