| Author |
Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!
|
|
| Oxford 2007-10-10, 3:33 pm |
| Just thought this was funny... now we are getting into "free" heated
sidewalks WITH free "wifi"...
Chuckle, chuckle... this is my observation on steroids...
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...BLOG01/71010029
And as you probably know BT has proposed making WiFi free across the
country...
http://www.btopenzone.com/
The US is up next to do this.
Cell Companies will CRUMBLE once this is done!
Trust me!
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Cell Companies will CRUMBLE once this is done!
Its simply amazing that you are so geographic and census challenged to
believe WiFi can ever come close to cellular coverage area.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesmacs-E7C70D.14281510102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> And as you probably know BT has proposed making WiFi free across the
> country...
>
> http://www.btopenzone.com/
>
> The US is up next to do this.
Wait a minute--I thought there already was free WiFi everywhere I went.
'Cuz that's the claim you've already made.
Pwned. Now shut up and go the XXXX away.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-10, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
E7C70D.14281510102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Just thought this was funny... now we are getting into "free" heated
> sidewalks WITH free "wifi"...
>
Yep- lined with lollipop trees and shrubs that have $50 bills for leaves.
<yawn>
| |
|
| In article <7rbPi.3102$wF3.1288@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Its simply amazing that you are so geographic and census challenged to
> believe WiFi can ever come close to cellular coverage area.
Only presently. You can't possibly believe that today's technology is
etched in stone.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> In article <7rbPi.3102$wF3.1288@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
>
> Only presently. You can't possibly believe that today's technology is
> etched in stone.
Its merely common sense.
WiFi is low powered equipment operating on the unlicensed bands with street
level coverage to a WiFi phone measured in hundreds to a few thousand feet.
Don't expect it to become a licensed service with higher power.
Don't expect it blanketing the deep rural areas with towers every half mile.
Don't expect it to replace cellular phones.
Don't expect WiFi to support the bandwidth requirements for hundreds of
VoIP calls in a half square mile.
| |
|
| In article <bOqPi.4204$y21.2387@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
>
> Its merely common sense.
>
> WiFi is low powered equipment operating on the unlicensed bands with street
> level coverage to a WiFi phone measured in hundreds to a few thousand feet.
>
> Don't expect it to become a licensed service with higher power.
> Don't expect it blanketing the deep rural areas with towers every half mile.
> Don't expect it to replace cellular phones.
> Don't expect WiFi to support the bandwidth requirements for hundreds of
> VoIP calls in a half square mile.
Expect technology to change, as will all this. How service is delivered
will change. WiFi will change.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> In article <bOqPi.4204$y21.2387@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
>
> Expect technology to change, as will all this. How service is delivered
> will change. WiFi will change.
>
I supported my observations with facts born from professional experience.
You support your's with amature guesses and wishful thinking.
Technology and delivery models will indeed change, but WiFi is...low
powered license free devices. Increase the power and they'll have to
operate in a licensed band, but then it won't be WiFi anymore.
| |
|
| In article <HAzPi.41734$RX.10509@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
>
> I supported my observations with facts born from professional experience.
> You support your's with amature guesses and wishful thinking.
Yes, "born", "amature" and "your's".
>
> Technology and delivery models will indeed change, but WiFi is...low
> powered license free devices. Increase the power and they'll have to
> operate in a licensed band, but then it won't be WiFi anymore.
So they give it new name 10 years from now.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-12, 4:33 am |
| At 11 Oct 2007 18:12:36 -0700 Kurt wrote:
is...low[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> So they give it new name 10 years from now.
Good point. Just like when Henry Ford built all of those new faster
horse-drawn wagons. Without horses. Made of metal. Called
automobiles.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| In article <femrvm$j8p$2@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 11 Oct 2007 18:12:36 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
> is...low
> to
>
>
> Good point. Just like when Henry Ford built all of those new faster
> horse-drawn wagons. Without horses. Made of metal. Called
> automobiles.
Exactly, and even more ironic when you consider that that improved
technology often still uses the most familiar name. Horseless carriages
were a common term for many years.
CDs are still often called albums and records.
It's fairly safe to assume that what people perceive as wireless
delivery will be called Wi-Fi for many more years by the majority of the
populous.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-12, 3:33 pm |
| At 12 Oct 2007 09:39:53 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
> Exactly,
No, just the opposite- pity you missed the sarcasm.
