 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / December 2007Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
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 <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp- 03.inet.qwest.net: > Well, here's the word. http://youtube.com/watch?v=qg1ckCkm8YI Larry  SignatureXterm IS the ultimate video game...(c; > 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 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > --- Its not going to happen, Google is going to own it. There is nothing you can do to prevent it either > 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? >> Its not going to happen, Google is going to own it. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > and why would i care? You don't NEED to be making a phone to buy/use the 700mhz range. How about INTERNET ACCESS. > 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. Um, how does that even make sense? Spectrum equals capacity, not coverage. Theoretically you could "cover the entire country" with 1MHz, if you owned 1MHz in every market. You just couldn't have many users with such limited bandwidth. > Now you understand why Apple didn't want to be locked into the old 3G > standard. Gee, I thought they'd just use WiFi! Why buy 700MHz licensed spectrum? ;-) > As you may know, AT&T bought Aloha Partners 700Mhz... about 10 Mhz or > about half the country. Argh! That's not how it works. Let's dumb it down a little for you, and compare it to TV: a single VHF TV channel is 6 MHz of spectrum. There are 12 (VHF) channels (numbered 2-13) in each TV market. Each TV market (there are over 200 of them) have the same 12 channels (72 MHz of spectrum) available. To cover the entire country with "Oxfordvision," you'd need to buy (at least) one channel (6MHz) in EACH of all 211 markets, which would cover the whole country with 6 MHz. If you bought one channel in 100 markets you'd only cover half the country BUT STILL HAVE 6 MHz in the areas you did cover. Buying all 12 channels in one city wouldn't cover 12 cities. Get it? "22 MHz" of 700MHz-band spectrum doesn't necessarily cover the entire country unless you get access to that 22 MHz everywhere. AT&T doesn't own licenses to "half the country" BECAUSE they only have 10MHz, but because the 10MHz licenses they bought from Aloha (that Aloha was going to use for TV on cellphones) were for certain markets only. > 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. Atually, 700MHz is no more magical than the 60MHz of 800MHz licenses used today. Currently there is 180 MHz of cellular/PCS spectrum available, IIRC. (60 at 800, 120 at 1900.) This simply adds 60 more, or another 33%. In some markets, AT&T and/or Verizon already own up to 60 MHz each. Grabbing 20 MHz at 700 will hardly make Apple a usurper- thwy won't have enough capacity to challenge their new rivals. > And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Actually they might have to, or at least "lease it." The FCC is hammering out "open access" rules for a portion of the 700MHz band, and might force the winners to wholesale it to competitors (much like local wireline CLECs lease infrastructure from the local ILEC.) This could make the 700MHz band the least desirable to carriers. > Apple > must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone > experience. Well, the open access rules will likely force BYOD on carriers (Bring Your Own Device) meaning they couldn't make it an all iPhone network- ayone with a compatible device would have to be allowed access. > 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. Huh? The cost will actually be huge, since the entire network has to be built from scratch. Wireless communication is much different from TV/radio's "the big transmitter on the mountain covers the whole area" scenario. Plus no cellular device in existence currently accesses this band, forcing the creation of all new phones. > Instant nationwide network "Instant" after you build the hundred thousand towers to carry this network, that is... > that goes > through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. Actually, one could easily argue VHF (30-150MHz) is better, but it's not for sale! Either way, this 700-band is no better or more desirable than the 800-MHz currently in use. The real excitement is simply that new spectrum has opened up. > So reception is > better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as > analogue TV is... History lesson for you Oxy- where did the 800MHz cellular band come from? Giveaway hint: what's different about old (pre 1980's) TVs compared to modern analog TVs? >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. "Most cell phones" use 800MHz, which is essentially the same as 700 (hint #2 to my question above.) 1.8GHz is a European band (analogous to our 1900MHz PCS band.) > So others use a weaker signal > which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher > expenses, etc.. Complete and utter BS. AT&T and Verizon predominantly use 800MHz. Besides, except in rural areas, capacity issues require both 800MHz and 1900MHz carriers to space sites much closer together than the minimum coverage requirement. A cell tower can only handle a couple of thousand users simultaneously- even, if, say, lower Manhattan could be served by a single tower with respect to range, you'd never be able to make a call because all the "lines" would continually be jammed. > 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. How could they manage that? Any call to a landline or competitors' cell generates $0.01-0.07 cents/minute in termination fees... Apple doesn't have a rich tradition in giving anything away. > 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... Any competitor that likes losing money could do this in the 800MHz band, 1900, or even landlines. Few companies like providing consumers a free service then paying their competiors when people use it! > 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. So could Verizon, or AT&T, but why? "Owning a market" if each customer costs you $30.00/month is a very lousy idea! > Then charge $50 per month for unlimited calling plans... still a good > deal... Not with 22MHz of spectrum! Go ask the $50 unlimited users of Leap or Metro PCS how easy it is to make a call duribg peak usage times. The point of limiting plans is to prevent a bandwidth crunch. A major player offering nationwide unlimited service for $50 would have more unhappy customers than AOL did when they oversold their service years ago. > and half or more of that would be profit! Again, you have no knowledge of the workings of the wireless industry. After the billions Apple spends to acquire the licenses, then the additional billions on towers and infrastructure, $50/month would barely cover the interest! >Snip fantasy math not grounded in reality< No wireless company manages anything near $30/month in profit per customer. Apple, no matter how efficient or brilliant you think they are, could manage 10 times the profit margin of their competitors. > 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. They certainly won't own either if their knowledge of them is as limited as yours seems to be! thanks for the info Todd, I'll let the author know your thoughts. > thanks for the info Todd, I'll let the author know your thoughts. You realize his "information" made you look like a complete Loonie Tune, right? > 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. Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the US. When will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the Universe, you screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the rest of the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the US complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they travel? SignatureThe views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. <http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452> Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in news:5q7l4lFukekcU1 @mid.individual.net: > Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the US. When > will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the Universe, you > screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the rest of > the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the US > complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they travel? All these odd modulation schemes and incompatible systems is used in the USA to prevent, or at least retard, churning, Simon. There are more SELLular companies than there are customers all trying to provide minimal service at maximum profits, so the customers all hate their carrier, as you can easily see on these newsgroups. So, to prevent customers from jumping ship at the first opportunity, we invented incompatible phone systems and the government lawyers at FCC are constantly bribed to allow it, unlike broadcasting where FCC forces them all to use the same TV and Radio standards, for instance. So, the American consumer is screwed and the country is sinking under the weight of dead SELLphones noone wants or can use. FCC cooperates further forcing us to "upgrade to GPS", in the name of the bogus "Homeland Security", the extension of the false flag operation of 9/11, an inside job, not Arabs with boxcutters. Profits are way up....service is way down. Hell, Verizon doesn't even provide internet service to its SELLular customers. 73 DE W4CSC Larry SignatureXterm IS the ultimate video game...(c; ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.] > Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the US. When > will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the Universe, you > screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the rest of > the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the US > complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they travel? While I agree with you that the usage of different frequencies is stupid (with the exception of 1900, supposedly because 1800 was already in use by the military), I would like to point out that every GSM phone I've owned since switching to T-Mobile USA in 2005 has been a quad-band phone, rendering that problem irrelevant. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > Well, here's the word. <loads of drivel snipped> Here's a few more. f.ck off you morphing, cross-posting halfwit. SignatureUnlock Your Phone's Potential www.UselessInfo.org.uk www.ThePhoneLocker.co.uk www.GSM-Solutions.co.uk > 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. > 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. > There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in > the world did you get that idea??? There are several analog TV networks already in place: ABC, NBC, CBS... ;-) >> There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in >> the world did you get that idea??? > > There are several analog TV networks already in place: ABC, NBC, > CBS... ;-) In that context, yes...but to say its a data network as he implied, no. > > There are several analog TV networks already in place: ABC, NBC, > > CBS... ;-) > > In that context, yes...but to say its a data network as he implied, no. Hence, the " ;-) " Cheers! > > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost > > little to change things for Wimaxx. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 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. >> 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. You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...yer still clueless for buying into that. > > 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... 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. >>> 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... > > 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. > 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. >>> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost >>> little to change things for Wimaxx. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 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. > that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was > clueless, not me. thanks for playing. But you didn't attribute your post to anyone, so you're either clueless or a plagarist. I'll let you choose which is the least offensive to you... > 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. > 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. why so obsessed with me then? does telling the truth really hurt you that much? i guess so. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > why so obsessed with me then? It's my civic responsibility to expose you for the fraud that you are. On top of that. it's fun making you look like an idiot. > does telling the truth really hurt you that much? Doesn't hurt me at all, newbie- I do it all the time. You might want to try it sometime. > i guess so. That's all you do- guess. Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.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. > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost > little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. > > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost > > little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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. > 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*. > 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. Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx- 68CA0E.22145017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net: >> 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. 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. > 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 a.shole, we'd actually be getting somewhere. >> 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. 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. > > 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. 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. > 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. > 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. >> Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone supporting >> you? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 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 a.s kicked and then run like hell. Oh - I seriously do NOT want the mental illness YOU have. >>> Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone >>> supporting [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 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). >>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. 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! >> 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. > 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. Signature"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:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com > 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. > > 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. 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? Signature"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:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com > it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet. So much for your mantra "I only post facts..." Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I wish/hope is true..." > > it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet. > > So much for your mantra "I only post facts..." > > Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I > wish/hope is true..." it's still a factual piece, and does exist on the web, problem is it's contained inside a subscriber only forum. not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place, but i agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided. either way, it's an interesting take on what could happen with the upcoming wireless spectrum auction, it's all over for cell firms if Apple does it. Apple has the money and the clout to pull it off, cell phone providers don't. Here is a link to further your education Todd... http://snipurl.com/1tsqw > > So much for your mantra "I only post facts..." > > > > Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I > > wish/hope is true..." > > it's still a factual piece, No, it isn't- I already poined out the technical and economic factual errors. > and does exist on the web, Which means it must be true, eh? > problem is it's > contained inside a subscriber only forum. You still could have credited the author, even if a link wasn't available. > not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place, Because YOU posted it without an attribution! > but i > agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided. You shouldn't have posted it, except in a fiction forum! > either way, it's an interesting take on what could happen with the > upcoming wireless spectrum auction, it's all over for cell firms if > Apple does it. As I explained, no, it isn't. > Here is a link to further your education Todd... > > http://snipurl.com/1tsqw I read that in the trades months ago. I didn't say Apple isn't interested, I said the contents of your fanboy fiction were incorrect. We'll know if Apple's interested in a few days-the FCC deadline for participating in the January spectrum auction is fast approaching... Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx- 7FBE9C.14092917112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net: >> > it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's still a factual piece, and does exist on the web, problem is it's > contained inside a subscriber only forum. What makes you say it's factual. Just because it's posted on the web? How about all of the holes that have been blown in it and your quick retreat from its content? > it's still a factual piece, and does exist on the web, problem is it's > contained inside a subscriber only forum. Wow..spoken like an internet newbi! > > > it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > it's still a factual piece, It's not a factual piece, it's someone's opinion, and that someone also displays a woeful lack of understanding of the technologies involved. I'm sure you can now see why, when you posted it as your own work, everyone here had no difficulty believing you wrote it... > and does exist on the web, problem is it's > contained inside a subscriber only forum. Yet the message is here for all to see, http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q - no subscription needed. So much for "contained inside a subscriber only forum". ROTFL. You are in error, yet again. Also, you are now admitting you reproduced material without permission of the copyright holder and without permission of the forum owner. I hope you have a good lawyer. Unless, of course, this "ace_92029" is another of your nyms... > not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place, It was unattributed, and contained technical errors so we had no difficulty believing it was your work. But if you are going to hide behind "not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place " can we therefore assume everything you post from now on has come from someone else? > but i agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided. No, you should have posted a link to <http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_A/threadview?m =tm&bn=60&tid=1637316&mid=1637316&tof=1&so=R&frt=2> Then you wouldn't have looked an even bigger fool by suggesting that "As this network is already built out for analogue (sic) TV," etc. A 100KW transmitter on a mountain top is as much use as a fart in a spacesuit for wifi, idiot. SignatureImmunity is better than innoculation. Peter > > > Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I > > > wish/hope is true..." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm sure you can now see why, when you posted it as your own work, > everyone here had no difficulty believing you wrote it... poor peter, always so bitter when he gets confused. there were plenty of facts in that piece, you and todd just didn't want to admit it. i write facts, this guy had facts, and i in no way said it was my own. yes, i should have provide the link, but was too lazy that night. deal with it. > > and does exist on the web, problem is it's > > contained inside a subscriber only forum. > > Yet the message is here for all to see, http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q - no > subscription needed. So much for "contained inside a subscriber only > forum". ROTFL. You are in error, yet again. ah, you need a name/password to post which i often type since it expires every 24 hours, if you don't understand that, tough luck. > Also, you are now admitting you reproduced material without permission > of the copyright holder and without permission of the forum owner. I > hope you have a good lawyer. Unless, of course, this "ace_92029" is > another of your nyms... but peter, you are forgetting i don't care. > > not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place, > > It was unattributed, and contained technical errors so we had no > difficulty believing it was your work. much of it was factual, and spells the direction apple very well may take. todd is very fearful of apple so he put up a lot of non-facts to try and trick people. his knowledge on the subject is on par with the original poster. > But if you are going to hide behind "not sure why anyone thought it came > from me in the first place " can we therefore assume everything you post > from now on has come from someone else? yes, everything i post comes from someone else, so just believe in your lies and you'll be fine. > > but i agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided. > > No, you should have posted a link to > > <http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_A/threadview?m > =tm&bn=60&tid=1637316&mid=1637316&tof=1&so=R&frt=2> shoulda, woulda, coulda... but i didn't and do not care. you are stuck in caring, but remember it makes no difference to me in the slightest, i'm just laughing, as usual. > Then you wouldn't have looked an even bigger fool by suggesting that "As > this network is already built out for analogue (sic) TV," etc. A 100KW > transmitter on a mountain top is as much use as a fart in a spacesuit > for wifi, idiot. you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers, Todd can spout all his limited knowledge about said subject as well, but none of us will know until Apple bids on the spectrum. If it happens it will wipe out large portions of the cell industry, if it doesn't, no big deal. stick with the facts, like I do and you'll be better for it. > todd is very fearful of apple so he put up a lot of non-facts to > try and trick people. I'm all ears- quote one "non-fact" in my rebuttal... Even if there are some, YOU wouldn't recognize them. > his knowledge on the subject is on par with the > original > poster. You have no way of knowing either of our depths because you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge and you do again below: > you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers And there it is! A spectrum auction is for SPECTRUM! No one gets the "TV towers" they belong to the TV stations who will continue to use them for TV signals, after they change them to their newly assigned lower frequency channels- there's no "instant network" to purchase. > Todd can > spout all his limited knowledge about said subject as well, but none of > us will know until Apple bids on the spectrum. We DO know Apple won't "get the towers," Oxy, even if they buy spectrum. > stick with the facts, like I do and you'll be better for it. Then why don't you post some facts next time, fanboy. > > you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers > > And there it is! A spectrum auction is for SPECTRUM! No one gets the > "TV towers" they belong to the TV stations who will continue to use them > for TV signals, after they change them to their newly assigned lower > frequency channels- there's no "instant network" to purchase. wow, you sure are dumb. in no way does the spectrum auction equate to the towers as well. nobody but you could have put those two together. i'm simply said what is apple planning to do with the towers is anyone's guess. that was an entirely different comment. > > Todd can > > spout all his limited knowledge about said subject as well, but none of > > us will know until Apple bids on the spectrum. > > We DO know Apple won't "get the towers," Oxy, even if they buy spectrum. and where did i ever say they would? you made that idiotic leap, i didn't. could apple also use the towers? sure, they have the cash and the clout, tv stations don't. > wow, you sure are dumb. in no way does the spectrum auction equate to > the towers as well. nobody but you could have put those two together. I didn't- YOU did when you said: "you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers." I know exactly what Apple's planning to do with those towers: nothing, since their owners, the TV stations, will STILL BE USING THEM, at their new lower frequency assignments. > i'm simply said what is apple planning to do with the towers is > anyone's guess. that was an entirely different comment. You might as well ask what Apple is planning to do with the TV station's studio, or their remote uplink trunks, or the Minnesota Twins franchise, because they'll have the same amount of ownership in them: zero. > > We DO know Apple won't "get the towers," Oxy, even if they buy > > spectrum. > > and where did i ever say they would? "you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers..." > you made that idiotic leap, i > didn't. "you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers..." > could apple also use the towers? Not without buying them first! > sure, they have the cash and > the clout, tv stations don't. They're the station's property already, dimwit. The stations vacating that spectrum aren't going dark, they're changing frequencies. Keep backpeddling, Ox- it's good excersize. While you're at it, I'm still waiting for an example of your claim that I "put up a lot of non-facts to try and trick people." I'll accept your silence as a retraction, and wait for your apology. Now be a good boya nd go back and play in CSMA where you're equally clueless, but less offensive. Another Oxford fake email address. How pathetic. *PLONK* Steve > you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers But we do know that it won't by for two-way communication. If you know anything about that subject, you would agree...but since you don't know anything about that, you'll still disagree. > > you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers > > But we do know that it won't by for two-way communication. Do we? not yet... but it could be for the AppleTV, and that would be interesting :) http://www.apple.com/appletv/ Wow, Oxford has to create a second fake email address in the same day to avoid killfiles. Is there anyone here more pathetic? Steve > Wow, Oxford has to create a second fake email address in the same day > to avoid killfiles. what? in the same day? not. but i do routinely change them to keep people honest. > Is there anyone here more pathetic? yes, you. >>> you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers >> But we do know that it won't by for two-way communication. > > Do we? not yet... Typical rebuttal of a religious zealot. There is no heaven...Ahh, but how do you know there ISN'T? WE, as in those that professionals in the field do know....TALL TV towers are not the best venue for two-way communications. > WE, as in those that professionals in the field do know....TALL TV > towers are not the best venue for two-way communications. yes, but apple doesn't play to the status quo, they change things. "professionals" in the 1970's claimed mainframes were the only way to do computing, but apple broke all the rules, now most every has PCs. it's possible apple will pull this trick again as they've done so many times before, and trip up the establishment. like it should be. sounds like you need a refresher in apple culture: Here¹s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They¹re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can¹t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some see them as the crazy ones, We see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, Are the ones who do. and the excellent video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvn_Ied9t4M >> WE, as in those that professionals in the field do know....TALL TV >> towers are not the best venue for two-way communications. > > yes, but apple doesn't play to the status quo, they change things. But Apple HAS TO PLAY by the rules of physics and Apple CAN NOT change those rules...I don't think you're understanding my drift here, pumpkin. >>> you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers >> But we do know that it won't by for two-way communication. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.apple.com/appletv/ Let me guess...next month you'll start spouting that Apple TV will be the end of commercial television. >>>> you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers >>> But we do know that it won't by for two-way communication. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let me guess...next month you'll start spouting that Apple TV will be the > end of commercial television. he spouted that MONTHS ago... > >>> you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers > >> But we do know that it won't by for two-way communication. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let me guess...next month you'll start spouting that Apple TV will be > the end of commercial television. it very well could be if the use of the spectrum auction was intended as such. Woz had deep goals to get rid of commercials on TV during the early years of Apple, so I'd bet this dream is still alive. Streamed YouTube into AppleTV's, iPhones and iPods via these dormant TV Towers... stranger things have happened. Have a good night Pumpkin. > 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. > > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost > > little to change things for Wimaxx. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > My gawd...how can you be so clueless. i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts. >i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts. Why don't you just tell us who the author was? > >i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts. > > 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 bitch at the author, not me. i was just the carrier pigeon. Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx- 154469.22035017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net: >> >i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > i did feel like digging it up, so now go bitch at the author, not me. i > was just the carrier pigeon. That would be the clueless carrier pigeon, newbie. >>> i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts. >> Why don't you just tell us who the author was? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > i did feel like digging it up, so now go bitch 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 > it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and > found it. So you plagarised it, then denied writing it when told how full of holes it was, then lied and said you couldn't post a link because it was posted on a subscription-only forum. Nice usenet cred you have there, Oxy! > i did feel like digging it up, so now go bitch at the author, not me. i > was just the carrier pigeon. At 7 Sep 2007, 12:12 pm, Oxford wrote: > " I only use facts which helps my cause" You're a carrier pigeon who needs a fact checker... > > it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and > > found it. > > So you plagarised it, then denied writing it when told how full of holes > it was, then lied and said you couldn't post a link because it was posted > on a subscription-only forum. I didn't plagiarize anything, i simply copy and pasted. plagiarism is when you edit something and call it your own. i never called it my own and it was word for word from another forum, that's perfectly fair. so don't make me laugh even further. I didn't lie in the slightest, when I go into that very forum, it's set so I can post, so it requires a password every 24 hours. That's a fact, look it up. What I didn't realize is if you just want to view the posts, you can do so without a name/pass, so since that is my only error, please, oh please Todd, i beg of you to forgive me! (smirk) Todd, quit being such an idiot for such a non-event. >> > it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around >> > and found it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Todd, quit being such an idiot for such a non-event. It was the textbook definition of plagiarism. You used somebody else's words and thoughts as your own without any attempt to differentiate. Only when huge holes were found in the accuracy of the information did you back down. You are not a stupdi troll- you're a stupid, classless troll. > It was the textbook definition of plagiarism. You used somebody else's > words and thoughts as your own without any attempt to differentiate. Only > when huge holes were found in the accuracy of the information did