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.
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.
>
> 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.
>
> ---
Its not going to happen, Google is going to own it.
Oxford wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>> Its not going to happen, Google is going to own it.
>
> nah, since google said they weren't going to make a phone what would be
> the point?
>
>> There is nothing you can do to prevent it either
>
> and why would i care?
You don't NEED to be making a phone to buy/use the 700mhz range.
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.
Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the US. When
will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the Universe, you
screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the rest of
the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the US
complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they travel?
--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.
73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Well, here's the word. <loads of drivel snipped>
Music More than 6 million songs. 99¢ each.
Movies New and classic films from $9.99.
Music Videos More than 11,000, $1.99 each.
TV Shows 600 shows at $1.99 an episode.
iPod Games $4.99 each. Countless hours of fun.
Oxford wrote:
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx.
Ok, now you have real showed your ignorance.
There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in the
world did you get that idea???
Oh, you're thinking that there there is a vast nationwide coverage of
UHF TV stations out there...sorry, UHF is mostly in built up urban
cities using a max of five MEGAwatts (circular polarization), but it
could adapted to ten megawatts in one plane. You don't seem to
understand that two-way communications requires reciprocal power levels.
And they are NOT "networked" together. The ONLY thing already in
place...are a few towers in urban areas, but no radio infrastructure in
place.
Damn- you really are that stupid. You made at least a half-dozen basic
technical areas in this drivel. In addition, you made almost as many
incorrect assumptions about basiuc technology and spectrum knowledge.
>
> 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..
>
Don't make yourself look even more clueless than you already look by
parroting marketing speak you don't understand.
The existing TV network isn't two way. It consists of a minimal amount
of high powered transmitters which are one way only and in no way can be
easily converted to do anything related to two way without almost a
complete rebuild and the addition of a significant amount of sites. An
"Instant network" is only bait marketing speak for clueless fanbois like
you.
Actual installations require almost a similar amount of equipment (and
maintenance) as cellphone data systems because sufficient sites have to
be installed to receive the signals from the weaker mobiles.
Oxford wrote:
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx.
False...There is no such thing as a "network already built out".
> Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
False...There is no such thing as an "instant network".
> So reception is
> better, distance travels longer and
False (in your context)...Any distant reception requires a high gain
antenna mounted on a roof in most cases. Unlike the internal antenna of
a cellular handset.
> coverage is nationwide just as
> analogue TV is
False...UHF television coverage is not "nationwide", its mostly in urban
areas.
> and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> what cell phone companies compete with
False...the backhaul costs to the back bone would be similar.
> you only need 1/4 of the sites
> as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use.
False...You're making the simplistic assumption based on signal lever
propagation and ignoring topographic terrain issues.
Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in news:5q7l4lFukekcU1
@mid.individual.net:
> Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the
US. When
> will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the
Universe, you
> screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the
rest of
> the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the
US
> complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they
travel?
>
>
>
All these odd modulation schemes and incompatible systems is used
in the USA to prevent, or at least retard, churning, Simon.
There are more SELLular companies than there are customers all
trying to provide minimal service at maximum profits, so the
customers all hate their carrier, as you can easily see on these
newsgroups. So, to prevent customers from jumping ship at the
first opportunity, we invented incompatible phone systems and the
government lawyers at FCC are constantly bribed to allow it,
unlike broadcasting where FCC forces them all to use the same TV
and Radio standards, for instance. So, the American consumer is
screwed and the country is sinking under the weight of dead
SELLphones noone wants or can use. FCC cooperates further
forcing us to "upgrade to GPS", in the name of the bogus
"Homeland Security", the extension of the false flag operation of
9/11, an inside job, not Arabs with boxcutters.
Profits are way up....service is way down. Hell, Verizon doesn't
even provide internet service to its SELLular customers.
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-11-17, Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote:
> Great, so another NON-standard allocation will be used in the US. When
> will you people learn that the US is NOT the centre of the Universe, you
> screwed yourselves over by going 850MHz GSM rather than the the rest of
> the world's 900MHz GSM standard. How often does someone in the US
> complain because their 850MHz device is useless when they travel?
