1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Why Larry gets crap (back)

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Richard Ness, Nov 11, 2003.

  1. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    People come down on you why??????

    Because you are so damned negative all the time.
    You bitch about this and that. How it is all just a plot to make more money.
    "Toy phones", bla, bla, bla.... And a few other quite frequent rants...

    While I do respect your obvious (analog anyway) knowledge, your continued
    Luddite stance towards digital RF is, in most cases just plain ignorant and
    and extremely short sighted.

    BTW, I am an engineer, with a very solid RF background. And I am also very
    well versed in digital RF. I understand it and why it is VASTLY superior to
    AMPS in (almost) every way. The positives WAY outweigh the negatives.

    Considering that cellular is a BUSINESS, decisions are made on what
    is best for the BUSINESS. The market will eventually decide the rest. If
    for instance VZW does the best job, they will continue to grow, if they don't
    people will churn. It's called a free market economy.


    "Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message news:3fb04df0.54373718@news.knology.net...
    > I'm not recommending ANYTHING! Geez!
    >
    > I simply pointed out something Nextel has and DOWN THEY COME like a
    > pack of wolves!....
    >
    > I'm still amazed at the fan loyalty to an elephant-sized corporate
    > monster. Is this how they stay in power?
    >
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:45:29 -0800, "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote
    > >> This Troll has expired....

    > >
    > >He does have a point Larry. You are recommending Nextel
    > >for someone if they are in coverage. You say VZW stinks.
    > >But you have VZW and say its because of the coverage.
    > >VZW's coverage is its main attribute and confirmed by lots
    > >of users (yourself included). So you should probably change
    > >your rant to "They all suck for some reason or other but
    > >VZW sucks least for you". Hows that?
    > >
    > >-Quick
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    > Larry W4CSC
    >
    > "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
    >
     



    › See More: Why Larry gets crap (back)
  2. J. Range

    J. Range Guest

    In article <L9ednZiKrptiiCyi4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
    "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    > Considering that cellular is a BUSINESS, decisions are made on what
    > is best for the BUSINESS.


    Customers don't count?
     
  3. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    J. Range wrote:
    > In article <L9ednZiKrptiiCyi4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
    > "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Considering that cellular is a BUSINESS, decisions are made on what
    >>is best for the BUSINESS.

    >
    >
    > Customers don't count?


    Thier money does, but their opinions don't unless those opinions mean
    more customers to bring in more money, or more options to bring in more
    money per customer.

    AD
     
  4. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    Sure customers count, within reason.... but...

    Let's use an example....

    A cell site costs anywhere from $500K to >$1mil to put up.
    There is weak coverage waaay out in BFE. There are just a few people that
    potentially would use it. Let's say 100. At $40 per, that's $4000 per month.
    Pretty tough to justify the ROI on that one. If it were your $$, would you???

    These are PUBLICLY traded companies, responsible to the shareholder.
    It is THEIR $$ that they are spending. Hopefully in the right way.

    Is spending $1mil to get $4000 per month a good business decision?
    Maybe in some cases, but I'd bet it'd be way down on the priority list.

    Guess what, this is what happens in the REAL world.


    "J. Range" <jrange2@msn.com> wrote in message news:jrange2-90FBAC.12032911112003@news04.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <L9ednZiKrptiiCyi4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
    > "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Considering that cellular is a BUSINESS, decisions are made on what
    > > is best for the BUSINESS.

    >
    > Customers don't count?
     
  5. Quick

    Quick Guest

    "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote
    >
    > These are PUBLICLY traded companies, responsible to the shareholder.
    > It is THEIR $$ that they are spending. Hopefully in the right way.


    Private companies would have more leeway to shoot themselves
    in the foot but most would make the same decision. Cell service
    is not considered a "utility" and is not regulated in this manner. Lots
    of rural areas lost service when they deregulated the airlines. Simply
    not cost effective.

