NEWS: Up to 2 years for even small panel cell antennas to be approved in San Francisco
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
Next: NEWS: Motorola Buys Full-Page Slam Ad Against Apple
From: nospam on 30 Jul 2010 12:27 In article <rg5456d7isqsi0dooijrvdajtnv718lldi(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> There's no compelling public interest in good cellular coverage. > > > >The cellular phone is one of the greatest safety gadgets ever invented.... > > > >Simply the ability to call 911 in time of emergency is all that's needed to > >make your statement moot. > > Your argument doesn't apply to a neighborhood, the subject at issue. emergencies happen more often in neighborhoods than they do out in the middle of nowhere where a sat phone would be the only option. > >Obviously, you've never been broken down in the middle of nowhere on the > >interstate.... > > Cell phones aren't all that dependable. mine are. maybe you need a better one. > I've been in the middle of nowhere many times with no cell signal. stop using t-mobile :) > If you really care about safety, then you'll carry a PLB or sat phone. > You might as well argue for gas stations every 5 miles in rural areas. my cellphone works everywhere i travel.
From: nospam on 30 Jul 2010 12:30 In article <0q5456h3a0t0a5pjmvvcpakhorm4hfbgc2(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Shall we classify broadband Internet as an essential service while we're > at it? ;) already happened. i don't remember where but i think it is sweden. it was reported about a month or so ago.
From: David Kaye on 30 Jul 2010 17:43 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >It's not going through aluminum siding -- >signal must be getting through in other ways. >See <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi#Attenuation> Regardless, the signal is getting in and out from my little phone just fine. I'd expect that a cell site could do much better in a wooden box with fewer obstructions, no?
From: Char Jackson on 30 Jul 2010 18:25 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:40:21 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >jcdill <jcdill.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>There was cell service AND WiFi internet signal at Black Rock City in >>2009. > >They've had Internet for at least 6 years, but the cell service is a new >thing. Does this mean that some enterprising cell company brings in portable >cell sites? Otherwise I couldn't think of how else they'd do it. It's way >too far to get a signal in and out of Gerlach or Empire I'd think. I still haven't figured out why you have such an objection to cell towers. To me, they aren't nearly as objectionable as the golden arches of McDonald's, for example. In fact, I'd take a standard tower with panel antennas over a fake tree any day. Did you have a bad experience with a cell tower at some point?
From: John Navas on 30 Jul 2010 18:48
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:25:07 -0500, in <m6k656tbrl8avlttv0tsp63tn897e61cf0(a)4ax.com>, Char Jackson <none(a)none.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:40:21 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) >wrote: > >>jcdill <jcdill.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>There was cell service AND WiFi internet signal at Black Rock City in >>>2009. >> >>They've had Internet for at least 6 years, but the cell service is a new >>thing. Does this mean that some enterprising cell company brings in portable >>cell sites? Otherwise I couldn't think of how else they'd do it. It's way >>too far to get a signal in and out of Gerlach or Empire I'd think. > >I still haven't figured out why you have such an objection to cell >towers. To me, they aren't nearly as objectionable as the golden >arches of McDonald's, for example. We prohibit those (the big ones) too. >In fact, I'd take a standard tower >with panel antennas over a fake tree any day. Did you have a bad >experience with a cell tower at some point? All the time -- butt ugly. -- John "We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo |