Signal coverage--truth in advertising

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Per Larry:
>Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
>the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!

Actually, we're probably the only people in the neighborhood without cable TV.

Rabbit ears all the way.

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? Or is it another
indication of geographic factors?
--
PeteCresswell
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Per Larry:
>I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
>which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....

Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current administration
is in the process of remedying that particular irritant..
--
PeteCresswell
 
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 <kaeqe1taslealrjmvhr68m3r9l7d93ifcv@4ax.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:05:28
-0500, Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
>>probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
>>benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.
>
>NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
>the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
>was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
>We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
>was the standard actually approved by the FCC, ...

I rest my case.

>What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
>and CDMA?

Surely you must be joking. We've seen rapid advances in handset shrinkage,
sophistication, battery life, call quality, data transmission speed, PoC, and
rapidly falling prices, to name just a few.

>Aren't the benefits really coming because of what the
>providers are doing with any given technology (i.e. Verizion vs.
>Sprint on CDMA)?

My own assessment is that the biggest competitive force is the battle between
GMS (as the standard bearer for TDMA) and CDMA. Without that battle, I think
3G would be much farther off.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:19:37 GMT, John Navas wrote:
> Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:41:51 GMT, John Navas wrote:
>>>NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that standard we'd
>>>probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS), rather than enjoying the
>>>benefits of vigorous competition between GSM and CDMA.
>>NTSC may very well be a painful kludge by today's standards, but for
>>the technology available in the early 1950's when it was developed, it
>>was state-of-the art and rather brilliant for what it accomplished.
>>We could have had the CBS Field Sequential (colorwheel) System. That
>>was the standard actually approved by the FCC, ...
>
>I rest my case.

So you think it would have been better in the long run to have
competing systems from RCA, CBS, CTI, GE, Philco, Hazeltine, (and
whoever else) duke it out in the market, rather than have them all
combine their efforts to develop a standard? There are various
theories as to why the FCC initially chose FSS after earlier rejecting
it and several others (industry/political pressure to pick something
and they picked the "best" thing available, or perhaps they knew such
a choice would motivate the various factions into uniting to develop a
better standard).

>>What benefits have we specifically gained from competition between GSM
>>and CDMA?
>Surely you must be joking. We've seen rapid advances in handset shrinkage,
>sophistication, battery life, call quality, data transmission speed, PoC, and
>rapidly falling prices, to name just a few.

I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
standard.

Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:27:05 GMT, John Navas wrote:
0500, Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:
>>So you think it would have been better in the long run to have
>>competing systems from RCA, CBS, CTI, GE, Philco, Hazeltine, (and
>>whoever else) duke it out in the market, rather than have them all
>>combine their efforts to develop a standard?
>Yep. As in so many other products. The market has a way of sorting such
>things out efficiently and effectively, whereas the government has a way of
>mucking them up.

That would have been something to see. Of course, such a battle was
economically unfeasible for most of those companies, and the standards
proposed by the companies that probably could afford the fight was
flawed. Working together, the companies developed a robust standard
that allowed the manufacturers to concentrate on mass producing and
improving hardware, instead of fighting over the underlying standard.

>I think it's quite clear that competitive pressure from CDMA has greatly
>spurred innovation in GSM, and vice versa. Had we all rallied around GSM (or
>worse, government-mandated IS-136), there wouldn't have been anything like the
>same pressure to innovate.

From a Sprint end-user standpoint, the only CDMA-related innovation
that I see over my years with Sprint has been the addition and
improvement of data capability, and you still can't simultaneously use
the data capability and make a voice call, despite the fact that the
voice call is really data. What kind of innovation is that??? This
is possible with GSM, but that sure hasn't prompted the CDMA side to
deal with that shortcoming in a timely manner.

When I first joined Sprint, I could make calls. Now I can make calls
and work with data. The underlying engineering might have improved
radically, but from the end-user perspective, the innovation hasn't
been all that impressive. It's certainly not impressive when I need
to place a call and I'm standing 100 yards away from a GSM tower, but
have to switch over to analog AMPS to make the call because there is
no CDMA tower nearby. The handsets are much more advanced, but that
is primarily due to the improvement in electronics, not the CDMA/GSM
network.



Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net
 
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 <Xns96A4CB9D85505noone@63.223.7.253> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:57:47 -0400,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:Yh6He.6609$p%3.33070@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> Really? What specific (paragraph and section of) law?
>>
>
>http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html#rules
>
>The rules are rampant with it...
>
>Ever read the FCC rules on wireless?

Yep. Also the actual enabling legislation, and relevant court decisions.
And you? 😉

>http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr24_04.html
>http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
>
>"Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
>Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
>providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
>is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
>competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
>such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
>standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
>review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers."
>From the FCC webpages....