    -Quick
     
  6. Richard Ness <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    > A cell site costs anywhere from $500K to >$1mil to put up.
    > There is weak coverage waaay out in BFE. There are just a few people that
    > potentially would use it. Let's say 100. At $40 per, that's $4000 per month.
    > Pretty tough to justify the ROI on that one. If it were your $$, would you???


    Yes. This is EXACTLY what I'm running into in this part of Apple Valley,
    a humongous area that stretches from the San Bernardino mountains 40 miles
    north to Barstow, and from Victorville another 20-30 miles east on the
    way to Big Bear. In town - in Victorville, Adelanto, Hesperia, and the
    busier parts of AV - my Verizon phone works fine. Out here, I'm on the edge
    of coverage.

    The terrain is quite mountainous, and I suspect that anyone trying to provide
    full coverage here would run into some issues.

    I'm just looking for improved coverage in my immediate neighborhood.

    I am not even going to bother asking Verizon to put up a tower here. I
    seriously doubt they'd be able to make their money back, and unlike Larry,
    I'm not in favor of any carrier spending huge wads of cash on universal
    coverage and not being able to make that back in increased revenue. See,
    I like my cellular carrier to NOT bleed money. :p

    Sprint has good coverage here, so I'm going to roll on over to SprintSitesUSA
    and see where the nearest tower is and suggest that VZW lease space from
    Sprint.

    This is, amusingly, EXACTLY the same situation I encountered in Cleveland,
    along the Lake Shore Boulevard corridor in Lake County, Ohio... and I wrote
    a letter, collected a couple names of relevant contacts at City Hall, and
    forwarded them to VZW with a note that Sprint has a tower two seconds away
    from my house, and could y'all please see about leasing space from them...

    And they did, in fact, improve coverage. I mean they REALLY improved it. :>

    So I have no reason to believe they won't do the same here. Colocation is
    a lot cheaper than construction... I just have to get off my butt and write
    the letter.




    > These are PUBLICLY traded companies, responsible to the shareholder.
    > It is THEIR $$ that they are spending. Hopefully in the right way.
    >
    > Is spending $1mil to get $4000 per month a good business decision?
    > Maybe in some cases, but I'd bet it'd be way down on the priority list.
    >
    > Guess what, this is what happens in the REAL world.
    >
    >
    > "J. Range" <jrange2@msn.com> wrote in message news:jrange2-90FBAC.12032911112003@news04.east.earthlink.net...
    >> In article <L9ednZiKrptiiCyi4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
    >> "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Considering that cellular is a BUSINESS, decisions are made on what
    >> > is best for the BUSINESS.

    >>
    >> Customers don't count?

    >
    >


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
     
  7. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:01:49 -0800, "Richard Ness"
    <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    >People come down on you why??????
    >
    >Because you are so damned negative all the time.
    >You bitch about this and that. How it is all just a plot to make more money.
    >"Toy phones", bla, bla, bla.... And a few other quite frequent rants...


    Who do YOU work for, huh? Toyphones with toytransmitters suck....So
    don't garage door transmitters for the same reason....
    >
    >While I do respect your obvious (analog anyway) knowledge, your continued
    >Luddite stance towards digital RF is, in most cases just plain ignorant and
    >and extremely short sighted.
    >
    >BTW, I am an engineer, with a very solid RF background. And I am also very
    >well versed in digital RF. I understand it and why it is VASTLY superior to
    >AMPS in (almost) every way. The positives WAY outweigh the negatives.


    Worked fairly well at 3 watts, I must admit. What "positives" are you
    referring to? EVERY digital customer that has made a call on my
    bagphone couldn't believe how well it sounded, how LOUD it sounded and
    how CLEAR it sounded. They thought narrow band voice conversion was
    how all cellphones sounded.

    Has it got better range?......well, no.
    Has it got better fidelity?......well, no.
    Has it got better service?.....well, no.
    Has it got better range?........well, no.
    Has it got less dropped calls?.....well, no.
    Can I move around to find the best spot in the fringe?....well, no.
    (New observation) - Can I use AMPS towers in the country?....well, not
    any more.