While I agree with you that the usage of different frequencies is stupid
(with the exception of 1900, supposedly because 1800 was already in use
by the military), I would like to point out that every GSM phone I've owned
since switching to T-Mobile USA in 2005 has been a quad-band phone, rendering
that problem irrelevant.
> Oxford wrote:
> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx.
>
> False...There is no such thing as a "network already built out".
>
> > Instant nationwide network that goes
> > through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
>
> False...There is no such thing as an "instant network".
>
> > So reception is
> > better, distance travels longer and
>
> False (in your context)...Any distant reception requires a high gain
> antenna mounted on a roof in most cases. Unlike the internal antenna of
> a cellular handset.
>
> > coverage is nationwide just as
> > analogue TV is
>
> False...UHF television coverage is not "nationwide", its mostly in urban
> areas.
>
> > and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> > what cell phone companies compete with
>
> False...the backhaul costs to the back bone would be similar.
>
> > you only need 1/4 of the sites
> > as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use.
>
> False...You're making the simplistic assumption based on signal lever
> propagation and ignoring topographic terrain issues.
>
> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
i'll be sure to let the author know your thoughts.
> > 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..
> >
> Don't make yourself look even more clueless than you already look by
> parroting marketing speak you don't understand.
>
> The existing TV network isn't two way. It consists of a minimal amount
> of high powered transmitters which are one way only and in no way can be
> easily converted to do anything related to two way without almost a
> complete rebuild and the addition of a significant amount of sites. An
> "Instant network" is only bait marketing speak for clueless fanbois like
> you.
>
> Actual installations require almost a similar amount of equipment (and
> maintenance) as cellphone data systems because sufficient sites have to
> be installed to receive the signals from the weaker mobiles.
it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.
> Oxford wrote:
> > As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> > little to change things for Wimaxx.
>
> Ok, now you have real showed your ignorance.
>
> There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in the
> world did you get that idea???
>
> Oh, you're thinking that there there is a vast nationwide coverage of
> UHF TV stations out there...sorry, UHF is mostly in built up urban
> cities using a max of five MEGAwatts (circular polarization), but it
> could adapted to ten megawatts in one plane. You don't seem to
> understand that two-way communications requires reciprocal power levels.
>
> And they are NOT "networked" together. The ONLY thing already in
> place...are a few towers in urban areas, but no radio infrastructure in
> place.
>
> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...yer still clueless for
buying into that.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
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.
YOU cite something (and like it was yours) - it makes YOU clueless!!
It DOES prove that YOU know nothing about the subject(s) you prattle on
about.
>
> it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.
So you are acknowledging that you are just a clueless fanboi with no
credibility who simply parrots stuff because you don't have the
knowledge to check your sources and your only purpose for posting is to
annoy people here who have a stronger technology background than you but
who don't drink apples' kool aid?
When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.
Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
>>> little to change things for Wimaxx.
>> Ok, now you have real showed your ignorance.
>>
>> There is no "network is already built out for analogue TV". Where in the
>> world did you get that idea???
>>
>> Oh, you're thinking that there there is a vast nationwide coverage of
>> UHF TV stations out there...sorry, UHF is mostly in built up urban
>> cities using a max of five MEGAwatts (circular polarization), but it
>> could adapted to ten megawatts in one plane. You don't seem to
>> understand that two-way communications requires reciprocal power levels.
>>
>> And they are NOT "networked" together. The ONLY thing already in
>> place...are a few towers in urban areas, but no radio infrastructure in
>> place.
>>
>> My gawd...how can you be so clueless.
>
> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
Sorry, you were the author. Those were your words. You didn't quote
anyone or provide any sort of reference that it wasn't the result of
*your* research and validation.
> > that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
> > clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
>
> You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...
correct, but the author's info wasn't linkable, so i left it off.
at least he is right on track, in 60ish days we'll know for sure if
Apple can't pull it off, if so, the entire cell market vastly changes.
Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>>> that could only be true if i was the author, so you mean the author was
>>> clueless, not me. thanks for playing.
>> You didn't say you were quoting, nevertheless...
>
> correct, but the author's info wasn't linkable, so i left it off.
Then you should have included it in quotes and at least credit to the
web page you found it on any other citations.
> at least he is right on track, in 60ish days we'll know for sure if
> Apple can't pull it off, if so, the entire cell market vastly changes.
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.
Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network 
Linear Mode
