|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > September 2007 > Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
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 |
Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
|
|
| Giganews 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
> good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
> saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future... where nobody contributes
> more than $5 a month for full access.
>
> This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and the
> old Landline companies.
>
> This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976, even
> before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes to make
> free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.
>
> We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.
>
> It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.
>
> Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!
>
> -
Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.
http://www.usatoday.com/printeditio..._lede20.art.htm
Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access
CHICAGO — Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
proving to be too costly and complicated.
Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
networks on hold.
"Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
corridor.
Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
| "Giganews" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/printeditio..._lede20.art.htm
>
> Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
> Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access
>
> CHICAGO ‹ Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
> wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
> proving to be too costly and complicated.
>
> Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
> networks on hold.
>
> "Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
> Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
> corridor.
>
> Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
Sure, there is no longer a need for "cities" to do it themselves since
the WiFi revolution is spreading far faster, and without "any"
involvement from. So this is what everyone is seeing across the country.
Throw in VoIP and you'll have free worldwide phone network, just as was
envisioned.
Can you say Google Phone? Bet you can!
-
| |
| Ness Net 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
> An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
>
A bit more fiction?
Nowhere in that article does it reference "cell phone companies"
I guess now you are a crazy conspiracy theorist as well?
More info:
Cincinnati shelved its plan last week for a citywide network because the
market is too unstable.
•The Silicon Valley plan for free Wi-Fi is at risk after providers decided
local governments must be "anchor tenants" for the service.
•Springfield, Ill., is looking for another partner after AT&T dropped Wi-Fi
plans last month.
•St. Louis is trying to figure out how to power Wi-Fi transmitters on 1,700
street lights when they're not illuminated without spending millions of
dollars.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
| It's not cities stepping away, it's they're contractor Earthlink now
teetering on the brink of bankruptcy that can't afford to meet its
committments to build WiFi systems for these cities.
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:49:12 -0700, "Giganews"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
>
>Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/printeditio..._lede20.art.htm
>
>Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
>Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access
>
>CHICAGO — Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
>wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
>proving to be too costly and complicated.
>
>Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
>networks on hold.
>
>"Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
>Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
>corridor.
>
>Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-20, 3:33 pm |
| At 20 Sep 2007 12:20:48 -0500 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> It's not cities stepping away, it's they're contractor Earthlink now
> teetering on the brink of bankruptcy that can't afford to meet its
> committments to build WiFi systems for these cities.
Is Google "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" as well? Is AT&T?
These companies are also involved in muni-WiFi plans that have halted
as well.
It's a neat idea- except for the part where no one has figured out
how to pay for it or make any money from it...
--
"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
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-09-20, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:15:39 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>At 20 Sep 2007 12:20:48 -0500 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>Is Google "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" as well? Is AT&T?
>These companies are also involved in muni-WiFi plans that have halted
>as well.
DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
>
>It's a neat idea- except for the part where no one has figured out
>how to pay for it or make any money from it...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| At 20 Sep 2007 15:29:39 -0500 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
> Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
"Duh?" Always the wordsmith, eh, Phillipe?
Those "10,000 hotspots" are subscription-based, isolated, individual
hotspots similar to T-Mobile's Hotspot WiFi network- not a muni-WiFi
"mesh" network with continuous coverage. Hardly the same thing!
Like T-Mobile's or Boingo's networks, AT&T uses it in an attempt to
make a profit, and DOESN'T try to blanket entire areas- they
cherrypick airports, restaurants, hotels, etc. and sell access by the
hour, day, month, etc.
So, in conclusion, "duh" yourself- what does AT&T's hotspot network
have to do with the failure of muni-WiFi projects getting off the
ground (like AT&T pulling out of the Springfield, Il project?)
--
"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
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
How did you come to that conclusion? I didn't see any reference to any
cellphone companies.
Are you imagining things or making up this crap as you go along?
| |
| Larry 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| "Giganews" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:r7ydncfvMM0SC2_
bnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:
> Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
>
>
I found a wifi dead spot near here in a burger joint, today. First time I
didn't have Skype on the Netgear Skype phone in some time....
Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
> Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
Apples to oranges.
AT&T, err...at&t, charges for their service. Its not free.
AT&T offers hotspots, not ubiquitous coverage.
AT&T limits what you can do. You can't run servers,, or webcams, etc.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A14E6B.09585320092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "Giganews" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
>
You just lied again, Oxturd.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
news:1ta5f3p957cugom
v3r8qbcrsg6j09f7f3o@
4ax.com:
> It's not cities stepping away, it's they're contractor Earthlink now
> teetering on the brink of bankruptcy that can't afford to meet its
> committments to build WiFi systems for these cities.