    >
    >Considering that cellular is a BUSINESS, decisions are made on what
    >is best for the BUSINESS. The market will eventually decide the rest. If
    >for instance VZW does the best job, they will continue to grow, if they don't
    >people will churn. It's called a free market economy.
    >

    Ah, there ya go! What's best for the BUSINESS, not the customers.
    >

    Screw the customers. They keep bitching about having a working PHONE.



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  8. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    BTW.... Larry, I DON'T work for VZW. I don't work for ANY cellular carrier. Now anyway.

    Also, I have BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. I have been 'cellular' since 1985 or so. Before the system
    here was even turned up for commercial use. MANY mobile and bag phones, 8000X (brick) original 'flip'
    phone(s), and on and on. Still have a few of the relics in the attic. I wouldn't NEVER, EVER go backwards.
    The evolution of cellular is amazing.... You bitch about coverage.... Comparing today to back then,
    makes be have a VERY hearty laugh, at your expense. AMPS was designed for these (old) systems).

    >"Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message news:3fb16ef9.1790122@news.knology.net...
    >
    > Has it got better range?......well, no.

    It isn't designed to, therefore, it doesn't. In CDMA, it actually can be controlled (chips)
    As a cell system matures, the sites become smaller and there are many more of them.
    Did you bitch about sectorization, when they went from omni antennas to directional?
    It took, in some cases a while to get the kinks worked out. But, overall it works MUCH better.

    > Has it got better fidelity?......well, no.

    I can debate that. Digital will keep a usable signal longer, AMPS has static, digital.... NONE.
    I have no problems with the sound quality of my (digital) phones. Some phones are better, however.
    Question for you? Can you put your bagphone in your pocket? carry it with you 24/7??
    Does a pocket transistor radio sound better than a hifi system? It's just a fact of making things smaller.
    And the whole idea behind cellular is PERSONAL communications. NOT luggable, BOAT ANCHOR
    communications. Also, see **** below.

    > Has it got better service?.....well, no.

    Wrong again. SMS, IM, web services, access to e-mail, WIRELESS DATA, etc, etc, etc.....
    MANY more services (all) are available. MANY more WILL be available in the future.
    Absolutely NO comparison whatsoever to AMPS.

    > Has it got better range?........well, no.

    Repeating yourself. Sorry, no cigar...

    > Has it got less dropped calls?.....well, no.

    This may be a push. Soft handoffs mean less drops during handoff. Less power may mean more drops...
    ***But, part of this is just perception. Analog, as the signal gets weaker, there is more and more static until you
    get fed up and hang up, or you drop. With digital, you just keep going until you suddenly drop. But, digital will most
    definitly pull a usable signal out of the noise floor MUCH better than AMPS ever would, or could.

    > Can I move around to find the best spot in the fringe?....well, no.

    What??? This is just pure bullshit.

    > Ah, there ya go! What's best for the BUSINESS, not the customers.

    Do YOU provide your services at a loss. How long does a business STAY in business if they do?
    Not very long. The shareholders expect that they will eventually have a return on their investment.
    This is called capitalism and this is the USA. What is good for the business IS good for the customers,
    in the long run. A healthy company can grow and provide more services and be there to provide service.

    > Screw the customers. They keep bitching about having a working PHONE.

    If the majority of the customer base felt that way, they would be shrinking the base quite rapidly.
    But, NOPE, they are GROWING the base, quite rapidly. The majority is quite happy. Only a VERY
    small minority aren't. And, of these, I'd bet many would never be happy, with ANYONE.
    Just like YOU, I bet...

    Now, I know I will not convince you and you certainly won't convince me.
    So, I will continue to consider you a Luddite. A caught in the past relic...
    Cranium rectally inserted...
     
