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 09:56 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:15:14 +0000, in <Xns9DC516E67434Cnoonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: >Anyone doesn't like ham radio can just suck eggs!..... OK. Enjoy your personal hobby, just as I enjoy mine. Just don't expect me to take it any more seriously than any other personal hobby. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 30 Jul 2010 10:03 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:35:22 -0700, in <higgy-ABE0C1.23345229072010(a)news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: >In article <i2sntq$udo$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: > >> In the 1989 Loma Prieta quake the phone system did not collapse. Remember, I >> was working in the call center business at the time. Secondly, 2-way did not >> collapse, either. Now, I'm not making any bets that the trunked systems in >> use now won't collapse since they're dependent on central coordination that >> wasn't needed when simple 2-way was the norm. > >I was in SoCal when the quake hit. I tried for six hours to get through >to ANYONE who could give me the scoop on my radio charges. I was able to >reach NO ONE, including my own home, anyone at any of the stations, any >friends, relatives, or anyone else. No calls would go through, wireless >or wired. > >Yes, the phones failed...whether you were aware of it or not. I ended up >hitting the road about midnight and driving back to the Bay Area. For >all I knew, everything I owned or serviced was destroyed. > >> This didn't happen in Loma Prieta, even though the entirety of SF lost power >> for 36 hours. > >Yes, it did...whether you want to believe it or not. No, it didn't. You may not have been able to call in on whatever systems you were using, but I was able to call out, and was receiving text messages. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons. ;) -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 30 Jul 2010 10:07 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:09:49 GMT, in <i2ubtr$t96$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: > >>I was in SoCal when the quake hit. I tried for six hours to get through >>to ANYONE who could give me the scoop on my radio charges. I was able to >>reach NO ONE, including my own home, anyone at any of the stations, any >>friends, relatives, or anyone else. No calls would go through, wireless >>or wired. > >Sure, it was hard to get dialtone, but it worked for us. I suggest that it >wasn't the infrastructure that failed but the overloading. Considering that I >was there (in SF) and you weren't, I'd rely more on experience than on yours. Overloading is indeed the usual problem, not failure of infrastructure. It would be wildly unrealistic to expect the infrastructure to support everyone trying for dial tone at the same time -- we're not paying for anywhere near that much capacity. Wireless messaging is the recommended way to keep in touch during emergencies while minimizing load on the infrastructure. >I'm wondering how many hams had/have backup power for their rigs. Quite a few in my experience. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 30 Jul 2010 10:08 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:17:08 +0000, in <Xns9DC517384ABBnoonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: >sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in news:i2sni8$rt1$1 >@news.eternal-september.org: > >> I'm not >> asking companies to limit their antennas, just make them pleasing or >> invisible. > >But, just like invisible sellphone antennas on smartphones, invisible >antennas that look like trees and birdhouses SUCK AS ANTENNAS and cannot >provide us the level of service of a proper panel antenna on the side of a >proper tower. Nonsense. -- 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 30 Jul 2010 10:11
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:26:36 GMT, in <i2ucta$296$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: > >>But, just like invisible sellphone antennas on smartphones, invisible >>antennas that look like trees and birdhouses SUCK AS ANTENNAS and cannot >>provide us the level of service of a proper panel antenna on the side of a >>proper tower. > >I find it funny that you say disguised antennas suck because my cell phone >works within my bathroom, which is enclosed by a standard gypsum wall and then >behind a standard gypsum bedroom wall, with aluminum siding on the exterior -- >and with my 8 year old phone I can hit cell sites 5 miles away (I see this on >my bill from time to time). > >Now, if my flea-powered cell phone can penetrate 4 half-inch walls and >aluminum siding that well, a cell transmitter/receiver can certainly do that >from behind a 1/4 inch wooden fake birdhouse wall. It's not going through aluminum siding -- signal must be getting through in other ways. See <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi#Attenuation> -- John FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> |