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: Larry on 29 Jul 2010 19:50 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in news:um2356pu3t5t2rm51s39c9o1duntrtalb6(a)4ax.com: > 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. Obviously, you've never been broken down in the middle of nowhere on the interstate.... -- iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships. Larry
From: Larry on 29 Jul 2010 19:51 sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:i2ratc$tt7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > ntennas are ugly, especially those 40 meter rotating monstrosities. > Also, I think the service hams provide during disasters is very > overrated. When you live among other people you have to get along > with other people. This means complying with local regulations > designed to improve the aesthetics of a neighborhood. > Thanks. We'll make sure no person named David Kaye gets a message out in the earthquake. -- iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships. Larry
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 20:04 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:50:17 +0000, in <Xns9DC4CAB54717Cnoonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in >news:um2356pu3t5t2rm51s39c9o1duntrtalb6(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. >Obviously, you've never been broken down in the middle of nowhere on the >interstate.... Cell phones aren't all that dependable. I've been in the middle of nowhere many times with no cell signal. 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. -- John "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail." -Abraham Maslow
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 20:10 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:45:14 -0700, in <siegman-7B6EB8.08451429072010(a)sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>, AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote: >In article <um2356pu3t5t2rm51s39c9o1duntrtalb6(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> This is a kinda sorta democracy, so if the majority would rather have >> less towers and poorer wireless coverage, then that's what they should >> be able to get -- there's no right of the few to impose their will on >> the many in this regard. >>> There's no compelling public interest in >> good cellular coverage. <<< It's up to cellular carriers (and hams) >> to sell the public on the benefits of their towers. > >Sorry -- have to flatly disagree on this one. > >Cellular phone service is a form of basic infrastructure that serves >everyone, benefits everyone, in innumerable ways; provides benefits >that are very hard to obtain in almost other fashion; and that just >ought to be available to almost everyone, almost everywhere, as >much as is reasonably feasible . . . just like roads and highways, just >like plain old POTS once was (but isn't really any more). I don't have to own a car to walk down a road or highway, but I have to pay for commercial service to use a cell phone (except for 911). I respect your point of view, but think it's a bit of a stretch to classify cellular as an "essential service" that trumps local control. That's a slippery slope that could lead to government mandated "affordable cellular" and cellular easements on private property. Shall we classify broadband Internet as an essential service while we're at it? ;) -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: DevilsPGD on 29 Jul 2010 20:19
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... Or, you could try answering the question, it's a pretty straightforward, either "They'll penetrate equally well" or one or the other will penetrate better. |