Re: Virgin Mobile to Begin Offering $40 Unlimited Prepaid 3G BroadbandService Tomorrow

On 8/26/2010 4:46 PM, Nessnet wrote:

> YOU have argued (extremely unsuccessfully) in the past concerning your
> BELIEF that
> the physics of wave propagation don't apply when discussing 800Mhz vs
> 1900Mhz.

He almost certainly does not really believe what he writes about 800 Mhz
versus 1900 MHz so it's rather irrelevant. The facts regarding PCS
versus cellular have been cited endlessly over the past decade.

The bottom line is that Sprint and T-Mobile are at a significant
disadvantage in terms of coverage. In suburban areas is very difficult
to add enough towers for good coverage because of the NIMBY issue. In
rural areas where NIMBY is not a problem a PCS carrier needs to install
more cells because of the shorter range of 1900 MHz. In dense urban
areas the concentration of towers is higher than the minimum required
(for complete coverage) in order to increase capacity, but even there
the PCS carriers are at a disadvantage because the higher frequency
signals penetrate walls and floors less well.

The Bay Area is a good place to look at quality of service issue because
the terrain is diverse and because there is mixture of urban, suburban,
and rural areas very close to each other. You can use T-Mobile and
Sprint without a problem in the dense urban cores, but out in the
suburbs and rural areas their quality of service is unacceptable.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:20:54 -0700, in
<4c77050e$0$1597$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/26/2010 4:46 PM, Nessnet wrote:
>
>> YOU have argued (extremely unsuccessfully) in the past concerning your
>> BELIEF that
>> the physics of wave propagation don't apply when discussing 800Mhz vs
>> 1900Mhz.
>
>He almost certainly does not really believe what he writes about 800 Mhz
>versus 1900 MHz so it's rather irrelevant. The facts regarding PCS
>versus cellular have been cited endlessly over the past decade.

Wrong again.

Radio Propagation by Prof. Randy H. Katz, University of California,
Berkeley
<http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>.

Shows that frequency isn't an issue in outdoor range,
and is a relatively minor issue in indoor penetration.

Radio interface system planning for GSM/GPRS/UMTS
By Jukka Lempiäinen, Matti Manninen
<http://books.google.com/books?id=sC07kmasEWsC&pg=PA86>

"It should be noted that some studies have shown that the average
penetration loss for some types of building decrease when the
frequency is increased, e.g. from 900 MHz to 1800 MHz."

>The bottom line is that Sprint and T-Mobile are at a significant
>disadvantage in terms of coverage. In suburban areas is very difficult
>to add enough towers for good coverage because of the NIMBY issue. In
>rural areas where NIMBY is not a problem a PCS carrier needs to install
>more cells because of the shorter range of 1900 MHz. In dense urban
>areas the concentration of towers is higher than the minimum required
>(for complete coverage) in order to increase capacity, but even there
>the PCS carriers are at a disadvantage because the higher frequency
>signals penetrate walls and floors less well.

Wrong again. See above.

>The Bay Area is a good place to look at quality of service issue because
>the terrain is diverse and because there is mixture of urban, suburban,
>and rural areas very close to each other. You can use T-Mobile and
>Sprint without a problem in the dense urban cores, but out in the
>suburbs and rural areas their quality of service is unacceptable.

Wrong again. T-Mobile and Sprint are comparable to other major carriers
here in the greater Bay Area, as I know because I actually use them,
whereas you have no actual experience with them, relying instead on
supposition and made-up "facts".

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

On 8/26/2010 8:35 PM, John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:20:54 -0700, in
> <4c77050e$0$1597$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/2010 4:46 PM, Nessnet wrote:
>>
>>> YOU have argued (extremely unsuccessfully) in the past concerning your
>>> BELIEF that
>>> the physics of wave propagation don't apply when discussing 800Mhz vs
>>> 1900Mhz.
>>
>> He almost certainly does not really believe what he writes about 800 Mhz
>> versus 1900 MHz so it's rather irrelevant. The facts regarding PCS
>> versus cellular have been cited endlessly over the past decade.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Radio Propagation by Prof. Randy H. Katz, University of California,
> Berkeley
> <http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>.
>
> Shows that frequency isn't an issue in outdoor range,
> and is a relatively minor issue in indoor penetration.
>
> Radio interface system planning for GSM/GPRS/UMTS
> By Jukka Lempiäinen, Matti Manninen
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=sC07kmasEWsC&pg=PA86>
>
> "It should be noted that some studies have shown that the average
> penetration loss for some types of building decrease when the
> frequency is increased, e.g. from 900 MHz to 1800 MHz."
>
>> The bottom line is that Sprint and T-Mobile are at a significant
>> disadvantage in terms of coverage. In suburban areas is very difficult
>> to add enough towers for good coverage because of the NIMBY issue. In
>> rural areas where NIMBY is not a problem a PCS carrier needs to install
>> more cells because of the shorter range of 1900 MHz. In dense urban
>> areas the concentration of towers is higher than the minimum required
>> (for complete coverage) in order to increase capacity, but even there
>> the PCS carriers are at a disadvantage because the higher frequency
>> signals penetrate walls and floors less well.
>
> Wrong again. See above.
>