>
>
Wrong- it is the cities stepping away. Nice try, paranoid troll.
City holds out for ‘WIMAX’
Wi-Fi not financially viable, official says
http://www.gazette.com/articles/city_27453
___article.html/network_wireless.html
Chicago scraps city Wi-Fi plan
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/29/wireless.chicago.ap/
>
| |
| Bob Fry 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| "Arguing on Usenet is like running a race in the Special Olympics:
even if you win, you're still retarded."
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2007-09-24, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:29:39 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:15:39 -0600, Todd Allcock
>< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
>Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
Those hot-spots aren't available for free, Genius. Todd's right --
free wi-fi is very much an up in the air proposition right now, as
very few cities are willing to foot the bill on their own and
companies are changing their minds about it all the time.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| George 2007-09-24, 10:33 am |
| Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
> Those hot-spots aren't available for free, Genius. Todd's right --
> free wi-fi is very much an up in the air proposition right now, as
> very few cities are willing to foot the bill on their own and
> companies are changing their minds about it all the time.
>
Exactly, I am in a top 50 market and the biggest city here can't even
get anyone to bid on installing a free WiFi system.
Its nice to dream but the fanbois who claim cell systems are dead might
have to wait a long long time before any replacement free WiFi systems
are available.
I can get in my car and drive hundreds of miles in any direction with
continuous voice and data coverage via the cell system with seamless
system handoffs. When will I be able to do that or even roam a few
blocks for free with WiFi?
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-09-24, 10:33 am |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-09-24, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:29:39 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
> Those hot-spots aren't available for free, Genius. Todd's right --
> free wi-fi is very much an up in the air proposition right now, as
> very few cities are willing to foot the bill on their own and
> companies are changing their minds about it all the time.
You're responding to a troll. He doesn't like to let facts get in the way of
his discussions.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-24, 10:33 am |
| In article <slrnfffj0l.86u.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> You're responding to a troll. He doesn't like to let facts get in the way of
> his discussions.
Said troll has plainly gone off to other endeavours.
| |
|
| George wrote:
> I can get in my car and drive hundreds of miles in any direction with
> continuous voice and data coverage via the cell system with seamless
> system handoffs. When will I be able to do that or even roam a few
> blocks for free with WiFi?
Not for free, but Sprint claims that in 2008 they'll begin deploying
WiMax in selected markets.
Remember free dial-up Internet access from companies like NetZero? There
was also going to be free DSL access at one point. Alas, the free model
never worked out that well. I can get free MetroFi WiFi from my house,
but it's not all that fast. Fine for e-mail, not so fine for web browsing.
The whole future of free WiFi and the direction of the cellular market
rests with what Google does with the gPhone. The latest news is that
they are rethinking doing an EDGE-only phone with a Texas Instruments
chipset, given what's happened with the iPhone.
HTC is reportedly doing the hardware for Google. It's unlikely to be as
inexpensive as the iPhone (one reason Apple cut the iPhone pricing was
in attempt to head off the competition, and to lock up more market share
prior to the gPhone launch). If it has 3G, WiFi, GPS, memory slot, and a
slide -out keyboard, as expected, the cost will likely be at least $500.
Google loves disruptive technology, and they've got the resources to see
this through. Google has installed free WiFi in Mountain View and it
works great. Google has other reasons as well for building their own
nationwide network, it could save them hundreds of millions of dollars
in IP transit fees, partially offsetting the deployment costs.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-09-24, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-09-24, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnfffj0l.86u.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
> Said troll has plainly gone off to other endeavours.
Yes, he generally hangs out in alt.cellular.cingular, although in spite of
his lies that he won't troll alt.cellular.sprintpcs, he's been back there
frequently of late...
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-09-24, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> George wrote:
>
[...][color=darkred]
> Google loves disruptive technology, and they've got the resources to see
> this through. Google has installed free WiFi in Mountain View and it
> works great. Google has other reasons as well for building their own
> nationwide network, it could save them hundreds of millions of dollars
> in IP transit fees, partially offsetting the deployment costs.
The Google deployment in Mountain View does show the limitations of
WiFi for outdoor use, though. It must have taken almost 400 APs, e.g.
http://wifi.google.com/city/mv/apmap.html
to cover the bulk of a 12 square mile city, and even then you need
to run at higher power than your average laptop (or iPhone?) WiFi
radio supports, e.g.
http://wifi.google.com/support/bin/...py?answer=44023
to get anything like continuous coverage. Their access points don't
hear my laptop reliably unless I'm within spitting distance of one, or
I use a modem.