Interesting, but not even close to supporting your claims.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Great map but if I were to switch to T-Mobile in my town, I'd probably have
bad service right where I live. LOTS of dead spots in my area. Strange
though that just a 1 1/2 miles away is a tower (I'm guessing about that far,
maybe a bit closer) but the signal is less than fair by my house. Shouldn't
the signal travel further than that? Is this the same for all carriers?
How far do the signals travel anyway? I suppose it depends on land
topography and the height of the tower.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-552B82.21264430072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> For an eye-opener, head to tmobile.com and look at their Personal
> Coverage Check.
>
> They make no bones about it: here's what your coverage will look like.
>
> 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.....
>
 
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 <nu6re1h1s81g0ti4ubpra7083tp1ghhks3@4ax.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:50:41
-0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote:

>Per Larry:

>>I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
>>which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....
>
>Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current administration
>is in the process of remedying that particular irritant..

PBS has already gone to way of commercial TV -- the difference now is only a
matter of degree, and the gap is closing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
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 <Xns96A4CC43772F5noone@63.223.7.253> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:01:37 -0400,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:Zc6He.6608$p%3.33089@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> Under what statute or regulation?
>
>Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications
>Act) requires the FCC to review all of its regulations applicable to
>providers of telecommunications service, and to determine whether any rule
>is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic
>competition between providers of telecommunications service and whether
>such regulations should be deleted or modified. Pursuant to that statutory
>standard, the Commission staff completed a report on its comprehensive
>review of regulations that affect telecommunications service providers.
>
>http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/
>FCC rules, Part 22 is cellular.
>
>Want your own license?
>http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/licensing/index.html


Interesting, but not even close to supporting your claims.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
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 <uo3re15c4v4mih73fiqe057mjsedpgkv9r@4ax.com> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:21:50
-0500, Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:27:05 GMT, John Navas wrote:

>>Yep. As in so many other products. The market has a way of sorting such
>>things out efficiently and effectively, whereas the government has a way of
>>mucking them up.
>
>That would have been something to see. Of course, such a battle was
>economically unfeasible for most of those companies, and the standards
>proposed by the companies that probably could afford the fight was
>flawed. Working together, the companies developed a robust standard
>that allowed the manufacturers to concentrate on mass producing and
>improving hardware, instead of fighting over the underlying standard.

The market at work. 😉

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
news:usgqe1do3hhmidbg17mobun66gkon0vcf6@4ax.com:

> I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
> GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
> took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
> increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
> particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
> standard.
>
> Joe Huber
> huber.joseph@comcast.net
>
>

He wouldn't be singing the same tune, Joe, if his new digital TV only
picked up NBC because CBS and ABC and CNN and HBO all had DIFFERENT digital
modulation schemes. It's way past time the FCC chose which scheme the
country was going to use and forced ALL OF THEM to use it and forced all of
them to put YOUR phone on their systems....

This latest bullshit about "You can't Verizon's phone on Alltel's system"
is just another scheme to prevent churning and sell multiyear contracts.
Remember when you couldn't put YOUR telephone on Bell's telephone system
because it might damage the system? The same thing is now happening to the
cellular system and FCC needs to stop it.

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

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;

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

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in
news:nu6re1h1s81g0ti4ubpra7083tp1ghhks3@4ax.com:

> Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current
> administration is in the process of remedying that particular
> irritant..
>

PBS is like Air America in its political slant. Is it any wonder the
conservatives in the White House would cut them off?

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

"J" <J@J.com> wrote in news:YQeHe.1960$2y2.332@trndny02:

> Great map but if I were to switch to T-Mobile in my town, I'd probably
> have bad service right where I live. LOTS of dead spots in my area.
> Strange though that just a 1 1/2 miles away is a tower (I'm guessing
> about that far, maybe a bit closer) but the signal is less than fair
> by my house. Shouldn't the signal travel further than that? Is this
> the same for all carriers? How far do the signals travel anyway? I
> suppose it depends on land topography and the height of the tower.
>

http://www.wirelessmapping.com/Sample_Visual_street_level_with_rings.jpg

As you can see from this map, there are LOTS of areas with no coverage
caused by terrain and buildings well within the 1 mile range ring on this
map. If the company doesn't have enough cells to fill in these holes, you
get what you have, easily within 1 mile of the tower...

Propagation isn't about cellular sales hype, fancy modulation schemes and
magic. It hasn't changed a bit since Nikola Tesla lit off the first
transmitter...(c;

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

"J" <J@J.com> wrote in news:YQeHe.1960$2y2.332@trndny02:

> Great map but if I were to switch to T-Mobile in my town, I'd probably
> have bad service right where I live. LOTS of dead spots in my area.

PRECISELY why FCC should FORCE them all to SHARE or PROVIDE coverage.

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.

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

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"?


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

In article <dcjd6b$9l4$4@ratbert.glorb.com>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
> daniel cairns wrote:
>
>>>Out of curiosity, which area are you in, Daniel?
>>
>> Dearborn, Michigan.
>> DC
>
> I have to wonder how Cingular (former Ameritech Cellular) is in your area.
[snip]

I'm in S.E. MI. as well, Steve. Used to be, back in analog days,
Ameritech (now p/o Cingular) and AirTouch (absorbed by Verizon) had
the best coverage by far. But now it would appear to be SprintPCS
and Verizon vying for #1, Cingular in 2nd place (by a good margin, I
think), then T-Mobile and Nextel (not sure about their order).