You are leaving some serious consulting income on the table. Instead of
your "iphone now comes in two colors" press releases you could go to the
obviously clueless carriers who operate on PCS and show them how they
are wasting money by installing sites at closer spacings than their
competitors who are on 800 MHz.

When VZW owns both 800 & 1,900 licenses in a market they always put EvDO
data on 1,900 because that equipment is colocated. Data is a lot more
tolerant than voice for the end user and it is well known in practice
that 1,900 doesn't work as well at the same site spacing as 800 MHz. And
for an interesting experiment you can demonstrate yourself if you know
you are in an area using both bands. Take any VZW phone that has both 1X
and EvDO and go to a weak signal area like say in a metal building and
watch which signal will always disappear first due to effects of the
higher frequencies.



>> The Bay Area is a good place to look at quality of service issue because
>> the terrain is diverse and because there is mixture of urban, suburban,
>> and rural areas very close to each other. You can use T-Mobile and
>> Sprint without a problem in the dense urban cores, but out in the
>> suburbs and rural areas their quality of service is unacceptable.
>
> Wrong again. T-Mobile and Sprint are comparable to other major carriers
> here in the greater Bay Area, as I know because I actually use them,
> whereas you have no actual experience with them, relying instead on
> supposition and made-up "facts".
>

On 8/27/2010 4:39 AM, George wrote:

<snip>

> When VZW owns both 800 & 1,900 licenses in a market they always put EvDO
> data on 1,900 because that equipment is colocated. Data is a lot more
> tolerant than voice for the end user and it is well known in practice
> that 1,900 doesn't work as well at the same site spacing as 800 MHz.

This is a key factor in the Bay Area where it's very difficult and time
consuming to be able to construct towers in suburban areas. The reason
that T-Mobile and Sprint are consistently rated as having much poorer
coverage in this area is not because they don't want to install towers
with closer spacing, it's because they are so often stymied in their
efforts to do so. PCS was late to the game _and_ PCS requires far more
towers. OTOH I've spent a lot of time in South Florida, and Sprint,
T-Mobile, and Verizon (all on 1900 MHz because AT&T ended up with both
the A & B sides of 800 MHz after the Cingular/SBC acquisition of AT&T
Wireless) have great service because the terrain is flat and it's very
easy to install as many towers as you need.

Outside the urban/suburban core area, they (T-Mobile and Sprint) often
don't even try to install 1900 MHz coverage, as their maps clearly show.
At least Sprint allows roaming onto Verizon when there is no Sprint
signal at all (but not, unfortunately, when there is still a weak Sprint
signal). But T-Mobile's maps simply show no coverage in those areas.

T-Mobile makes no secret of their coverage limitations, indeed in my
experience they make it abundantly clear, even in their stores, that
their coverage is limited, and it's adequate for those that never
venture out of the city. I keep my T-Mobile prepaid account active since
it's only $10 a year, but I use the phone only for testing purposes, and
for when I travel to Europe and Asia where I put in a different prepaid
SIM card. In the Bay Area T-Mobile has been improving, but it will never
catch up with AT&T or Verizon.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:20:39 -0700, in
<4c77adc2$0$1601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/27/2010 4:39 AM, George wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> When VZW owns both 800 & 1,900 licenses in a market they always put EvDO
>> data on 1,900 because that equipment is colocated. Data is a lot more
>> tolerant than voice for the end user and it is well known in practice
>> that 1,900 doesn't work as well at the same site spacing as 800 MHz.
>
>This is a key factor in the Bay Area where it's very difficult and time
>consuming to be able to construct towers in suburban areas. The reason
>that T-Mobile and Sprint are consistently rated as having much poorer
>coverage in this area is not because they don't want to install towers
>with closer spacing, it's because they are so often stymied in their
>efforts to do so.

