Sprint PCS - Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

Author

Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

Oxford

2007-11-16, 10:33 pm

Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
sold) to cover the entire country.

Now you understand why Apple didn't want to be locked into the old 3G
standard.

As you may know, AT&T bought Aloha Partners 700Mhz... about 10 Mhz or
about half the country. They need more. The market has vastly
underestimated Steve's influence at AT&T as well as the money Apple is
getting from AT&T.

The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
experience. And here's the best part.

As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
expenses, etc..

Apple could pull of the coup d'etat of the century, if they said, buy
your cell phone and use our Wimaxx to dial any number in the US and
receive any call fo the monthly price of $0 for 2 years.... the iPhone
would be the hottest product even more so than the Razor was... just
think of a cell that is free for 2 years.. that's huge... what does
Apple gain from this...they could probably sell 100 million iPhones at
$299 each over a 2 year period or less and own the cell phone market.

Then charge $50 per month for unlimited calling plans... still a good
deal... and half or more of that would be profit! At say $30 per month
multiplied by 100 million iPhones that's 3 billion a month or 36 billion
per year... or $40 per share in earnings added to whatever else they
sell... you're talking a stock price over $1,000 a share... maybe even
$1,500.

If this takes 2-3-4-5 years... that's a 10 bagger! Apple will be the
largest publicly traded company in the country and own both the computer
and cell phone market.

---

Jon

2007-11-17, 4:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> Now you understand why Apple didn't want to be locked into the old 3G
> standard.
>
> As you may know, AT&T bought Aloha Partners 700Mhz... about 10 Mhz or
> about half the country. They need more. The market has vastly
> underestimated Steve's influence at AT&T as well as the money Apple is
> getting from AT&T.
>
> The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
> day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
> cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
> must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
> experience. And here's the best part.
>
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
> better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
> analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
> as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
> which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
> expenses, etc..
>
> Apple could pull of the coup d'etat of the century, if they said, buy
> your cell phone and use our Wimaxx to dial any number in the US and
> receive any call fo the monthly price of $0 for 2 years.... the iPhone
> would be the hottest product even more so than the Razor was... just
> think of a cell that is free for 2 years.. that's huge... what does
> Apple gain from this...they could probably sell 100 million iPhones at
> $299 each over a 2 year period or less and own the cell phone market.
>
> Then charge $50 per month for unlimited calling plans... still a good
> deal... and half or more of that would be profit! At say $30 per month
> multiplied by 100 million iPhones that's 3 billion a month or 36 billion
> per year... or $40 per share in earnings added to whatever else they
> sell... you're talking a stock price over $1,000 a share... maybe even
> $1,500.
>
> If this takes 2-3-4-5 years... that's a 10 bagger! Apple will be the
> largest publicly traded company in the country and own both the computer
> and cell phone market.
>
> ---
Its not going to happen, Google is going to own it.

There is nothing you can do to prevent it either

Oxford

2007-11-17, 4:33 am

Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:

> Its not going to happen, Google is going to own it.

nah, since google said they weren't going to make a phone what would be
the point?

> There is nothing you can do to prevent it either

and why would i care?

Jon

2007-11-17, 4:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> nah, since google said they weren't going to make a phone what would be
> the point?
>
>
> and why would i care?
You don't NEED to be making a phone to buy/use the 700mhz range.

How about INTERNET ACCESS.

Richard Colton

2007-11-17, 4:33 am

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Well, here's the word. <loads of drivel snipped>

Here's a few more.

XXXX off you morphing, cross-posting halfwit.

--
Unlock Your Phone's Potential
www.UselessInfo.org.uk
www.ThePhoneLocker.co.uk
www.GSM-Solutions.co.uk

News

2007-11-17, 7:33 am

Oxford wrote:

> Well, here's the word.

Music More than 6 million songs. 99¢ each.
Movies New and classic films from $9.99.
Music Videos More than 11,000, $1.99 each.
TV Shows 600 shows at $1.99 an episode.
iPod Games $4.99 each. Countless hours of fun.

and

700MHz KoolAid. All the flavors. Free, every day.

