Signal coverage--truth in advertising

[Guest]

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

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

In <4askf1lvk02664puu4apoj2col5mn96j2e@4ax.com> on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:32:12
GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>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.

Unfortunate to hams, but not relevant in this context.
--
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 Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:32:12 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>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.

Yeah. UPS. And they changed their minds, never ever used that band
for anything at all.

 

[Guest]

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

Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:32:12 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>>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.

Actually, if you note how fast the FCC changed its stance on no-code
after 220-222 went away, you can impute a reason for its removal.

> Yeah. UPS. And they changed their minds, never ever used that band
> for anything at all.

Oh, sure they did. They conducted experiments on the band; it was
reported in 220 Notes. Whenever the system transmitted, the computerized
anti-lock brakes on the trucks locked solid and the engine died. And
then yet another miracle happened; UPS got that other spectrum they had
been trying so hard to get FCC to grant for a long time.

--
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 <s8h1t2-apk.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:47:08 -0500,
clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:

>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:

>>>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.
>
>Actually, if you note how fast the FCC changed its stance on no-code
>after 220-222 went away, you can impute a reason for its removal.

Black helicopter alert!

How silly.

--
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:
> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>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.
>>
>>Actually, if you note how fast the FCC changed its stance on no-code
>>after 220-222 went away, you can impute a reason for its removal.
>
> Black helicopter alert!
>
> How silly.

Well, let's see. UPS specified a type of modulation that has never been
successfully used at the given frequencies, for use over ranges hundreds
of times those normally expected possible on the band; in short, they
simply could not have used those frequencies for their stated purposes.
Then ARRL issued a statement condemning no-code. Then FCC gave UPS the
band they couldn't use. Then ARRL issued a statement endorsing no-code.
And all this in the space of a few short weeks. Gee, what a coincidence.

--
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 <3fp6t2-esj.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:37:38 -0500,
clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Actually, if you note how fast the FCC changed its stance on no-code
>>>after 220-222 went away, you can impute a reason for its removal.
>>
>> Black helicopter alert!
>>
>> How silly.
>
>Well, let's see. UPS specified a type of modulation that has never been
>successfully used at the given frequencies, for use over ranges hundreds
>of times those normally expected possible on the band; in short, they
>simply could not have used those frequencies for their stated purposes.
>Then ARRL issued a statement condemning no-code. Then FCC gave UPS the
>band they couldn't use. Then ARRL issued a statement endorsing no-code.
>And all this in the space of a few short weeks. Gee, what a coincidence.

Hmmm ... is that rotor noise I hear in the background ... ???

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

 

[Scott]

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:6b4Me.9273$p%3.37334@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <3fp6t2-esj.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:37:38 -0500,
> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
> >> clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
> >>>Steevo@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>Actually, if you note how fast the FCC changed its stance on no-code
> >>>after 220-222 went away, you can impute a reason for its removal.
> >>
> >> Black helicopter alert!
> >>
> >> How silly.
> >
> >Well, let's see. UPS specified a type of modulation that has never been
> >successfully used at the given frequencies, for use over ranges hundreds
> >of times those normally expected possible on the band; in short, they
> >simply could not have used those frequencies for their stated purposes.
> >Then ARRL issued a statement condemning no-code. Then FCC gave UPS the
> >band they couldn't use. Then ARRL issued a statement endorsing no-code.
> >And all this in the space of a few short weeks. Gee, what a coincidence.
>
> Hmmm ... is that rotor noise I hear in the background ... ???
>

John- wouldn't your last two posts constitute a personal attack, which is
listed as inappropriate in the FAQ you bombard us with regularly? If so,
please either refrain from the attacks or stop spamming the group with a
valueless FAQ.

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <JaKdnbxEVZW19pzeRVn-2A@adelphia.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:28:25 -0600,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>John- wouldn't your last two posts constitute a personal attack, which is
>listed as inappropriate in the FAQ you bombard us with regularly? If so,
>please either refrain from the attacks or stop spamming the group with a
>valueless FAQ.

That should have been sent by email. That would make you ... what? 😉

--
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?)

Truth-in-advertising? ... That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one!!

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:yZeMe.9418$p%3.37423@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <JaKdnbxEVZW19pzeRVn-2A@adelphia.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005
> 22:28:25 -0600,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>>John- wouldn't your last two posts constitute a personal attack, which is
>>listed as inappropriate in the FAQ you bombard us with regularly? If so,
>>please either refrain from the attacks or stop spamming the group with a
>>valueless FAQ.
>
> That should have been sent by email. That would make you ... what? 😉
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Scott]

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:yZeMe.9418$p%3.37423@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <JaKdnbxEVZW19pzeRVn-2A@adelphia.com> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005
22:28:25 -0600,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> >John- wouldn't your last two posts constitute a personal attack, which is
> >listed as inappropriate in the FAQ you bombard us with regularly? If so,
> >please either refrain from the attacks or stop spamming the group with a
> >valueless FAQ.
>
> That should have been sent by email.

Why? You committed the act in a public forum- you were called on it in the
same public forum.

> That would make you ... what? 😉
>

A poster who does not appreciate your hypocrisy.