SprintPCS *appears* to me to have better coverage, but I must admit
much of that impression is based on the performance of my wife's
phone, which hasn't had a PRL update since she first got it, when
AirTouch still existed, so that impression is likely invalid.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <oo6re1p8k8mtm9cphe5ig3ac8ie1ain6f9@4ax.com>,
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> writes:
> Per Larry:
>>Take a portable UHF TV to this same area and see how bad the ghosting is on
>>the little whip antenna. I bet it's awful!
>
> Actually, we're probably the only people in the neighborhood without cable TV.
>
> Rabbit ears all the way.
>
> 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? Or is it another
> indication of geographic factors?

FSVO "geographic." Have you had lots of new construction,
particularly relatively tall structures (high-rise buildings, antenna
towers) in that 15 years? Or are you possibly in a minor geographic
depression and there's been build-up on high ground around you?

Are you in the north and, if so, does this problem persist in the
winter-time?

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Per Jim Seymour:
>FSVO "geographic." Have you had lots of new construction,
>particularly relatively tall structures (high-rise buildings, antenna
>towers) in that 15 years? Or are you possibly in a minor geographic
>depression and there's been build-up on high ground around you?

Huge development in this area.

Corn fields have become corporate plazas and upscale developments.

Dunno about the "tall" part, but certainly plenty of new structures.

Antenna towers? At least one humongous one that is decked out as a faux
redwood tree.
--
PeteCresswell
 
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 <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.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
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 <Xns96A5686F7AC83noone@63.223.7.253> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:13:59 -0400,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>Joseph Huber <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:usgqe1do3hhmidbg17mobun66gkon0vcf6@4ax.com:
>
>> I'm not joking at all. I would like for you to tell me how CDMA vs.
>> GSM factored into any of the things you mentioned. Similar changes
>> took place in TVs (reduction in physical size and power consumption,
>> increase in reliability, price drops, improved picture quality, etc.),
>> particulalry from the 60's to 70's, yet there was only one broadcast
>> standard.
>
>He wouldn't be singing the same tune, Joe, if his new digital TV only
>picked up NBC because CBS and ABC and CNN and HBO all had DIFFERENT digital
>modulation schemes.

Indeed, because the market almost certainly wouldn't let that happen -- either
the industry would get behind one standard, or we'd have multi-standard TVs.
Even a very inexpensive DVD player can play both NTSC and PAL DVDs.

>It's way past time the FCC chose which scheme the
>country was going to use and forced ALL OF THEM to use it and forced all of
>them to put YOUR phone on their systems....

Really, really bad idea, and zero prospect of it happening fortunately.

>This latest bullshit about "You can't Verizon's phone on Alltel's system"
>is just another scheme to prevent churning and sell multiyear contracts.
>Remember when you couldn't put YOUR telephone on Bell's telephone system
>because it might damage the system? The same thing is now happening to the
>cellular system and FCC needs to stop it.

Nonsense. Phones are essentially free with new service, and frequently
"upgraded" by consumers, and thus aren't an impediment to switching carriers.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
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 <Xns96A4CD197A77Enoone@63.223.7.253> on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:06:32 -0400,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:jIaHe.6665$p%3.33081@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> NTSC is a painful kludge with mediocre image quality. By that
>> standard we'd probably still be limping along with IS-136 (D-AMPS),
>> rather than enjoying the benefits of vigorous competition between GSM
>> and CDMA.
>
>True....But I bet before this conversion to digital TV is over, the
>politicians will wish they'd never heard of digital TV.
>
>I just can't figure out why anyone would want high definition commercials,
>which is about all that's left of TV in the USA....

There's lots of good stuff on 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, ...

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
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 <Xns96A56912BFF4Anoone@63.223.7.253> on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:17:45 -0400,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.z.invalid> wrote in
>news:nu6re1h1s81g0ti4ubpra7083tp1ghhks3@4ax.com:
>
>> Almost all... there's still PBS.... but is looks like the current
>> administration is in the process of remedying that particular
>> irritant..
>
>PBS is like Air America in its political slant.

Utter nonsense. PBS is one of the few relatively balanced broadcasters left
in America, as shown by study after study.

>Is it any wonder the
>conservatives in the White House would cut them off?

The neo-cons just want to live in a world where the only "choice" is Fox News,
their idea of "balanced" coverage.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Rabbit ears all the way.
>
> 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.

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.


> But what does that have to do with cell phone reception? Or is it another
> indication of geographic factors?

Yep, sure is.

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

Joseph Huber wrote:
> When I first joined Sprint, I could make calls. Now I can make calls
> and work with data. The underlying engineering might have improved
> radically, but from the end-user perspective, the innovation hasn't
> been all that impressive. It's certainly not impressive when I need
> to place a call and I'm standing 100 yards away from a GSM tower, but
> have to switch over to analog AMPS to make the call because there is
> no CDMA tower nearby. The handsets are much more advanced, but that
> is primarily due to the improvement in electronics, not the CDMA/GSM
> network.

Hey, but you can download different ringtones now!
Aren't the technical advancements wonderful?

--
John Richards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom