Signal coverage--truth in advertising

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Xns96A568D04B77Cnoone@63.223.7.253> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:16:13 -0400,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:uo3re15c4v4mih73fiqe057mjsedpgkv9r@4ax.com:
>>
>>> you still can't simultaneously use
>>> the data capability and make a voice call
>>
>> Whoa! Waitaminit! If you could do that, we'd only be charging you 20
>> minutes to make both calls. If we prevent you from doing that, we can
>> squeeze 20 minutes out of you for the data call and another 20 minutes out
>> of you for the voice call, right?
>>
>> Follow the money trail....(c;
>
> Nonsense. It's simply a matter of practicality -- small, inexpensive handsets
> just don't have enough processing power to do both at the same time.

Small, inexpensive GSM handsets do it easily.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.cingular Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> I have to give them credit. That's a great feature. I sure wish
> Cingular had it. Funny thing--TMobile's coverage map matches up with
> what I experience with my Cingular blue service. Hmmmm.....

When my local carrier put up a new cellular tower, the owner commented that
he was required to let competitors lease space on the tower, but he was not
required to provide power for them. Since he was running solar and there
was no PG&E feed, competitors weren't clamoring for a spot on the tower.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <o8tHe.85$SE3.44@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:40:36
GMT, "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <Xns96A568D04B77Cnoone@63.223.7.253> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:16:13 -0400,
>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:uo3re15c4v4mih73fiqe057mjsedpgkv9r@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> you still can't simultaneously use
>>>> the data capability and make a voice call
>>>
>>> Whoa! Waitaminit! If you could do that, we'd only be charging you 20
>>> minutes to make both calls. If we prevent you from doing that, we can
>>> squeeze 20 minutes out of you for the data call and another 20 minutes out
>>> of you for the voice call, right?
>>>
>>> Follow the money trail....(c;
>>
>> Nonsense. It's simply a matter of practicality -- small, inexpensive handsets
>> just don't have enough processing power to do both at the same time.
>
>Small, inexpensive GSM handsets do it easily.

Actually they don't. GPRS (and EGRPS/EDGE) comes in three classes:

Class A mobile phones can be connected to both GPRS and GSM services
simultaneously.

Class B mobile phones can be attached to both GPRS and GSM services,
using one service at a time. Class B enables making or receiving a
voice call, or sending/receiving an SMS during a GPRS connection.
During voice calls or SMS, GPRS services are suspended and then
resumed automatically after the call or SMS session has ended.

Class C mobile phones are attached to either GPRS or GSM voice
service. You need to switch manually between services.

All GSM phones I know of are Class B.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Per John Richards:
>And you put up with that?
>Why not put a decent antenna on your roof or in your attic, and distribute
>that signal to the various rooms that need it.

Got a link?

I was thinking about some sort of signal repeater as described in another thread
- as in www.wirelessextenders.com

Solving the home problem would go a long way for me. Right now I'm leaving a
window open, staging the cell phone on the hood of my car, and running outside
everytime it rings....-)
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:08:57 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid>
wrote:

>I was thinking about some sort of signal repeater as described in another thread
>- as in www.wirelessextenders.com

You can do that for about $700.


Pegleg
U.S. Navy Retired
Support Our Troops

All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words:
freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Sir Winston Churchill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per John Richards:
>> And you put up with that?
>> Why not put a decent antenna on your roof or in your attic, and distribute
>> that signal to the various rooms that need it.
>
> Got a link?
>
> I was thinking about some sort of signal repeater as described in another thread
> - as in www.wirelessextenders.com
>
> Solving the home problem would go a long way for me. Right now I'm leaving a
> window open, staging the cell phone on the hood of my car, and running outside
> everytime it rings....-)

Actually, I was commenting on your TV reception problem.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with cellular repeaters.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>
> 1. Unlike Verizon and Sprint and Cingular they don't give you free
> mobile to mobile so you can call people free that you don't know and
> won't be calling. And they charge lots less. It was a good tradeoff
> for us.

It depends on the plan, you can get unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes. I
actually have a T-Mobile phone on a friend's plan just for the
mobile-to-mobile, between that and Cingular I have a good portion of mobile
users for "talk free" minutes.

TH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:49:15 -0700, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Reception has never been wonderful, but it was a *lot* better say, 15, years
> ago.
>
> No ghosting, but lots of snow and other wierdnesses. We can get different
> qualities of picture by walking around in the room - or even raising an arm or
> moving a leg. Some channels are hopeless in one room, but pretty good in
> another.
>
> But what does that have to do with cell phone reception?

Cell phones and TV both use radio signals. The multipath effect that causes
signal loss in different areas works the same.