  9. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    <snip>
    >>Has it got better fidelity?......well, no.

    >
    > I can debate that. Digital will keep a usable signal longer, AMPS has static, digital.... NONE.
    > I have no problems with the sound quality of my (digital) phones. Some phones are better, however.
    > Question for you? Can you put your bagphone in your pocket? carry it with you 24/7??
    > Does a pocket transistor radio sound better than a hifi system? It's just a fact of making things smaller.
    > And the whole idea behind cellular is PERSONAL communications. NOT luggable, BOAT ANCHOR
    > communications. Also, see **** below.


    Right. Digital has no static. But instead of having static for a
    second or two, you get a dropped call with digital. And for the same
    reason, when you can make a call with AMPS, with static, digital is
    useless. I once owned a tri-mode Audiovox CDMA phone. When the phone
    rang, I was only on it long enough to say, "I'll call you right back."
    Since I was unable to force analog with incoming calls, I never talked
    for long because I knew I was bound to have the call dropped at any
    second. I always wondered why I was even issued a digital phone...they
    should have just given me an analog phone.

    >>Has it got better service?.....well, no.

    >
    > Wrong again. SMS, IM, web services, access to e-mail, WIRELESS DATA, etc, etc, etc.....
    > MANY more services (all) are available. MANY more WILL be available in the future.
    > Absolutely NO comparison whatsoever to AMPS.


    Well, I do have to admit, SMS, IM, web services, e-mail, WIRELESS DATA,
    et al are fun. Especially when you have no CDMA (or TDMA) service and
    revert to AMPS.

    >>Has it got better range?........well, no.

    >
    > Repeating yourself. Sorry, no cigar...


    I snipped off the first one. Now do we want to talk range? In a town
    of 60,000 people (officially within city limits, a town where at least
    120,000 people live or work in daily), almost 50% of calls are in
    analog. Digital is better, right? And I expect that if they can get it
    right in a city, they can get it right in the country outside the city,
    right? In many areas of the U.S. that are "Completely 100% digital"
    according to wireless companies, phone signal works like this: digital
    for 10 to 15 miles, then analog for 4 to 6 miles, digital for 10 to 15
    miles, analog for 4 to 6 miles, digital for 10 to 15 miles, analog for 4
    to 6 miles....do I need go on? I used Verizon Wireless in August 2003
    in the above example. If the FCC gave a go-ahead to turn off the AMPS
    system, I would like to see Verizon Wireless's NEW and UPDATED coverage
    map...it would look much like a screen on a window...in areas outside of
    large cities would have little red dots of service, with white area of
    no service surrounding each tower. Of course, this wouldn't be true for
    MAJOR ARTERIES, but I'm willing to bet it would be true for much VZW's
    native rural areas.

    >>Has it got less dropped calls?.....well, no.

    >
    > This may be a push. Soft handoffs mean less drops during handoff. Less power may mean more drops...
    > ***But, part of this is just perception. Analog, as the signal gets weaker, there is more and more static until you
    > get fed up and hang up, or you drop. With digital, you just keep going until you suddenly drop. But, digital will most
    > definitly pull a usable signal out of the noise floor MUCH better than AMPS ever would, or could.


    Ok, we're not talking about quality. We're talking about USABLE signal.
    You're right, digital can do better with noise. But then again, you
    must have signal to do that with. Digital has sh*t for signal compared
    to AMPS.

    >>Can I move around to find the best spot in the fringe?....well, no.

    >
    > What??? This is just pure bullshit.


    That's right. All 280 million people in the United States live within 3
    miles of a tower from each digital wireless company...and fruits and
    vegetables grow themselves and walk into supermarket coolers. Cows line
    up on thier own to go to slaughterhouses. Oh, that's right, pigs fly in
    the United States, don't they? Oh, you're right. It's much too late in
    the year to see flying pigs in the United States. They've already gone
    to the Caribbean for the winter.

    >>Ah, there ya go! What's best for the BUSINESS, not the customers.