3G is, and WiMax should be, a better match for the problem. The
equipment is designed for this use.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| David M. Moore 2007-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:QY6dnSUIuvJQX2r
bnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
> system handoffs. When will I be able to do that or even roam a few
> blocks for free with WiFi?
You'll be able to do that when the companies figure out a way to make money
by giving away the service for free. Even a company with almost infinite
pockets like Google has shareholders to answer to. And there lies the
problem...no one has figured out how to make it pay.
David
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| "David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:
> You'll be able to do that when the companies figure out a way to make money
> by giving away the service for free. Even a company with almost infinite
> pockets like Google has shareholders to answer to. And there lies the
> problem...no one has figured out how to make it pay.
>
> David
ah, you can already do that...
http://www.linspot.com/linspot.html
"sell your air"... what a concept...
-
| |
|
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46f7e974$0$2723
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> George wrote:
>
>
> Not for free, but Sprint claims that in 2008 they'll begin deploying WiMax
> in selected markets.
which of course answers a question no one asked (wifi and wimax aren't the
same). :D
<snip>
| |
|
| David M. Moore wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:QY6dnSUIuvJQX2r
bnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
>
> You'll be able to do that when the companies figure out a way to make money
> by giving away the service for free. Even a company with almost infinite
> pockets like Google has shareholders to answer to. And there lies the
> problem...no one has figured out how to make it pay.
Google has other reasons to build their own nationwide network, and free
wireless may just be a side benefit. If they go ahead with their gPhone,
maybe they'll expand their free wireless network. If we're really lucky,
they'll go WiMax. Google and Sprint are already working together on
WiMax, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they might
decide to acquire Sprint.
Read "http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20070726/google-sprint-wimax/".
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| In news:colalovesmacs-F9EC8F.19195124092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:
>
>
> ah, you can already do that...
>
> http://www.linspot.com/linspot.html
>
> "sell your air"... what a concept...
>
> -
Why do this when there is FREE WiFi almost everywhere? :D
| |
|
|
|
| IMHO IIRC wrote:
> Why do this when there is FREE WiFi almost everywhere? :D
"Almost everywhere" ????
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| In news:cF_Ji.1570$6p6.284@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net,
DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> typed:
> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
> "Almost everywhere" ????
That is what Oxford keeps claiming. lol
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
> And they have you meet CALEA requirements how ????
nobody cares about CALEA, that's just a false smokescreen put up by cell
and ISP's to scare the public.
there is no reason you can't share your wireless signal with 254 people,
or even COLLECT money if you want.
currently it costs around $20 bucks to make your connection "wireless"
to 254 people... in 18 months it will be $10 bucks, and in 18 more, it
will be $5 bucks.
the cell industry doesn't have any clue what is about to happen. the
computer world will wipe them out since their 20 year old "formula" to
rip people off is quickly coming to a close.
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
> Why do this when there is FREE WiFi almost everywhere? :D
to make money numbnuts. i can split the connection and allow some free
some for pay. don't you know anything IMHO?
| |
|
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
19B38A.21502224092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
>
> nobody cares about CALEA, that's just a false smokescreen put up by cell
> and ISP's to scare the public.
>
> there is no reason you can't share your wireless signal with 254 people,
> or even COLLECT money if you want.
Sure- if you want to take the hit for every violation of law and TOS that
occurs from your hub.
>
> currently it costs around $20 bucks to make your connection "wireless"
> to 254 people... in 18 months it will be $10 bucks, and in 18 more, it
> will be $5 bucks.
Bullshit, as usual. Pricing remains the same while speed increases. You
should get out more.
>
> the cell industry doesn't have any clue what is about to happen. the
> computer world will wipe them out since their 20 year old "formula" to
> rip people off is quickly coming to a close.
>
> -
You are the only one that doesn't have a clue, Oxturd. First you tout free
wifi and now you are shilling wifi at a cost.
Of course, your plan has a fatal flaw- why would I pay four or five people
for the luxury of wifi wherever I need it when I will soon be able to pay
one carrier for the same privilege?
| |
|
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
CB0928.21514124092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> to make money numbnuts. i can split the connection and allow some free
> some for pay. don't you know anything IMHO?
