|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > November 2007 > Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
|
|
|
| Oxford wrote:
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx.
False...There is no such thing as a "network already built out".
> Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
False...There is no such thing as an "instant network".
> So reception is
> better, distance travels longer and
False (in your context)...Any distant reception requires a high gain
antenna mounted on a roof in most cases. Unlike the internal antenna of
a cellular handset.
> coverage is nationwide just as
> analogue TV is
False...UHF television coverage is not "nationwide", its mostly in urban
areas.
> and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> what cell phone companies compete with
False...the backhaul costs to the back bone would be similar.
> you only need 1/4 of the sites
> as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use.
False...You're making the simplistic assumption based on signal lever
propagation and ignoring topographic terrain issues.
My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-17, 12:33 pm |
| DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>
> False...There is no such thing as a "network already built out".
>
>
> False...There is no such thing as an "instant network".
>
>
> False (in your context)...Any distant reception requires a high gain
> antenna mounted on a roof in most cases. Unlike the internal antenna of
> a cellular handset.
>
>
> False...UHF television coverage is not "nationwide", its mostly in urban
> areas.
>
>
> False...the backhaul costs to the back bone would be similar.
>
>
> False...You're making the simplistic assumption based on signal lever
> propagation and ignoring topographic terrain issues.
>
> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
| |
| Jack Hamilton 2007-11-17, 12:33 pm |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote:
>i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
Why don't you just tell us who the author was?
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 4:33 am |
| Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why don't you just tell us who the author was?
it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
found it.
Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
Posted by "ace_92029"
"http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
i did feel like digging it up, so now go XXXXX at the author, not me. i
was just the carrier pigeon.
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-18, 4:33 am |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
154469.22035017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
> found it.
>
> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go XXXXX at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
>
That would be the clueless carrier pigeon, newbie.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
> found it.
>
> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go XXXXX at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
Yes, and that guy is SO CREDITABLE!
What I am saying is that you should not believe everything you hear on
the internet and usenet
| |
| George 2007-11-18, 7:33 am |
| Oxford wrote:
> Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
> found it.
>
> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go XXXXX at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
No, you would be the clueless fanboi who posted something you didn't
understand without attribution so it was your words and you do it just
to be an annoying troll.
| |
| David 2007-11-18, 10:33 am |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
154469.22035017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go XXXXX at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
No, you're the carrier XXXXXXX. And we don't need to XXXXX at the
original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
without attrributing it to anyone else.
If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
ATT carries Apple phones.
If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
other carrier's groups.
But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.
If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
them.
| |
| George 2007-11-18, 10:33 am |
| David wrote:
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
> 154469.22035017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>
> No, you're the carrier XXXXXXX. And we don't need to XXXXX at the
> original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
> without attrributing it to anyone else.
>
> If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
> even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
> incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
> ATT carries Apple phones.
>
> If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
> could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
> other carrier's groups.
>
> But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
> news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
> your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
> points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
> understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
> your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.
>
> If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
> penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
> Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
> them.
Totally accurate and well said.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 12:33 pm |
| David <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:
why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
that simple.
for some reason you and others are scared of what I have to say. i know
why, but bitching about it won't make the iPhone go away.
i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want. this is USENET, it's
the spirit of this decentralized, discussion system.
if you don't like it, leave.
| |
| Ness Net 2007-11-18, 12:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-A8B123.10291118112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> that simple.
>
One BIG problem bucko.....
You post ZERO facts. Your posts are filled with conjecture, outright lies
and fanatical fanboy fantasy.
And cross posted where they don't belong - just one big TROLL after another.
| |
| David M. Moore 2007-11-18, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
A8B123.10291118112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> that simple.
Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-18, 10:33 pm |
| In article < Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spam
merskissmyasscom@140
.99.99.130>,
>
> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
weep!
-
Gadgets
Apple iPhone
Cellphone 2.0
While other phone makers piled on half-baked features, Apple rethought
the way we interact with mobile devices. The iPhone puts an end to
confusing menus, whether you¹re flipping through album covers by swiping
a finger or turning the phone sideways to get a wider view of a Web page.
It starts with the 3.5-inch capacitive touchscreen, the first on a
cellphone that can recognize simultaneous touches, for tricks like
zooming in on a photo by spreading your fingers apart. A grid of sensors
behind the glass detects‹with great accuracy‹where your finger disrupts
the electrical field above it, so you can tap the correct link even on a
Web page that¹s littered with them.
The iPhone is also the best iPod ever, with a built-in YouTube
interface, movie player and iTunes downloads. For anything else you want
it to do, it runs third-party Web applications, and‹as long as hackers
stay ahead of Apple‹unofficial programs like games and instant
messaging. The competition looks downright primitive.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/b...ts/item_46.html
| |
| George 2007-11-18, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford wrote:
> David <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:
>
> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> that simple.
>
> for some reason you and others are scared of what I have to say. i know
> why, but bitching about it won't make the iPhone go away.
I think you have a very over inflated idea about yourself. No one is
"scared" of you. And frankly you make a fool of yourself by posting
fanboi dribble that you don't even understand.
>
> i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want. this is USENET, it's
> the spirit of this decentralized, discussion system.
>
> if you don't like it, leave.
Thats fine but "Oxford" simply has no credibility.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/b...ts/item_46.html
Written for the lowest common denominator, like you...not for a real
professional.
Go back for the past fifty years and see how PopSci's revelation of new
technologies are downright funny. Like steam powered airliner.
www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/auto...ws/3290931.html
"They give dumbed-down explanations of simple technologies which leads
me to believe that perhaps they don't actually understand how it really
works."