DTC

2007-11-17, 10:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx.

Ok, now you have real showed your ignorance.

There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in the
world did you get that idea???

Oh, you're thinking that there there is a vast nationwide coverage of
UHF TV stations out there...sorry, UHF is mostly in built up urban
cities using a max of five MEGAwatts (circular polarization), but it
could adapted to ten megawatts in one plane. You don't seem to
understand that two-way communications requires reciprocal power levels.

And they are NOT "networked" together. The ONLY thing already in
place...are a few towers in urban areas, but no radio infrastructure in
place.

My gawd...how can you be so clueless.

CozmicDebris

2007-11-17, 10:33 am

Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> Well, here's the word. <snip>

Damn- you really are that stupid. You made at least a half-dozen basic
technical areas in this drivel. In addition, you made almost as many
incorrect assumptions about basiuc technology and spectrum knowledge.

You really don't know anything.

George

2007-11-17, 10:33 am

Oxford wrote:

>
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
> better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
> analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
> as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
> which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
> expenses, etc..
>
Don't make yourself look even more clueless than you already look by
parroting marketing speak you don't understand.

The existing TV network isn't two way. It consists of a minimal amount
of high powered transmitters which are one way only and in no way can be
easily converted to do anything related to two way without almost a
complete rebuild and the addition of a significant amount of sites. An
"Instant network" is only bait marketing speak for clueless fanbois like
you.

Actual installations require almost a similar amount of equipment (and
maintenance) as cellphone data systems because sufficient sites have to
be installed to receive the signals from the weaker mobiles.

DTC

2007-11-17, 10:33 am

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.

Oxford

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Don't make yourself look even more clueless than you already look by
> parroting marketing speak you don't understand.
>
> The existing TV network isn't two way. It consists of a minimal amount
> of high powered transmitters which are one way only and in no way can be
> easily converted to do anything related to two way without almost a
> complete rebuild and the addition of a significant amount of sites. An
> "Instant network" is only bait marketing speak for clueless fanbois like
> you.
>
> Actual installations require almost a similar amount of equipment (and
> maintenance) as cellphone data systems because sufficient sites have to
> be installed to receive the signals from the weaker mobiles.

it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.

Oxford

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>
> Ok, now you have real showed your ignorance.
>
> There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in the
> world did you get that idea???
>
> Oh, you're thinking that there there is a vast nationwide coverage of
> UHF TV stations out there...sorry, UHF is mostly in built up urban
> cities using a max of five MEGAwatts (circular polarization), but it
> could adapted to ten megawatts in one plane. You don't seem to
> understand that two-way communications requires reciprocal power levels.
>
> And they are NOT "networked" together. The ONLY thing already in
> place...are a few towers in urban areas, but no radio infrastructure in
> place.
>
> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.

that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

DTC

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...yer still clueless for
buying into that.

Ness Net

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-320858.09401817112007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net...
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

YOU cite something (and like it was yours) - it makes YOU clueless!!

It DOES prove that YOU know nothing about the subject(s) you prattle on
about.

It DOES prove that YOU post complete bullshit.

George

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

Oxford wrote:

>
> it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.

So you are acknowledging that you are just a clueless fanboi with no
credibility who simply parrots stuff because you don't have the
knowledge to check your sources and your only purpose for posting is to
annoy people here who have a stronger technology background than you but
who don't drink apples' kool aid?

When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.

George

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.

Sorry, you were the author. Those were your words. You didn't quote
anyone or provide any sort of reference that it wasn't the result of
*your* research and validation.

Oxford

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

>
> You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...

correct, but the author's info wasn't linkable, so i left it off.

at least he is right on track, in 60ish days we'll know for sure if
Apple can't pull it off, if so, the entire cell market vastly changes.

DTC

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> correct, but the author's info wasn't linkable, so i left it off.

Then you should have included it in quotes and at least credit to the
web page you found it on any other citations.