Wrong again:
Federal law now prevents the blocking of radio towers by municipalities.
<http://www.varnumlaw.com/Services/Cable-Telecommunications/WiMAX-Wi-Fi-and-Cell-Towers>
"On November 18, 2009 the FCC issued an order setting 'shot clocks' of
90 and 150 days for municipal action on cell tower zoning requests.

>PCS was late to the game _and_ PCS requires far more
>towers.

Wrong again:
Radio Propagation by Prof. Randy H. Katz, University of California,
Berkeley <http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>.

>T-Mobile makes no secret of their coverage limitations, indeed in my
>experience they make it abundantly clear, even in their stores, that
>their coverage is limited, and it's adequate for those that never
>venture out of the city.

Wrong again:
T-Mobile coverage is actually very good in areas people actually care
about.

>I keep my T-Mobile prepaid account active since
>it's only $10 a year, but I use the phone only for testing purposes,

In other words, you have no real experience (as usual).

>and
>for when I travel to Europe and Asia where I put in a different prepaid
>SIM card. In the Bay Area T-Mobile has been improving, but it will never
>catch up with AT&T or Verizon.

Wrong again:
It's actually quite good in the Bay Area, as confirmed by performance
data I've posted here recently. (You provide no real data, just your
usual supposition and made-up "facts".)

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all

As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal takes place due to properties of the medium (air in
most cases). Path loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE WAVELENGTH of the operating frequency and the
distance between the transmitter and receiver. The path loss is derived from the Friis transmission equation and is
defined as:

Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/λ) dB

where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and λ is the WAVELENGTH .

Johnny, You DO know the relationship between wavelength and frequency???

On 8/27/2010 10:18 PM, Nessnet wrote:
> Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that
> you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
>
> As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal
> takes place due to properties of the medium (air in most cases). Path
> loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE WAVELENGTH of the
> operating frequency and the distance between the transmitter and
> receiver. The path loss is derived from the Friis transmission equation
> and is defined as:
>
> Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/λ) dB
>
> where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and λ is
> the WAVELENGTH .
>
> Johnny, You DO know the relationship between wavelength and frequency???
>
>
>

Unfortunately it isn't unusual for someone who doesn't have a science
background to cherry pick papers they don't understand to try to prove
their point. Seems to be most common with politicians and writers
trying to look knowledgeable.

On 8/28/2010 4:52 AM, George wrote:

<snip>

> Unfortunately it isn't unusual for someone who doesn't have a science
> background to cherry pick papers they don't understand to try to prove
> their point.

There are calculators available online that calculate the losses,
including losses through walls, of different frequencies at a given
distance. The fact is that he almost certainly does know that what he's
writing is untrue, which is why he never has any citations to try to
prove his points.

Some people are concerned that there is the vast group of people out
there that need to be protected by responding every one of his posts to
correct his errors but correcting his errors could consume your whole life.

What's amusing about the 1900 MHz versus 800 MHz issue is that even the
1900 MHz carriers admit the issue. If you've ever been to a hearing on
placement of cell towers, which I have, one question that invariably is
raised by planning commissioners and city council members is "why do you
need a tower here, other carriers are able to cover this area with
towers located further away?" The response is invariably the same, 'the
technology we use is different and can't work from that distance.'

What works against Sprint and T-Mobile is how difficult it is to site
new towers in areas with weak coverage. Steve Jobs understated the
problem when he said it could take two years. Contrary to what some
people believe, local governments still have a lot of leeway in where
they allow towers, they can just no longer deny permits or zoning
changes arbitrarily or for the wrong reasons.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:44:50 -0700, in
<4c79210f$0$1642$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/28/2010 4:52 AM, George wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Unfortunately it isn't unusual for someone who doesn't have a science
>> background to cherry pick papers they don't understand to try to prove
>> their point.
>
>There are calculators available online that calculate the losses,
>including losses through walls, of different frequencies at a given
>distance. The fact is that he almost certainly does know that what he's
>writing is untrue, which is why he never has any citations to try to
>prove his points.

Wrong again:
I've posted authoritative papers. Did you miss them again?
You post anecdotes, suppositions, and made-up "facts".

>What's amusing about the 1900 MHz versus 800 MHz issue is that even the
>1900 MHz carriers admit the issue. If you've ever been to a hearing on
>placement of cell towers, which I have, one question that invariably is
>raised by planning commissioners and city council members is "why do you
>need a tower here, other carriers are able to cover this area with
>towers located further away?" The response is invariably the same, 'the
>technology we use is different and can't work from that distance.'

