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.
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.
> 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.
> > 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.
"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.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-8DD1AD.21571517112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> why are you so obsessed with me?
Why are YOU so "obsessed" with trolling groups with fanboy crap?
Why are YOU post complete crap where it doesn't belong.
Why do YOU try so hard to be a complete ass?
Answer those - and you will have answered your question.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-716365.22484117112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>
> apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
> date.
>
> yes, you're welcome!
You troll and post complete fiction - that is not being "helpful"
It IS going out of your way to be an asshole.
Get a clue - no one wants your "exciting news"
It is NOT "news" and certainly NOT "exciting".
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-BA7A9E.21421217112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
>
Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
In article
<linuxlovesosx-BA7A9E.21421217112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
> 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.
I do not think your "so" follows.
> 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.
I think if you check you will find that Google's market cap is currently
larger than Apple's.
Googling, Apple appears to have about 15 billion in cash currently.
Google had about 11 billion back in March; I don't have a current
figure. But either company could borrow more if needed.
Oxford wrote:
> 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.
Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.
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.
No, you would be the clueless fanboi who posted something you didn't
understand without attribution so it was your words and you do it just
to be an annoying troll.
Oxford wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
Sure it did. Anytime you write something without attribution you are
using your words which means you are the author and understand the topic
and agree that it is correct.
There are numerous ways you could have prevented your yourself from
looking like a fanboi troll such as simply:
Including the URL and putting the content in quotes.
Stating "I found this but I don't understand it so could it be true?"
etc
>
> the mildly smarter DTC found the correct info, just as I had said.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
>
> the joke is on you Kevin!
Oxford wrote:
> "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.
But how would anyone know that about what you posted because you read
the fanboi marketing speak bait and wrote it as the author because you
believed it?
Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> why are you so obsessed with me?
I can't speak for him but your whole purpose for posting is obviously to
troll and annoy people who know more than you. You could solve your
problem by going away or posting in a normal non-fanboi fashion.
Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> why are you so obsessed with me?
>> Why are you so obsessed with making yerself look like a fool, fool?
>
> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
I seriously doubt anyone here wants to hear your "exciting news".
>
> apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
> date.
>
> yes, you're welcome!
> 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 the carrier asshole. And we don't need to bitch at the
original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
without attrributing it to anyone else.
If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
ATT carries Apple phones.
If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
other carrier's groups.
But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.
If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
them.
David wrote:
> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
> 154469.22035017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>> 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 the carrier asshole. And we don't need to bitch at the
> original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
> without attrributing it to anyone else.
>
> If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
> even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
> incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
> ATT carries Apple phones.
>
> If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
> could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
> other carrier's groups.
>
> But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
> news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
> your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
> points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
> understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
> your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.
>
> If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
> penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
> Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
> them.
> > 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.
>
> Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
> you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.
i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
didn't. deal with it.
> > you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> > exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>
> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.
i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network 
Linear Mode
