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 10:16 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:17:59 GMT, in <i2ucd4$t96$5(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >mark <markr(a)mbrnet.com> wrote: > >>I think maybe you and everybody should move out of San Francisco. They >>are charging 3 bucks to go through the financial distist now. They >>want money and are coming up with fees and taxes that I have never >>heard anybody trying. Not yet anyway. See <http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/07/20/san-francisco-congestion-pricing-plan-to-be-shopped-at-public-meetings/> >I'd like to see SF's population drop by 200,000 (back to the 1960s size) and >give the rest of us some breathing room. Maybe y'all should strap your >suitcases to Higdon's car when he heads to Utah to retire. Just be careful the door doesn't smack you on the tush on the way out! :) -- John "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: John Higdon on 30 Jul 2010 11:54 In article <i2ubtr$t96$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: > 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. Of course it was the overloading. Failure is failure. > Considering that I > was there (in SF) and you weren't, I'd rely more on experience than on yours. San Francisco could not be reached for hours after the earthquake. The failure was either in San Bernardino county or it was in the San Francisco area. I know where I'm putting my money. > I'm wondering how many hams had/have backup power for their rigs. My hand is raised. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: DevilsPGD on 30 Jul 2010 12:18 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?
From: John Higdon on 30 Jul 2010 12:24 In article <rnu55651esmbuk9a51ebgu51vl043dn6fl(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > In other words, you don't know, can't answer, have no cites, and want me > to do the research to prove it? Welcome to the world of what we who are actually in the communications business refer to as the "media expert" (and why the media gets it wrong most of the time). -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: nospam on 30 Jul 2010 12:25
In article <rnu55651esmbuk9a51ebgu51vl043dn6fl(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > >>>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? it's his standard response when he's cornered. |