John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:a2iil2p81032v9h0hosukd5fidbeq6tdpc@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:37:03 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
> <4559480e$0$34559$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>> The key words there are "non-LOS". In such cases, differences vary
>>> considerably from location to location, and no frequency generalization
>>> is truly valid; i.e., there are cases where 1900 will work better than
>>> 850 and vice versa. As in some many other things, it all depends.
>>
>>Yes, different environmental models are used to approximate the median
>>characteristics. And on average, when a large number of measurements are
>>taken, higher frequencies will incur greater attenuation.
>>
>>In typical environments here really is a significant, statistical and
>>practical difference between the two bands.
>
> The empirical studies I've seen are anything but conclusive.
>

Seen where? On Google? How many have you personally conducted?
Personally written papers on? What professional experience do you have to
back up your claims? What degree do you hold that gives you an educational
backround in this arena?

John Navas- the Usenet equivalent of a parrot. Capable of repeating
anything without comprehending a word that he says.