Made-up vague nonsense, not real proof (as usual).

>What works against Sprint and T-Mobile is how difficult it is to site
>new towers in areas with weak coverage. Steve Jobs understated the
>problem when he said it could take two years. Contrary to what some
>people believe, local governments still have a lot of leeway in where
>they allow towers, they can just no longer deny permits or zoning
>changes arbitrarily or for the wrong reasons.

Wrong again:
Federal law now prevents the blocking of radio towers by municipalities.
<http://www.varnumlaw.com/Services/Cable-Telecommunications/WiMAX-Wi-Fi-and-Cell-Towers>
"On November 18, 2009 the FCC issued an order setting 'shot clocks' of
90 and 150 days for municipal action on cell tower zoning requests.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:i5ata9$ffm$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 8/27/2010 10:18 PM, Nessnet wrote:
>> Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that
>> you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
>>
>> As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal
>> takes place due to properties of the medium (air in most cases). Path
>> loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE WAVELENGTH of the
>> operating frequency and the distance between the transmitter and
>> receiver. The path loss is derived from the Friis transmission equation
>> and is defined as:
>>
>> Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/λ) dB
>>
>> where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and λ is
>> the WAVELENGTH .
>>
>> Johnny, You DO know the relationship between wavelength and frequency???
>>
>>
>>
>
> Unfortunately it isn't unusual for someone who doesn't have a science background to cherry pick papers they don't
> understand to try to prove their point. Seems to be most common with politicians and writers trying to look
> knowledgeable.

How pitiful was Johnny's desperate attempt to refute basic physics with a taken out of context 'citation'?
This is not stuff I learned when getting my EE - or even back when getting my FCC license.
I'm pretty sure it was waaay back in high school physics class.

BTW, just to set the record straight, I am talking strictly about line of sight RF propagation above.

There is also the phenomena of reflection, refraction, diffraction, absorption, polarization and scattering that comes
into play
when dealing with the real world of mobile communications. Signals for urban cellular telephony tend to be dominated
by ground-plane effects as they travel over the rooftops of the urban environment. They then diffract over roof edges
into the street, where multipath propagation, absorption and diffraction phenomena dominate. All effected by wavelength,
thus also by the FREQUENCY of the RF transmission.

Take just one of the above: lower frequencies also diffract around large smooth obstacles such as hills more easily.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:d0ci76hrij3hs406lqcr2d68eral9ov80s@4ax.com...
>
> Wrong again:
> I've posted authoritative papers. Did you miss them again?
> You post anecdotes, suppositions, and made-up "facts".
>

Let's try this again Johnny.....

Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
I don't need to quote something pulled out of my *** - just basic high school physics.

As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal takes place due to properties of the medium (air in
most cases). Path loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE WAVELENGTH of the operating frequency and the
distance between the transmitter and receiver. The path loss is derived from the Friis transmission equation and is
defined as:

Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/λ) dB

where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and λ is the WAVELENGTH .

Johnny, You DO know the relationship between wavelength and frequency??? Let me know, I can spell it you
for you if needed.

BTW, just to set the record straight, I am talking strictly about line of sight RF propagation above.

There is also the phenomena of reflection, refraction, diffraction, absorption, polarization and scattering that comes
into play when dealing with the real world of mobile communications. Signals for urban cellular telephony tend to
be dominated by ground-plane effects as they travel over the rooftops of the urban environment. They then
diffract over roof edges into the street, where multipath propagation, absorption and diffraction phenomena
dominate.

All effected by wavelength, thus also by the FREQUENCY of the RF transmission. (lower the better)

Take just one of the above: lower frequencies diffract around large smooth obstacles such as hills more easily.

On 8/28/2010 9:36 AM, Nessnet wrote:
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:d0ci76hrij3hs406lqcr2d68eral9ov80s@4ax.com...
>>
>> Wrong again:
>> I've posted authoritative papers. Did you miss them again?
>> You post anecdotes, suppositions, and made-up "facts".
>>
>
> Let's try this again Johnny.....
>
> Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that
> you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
> I don't need to quote something pulled out of my *** - just basic high
> school physics.
>
> As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal
> takes place due to properties of the medium (air in
> most cases). Path loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE
> WAVELENGTH of the operating frequency and the
> distance between the transmitter and receiver. The path loss is derived
> from the Friis transmission equation and is
> defined as:
>
> Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/λ) dB
>
> where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and λ is
> the WAVELENGTH .

<snip>

Trying to explain this to someone that lacks an engineering background
is hopeless.