Any future ubiquitous wireless internet will have no relation to
today's WiFi except it'll happen to be wireless.
Even WiMax, despite the "wi" in the name, is more akin to cellular
than it is to WiFi.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Scott 2007-10-12, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-560263.09395312102007
@news.giganews.com:
> In article <femrvm$j8p$2@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> Exactly, and even more ironic when you consider that that improved
> technology often still uses the most familiar name. Horseless carriages
> were a common term for many years.
>
> CDs are still often called albums and records.
>
> It's fairly safe to assume that what people perceive as wireless
> delivery will be called Wi-Fi for many more years by the majority of the
> populous.
>
But you fail to recognize that the american consumer is very lazy. Once a
viable product is introduced in a niche of the consumer's life, they rely
on that original technology to the death. Once an embedded wireless
technology is rolled out and accepted by the american public, that
particular technology will be as much a part of their life as gasoline
powered vehicles, IBM PC's, Microsoft Windows, landline telephones and
refrigerators- all efforts to replace each of these with "newer
technology" have resulted in failure, along with thousands of other things
we use every day. Once a product is proven accepted, the american public
does not stray far from it, unless the government steps in to mandate
replacement.
| |
|
| In article < LtCdnTaOZ9iZnY3anZ2d
nUVZ_sGvnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-560263.09395312102007
> @news.giganews.com:
>
>
> But you fail to recognize that the american consumer is very lazy. Once a
No failing at all, consumers are lazy - even more reason why old names
stick.
> viable product is introduced in a niche of the consumer's life, they rely
> on that original technology to the death. Once an embedded wireless
> technology is rolled out and accepted by the american public, that
> particular technology will be as much a part of their life as gasoline
> powered vehicles, IBM PC's, Microsoft Windows, landline telephones and
> refrigerators- all efforts to replace each of these with "newer
> technology" have resulted in failure, along with thousands of other things
> we use every day. Once a product is proven accepted, the american public
> does not stray far from it, unless the government steps in to mandate
> replacement.
No, consumers respond to marketing and what works well for them once
they've tried it.
The iPhone is an example of marketing something new that works.
WiFi is another story, since you don't actually buy a WiFi.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <feoc3i$rcb$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 12 Oct 2007 09:39:53 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>
> No, just the opposite- pity you missed the sarcasm.
>
> Any future ubiquitous wireless internet will have no relation to
> today's WiFi except it'll happen to be wireless.
>
> Even WiMax, despite the "wi" in the name, is more akin to cellular
> than it is to WiFi.
I vote for MoFo.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <feoc3i$rcb$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 12 Oct 2007 09:39:53 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>
> No, just the opposite- pity you missed the sarcasm.
>
You never know up here. :-)
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Scott 2007-10-12, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-AA0088.16514112102007@news.giganews.com:
>
> No, consumers respond to marketing and what works well for them once
> they've tried it.
> The iPhone is an example of marketing something new that works.
Marketing something, not something new.
> WiFi is another story, since you don't actually buy a WiFi.
>
But in the next couple of years, they will be buying wireless broadband.
That platform will not change again any time in our lifetimes.
| |
|
| In article < w9KdnRZvQpIkvY3anZ2d
nUVZ_hCdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
> news:labolide-AA0088.16514112102007@news.giganews.com:
>
>
>
> Marketing something, not something new.
>
>
>
> But in the next couple of years, they will be buying wireless broadband.
> That platform will not change again any time in our lifetimes.
They'll be buying devices that USE wireless broadband, whether they know
it or not.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Scott 2007-10-12, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-B16517.18524612102007@news.giganews.com:
> In article < w9KdnRZvQpIkvY3anZ2d
nUVZ_hCdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> They'll be buying devices that USE wireless broadband, whether they
> know it or not.
>
They'll know it- they'll be buying broadband access to make the device
utilize the desired functionality.
I'll assume for your sake that you aren't as uninformed as you appear and
are just trying to play wiseass. It's not as entertaining as you think it
is.
| |
|
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
4EE5B2.18372318092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
> But it is part of CDMA2000, which doesn't suck power as badly as 3G.
>
>
What a lame backpeddle.
But only to be expected from a troll.
|
|
|
|