> at least he is right on track, in 60ish days we'll know for sure if
> Apple can't pull it off, if so, the entire cell market vastly changes.

Then you admit you bought into his dribble.

My gawd...you are so clueless.

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?

DTC

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

Oxford wrote:

[snip drivel}

http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3

Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...

http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r

My gawd...you are so clueless.

CozmicDebris

2007-11-17, 12:33 pm

Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-320858.09401817112007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:

>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author
> was clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
>

No- you're clueless on a totally different level. You don't have any clue
at all about the technology, as shown by your blind acceptance of
information found in the net. This thread has cemented the fact that you
know nothing and havew no first hand experience with any of this stuff.
You are simply an adolescent fanboi who gets all information from someplace
else, without knowing the accuracy of that data.

Kevin Weaver

2007-11-17, 3:33 pm

"DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
news:7cG%i.60018$RX.36601@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> Oxford wrote:
>
> [snip drivel}
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>
> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>
> My gawd...you are so clueless.

And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at the
top.

DTC

2007-11-17, 3:33 pm

Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
> news:7cG%i.60018$RX.36601@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at
> the top.

I know. Isn't that funny. Its gonna take more than hand cleaner to wipe
that egg off his face, ya think?

DTC

2007-11-17, 3:33 pm

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2007-11-17, 3:33 pm

In article <7cG%i.60018$RX.36601@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>
> [snip drivel}
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>
> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>
> My gawd...you are so clueless.

OK, so that last link is to a forum which, apparently, simply takes the
Usenet articles and places them into its forum structure.

DTC

2007-11-17, 10:33 pm

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <7cG%i.60018$RX.36601@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> OK, so that last link is to a forum which, apparently, simply takes the
> Usenet articles and places them into its forum structure.

And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2007-11-17, 10:33 pm

In article <NOJ%i.59$fl7.50@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

>
>
> And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.

Oxfart posts something here, and when questioned about its source, goes
to that forum and says "but look, it's published elsewhere"--when in
reality that "forum" simply reposts whatever anyone posts to the Usenet.

Cubit

2007-11-17, 10:33 pm

The rf spectrum is part of our infrastructure. It should not be taxed by
selling it to the highest bidder. The current process ensures that any use
will be expensive enough to repay the auction price.

Infrastructure needs to be subsidized.

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> Now you understand why Apple didn't want to be locked into the old 3G
> standard.
>
> As you may know, AT&T bought Aloha Partners 700Mhz... about 10 Mhz or
> about half the country. They need more. The market has vastly
> underestimated Steve's influence at AT&T as well as the money Apple is
> getting from AT&T.
>
> The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
> day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
> cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
> must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
> experience. And here's the best part.
>
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
> better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
> analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
> as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
> which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
> expenses, etc..
>
> Apple could pull of the coup d'etat of the century, if they said, buy
> your cell phone and use our Wimaxx to dial any number in the US and
> receive any call fo the monthly price of $0 for 2 years.... the iPhone
> would be the hottest product even more so than the Razor was... just
> think of a cell that is free for 2 years.. that's huge... what does
> Apple gain from this...they could probably sell 100 million iPhones at
> $299 each over a 2 year period or less and own the cell phone market.
>
> Then charge $50 per month for unlimited calling plans... still a good
> deal... and half or more of that would be profit! At say $30 per month
> multiplied by 100 million iPhones that's 3 billion a month or 36 billion
> per year... or $40 per share in earnings added to whatever else they
> sell... you're talking a stock price over $1,000 a share... maybe even
> $1,500.
>
> If this takes 2-3-4-5 years... that's a 10 bagger! Apple will be the
> largest publicly traded company in the country and own both the computer
> and cell phone market.
>
> ---

Oxford

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>
> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> [quote]
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ywpwdn
> Authored by: By Cade Metz in San Francisco
> [quote]
> The FCC calls the 700-MHz band "beachfront property." As TV stations
> vacate this wireless real estate, making the move to digital
> transmission, it could potentially house a nationwide wireless network
> that's faster than WiFi and more adept at passing through walls.
>
> Would you like salsa to go with the egg on yer face?

why are you so obsessed with me?

