Prev: NEWS: Motorola Buys Full-Page Slam Ad Against Apple
Next: NEWS: UK privacy watchdog clears Google Wi-Fi slurp
From: Dennis Ferguson on 29 Jul 2010 08:16
On 2010-07-29, David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote:
>>Amateur Radio Relay League, our national ham radio organization that
>>coordinates and lobbies and kisses the bureaucrats' asses to keep us on
>>the air and keep commercial interests, like sellphone companies, from
>>stealing our frequency bands we've had since 1900, with only partial
>>success, [....]
>
> It is *right* that the FCC should take away some ham bands. Ham radio is
> experimental radio. There isn't much to experiment with any longer, and the
> remaining bands provide plenty of space for experimentation. Most hams don't
> experiment at all. They buy lots of equipment and work QSO's halfway around
> the world to talk about their rigs. They collect wallpaper. They don't
> provide much of a community service, except in those very rare instances of
> disasters, and then I don't see that they do that much that can't otherwise be
> done by local disaster folks using conventional VHF and UHF 2-way.

So in summary, you don't want hams to have the spectrum, but you also
don't want commercial guys put up antennas in your neighbourhood so
that they can use it.

If you'd now complain about how crappy your cell phone works you could
score a perfect trifecta.

Dennis Ferguson
From: SMS on 29 Jul 2010 08:41
David Kaye wrote:

> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are
> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the
> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes
> them really really ugly.

I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop
antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment
(not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused.

The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have
the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before
neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage
of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz.

AT&T's problems in the San Francisco Bay Area are partially due to the
fact that the network they purchased from Cellular One was not as
developed as the network that GTE Mobilnet had deployed in the early
years. Verizon is reaping the benefits now, and the same situation
occurred in other areas as well. It was a one time advantage that GTE
exploited fully. Maybe they had management that realized what was going
to eventually happen in terms of restrictions on towers.

[alt.cellular.cingular removed. Cingular no longer exists]
From: David Kaye on 29 Jul 2010 16:16
Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson(a)pacbell.net> wrote:

>So in summary, you don't want hams to have the spectrum, but you also
>don't want commercial guys put up antennas in your neighbourhood so
>that they can use it.

I don't want unsightly antennas. This is the modern, aesthetic world.
This is no longer the slash-and-burn is the rule. Cell antennas are being
disguised as fake trees and bird houses and all kinds of things. I'm not
asking companies to limit their antennas, just make them pleasing or
invisible.



From: jcdill on 29 Jul 2010 16:56
David Kaye wrote:
> John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote:

>> "communications companies" need to get a reality check. The first thing
>> to go in our modern society after a major catastrophe will be the
>> commercial communications that we depend upon for everyday existence.
>
> This didn't happen in Loma Prieta, even though the entirety of SF lost power
> for 36 hours.

As earthquakes go, Loma Prieta was not all that big. Odds are very high
that when (not if) the Hayward fault finally goes, it's going to be a
lot worse than Loma Prieta.

jc
From: George on 30 Jul 2010 08:35
On 7/29/2010 10:48 PM, John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:19:05 -0700, in
> <2q4456h5erv7jfegqt0154vtb0uqblfh7g(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
> <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message<nj3456praioq3mlij37c4bcst6i8n0d6i3(a)4ax.com> John Navas
>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:13 -0700, in
>>> <1fj3565k3evc6jje3ij8shhfkftbgp6et6(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
>>> <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message<3t2356h5420lsqfvhe1h5cp12nnqt9vk59(a)4ax.com> John Navas
>>>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in
>>>>> <4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>>> <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kaye wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are
>>>>>>> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the
>>>>>>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes
>>>>>>> them really really ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop
>>>>>> antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment
>>>>>> (not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have
>>>>>> the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before
>>>>>> neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage
>>>>>> of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal and
>>>> a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures
>>>> equally?
>>>
>>> Read the cited references.
>>
>> You didn't cite any...
>
> I did. Do keep up. Otherwise, "Google is your friend".
>
I believe you declared "it is a myth"...
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: NEWS: Motorola Buys Full-Page Slam Ad Against Apple
Next: NEWS: UK privacy watchdog clears Google Wi-Fi slurp