    >
    > Do YOU provide your services at a loss. How long does a business STAY in business if they do?
    > Not very long. The shareholders expect that they will eventually have a return on their investment.
    > This is called capitalism and this is the USA. What is good for the business IS good for the customers,
    > in the long run. A healthy company can grow and provide more services and be there to provide service.


    That's right, Americans are in favor of one-company-does everything,
    then they can sign their life over to that company for technology.
    Wait, I didn't think Americas were like that. I thought they liked
    competition.

    >>Screw the customers. They keep bitching about having a working PHONE.

    >
    > If the majority of the customer base felt that way, they would be shrinking the base quite rapidly.
    > But, NOPE, they are GROWING the base, quite rapidly. The majority is quite happy. Only a VERY
    > small minority aren't. And, of these, I'd bet many would never be happy, with ANYONE.
    > Just like YOU, I bet...


    But I'm willing to bet that a MINORITY of those problems cover a
    MAJORITY of the country.

    > Now, I know I will not convince you and you certainly won't convince me.
    > So, I will continue to consider you a Luddite. A caught in the past relic...
    > Cranium rectally inserted...


    Wow. I hope you or your decendants encounter people who don't care
    about minorities in the future. It will happen in the future that white
    American population will be the minority.

    AD
     
  10. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > Now, I know I will not convince you and you certainly won't convince me.
    > So, I will continue to consider you a Luddite. A caught in the past

    relic...
    > Cranium rectally inserted...


    You are missing the entire point that Larry has been pushing.
    I can sum it up in one word.

    POWER

    He mainly supports amps phones because it is the only
    type of phone you can get in a 3WATT version.
    He isn't saying that TDMA, CDMA or GSM is worse than
    analog phones.
    He is saying that the CDMA technology can't make up
    for the lack of transmit power.

    If they made a 3WATT CDMA phone, I bet Larry would own it.

    They use to make a 3WATT TDMA phone, and I own one.
    And I won't sell the thing for any price.

    All the SMS color screens and stuff can be put on the
    handset of a 3W digital phone if need be.
    But there is no substitute for POWER!

    As for myself, I think CDMA has been incorrectly applied to
    that form of communication.
    There is many other technologies that could be put to task
    as a better interface technology for cellular devices.
    And the technology that is chosen should be an enforced standard.

    Just like Mpeg.
    Standards work.
     
  11. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 03:23:01 GMT, "N9WOS"
    <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    >> Now, I know I will not convince you and you certainly won't convince me.
    >> So, I will continue to consider you a Luddite. A caught in the past

    >relic...
    >> Cranium rectally inserted...

    >
    >You are missing the entire point that Larry has been pushing.
    >I can sum it up in one word.
    >
    >POWER
    >
    >He mainly supports amps phones because it is the only
    >type of phone you can get in a 3WATT version.
    >He isn't saying that TDMA, CDMA or GSM is worse than
    >analog phones.
    >He is saying that the CDMA technology can't make up
    >for the lack of transmit power.
    >
    >If they made a 3WATT CDMA phone, I bet Larry would own it.


    30 watts...I want 30 watts....(c; New batteries will be invented
    that have 40AH capacity and are the size of a pinhead. My 30W
    transmitter will run for a week on unlimited N&W, no sweat.

    Thanks for your support.....I'm not near the ogre I'm made out to
    be....Some even think I'm a nice guy! It's kept me in business for 17
    years, so far....