Oxford

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>
> Oxfart posts something here, and when questioned about its source, goes
> to that forum and says "but look, it's published elsewhere"--when in
> reality that "forum" simply reposts whatever anyone posts to the Usenet.

they are not talking about that elmo. what i posted came from yahoo's
message board, not usenet. learn to read.

DTC

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> why are you so obsessed with me?

Why are you so obsessed with making yerself look like a fool, fool?

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

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
> full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.

go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.

CozmicDebris

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
68CA0E.22145017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
>

And there lies the problem, newbie- most of us would rather post something
factual, as opposed to "interesting". The fact that you posted it all
simply shows that you know nothing about the subject.

Oxford

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>
> Why are you so obsessed with making yerself look like a fool, fool?

you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
exciting news about the future of the cell industry.

apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
date.

yes, you're welcome!

Jon

2007-11-18, 4:33 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.
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

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-68CA0E.22145017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.

Yes, you "don't care" about the truth - that has been proven repeatedly.

Now... if you'd admit to trolling & sock puppets primarily to be an XXXXXXX,
we'd actually be getting somewhere.

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-8DD1AD.21571517112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...

>
> why are you so obsessed with me?

Why are YOU so "obsessed" with trolling groups with fanboy crap?
Why are YOU post complete crap where it doesn't belong.
Why do YOU try so hard to be a complete XXX?

Answer those - and you will have answered your question.

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 4:33 am

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-716365.22484117112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>
> apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
> date.
>
> yes, you're welcome!

You troll and post complete fiction - that is not being "helpful"
It IS going out of your way to be an XXXXXXX.

Get a clue - no one wants your "exciting news"
It is NOT "news" and certainly NOT "exciting".

It is fanatical fanboy fantasy - ZERO facts.

George

2007-11-18, 7:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.

Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.

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.

George

2007-11-18, 7:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> talk about clueless Kevin, you win the award for the above comment.
>
> what you pulled up was just a mirror of usenet in a phpBB format.
>
> the post didn't originate with me, you were just too clueless to
> understand that.

Sure it did. Anytime you write something without attribution you are
using your words which means you are the author and understand the topic
and agree that it is correct.

There are numerous ways you could have prevented your yourself from
looking like a fanboi troll such as simply:

Including the URL and putting the content in quotes.

Stating "I found this but I don't understand it so could it be true?"

etc

>
> the mildly smarter DTC found the correct info, just as I had said.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
>
> the joke is on you Kevin!

George

2007-11-18, 7:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
> they are not talking about that elmo. what i posted came from yahoo's
> message board, not usenet. learn to read.

But how would anyone know that about what you posted because you read
the fanboi marketing speak bait and wrote it as the author because you
believed it?

George

2007-11-18, 7:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> why are you so obsessed with me?

I can't speak for him but your whole purpose for posting is obviously to
troll and annoy people who know more than you. You could solve your
problem by going away or posting in a normal non-fanboi fashion.

George

2007-11-18, 10:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.

So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.

I seriously doubt anyone here wants to hear your "exciting news".

>
> apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
> date.
>
> yes, you're welcome!

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

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
> Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
> you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.

i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
didn't. deal with it.

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.

Oxford

2007-11-18, 12:33 pm

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.

not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.

i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
you get mad instead of rising up to my level.

-

Oxford

2007-11-18, 12:33 pm

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

>
> Why are YOU so "obsessed" with trolling groups with fanboy crap?

i haven't trolled a post in my life. fanboy? that's not my style.

> Why are YOU post complete crap where it doesn't belong.

i'm just posting info about the iphone to groups/people that are, "or
will be" interested in the biggest cell revolution of our time.

nothing wrong with that.

> Why do YOU try so hard to be a complete XXX?

how do you mean? i'm just educating... so it sounds like you have issues
against people being fully informed... how sad.

> Answer those - and you will have answered your question.

okay, they have been answered.

do you have any other questions i can help you with?

-

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 12:33 pm

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-26E008.10232718112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
> have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
> didn't. deal with it.

Idiot.... you have ZERO credibility! Less than zero actually...

Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone supporting
you?
(Other than your quite obvious and obnoxious sock puppets)

"lazy" isn't the word - fanatic fanboy fantasy is more like it.

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.

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-734FEC.10312218112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>

If you "deeply understand" the shit you post, you are in REAL trouble.
Delusional is the word mental professionals use to describe this.

Or, if voices in your head make you post your fiction, then schizophrenia
is the likely culprit.

Bottom line - if you "deeply understand" fanatical fantasy - seek help -
NOW!

Oxford

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone supporting
> you?
> (Other than your quite obvious and obnoxious sock puppets)
>
> "lazy" isn't the word - fanatic fanboy fantasy is more like it.

you're just another groupie. that wants what i have...

give it up, you've been officially...

PLONKED!

sorry! you should have added value to USENET, like i do.

News

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

Oxford wrote:

> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>

"... instead of rising up"?

That which is flushed flows downhill.

And if not, flush twice for effect.

David Friedman

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

In article < ULOdnfuG198uo93anZ2d
nUVZ_qudnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> I can't speak for him but your whole purpose for posting is obviously to
> troll and annoy people who know more than you.

I think that's pretty clearly wrong, reading his posts. He really
believes he is an expert on this stuff, whether or not he has any reason
to.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-F6E845.11351518112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> you're just another groupie. that wants what i have...
>
> give it up, you've been officially...
>
> PLONKED!
>
> sorry! you should have added value to USENET, like i do.

OOOOOOOOOOH!!!!! The great poobah Oxford has spoken!!
All bow down to the great Oxford.

It is very typical for little snot nose troll boys to run like this.
You get your XXX kicked and then run like hell.

Oh - I seriously do NOT want the mental illness YOU have.

News

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

Ness Net wrote:

>
> "Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
> news:linuxlovesosx-F6E845.11351518112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
>
>
>
> OOOOOOOOOOH!!!!! The great poobah Oxford has spoken!!
> All bow down to the great Oxford.
>
> It is very typical for little snot nose troll boys to run like this.
> You get your XXX kicked and then run like hell.
>
> Oh - I seriously do NOT want the mental illness YOU have.
>

Please remember to crosspost replies to the Oxturd to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
since that is where his primary audience lies (literally and otherwise).

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-4D2CA6.11255118112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> i haven't trolled a post in my life. fanboy? that's not my style.
>
>
> i'm just posting info about the iphone to groups/people that are, "or
> will be" interested in the biggest cell revolution of our time.
>
> nothing wrong with that.
>
>
> how do you mean? i'm just educating... so it sounds like you have issues
> against people being fully informed... how sad.
>
>
> okay, they have been answered.
>
> do you have any other questions i can help you with?
>
> -

Wrong #1 - EVERY post I have seen is a troll - strike ONE

Wrong #2 - cross posting your shit where it doesn't belong is STRIKE 2
You have been told - numerous times by many it isn't wanted.
Yet you persist posting your complete horseshit.

Wrong #3 - "Educating" - when you post fiction, conjecture, outright lies
and
fanatical fanboy fantasy - that is NOT education - it is TROLLING (see #1
above)
And, it is certainly being an XXXXXXX

THREE strikes - you fail miserably - sorry

Ness Net

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

"David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-282A94.10451518112007@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article < ULOdnfuG198uo93anZ2d
nUVZ_qudnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I think that's pretty clearly wrong, reading his posts. He really
> believes he is an expert on this stuff, whether or not he has any reason
> to.
>

The term is HIGHLY delusional....

DTC

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> do you have any other questions i can help you with?

Yes...how many years of experience do you have in five mile plus
distance rural wireless deployments? And one every few years doesn't count.

DTC

2007-11-18, 3:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> do you have any other questions i can help you with?

And another one...If I use a log periodic array antenna cut for 2.4 GHz
which would by LPDA nature be adequate for 5.8 GHz, would my range be
any less at 5.8 GHz?

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.

George

2007-11-18, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
> have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
> didn't. deal with it.

No, you totally lost all credibility because you posted fanboi bait
marketing speak without even understanding what you posted.

Nothing to deal with here because I still have my credibility but
whomever "oxford" is doesn't.

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.

DTC

2007-11-18, 10:33 pm

DTC wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>
> And another one...If I use a log periodic array antenna cut for 2.4 GHz
> which would by LPDA nature be adequate for 5.8 GHz, would my range be
> any less at 5.8 GHz?

Hmmm...no answer yet. Google may be experiencing some issues.

George

2007-11-18, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
> nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.

No, you meet the definition of a fanboi. You read marketing speak that
is intended as bait for fanbois. Then you decide to post it in groups
where it is not wanted like it is the news of the century without even
knowing it is BS.

I will give you a free clue. You may think you are posting exciting
"news" but most people are already on overload and annoyed by BS
marketing speak.

>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
> -
I am not mad but I can understand why you might be. You posted something
you didn't understand and totally discredited yourself.

DTC

2007-11-18, 10:33 pm

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

Jon

2007-11-19, 4:33 am

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!

Jon

2007-11-19, 4:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
> nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.
>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
> -

Nokia N800? LG Voyager?

I guess you never heard of them. They do everything the iphail does AND
MORE AND BETTER!

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.

Jon

2007-11-19, 4:33 am

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.

DTC

2007-11-19, 4:33 am

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.

Kevin Weaver

2007-11-19, 10:33 pm

"David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDC3D14CCD
6spammerskissmyassco
m@140.99.99.130...
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in
> news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>

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.

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 :-)

DTC

2007-11-22, 10:33 pm

Steve Jobs' Best Quotes Ever

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/co...c/2006/03/70512
"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth
-- and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done.
Microsoft won a long time ago." -- Fortune, Feb. 19, 1996

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/co...2?currentPage=2
"The desktop computer industry is dead. Innovation has virtually ceased.
Microsoft dominates with very little innovation. That's over. Apple
lost. The desktop market has entered the dark ages, and it's going to be
in the dark ages for the next 10 years, or certainly for the rest of
this decade." -- Wired magazine, February 1996

"I'm the only person I know that's lost a quarter of a billion dollars
in one year.... It's very character-building." -- Apple Confidential 2.0

So much for Oxford's idol...

Edgar

2007-11-23, 10:33 am

Ah yes! Oxfartretard is so clueless that he can't even figure out how basic
things work. He should go home and shoot himself in the head!

"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supers
mart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-68CA0E.22145017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.

james g. keegan jr.

2007-11-24, 10:33 pm

In article < SIOdnV7KbdkmddvanZ2d
nUVZ_hisnZ2d@trueban
d.net>,
"Edgar" <edgar@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Ah yes! Oxfartretard is so clueless that he can't even figure out how basic
> things work. He should go home and shoot himself in the head!

no one who top posts can be taken seriously.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5Ooj
dRVn_iw@comcast.com

Todd Allcock

2007-11-25, 4:33 am

At 24 Nov 2007 21:43:28 -0500 james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> no one who top posts can be taken seriously.

Personally, I judge a person by the contents of his or her words rather
than where they decide to place them.

Top posting is far less annoying than, say, ignoring the rules of
capitalization.

james g. keegan jr.

2007-11-28, 10:33 pm

In article <0172j.15$6U6.12@fe089.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 24 Nov 2007 21:43:28 -0500 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I judge a person by the contents of his or her words rather
> than where they decide to place them.

i'm not at all surprised that's you'd overlook usenet guidelines and
courtesy.

> Top posting is far less annoying than, say, ignoring the rules of
> capitalization.

but, perhaps not as annoying as whining, eh?

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5Ooj
dRVn_iw@comcast.com

LinkBot