you back > down. give up the ghost cozmic, plagiarism is when you mix in your words with someone else's. i simply posted ace's comments word for word, even the title as a news post and never claimed anything about it being my own. you are caught in a corner since you know full well it was someone else's. so i can only laugh so hard that you fell for it. gosh, my stomach hurts, please stop, please stop... heee he heeee... > You are not a stupdi troll- you're a stupid, classless troll. no, i'm a smart, educated, decimator of valuable information. i've never trolled in my life. you are just angry you can't achieve the same level of quality of education that i'm able to do with ease. - > give up the ghost cozmic, plagiarism is when you mix in your words with > someone else's. i simply posted ace's comments word for word, even the > title as a news post and never claimed anything about it being my own. Plagiarism (from the Latin "plagiarius," meaning "a plunderer" or, an older term, "plagium," meaning "kidnapping," or possibly "plagiare," which is "to wound") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment. > > give up the ghost cozmic, plagiarism is when you mix in your words with > > someone else's. i simply posted ace's comments word for word, even the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without > adequate acknowledgment. thanks jerry for defending me from the nutjobs over at the cell phone graveyard. i never even hinted to it as my own, which makes me laugh in how easily they got confused. it was your basic educational post, word for word, so it's funny to see them fall all over themselves for no reason. poor cozmic and todd, they are getting desperate. thanks again... >> > give up the ghost cozmic, plagiarism is when you mix in your words >> > with someone else's. i simply posted ace's comments word for word, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > thanks again... Are you that pathoogical? "...incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment." That is exactly what you did. SignatureRick "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post 13k2biofulhnlb7@news.supernews.com on 11/18/07 11:34 PM: >>>> give up the ghost cozmic, plagiarism is when you mix in your words >>>> with someone else's. i simply posted ace's comments word for word, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > That is exactly what you did. Did he try to pass it off as his own? SignatureThe direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David Friedman > > "...incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, > > in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment." > > > > That is exactly what you did. > > Did he try to pass it off as his own? nope, it was a straight cut and paste, nothing said by me, nor did i take credit for it. it was just fun info to tease the kids in the cell groups. rick is still pissed at me after all these months he was plonked, so he's just trying to make himself look foolish once again. > nope, it was a straight cut and paste, nothing said by me, nor did i > take credit for it. A simple tag to say you found this somewhere else would have sufficed, not a (as you said) "I was was too lazy to add that". Lacking that, we could only assume it was authored by you., at least in part with your embellishments as we already found where you got some of your information from. > it was just fun info to tease the kids in the cell groups. Translation: back peddling >> > "...incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative >> > work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > take credit for it. it was just fun info to tease the kids in the cell > groups. You put it out under your name. > rick is still pissed at me after all these months he was plonked, so > he's just trying to make himself look foolish once again. Liar. SignatureRick "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post 13k41fddf99s1f5@news.supernews.com on 11/19/07 2:53 PM: >>>> "...incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative >>>> work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Liar. If he was trying to push it off as his own seems he did a very, very poor job - with openly admitting it was not his. :) SignatureI am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic. > "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post > 13k41fddf99s1f5@news.supernews.com on 11/19/07 2:53 PM: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If he was trying to push it off as his own seems he did a very, very > poor job - with openly admitting it was not his. :) Only admitting it after the material presented had more holes blown in it than a slice of swiss cheese- well after the fact. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99EDAE784882Eisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/19/07 5:09 PM: >> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post >> 13k41fddf99s1f5@news.supernews.com on 11/19/07 2:53 PM: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Only admitting it after the material presented had more holes blown in it > than a slice of swiss cheese- well after the fact. Can you point to the post in question. Oh, and by the way, not all sliced Swiss cheeses have holes. <http://fxcuisine.com/blogimages/swiss-cuisine/croute-au-fromage/swiss-chees e-croute-12-500.jpg> <> SignatureNever stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99EDAE784882Eisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/19/07 5:09 PM: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Can you point to the post in question. Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntpserver.com! zeus.nntpserver.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-04.inet.qwest.net! news.qwest.net!not-for-mail From: Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.nokia,alt.cellular. t-mobile,alt.cellular.sprintpcs Subject: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network Organization: --| User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:15:52 -0700 Message-ID: <linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp- 03.inet.qwest.net> Lines: 49 NNTP-Posting-Host: bef9ff8d.news.qwest.net X-Trace: DXC=;LIOZBI@5G7C\mMLm9a;I0F85SKJoGf>49`YU<L9?2_72^@3;JW@Xc;Ti] mQXjR>f8;nhX_P>MC\38;MQNRQAVF32jY_9c7V?g< X-Complaints-To: news@qwest.net Bytes: 3315 Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.attws:59167 alt.cellular.verizon:228548 alt.cellular.nokia:434674 alt.cellular.t- mobile:4337 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:285812 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. --- |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message