    POWER IS OUR FRIEND......I wanna be the guy who blows the receiver in
    the "Cheater Repeater" in the Verizon mall store....(c;



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  12. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    > 30 watts...I want 30 watts....(c; New batteries will be invented
    > that have 40AH capacity and are the size of a pinhead. My 30W
    > transmitter will run for a week on unlimited N&W, no sweat.
    >
    > Thanks for your support.....I'm not near the ogre I'm made out to
    > be....Some even think I'm a nice guy! It's kept me in business for 17
    > years, so far....
    >
    > POWER IS OUR FRIEND......I wanna be the guy who blows the receiver in
    > the "Cheater Repeater" in the Verizon mall store....(c;



    Yeah, but most people living in Urbia or Sub-Urbia (it sounds like a
    disease, doesn't it?) don't understand about how power helps, especially
    in rural areas. They think it's *ONLY* because of building obstruction
    that phones don't work. They also think smaller is better except when
    it comes to food servings, dwellings, and automobiles. Smaller is
    better, even if it degrades services.

    AD
     
  13. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:25 -0600, About Dakota
    <aboutdakota@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >Yeah, but most people living in Urbia or Sub-Urbia (it sounds like a
    >disease, doesn't it?) don't understand about how power helps, especially
    >in rural areas. They think it's *ONLY* because of building obstruction
    >that phones don't work. They also think smaller is better except when
    >it comes to food servings, dwellings, and automobiles. Smaller is
    >better, even if it degrades services.
    >
    >AD
    >

    I also think some of the attacks are based on the silly idea that if
    someone near them is running an AMPS phone that it's going to deny
    them service on their little phone, which isn't true unless the system
    is swamped. It's a greenie kinda thing.

    Out where we operate, the system is never swamped.....(c;



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  14. About Dakota <aboutdakota@removemehotmail.com> wrote:

    > Yeah, but most people living in Urbia or Sub-Urbia (it sounds like a
    > disease, doesn't it?) don't understand about how power helps, especially
    > in rural areas. They think it's *ONLY* because of building obstruction
    > that phones don't work. They also think smaller is better except when
    > it comes to food servings, dwellings, and automobiles. Smaller is
    > better, even if it degrades services.


    Hm, except if you actually read what I have posted recently, you'll find
    that that isn't true about me, and I suspect it's not true of many of the
    other people who post in this group either.

    So I think this argument is a strawman...

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
     
  15. Craig

    Craig Guest

    Larry's perspective is based on the areas in which he lives and
    travels, which sounds like its very rural. In these areas, the
    evolution of the cellular industry has actually hurt users like Larry
    because the traditional A&B carriers don't want to support AMPS
    service in the such sparse areas because of the ROI, like you said.
    They may have cut AMPS channels, and even abandon service altogether
    in these areas. So I clearly understand and respect his perspective
    on power, a mega bag phone, transimission distances, etc because it
    works much better than a "toy" cdma phone he discusses. And he likes
    to reiterate they are toys, which is fine. I get a laugh out of it.
    He is old school, and remembers the days of high power mobile
    transimitters, repeaters, etc. It sounds like he was into ham at one
    time, and probably even a CB'er. Today's phones really are toys
    compared to what they used to be.

    Now, he's not talking from a business persective. Or at least I hope
    he's not or he's pretty stupid. Obviously the cell networks wouldn't
    be as robust as they are today if the customers weren't there to
    support it. And we know some of the providers have overextended
    themselves which will result in consolidation but still.. All the
    points stated about ROI, shareholders, etc are 100% true. The main
    thing to realize is that cellular service is better (in 100 different
    ways) today for 98% of the population, probably more, then it was 15
    years ago. Most couldnt even afford it back then. There's no way he
    can debate this, it is fact. Larry falls into the other 2% which is
    fine. He can talk about crappy phones, crappy range, crappy audio,
    but for most people it doesn't apply. So let him rant and rave, it's
    all in good fun. You can't take most of what he says from a business
    perspective. Keep this in mind, and hes amusing/entertaining.
     
  16. "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote in message news:<1068582383.706234@sj-nntpcache-5>...
    > "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote
    > >
    > > These are PUBLICLY traded companies, responsible to the shareholder.
    > > It is THEIR $$ that they are spending. Hopefully in the right way.

    >
    > Private companies would have more leeway to shoot themselves
    > in the foot but most would make the same decision. Cell service
    > is not considered a "utility" and is not regulated in this manner. Lots
    > of rural areas lost service when they deregulated the airlines. Simply
    > not cost effective.
    >
    > -Quick


    Absolutely agree. If we want to make cell phones a utility, like
    electricity, then universal coverage (and correspondingly, governement
    $$$) makes sense. If we want cell phones to be a business, like most
    consumer electronics, then excellent coverage out in the boonies does
    not make sense.
     
  17. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    Nope, sorry, that isn't the reason, for ME anyway....

    I just get fed up hearing the bitching about something that is
    CLEARLY better, in most all respects for the majority of users.

    But, to each his own.

    BTW, I am one that has and knows how to use Yagis, repeaters, etc.
    Yes, 800Mhz stuff. I also used to crank up the power on the old Moto
    transceivers as far as it would go. 'Blueprint' transceivers on the Marconi.
    Squeeze every little bit of "power" out I could. Like I said, been there, done
    that, so I DO understand where you are coming from.

    I used to be a "power" guy also.

    But, in MOST places, It just isn't necessary anymore.
    THAT is my point.



    "Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message news:3fb23692.222112@news.knology.net...
    > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:25 -0600, About Dakota
    > <aboutdakota@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Yeah, but most people living in Urbia or Sub-Urbia (it sounds like a
    > >disease, doesn't it?) don't understand about how power helps, especially
    > >in rural areas. They think it's *ONLY* because of building obstruction
    > >that phones don't work. They also think smaller is better except when
    > >it comes to food servings, dwellings, and automobiles. Smaller is
    > >better, even if it degrades services.
    > >
    > >AD
    > >

    > I also think some of the attacks are based on the silly idea that if
    > someone near them is running an AMPS phone that it's going to deny
    > them service on their little phone, which isn't true unless the system
    > is swamped. It's a greenie kinda thing.
    >
    > Out where we operate, the system is never swamped.....(c;
    >
    >
    >
    > Larry W4CSC
    >
    > "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
    >
     
  18. Craig <cgafah@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Larry's perspective is based on the areas in which he lives and
    > travels, which sounds like its very rural. In these areas, the
    > evolution of the cellular industry has actually hurt users like Larry


    No doubt. Universal coverage would help me in the neighborhood around my
    house, too. I'm right on the edge of coverage, as I've already stated in
    the past couple days and have stated previously too.

    The reality is that if carriers had to provide it, they'd either end up
    spending so much money and getting so little return that they'd go under, or
    our prices would go way, way up.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
     
  19. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    > Nope, sorry, that isn't the reason, for ME anyway....
    >
    > I just get fed up hearing the bitching about something that is
    > CLEARLY better, in most all respects for the majority of users.
    >
    > But, to each his own.
    >
    > BTW, I am one that has and knows how to use Yagis, repeaters, etc.
    > Yes, 800Mhz stuff. I also used to crank up the power on the old Moto
    > transceivers as far as it would go. 'Blueprint' transceivers on the Marconi.
    > Squeeze every little bit of "power" out I could. Like I said, been there, done
    > that, so I DO understand where you are coming from.
    >
    > I used to be a "power" guy also.
    >
    > But, in MOST places, It just isn't necessary anymore.
    > THAT is my point.


    I would tend to disagree. In MOST places it is necessary to have power.
    It's in the populated cities you don't need anything. I would be
    willing to MOST of the United States has variable coverage, but MOST of
    the people never the farmland. THAT is my point.

    AD
     
  20. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 03:23:01 GMT, "N9WOS"
    <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >There is many other technologies that could be put to task
    >as a better interface technology for cellular devices.


    What do you have against CDMA?

    >And the technology that is chosen should be an enforced standard.


    >Just like Mpeg.
    >Standards work.


    MPEG isn't enforced. You're free to encode video any way you like.

    Remember, the government (that's who does enforcement) usually does
    everything worse than anyone else.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?