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: John Navas on 30 Jul 2010 18:49 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:18:03 -0700, in <rnu55651esmbuk9a51ebgu51vl043dn6fl(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >In message <daf4565na6ianj22krurgusdul3vq881s9(a)4ax.com> John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:19:05 -0700, in >><2q4456h5erv7jfegqt0154vtb0uqblfh7g(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD >><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >> >>>In message <nj3456praioq3mlij37c4bcst6i8n0d6i3(a)4ax.com> John Navas >>><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:13 -0700, in >>>><1fj3565k3evc6jje3ij8shhfkftbgp6et6(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD >>>><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In message <3t2356h5420lsqfvhe1h5cp12nnqt9vk59(a)4ax.com> John Navas >>>>><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in >>>>>><4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS >>>>>><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>David Kaye wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are >>>>>>>> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the >>>>>>>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes >>>>>>>> them really really ugly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop >>>>>>>antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment >>>>>>>(not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have >>>>>>>the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before >>>>>>>neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage >>>>>>>of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz. >>>>>> >>>>>>There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear. >>>>> >>>>>So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal and >>>>>a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures >>>>>equally? >>>> >>>>Read the cited references. >>> >>>You didn't cite any... >> >>I did. Do keep up. Otherwise, "Google is your friend". > >In other words, you don't know, can't answer, have no cites, and want me >to do the research to prove it? Nope. Try again. -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: Char Jackson on 30 Jul 2010 19:09 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:48:20 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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. If you and David dislike the occasional cell tower, standard telephone poles must really drive you nuts. Not only are there a lot more of them, (where utilities aren't buried, of course), but they aren't up as high as cell towers and they're all connected by unsightly wires. Seems like you'd complain about those long before focusing on cell towers.
From: Larry on 30 Jul 2010 19:10 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in news:usm556dg9jo79qvdsk1d9ckdv37nolnrcp(a)4ax.com: >>I'm wondering how many hams had/have backup power for their rigs. > > Quite a few in my experience. > > It's not really fair because I live in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989, but every ham here has multiple generators. I have a Honda EU1000i suitcase portable, a Honda EU3000is 3KW mounted on my service van, also a comm van in emergencies and a Chinese 6.5KW diesel genset to power my home off used cooking oil which I have thousands of gallons of in storage. All the hams here are similarly powered.... The ham radio clubs have extensive communications vans and ham radio stations setup in every emergency shelter, usually in schools, across the counties. In addition, we have 5 networked VHF/UHF repeater systems located at hurricane-proof county communications sites all with extensive backup power on massive 800mph communications towers also used by cops/fire/services. The hospitals are all on a secondary ham radio VHF/UHV network powered by hospital emergency power systems. That separate network give them comms when all the phones go down and county emergency radio trunk networks are jammed. Then, there's SCHeart: http://scheart.us/irlp_web/main/ Emergency powered microwave relay stations across SC operated by the state are used to interconnect yet another huge ham radio relay system associated with ARES, the Amateur Radio Emergency Service. On Heart, you can use a 1/2 watt VHF walkie talkie connected to one of its many repeater systems and talk from Charleston to Greenville as simply as talking across a mall on a Family Radio UHF set. Heart is explained on the website. Our extensive radio system plan and communications networks are explained on a pdf file here: http://www.wa4usn.org/CommPlan.pdf WX4CHS, the ham radio station callsign of the Charleston office of the National Weather Bureau, is also connected to these systems and to an independent HF SSB radio network connecting our weather bureau office to its remote substation offices in Savannah, Georgetown, Myrtle Beach, Brunswick GA and to every other National Weather Service office across the entire country. NWS is adamant about its support of ham radio services to the system. "Skywarn" is also a ham radio network of cooperating ham radio stations across America giving the weather service and its public broadcast functions thousands of eyes to warn of impending immediate weather threats such as tornadoes, floods, etc. I'm a Skywarn trained observer, myself..... http://www.skywarn.org/ http://www.skywarnonline.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywarn So, if you think ham radio is just a bunch of super CBers, a throwback before the internet, you're wrong. Thousands of ham radio repeater systems are all interconnected across the planet by internet links for licensed ham radio stations to use, as a hobby and in time of international disaster. Ask the Haitians! Without ham radio, Haiti was completely alone after the recent earthquake and before with hurricanes. The systems are efficient, rigidly controlled by control operators and very good at what we do. -- iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships. Larry
From: Char Jackson on 30 Jul 2010 19:09 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:49:05 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:18:03 -0700, in ><rnu55651esmbuk9a51ebgu51vl043dn6fl(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD ><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > >>In message <daf4565na6ianj22krurgusdul3vq881s9(a)4ax.com> John Navas >><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:19:05 -0700, in >>><2q4456h5erv7jfegqt0154vtb0uqblfh7g(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD >>><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >>> >>>>In message <nj3456praioq3mlij37c4bcst6i8n0d6i3(a)4ax.com> John Navas >>>><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:13 -0700, in >>>>><1fj3565k3evc6jje3ij8shhfkftbgp6et6(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD >>>>><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In message <3t2356h5420lsqfvhe1h5cp12nnqt9vk59(a)4ax.com> John Navas >>>>>><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in >>>>>>><4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS >>>>>>><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>David Kaye wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are >>>>>>>>> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the >>>>>>>>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes >>>>>>>>> them really really ugly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop >>>>>>>>antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment >>>>>>>>(not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have >>>>>>>>the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before >>>>>>>>neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage >>>>>>>>of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear. >>>>>> >>>>>>So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal and >>>>>>a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures >>>>>>equally? >>>>> >>>>>Read the cited references. >>>> >>>>You didn't cite any... >>> >>>I did. Do keep up. Otherwise, "Google is your friend". >> >>In other words, you don't know, can't answer, have no cites, and want me >>to do the research to prove it? > >Nope. Try again. Actually, he had it exactly right.
From: John Navas on 30 Jul 2010 21:48
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:10:11 +0000, in <Xns9DC5C2F6F85CDnoonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: >So, if you think ham radio is just a bunch of super CBers, a throwback >before the internet, you're wrong. Did I say that? (No.) >Thousands of ham radio repeater >systems are all interconnected across the planet by internet links for >licensed ham radio stations to use, as a hobby and in time of >international disaster. Those Internet links are some of the things that can go down. ;) >Ask the Haitians! Without ham radio, Haiti was >completely alone after the recent earthquake and before with hurricanes. Not a terribly good analogy. ;) >The systems are efficient, rigidly controlled by control operators and >very good at what we do. Some are; some aren't -- I know quite a few that are chewing gum and bailing wire. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement] |