Different frequencies will also exhibit different multipath effects - that's
why 800MHz cell phones will work better in some areas where 1900MHz ones
don't, and visa-versa.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:37:45 -0400, Tropical Haven <email@example.net>
wrote:

>>
>> 1. Unlike Verizon and Sprint and Cingular they don't give you free
>> mobile to mobile so you can call people free that you don't know and
>> won't be calling. And they charge lots less. It was a good tradeoff
>> for us.
>
>It depends on the plan, you can get unlimited T-Mobile to T-Mobile minutes.
I didn't know that. They give you so many anytime minutes I hardly
think I will need any extras.

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> (of course, in asking that question, I'm assuming you're heterosexual)

Sadly, i think the answer would be the same for either way... LoL

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Ive had t-mobile for a year and a half. It is extremely rare for me to drop
any call. Coverage is rock solid everywhere i go. (Illinois, wisconsin,
indiana, florida, and a few other places.) If i don't have t-mobile signal,
i can usually roam for free on another network.

"daniel cairns" <cutmedan@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bZOdnUymjf3Ar3HfRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> Please know that T-Mobile does show a coverage map,that much is true, but
> they have serious dead spots all over the place. Even in high populated
> metro areas. They do offer some great plans at super prices, it just came
> down to having service when I needed it. So I ported over to Sprint. Heres
> the plan I had at TM: 3000 anytime mins @ $49.00 (no kidding) that was
> awfully hard to give up. So I now have SprintPCS:700 mins @$55.00. What I
> have is solid service just about anywhere I go. So when I see the Beauty
> Queen on the television solving all those problems with family members
> talking to each other I notice they don't even mention how great or even
> mediocre the coverage is. But they girl is beautiful so that is what
> really matters.
> Thanks for listening,
> Daniel Cairns

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

John Richards wrote:

> I happen to like that show, also Desperate Housewives.
> A current favorite is House.

Yup, on Tuesday's I'm paying Rupert Murdoch's yacht payment... House on
Fox at 9pm, Rescue Me on F/X at 10pm. Compelling TV, with some really
screwed-up characters.

**SJ "Can't wait for the new season of nip/tuck, either" S

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:26:56 -0700, Pegleg <brian-s-jones@comcast.spam.net>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:08:18 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>There's lots of good stuff on commercial TV if you take the time to seek it
>>out; e.g., West Wing, Arrested Development, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, The
>>Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Over There, ...
>
>You actually regard those shows as "good stuff"?

I love West Wing (yes, I respect the Alan Alda character even though I
disagree with most of his Republican beliefs), can take or leave
Housewives, have seen Scrubs exactly once (the episode with all the guys
from St. Elsewhere (which was also take it or leave it)), and have never
seen the rest because I don't wish to pay extra for HBO (I resent what I do
pay for cable).

Other good stuff is all of the CSIs (in the order 1-3-2), the first two Law
& Orders, Crossing Jordan, Medium, and Las Vegas. Without a Trace and
Numbers aren't bad, either. Sadly gone are Star Trek (the third season
killed Enterprise), NYPD Blue, and Buffy.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"One special form of contact, which consists of mutual approximation of the
mucous membranes of the lips in a kiss, has received a sexual value among
the civilized nations, though the parts of the body do not belong to the
sexual apparatus and merely form the entrance to the digestive tract."
- Sigmund Freud, _The Sexual Aberrations_

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:25:40 -0400, Larry <noone@home.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>Imagine how your phone would work if Verizon and T-Mobile and all the
>others were FORCED, by law, to let your phone work on any system it could
>find.

Then no one would ever add any capacity and all the towers would be
constantly overloaded.

Consider the rail network in the UK. For years it was owned and run by the
government, and everyone bitched about it and the tax money it consumed. So
the privatized it. There is one company called Railtrack, which is the
owner/operator/maintainer of the infrastructure -- track, signal and
control systems, and stations. But it doesn't own or operate trains. Any
other company that wants can run trains on Railtrack's system by
negotiating for a slot in the system capacity and paying a fee.

The problem is that Railtrack has no responsibility to the train operators
to maintain the system so that their trains run on time, and the train
operators have no responsibility to Railtrack to maintain their trains so
that they cause the minimum possible wear and tear to the system, nor for
that matter to each other to avoid delaying each other's trains.

The end result is just as big a dysfunctional mess as before.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our
leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."
- Maj. Frank Burns

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <dcrdqo$l5s$1@ratbert.glorb.com> on Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:55:56 -0700, Steve
Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>**SJ "Can't wait for the new season of nip/tuck, either" S

Yep!

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

John Navas wrote:
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>radio service sold to consumers.
>
> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples? 😉

220-222 MHz.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <qtvhs2-d83.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>
>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples? 😉
>
>220-222 MHz.

