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 29 Jul 2010 19:24 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:25:04 -0700, in <higgy-3793A3.12250429072010(a)news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: >In article <WYg4o.45954$YX3.29653(a)newsfe18.iad>, > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > >> Honestly, it's not like hams are sitting on any significant amount of really >> prime RF real estate. I think it's a worthwhile hobby, (though I've never >> really been involved. I used to monitor the long-range ham bands on my >> shortwave, but found it amusing that people from across the world, from >> different countries and cultures were contacting each other, and all they >> ever talked about were their radios!) ;) It also keeps a portion of the >> radio spectrum "public" which I think is a good thing. > >History has already told us that in a REAL disaster, significant amounts >of critical communications will likely be carried by amateur radio >operators. The cell phone networks will collapse, as well as the >wire-line networks. ... What history (other than anecdotes)? >The communication facilities that hams employ (which consists mostly of >technology of their own creation when it comes to the most sophisticated >among them) is head and shoulders above anything that is found in the >commercial world. ... I respectfully disagree. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 19:26 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:17:42 GMT, in <i2t26m1419c002malch(a)news.sonic.net>, malch(a)malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote: >In article <i2sntq$udo$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: > >>This didn't happen in Loma Prieta, even though the entirety of SF lost power >>for 36 hours. > >It may not have collapsed but it wasn't exactly working well >either. Yes, of course, something like that provokes a >massive surge in call volume at the worst possible time. > >It took my Bay Area colleages many, many hours to get a message >to me overseas; cellphone to NY and then conventional service >from NY to London. For which ham wouldn't have helped. First responders were and are in a different service category. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 19:27 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:16:08 GMT, in <i2sni8$rt1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > >>So in summary, you don't want hams to have the spectrum, but you also >>don't want commercial guys put up antennas in your neighbourhood so >>that they can use it. > >I don't want unsightly antennas. This is the modern, aesthetic world. >This is no longer the slash-and-burn is the rule. Cell antennas are being >disguised as fake trees and bird houses and all kinds of things. I'm not >asking companies to limit their antennas, just make them pleasing or >invisible. Which is of course quite reasonable. But the cell companies would rather complain about local zoning in the hope of getting license to slash-and-burn, simply because it's more profitable. -- John "Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 19:28 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$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS >><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >> >>>David Kaye wrote: >>> >>>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are >>>> unsightly. Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the >>>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes >>>> them really really ugly. >>> >>>I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop >>>antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment >>>(not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused. >>> >>>The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have >>>the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before >>>neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage >>>of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz. >> >>There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear. > >So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal and >a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures >equally? Read the cited references. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: Char Jackson on 29 Jul 2010 19:32
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:17:42 GMT, malch(a)malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote: >In article <i2sntq$udo$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: > >>This didn't happen in Loma Prieta, even though the entirety of SF lost power >>for 36 hours. > >It may not have collapsed but it wasn't exactly working well >either. Yes, of course, something like that provokes a >massive surge in call volume at the worst possible time. > >It took my Bay Area colleages many, many hours to get a message >to me overseas; cellphone to NY and then conventional service >from NY to London. Which cell phone, and which provider, was able to reach New York from the Bay Area? I want one of those. |