Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-320858.09401817112007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author
> was clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
>
No- you're clueless on a totally different level. You don't have any clue
at all about the technology, as shown by your blind acceptance of
information found in the net. This thread has cemented the fact that you
know nothing and havew no first hand experience with any of this stuff.
You are simply an adolescent fanboi who gets all information from someplace
else, without knowing the accuracy of that data.
"DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
news:7cG%i.60018$RX.36601@newssvr11.news.prodigy.n et...
> Oxford wrote:
>
> [snip drivel}
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>
> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>
> My gawd...you are so clueless.
And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at the
top.
Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
> news:7cG%i.60018$RX.36601@newssvr11.news.prodigy.n et...
>> Oxford wrote:
>>
>> [snip drivel}
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>>
>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>>
>> My gawd...you are so clueless.
>
>
> And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at
> the top.
I know. Isn't that funny. Its gonna take more than hand cleaner to wipe
that egg off his face, ya think?
Oxford wrote:
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
Posted by "ace_92029"
"http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
[quote]
Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US government in January
of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
sold) to cover the entire country.
> The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
> day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
> cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
> must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
> experience. And here's the best part.
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
http://tinyurl.com/ywpwdn
Authored by: By Cade Metz in San Francisco
[quote]
The FCC calls the 700-MHz band "beachfront property." As TV stations
vacate this wireless real estate, making the move to digital
transmission, it could potentially house a nationwide wireless network
that's faster than WiFi and more adept at passing through walls.
Would you like salsa to go with the egg on yer face?
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> of 2008.
> > it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.
>
> So much for your mantra "I only post facts..."
>
> Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I
> wish/hope is true..."
it's still a factual piece, and does exist on the web, problem is it's
contained inside a subscriber only forum.
not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place, but i
agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided.
either way, it's an interesting take on what could happen with the
upcoming wireless spectrum auction, it's all over for cell firms if
Apple does it.
Apple has the money and the clout to pull it off, cell phone providers
don't.
> > So much for your mantra "I only post facts..."
> >
> > Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I
> > wish/hope is true..."
>
> it's still a factual piece,
No, it isn't- I already poined out the technical and economic factual
errors.
> and does exist on the web,
Which means it must be true, eh?
> problem is it's
> contained inside a subscriber only forum.
You still could have credited the author, even if a link wasn't available.
> not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place,
Because YOU posted it without an attribution!
> but i
> agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided.
You shouldn't have posted it, except in a fiction forum!
> either way, it's an interesting take on what could happen with the
> upcoming wireless spectrum auction, it's all over for cell firms if
> Apple does it.
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <7cG%i.60018$RX.36601@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net >,
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>
>> [snip drivel}
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2rcmn3
>>
>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>>
>> My gawd...you are so clueless.
>
> OK, so that last link is to a forum which, apparently, simply takes the
> Usenet articles and places them into its forum structure.
And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> > it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.
>>
>> So much for your mantra "I only post facts..."
>>
>> Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I
>> wish/hope is true..."
>
> it's still a factual piece, and does exist on the web, problem is it's
> contained inside a subscriber only forum.
What makes you say it's factual. Just because it's posted on the web? How
about all of the holes that have been blown in it and your quick retreat
from its content?
The rf spectrum is part of our infrastructure. It should not be taxed by
selling it to the highest bidder. The current process ensures that any use
will be expensive enough to repay the auction price.
Infrastructure needs to be subsidized.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> Now you understand why Apple didn't want to be locked into the old 3G
> standard.
>
> As you may know, AT&T bought Aloha Partners 700Mhz... about 10 Mhz or
> about half the country. They need more. The market has vastly
> underestimated Steve's influence at AT&T as well as the money Apple is
> getting from AT&T.
>
> The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
> day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
> cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
> must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
> experience. And here's the best part.
>
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
> better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
> analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
> as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
> which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
> expenses, etc..
>
> Apple could pull of the coup d'etat of the century, if they said, buy
> your cell phone and use our Wimaxx to dial any number in the US and
> receive any call fo the monthly price of $0 for 2 years.... the iPhone
> would be the hottest product even more so than the Razor was... just
> think of a cell that is free for 2 years.. that's huge... what does
> Apple gain from this...they could probably sell 100 million iPhones at
> $299 each over a 2 year period or less and own the cell phone market.
>
> Then charge $50 per month for unlimited calling plans... still a good
> deal... and half or more of that would be profit! At say $30 per month
> multiplied by 100 million iPhones that's 3 billion a month or 36 billion
> per year... or $40 per share in earnings added to whatever else they
> sell... you're talking a stock price over $1,000 a share... maybe even
> $1,500.
>
> If this takes 2-3-4-5 years... that's a 10 bagger! Apple will be the
> largest publicly traded company in the country and own both the computer
> and cell phone market.
>
> ---
> > Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> > 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> > of 2008.
>
> As we all know by now - Oxtard is (always) wrong.