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-11-18, 10:33 pm |
| In news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> typed:
> In article < Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spam
merskissmyasscom@140
.99.99.130>,
>
>
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
>
> -
>
> Gadgets
> Apple iPhone
>
> Cellphone 2.0
>
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/b...ts/item_46.html
On the same page they also had an award for the following:
Verizon Wireless V CAST Mobile TV
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/b...ts/item_54.html
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> In article < Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spam
merskissmyasscom@140
.99.99.130>,
>
>
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
>
> -
>
> Gadgets
> Apple iPhone
>
> Cellphone 2.0
>
> While other phone makers piled on half-baked features, Apple rethought
> the way we interact with mobile devices. The iPhone puts an end to
> confusing menus, whether you¹re flipping through album covers by swiping
> a finger or turning the phone sideways to get a wider view of a Web page.
>
> It starts with the 3.5-inch capacitive touchscreen, the first on a
> cellphone that can recognize simultaneous touches, for tricks like
> zooming in on a photo by spreading your fingers apart. A grid of sensors
> behind the glass detects‹with great accuracy‹where your finger disrupts
> the electrical field above it, so you can tap the correct link even on a
> Web page that¹s littered with them.
>
> The iPhone is also the best iPod ever, with a built-in YouTube
> interface, movie player and iTunes downloads. For anything else you want
> it to do, it runs third-party Web applications, and‹as long as hackers
> stay ahead of Apple‹unofficial programs like games and instant
> messaging. The competition looks downright primitive.
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/b...ts/item_46.html
How can the iPhone be better if:
1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-19, 4:33 am |
| Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> How can the iPhone be better if:
>
> 1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
phone fat and battery draining.
> 2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?
> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.
It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
you think about it.
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-19, 4:33 am |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
0D03ED.22435018112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
> phone fat and battery draining.
My phone's 3G, the battery is far from fat and it goes for days between
charges.
>
>
> nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?
Because we need something more than the fanboi crap you watch.
>
>
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
> the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.
Actually, Verizon told Apple to go away.
>
> It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
> you think about it.
>
No- many people that "do" have them are more upset than we are, fanboi.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
> phone fat and battery draining.
>
No actually, my phone is smaller than most phones, is 3G, and battery
hasnt seen a charger for 8 days, and still has 3 out of 4 batter levels
left.
>
> nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?
Why have just youtube and other web videos when you can have youtube,
web videos, AND TV?!?!
>
>
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
> the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.
>
> It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
> you think about it.
No, they didn't lose the contract, the said NO to Apple, as the iPhone
is old technology.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become.
Sorry, but the reason has been well hashed over and your offering is way
incorrect.
| |
| Mr. Strat 2007-11-19, 10:33 am |
| In article < fhr6v0$8od$3@registe
red.motzarella.org>, Jon
<Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
Verizon probably passed because Apple wouldn't let them cripple it like
they do the rest of their hardware.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-19, 12:33 pm |
| At 19 Nov 2007 08:07:47 -0800 Mr. Strat wrote:
> Verizon probably passed because Apple wouldn't let them cripple it like
> they do the rest of their hardware.
Probably.
The irony is, of course, Apple then crippled it themselves in the same
major way Verizon does- limit BT to handsfree only, preventing DUN and BT
file transfer.
Stick a red and black theme on it, and it'd fit right in with Verizon's
lineup! ;-)
| |
| David M. Moore 2007-11-19, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> In article < Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spam
merskissmyasscom@140
.99.99.130>,
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
So you were stating fact in your original post? I'll try to remember
that next time you state that analog TV is networked like wi-fi and could
easily be changed to offer nationwide internet with little change or
expense.
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it
> and weep!
There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
buying one...
Except for one problem.
Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
"work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
like a champ.
Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
So when Steve gets his head out of his XXX and his penis out of his hand
and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
NETWORK that works.
| |
| Ness-Net 2007-11-19, 10:33 pm |
| AND the non user changeable battery....
AND no 3G
"David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDC3D14CCD
6spammerskissmyassco
m@140.99.99.130...
>
> There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
> surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
> and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
> would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
> also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
> buying one...
>
> Except for one problem.
>
> Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
> pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
> "work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
> area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
> network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
> phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
> quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
> to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
> Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
> with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
> they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
> like a champ.
>
> Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
> award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
>
> So when Steve gets his head out of his XXX and his penis out of his hand
> and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
> up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
> NETWORK that works.
>
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-19, 10:33 pm |
| "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:06GdnVRk- JM4ot_anZ2dnUVZ_sejn
Z2d@giganews.com:
> AND the non user changeable battery....
>
> AND no 3G
>
>
>
AND no voice dial
AND no streaming TV
AND no seamless sync
AND no GPS
Wow- the list of stuff not on the phone is almost as long as the small list
of things it does have.
| |
| David M. Moore 2007-11-20, 4:33 am |
| "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in
news:rks0j.319$AR7.283@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Verizon turned it down. Where I live, Both AT&T and Verizon have good
> signal. Then a few miles down the road one has crap signal and another
> few miles away the other is better.
It didn't surprise me in the least that Verizon turned them down. Verizon
is such a control freak over its hardware, just like Apple, that them doing
a phone together would be like the proverbial unstopable force hitting the
immovable object. Contract negotiations would be like during the Korean
war where it was a major deal just to decide on the size and shape of the
table to be used for peace talks :-)
|
|
|
|
|