Knowing anything would put him light years ahead of you, nimwit.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
> which of course answers a question no one asked (wifi and wimax aren't the
> same). :D
sure it is...
WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
-
| |
|
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-B623B3.22075324092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> sure it is...
>
> WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
>
> -
>
Yet wifi is based on the IEEE 802.11 standard, which is does not have the
same technical requirements or properties of 802.16.
You can't possibly be this stupid.
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| In news:colalovesmacs-CB0928.21514124092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> to make money numbnuts. i can split the connection and allow some free
> some for pay. don't you know anything IMHO?
Why would anyone PAY when, as you have said so many times, there is so much
FREE WiFi already available.
You also said free WiFi is going to shut down all pay services for
communication and web access.
Remember - that is what Steve Jobs said the iPhone was going to do.
lol
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
> Why would anyone PAY when, as you have said so many times, there is so much
> FREE WiFi already available.
> You also said free WiFi is going to shut down all pay services for
> communication and web access.
> Remember - that is what Steve Jobs said the iPhone was going to do.
free is just when you are driving around town, but for a consistent,
month to month connection it's easy to charge until "free" becomes
ubiquitous.
do it now while you still can :)
| |
|
| "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-B623B3.22075324092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> sure it is...
>
> WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
um, yeah, what, you think because they're both 802.xx they're the same or
something? well, i guess you think 10base2, 10base5, 10baseT, etc are all
the same as wifi too, right! hahaha!
| |
|
| ed wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46f7e974$0$2723
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> which of course answers a question no one asked (wifi and wimax aren't
> the same). :D
George asked when he could use WiMax? The answer is probably never for
free, but at least it'll be possible for money. What you don't
understand is that WiFi is very different from WiMax, despite their
similar numbering by the standards committe.
| |
|
| IMHO IIRC wrote:
> Remember - that is what Steve Jobs said the iPhone was going to do.
Jobs has very little control over this.
The future of free WiFi and pay WiMax depend to a large extent on the
alliance between Google and Sprint (Sprint itself has an alliance with
Intel, Motorola, Nokia, and Samsung).
My bet is that at least one gPhone model will be WiMax capable, WiFi
capable, 3G capable (EVDO), and work on Sprint's CDMA network. Another
model will be GSM capable, and will be sold unlocked.
Google Maps and an integrated GPS are going to be awesome.
One of the reasons for the iPhone price cut was to try to get more
market penetration prior to the gPhone launch (if it's real!).
| |
|
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46f8a3bd$0$2720
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> ed wrote:
>
> George asked when he could use WiMax? The answer is probably never for
> free, but at least it'll be possible for money.
no, george asked '...or even roam a few blocks for free with WIFI', to which
you responded with a response about wimax.
> What you don't understand is that WiFi is very different from WiMax,
> despite their similar numbering by the standards committe.
of course i understand that- i EXPLICITLY SAID THAT.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| At 24 Sep 2007 19:19:51 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> http://www.linspot.com/linspot.html
>
> "sell your air"... what a concept...
>
> -
A good one... if it's yours to sell. My ISP (and yours, I'll wager)
prohibit such activity in their TOS.
Certainly you can share access to your "air"- meaning the wireless
connection your your network, but not it's internet connection!
--
"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
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> sure it is...
>
> WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
Moot point that its based on similar standards, they are not the same.
Wifi: Free
WiMax About $50 (ad hoc estimate)
WiFi: Unlicensed ISM bands
WiMax: Spectrum auction licensed bands
WiFi: Perhaps half mile range to street level
WiMax: 5 to 10 miles to inside a home
WiFi: Access point cost $1,000 to $4,000
WiMax: $50,000 to $100,000 (ad hoc estimate)
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-09-25, 3:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> "David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:
>
>
> ah, you can already do that...
>
> http://www.linspot.com/linspot.html
>
> "sell your air"... what a concept...
I don't have much faith in an organisation that can't even spellcheck
their home page,
"Super-stabel"
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
|
| I forgot to mention...
WiFi: ONLY 4 watts max RF output into an omni antenna.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
> nobody cares about CALEA, that's just a false smokescreen put up by cell
> and ISP's to scare the public.
Incorrect:
1) The FCC certainly does...at a substantial fine for non-compliance.
2) Cell companies and ISPs wish CALEA would go away.
> there is no reason you can't share your wireless signal with 254 people,
Bandwidth overload..umm, you sure don't know anything about this stuff, do
> the cell industry doesn't have any clue what is about to happen.
Dream on...
|
|
|
|
|