Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 11:50 In article <nrn336po7i4brbjjspua7e5h1o0ptb0nli(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Android devices are easily backed up by the user locally (to SD) or over > the air. "There's an app for that." But I'd guess(tm) the great > majority of Android users will never do that, relying instead on Google > sync (which I think a better bet than Microsoft) and on luck. backing up user data on android is a *new* feature coming in 2.2. it's mind-boggling how that was not included since day one. relying on the user to manually do it means that it is likely to not be done. some aspects of android, such as gmail, are cloud based but that's not really a backup. the iphone automatically backs everything up whenever it's synced. if the user upgrades the firmware or switches devices, everything is automatically restored.
From: Justin on 5 Jul 2010 12:38 Larry wrote on [Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:11 +0000]: > Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in > news:ujb236pbt0umnad7rmcqav60qp55k20nd9(a)4ax.com: > >> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it >> would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell. > > Huh?? The broadcasters don't own the frequencies they've been using since > WW2. Those are all public airwaves. FCC doesn't need any permission as > the broadcasters are slaves to the FCC, not the other way around.... > > I think it should be a Federal felony to SELL the public's airwaves to > anyone or any entity. What the hell are they gonna sell next, Yellowstone > National Park?! They should LEASE the airwaves, not sell them
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 5 Jul 2010 13:34 nospam wrote: > In article <nrn336po7i4brbjjspua7e5h1o0ptb0nli(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> Android devices are easily backed up by the user locally (to SD) or over >> the air. "There's an app for that." But I'd guess(tm) the great >> majority of Android users will never do that, relying instead on Google >> sync (which I think a better bet than Microsoft) and on luck. > > backing up user data on android is a *new* feature coming in 2.2. it's > mind-boggling how that was not included since day one. > > relying on the user to manually do it means that it is likely to not be > done. some aspects of android, such as gmail, are cloud based but > that's not really a backup. If the user doesn't make a backup somehow, he will sooner or later regret it! That backup should preferably be on a device owned and controlled by the user. Still almost any backup is better than none! <snip>
From: Jeff Liebermann on 5 Jul 2010 13:38 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:52:25 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextWave_Wireless> >><http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-653.ZO.html> > >Like it or not, that's how bankruptcy works. It was an asset of the >estate. The same thing would have applied for *any* asset purchased but >not yet fully paid for -- prior owners (owners no longer) of those >assets become *creditors*, and without some sort of security agreement, >just *unsecured* creditors (at the end of the line). I haven't read the >case, but my guess(tm) is that the FCC was effectively claiming some >sort of bankruptcy exemption, which is why it lost. Correct. From the majority decision: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-653.ZO.html> the D. C. Circuit held, that the FCC�s revocation of its licenses was not in accordance with �525 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 525(a) provides, in relevant part: "[A] governmental unit may not ... revoke ... a license ... to ... a person that is ... a debtor under this title ... solely because such ... debtor ... has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title." The sole dissenting opinion notes that the original terms of payment to the FCC included a clause specifically returning the licenses to the FCC in the event of non-payment: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-653.ZD.html> It promised to pay the money under an installment plan. It agreed that its possession of the licenses was "conditioned upon full and timely payment," that failure to pay would result in the licenses� "automatic cancellation," that the Government would maintain a "fi[r]st lien on and continuing security interest" in the licenses, and that it would "not dispute" the Government�s "rights as a secured party." Whichever point of view you favor, it doesn't mater. My point was that the FCC currently cannot do anything it pleases with the auctioned frequencies. In addition, the USA is a member of the ITU/WRC, which sets world wide usage for radio spectrum. While there are plenty of anomalies, the process of "harmonizing" the allocations and rules has been moving along nicely in the EU and slooooly in the USA. The USA is sufficiently isolated from the rest of the world (except for Canada and Mexico) on cellular frequencies that interference should not be an issue unless deployed for satellite service. Still, the ITU/WRC will need to investigate any interference potential, which will take some time. >>Roll forward to 2004, and Nextwave sells most of the spectrum to >>various cellular providers for a substantial profit. Some of the >>proceeds went to the FCC to pay off the 1996 spectrum auction. >><http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3343541/FCCNextWave-Deal-to-Free-Up-Spectrum.htm> >> >>Now, tell me again how the FCC can do anything they want with the >>peoples frequencies? > >That example proves only how bankruptcy works, and the FCC might well >have avoided the problem by writing a proper security agreement. They did have the proper security clauses in the auction terms. See above quotation as in "conditional upon full and timely payment". That is a standard clause in any such sales, leases, and rentals. (No pay, no play). However, the Supremes decided that bankruptcy law supercedes contract law. For a literal interpretation, this is correct. For FCC licenses, there is also a performance clause, which demands the return of the licenses should the winner decide to do nothing within some time period (use it or lose it). However, that clause is being ignored by the FCC to avoid the inevitable court battle. Rhetorical questions: If I buy on credit some real estate, some stock on margin, a new car, use my credit card wildly, and then declare bankruptcy, what happens to the property, stock, car, and junk? As I understand it, the bankruptcy administrator will declare those as being un-necessary for my continued survival, and return them to the creditors. It's not a difficult concept to appreciate. So, why didn't the government bankruptcy court for Nextwave not do the same thing with the licenses? At the same time (1997), Pocket Comm and DCR PCS went Chapter 11, and made a deal with the FCC for the return of the licenses in exchange for some of the deposit money. Why didn't Nextwave do the same? -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: Peter Pan on 5 Jul 2010 15:01
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:B66dnRTaC9Qhiq_RnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > If the user doesn't make a backup somehow, he will sooner or later regret > it! That backup should preferably be on a device owned and controlled by > the user. Still almost any backup is better than none! > > <snip> there is an old saying in data processing circles, there are two types of users.. those that have lost data and those that will :) |