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 20:40 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in news:7f34569u76jp5tnjuv67bqkgq36rchniat(a)4ax.com: > For which ham wouldn't have helped. > First responders were and are in a different service category. > > Not true. Every county emergency center is highly integrated with ham radio because of the sheer number of stations that can be called upon to provide emergency communications, instantly, with no need for any more infrastructure than a car battery, a ham radio that is really tiny now, and a wire antenna strung between any two points 25 feet off the ground. That station can provide 24/7 communications, without infrastructure at all, limited only by the gas for the genset to recharge the battery. -- iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships. Larry
From: John Navas on 29 Jul 2010 22:48 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". -- 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: mark on 29 Jul 2010 23:46 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:03:49 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >It turns out Steve Jobs wasn't exaggerating all that much when he said >it can take three years to get a cell tower approved in San Francisco. I think maybe you and everybody should move out of San Francisco. They are charging 3 bucks to go through the financial distist now. They want money and are coming up with fees and taxes that I have never heard anybody trying. Yes , Concord wants to raise sales taxes again, but every city seems to that. But San francisco is Special (Too Someone)
From: mark on 29 Jul 2010 23:53 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:24:56 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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. Well i think the military could get stuff anywhere it was needed. They did start ARPANET
From: mark on 29 Jul 2010 23:56
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:50:17 +0000, 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. > >Obviously, you've never been broken down in the middle of nowhere on the >interstate.... Have you ever tried to call 911 on your cell phone? |