>
> Here is the real deal...
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...l?tk=nl_dnxnws
>
> Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in
> an auction be held in the U.S. in January
>
> The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners,
> according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
You are forgetting that Apple and Google are partners in many areas,
Eric even sits on Apple's Board of Directors so what Steve says, Eric
does.
Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
As Todd mentioned the deadline for submitting bids is coming up soon.
Apple would probably use a shell company to protect the use until the
iPhone using this band is ready.
MacWorld is coming up very soon, only 58 days away! So we should know
something by that morning. (the Keynote is on the 15th)
> Oxford wrote:
> > Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> > 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> > of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> > sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> [quote]
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> > The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
> > day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
> > cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
> > must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
> > experience. And here's the best part.
> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> > through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ywpwdn
> Authored by: By Cade Metz in San Francisco
> [quote]
> The FCC calls the 700-MHz band "beachfront property." As TV stations
> vacate this wireless real estate, making the move to digital
> transmission, it could potentially house a nationwide wireless network
> that's faster than WiFi and more adept at passing through walls.
>
> Would you like salsa to go with the egg on yer face?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.
>
> Oxfart posts something here, and when questioned about its source, goes
> to that forum and says "but look, it's published elsewhere"--when in
> reality that "forum" simply reposts whatever anyone posts to the Usenet.
they are not talking about that elmo. what i posted came from yahoo's
message board, not usenet. learn to read.
> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
>
> >i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
>
> Why don't you just tell us who the author was?
it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
found it.
Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
Posted by "ace_92029"
"http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
i did feel like digging it up, so now go bitch at the author, not me. i
was just the carrier pigeon.
> No- you're clueless on a totally different level. You don't have any clue
> at all about the technology, as shown by your blind acceptance of
> information found in the net. This thread has cemented the fact that you
> know nothing and havew no first hand experience with any of this stuff.
> You are simply an adolescent fanboi who gets all information from someplace
> else, without knowing the accuracy of that data.
> Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
>>
>> >i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
>>
>> Why don't you just tell us who the author was?
>
> it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
> found it.
>
> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go bitch at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
>
That would be the clueless carrier pigeon, newbie.
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-F8D3E2.22071017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> No- you're clueless on a totally different level. You don't have any
>> clue at all about the technology, as shown by your blind acceptance
>> of information found in the net. This thread has cemented the fact
>> that you know nothing and havew no first hand experience with any of
>> this stuff. You are simply an adolescent fanboi who gets all
>> information from someplace else, without knowing the accuracy of that
>> data.
>
> why so obsessed with me then?
It's my civic responsibility to expose you for the fraud that you are. On
top of that. it's fun making you look like an idiot.
>
> does telling the truth really hurt you that much?
Doesn't hurt me at all, newbie- I do it all the time. You might want to
try it sometime.
> > Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
> >
> > My gawd...you are so clueless.
>
> And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at the
> top.
talk about clueless Kevin, you win the award for the above comment.
what you pulled up was just a mirror of usenet in a phpBB format.
the post didn't originate with me, you were just too clueless to
understand that.
the mildly smarter DTC found the correct info, just as I had said.
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
>> full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
>
And there lies the problem, newbie- most of us would rather post something
factual, as opposed to "interesting". The fact that you posted it all
simply shows that you know nothing about the subject.
Oxford wrote:
> Jack Hamilton <jfh@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
>>
>>> i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
>> Why don't you just tell us who the author was?
>
> it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
> found it.
>
> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
> Posted by "ace_92029"
> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go bitch at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
Yes, and that guy is SO CREDITABLE!
What I am saying is that you should not believe everything you hear on
the internet and usenet
Oxford wrote:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
>>> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
>>> of 2008.
>> As we all know by now - Oxtard is (always) wrong.
>>
>> Here is the real deal...
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...l?tk=nl_dnxnws
>>
>> Google is making the necessary preparations to bid for wireless spectrum in
>> an auction be held in the U.S. in January
>>
>> The company is planning to finance that bid alone, without partners,
>> according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
>
> You are forgetting that Apple and Google are partners in many areas,
> Eric even sits on Apple's Board of Directors so what Steve says, Eric
> does.
So? They don't need Apple to slow them down anymore.
>
> Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
No, Apple cannot outbid google.
> it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
> found it.
So you plagarised it, then denied writing it when told how full of holes
it was, then lied and said you couldn't post a link because it was posted
on a subscription-only forum.
Nice usenet cred you have there, Oxy!
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go bitch at the author, not me.. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
At 7 Sep 2007, 12:12*pm, Oxford wrote:
> " I only use facts which helps my cause"
You're a carrier pigeon who needs a fact checker...
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-68CA0E.22145017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
Yes, you "don't care" about the truth - that has been proven repeatedly.
Now... if you'd admit to trolling & sock puppets primarily to be an asshole,
we'd actually be getting somewhere.
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network 
Linear Mode