How is that relevant to cellular?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <qtvhs2-d83.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples? 😉
>>
>>220-222 MHz.
>
> How is that relevant to cellular?

It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.

Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:

"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
the Commission.  Cellular airwaves belong to the PUBLIC and are used under 
license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
license for the PUBLIC good.  Those licenses could be pulled away and the 
systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <mreks2-7kb.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:46:14 -0500,
clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <qtvhs2-d83.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
>> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples? 😉
>>>
>>>220-222 MHz.
>>
>> How is that relevant to cellular?
>
>It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
>besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.
>
>Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:
>
>"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
>services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
>the Commission.  Cellular airwaves belong to the PUBLIC and are used under 
>license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
>license for the PUBLIC good.  Those licenses could be pulled away and the 
>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.

I fail to see how 220-222 MHz has any relevance.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John Navas wrote:
> In <mreks2-7kb.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:46:14 -0500,
> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>> In <qtvhs2-d83.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
>>> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples? 😉
>>>>
>>>>220-222 MHz.
>>>
>>> How is that relevant to cellular?
>>
>>It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
>>besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.
>>
>>Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:
>>
>>"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
>>services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
>>the Commission.  Cellular airwaves belong to the PUBLIC and are used under 
>>license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
>>license for the PUBLIC good.  Those licenses could be pulled away and the 
>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.
>
> I fail to see how 220-222 MHz has any relevance.

"Those licenses could be pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
enforcement actios.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <ff6ns2-ohd.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:41:35 -0500,
clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> In <mreks2-7kb.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:46:14 -0500,
>> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In <qtvhs2-d83.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500,
>>>> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>>>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>>>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples? 😉
>>>>>
>>>>>220-222 MHz.
>>>>
>>>> How is that relevant to cellular?
>>>
>>>It's not. But the original statement wasn't limited to cellular. And
>>>besides, I'm still pissed about 220-222.
>>>
>>>Mostly I was addressing this part of the discussion:
>>>
>>>"FCC is tasked by law with providing the public with licensed public
>>>services, like cellular phones, etc. through their licensees regulated by
>>>the Commission.  Cellular airwaves belong to the PUBLIC and are used under 
>>>license by that PUBLIC by companies who hold a monopoly by virtue of that
>>>license for the PUBLIC good.  Those licenses could be pulled away and the 
>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>radio service sold to consumers." Said by Larry a few articles back.
>>
>> I fail to see how 220-222 MHz has any relevance.
>
>"Those licenses could be pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
>consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>enforcement actios.

1. Not a valid analogy.

2. Not a chance in hell of that happening in cellular in any event.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:12:37 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>"Those licenses could be pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>>enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
>>consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>>enforcement actios.
>
>1. Not a valid analogy.
>
>2. Not a chance in hell of that happening in cellular in any event.

As soon as they get everyone off 800 analog it WILL happen. The FCC
can't wait to auction those off.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Steevo@my-deja.com" wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:12:37 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Those licenses could be pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
> >>enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
> >>consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
> >>enforcement actios.
> >
> >1. Not a valid analogy.
> >
> >2. Not a chance in hell of that happening in cellular in any event.
>
> As soon as they get everyone off 800 analog it WILL happen. The FCC
> can't wait to auction those off.

¿¿??

The FCC won't be auctioning off the analog channels, the carriers who run
analog will have that spectrum to use for their digital offerings.

TH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <7geif1dg8stq6g1k483387q68n6ah1630v@4ax.com> on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:29:57
GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:12:37 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>"Those licenses could be pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>>>enforcement actions, just like any other public radio service sold to
>>>consumers." 220-222 MHz was pulled away and the systems darkened by FCC
>>>enforcement actios.
>>
>>1. Not a valid analogy.
>>
>>2. Not a chance in hell of that happening in cellular in any event.
>
>As soon as they get everyone off 800 analog it WILL happen. The FCC
>can't wait to auction those off.

Not a chance in hell of that happening, because the same spectrum is being
used for digital cellular, GSM 850 in the case of Cingular.

Perhaps you were thinking of analog TV?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:19:06 -0500, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>>Those licenses could be pulled away and the
>>>systems darkened by FCC enforcement actions, just like any other public
>>>radio service sold to consumers.
>>
>> Nonsense. Can you cite specific examples? 😉
>
>220-222 MHz.

Not a smiling matter, is it, John?

Not only did the FCC take away half of a ham band, they did it under the
pressure of lobbying from a single business, one which at the time wasn't
even a publicly traded corporation.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I'm a lazy fellow. I work up to a certain point, but beyond that point,
I say the hell with it." - Ronald Reagan