In article <z5WdnZHI-PyUpuTRnZ2dnUVZ5vidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Nessnet
<richard.no@spam.nessnet.dot.com> wrote:

> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:d0ci76hrij3hs406lqcr2d68eral9ov80s@4ax.com...
> > Wrong again:
> > I've posted authoritative papers. Did you miss them again?
> > You post anecdotes, suppositions, and made-up "facts".
> >
>
> Let's try this again Johnny.....
>
> Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that you
> obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
> I don't need to quote something pulled out of my *** - just basic high school
> physics.

in the photo newsgroups, he doesn't think physics applies there either.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:49:00 -0700, in
<4c793e29$0$1672$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/28/2010 9:36 AM, Nessnet wrote:
>>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:d0ci76hrij3hs406lqcr2d68eral9ov80s@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Wrong again:
>>> I've posted authoritative papers. Did you miss them again?
>>> You post anecdotes, suppositions, and made-up "facts".
>>>
>>
>> Let's try this again Johnny.....
>>
>> Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that
>> you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
>> I don't need to quote something pulled out of my *** - just basic high
>> school physics.
>>
>> As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal
>> takes place due to properties of the medium (air in
>> most cases). Path loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE
>> WAVELENGTH of the operating frequency and the
>> distance between the transmitter and receiver. The path loss is derived
>> from the Friis transmission equation and is
>> defined as:
>>
>> Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/?) dB
>>
>> where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and ? is
>> the WAVELENGTH .
>
><snip>
>
>Trying to explain this to someone that lacks an engineering background
>is hopeless.

Since I have an engineering background that can't possibly be the issue.

As we both know, the real issue is how I disprove your made-up "facts"
with real evidence and authoritative citations.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:knti765pmqeku52dcbcaue9hl0n94dbckf@4ax.com...
>
> As we both know, the real issue is how I disprove your made-up "facts"
> with real evidence and authoritative citations.
>

John, I think the "real issue" is that you have NOT "disproved" the basic physics I posted.
Because you can't. Unless you are omniscient and can wave your hand and rewrite them.

Because you can't, you obfuscate - which is NOT "real evidence" in any way.
And your taking so called "authoritative citations" out of context proved zip, nada, ZERO.

On 8/28/2010 5:15 PM, Nessnet wrote:
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:knti765pmqeku52dcbcaue9hl0n94dbckf@4ax.com...
>>
>> As we both know, the real issue is how I disprove your made-up "facts"
>> with real evidence and authoritative citations.
>>
>
> John, I think the "real issue" is that you have NOT "disproved" the
> basic physics I posted.
> Because you can't. Unless you are omniscient and can wave your hand and
> rewrite them.
>
> Because you can't, you obfuscate - which is NOT "real evidence" in any way.
> And your taking so called "authoritative citations" out of context
> proved zip, nada, ZERO.

Sadly, his shtick never changes.

In article <4c79ac4f$0$1624$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 8/28/2010 5:15 PM, Nessnet wrote:
> >
> > "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> > news:knti765pmqeku52dcbcaue9hl0n94dbckf@4ax.com...
> >> As we both know, the real issue is how I disprove your made-up "facts"
> >> with real evidence and authoritative citations.
> >>
> >
> > John, I think the "real issue" is that you have NOT "disproved" the
> > basic physics I posted.
> > Because you can't. Unless you are omniscient and can wave your hand and
> > rewrite them.
> >
> > Because you can't, you obfuscate - which is NOT "real evidence" in any way.
> > And your taking so called "authoritative citations" out of context
> > proved zip, nada, ZERO.
>
> Sadly, his shtick never changes.

it's worse than that. he pastes the *exact* same quotes.

maybe it's a bot.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:38:57 -0700, in
<4c79ac4f$0$1624$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/28/2010 5:15 PM, Nessnet wrote:
>>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:knti765pmqeku52dcbcaue9hl0n94dbckf@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> As we both know, the real issue is how I disprove your made-up "facts"
>>> with real evidence and authoritative citations.
>>>
>>
>> John, I think the "real issue" is that you have NOT "disproved" the
>> basic physics I posted.
>> Because you can't. Unless you are omniscient and can wave your hand and
>> rewrite them.
>>
>> Because you can't, you obfuscate - which is NOT "real evidence" in any way.
>> And your taking so called "authoritative citations" out of context
>> proved zip, nada, ZERO.
>
>Sadly, his shtick never changes.

What never changes is your stream of ad hominems. I guess you know that
your suppositions, prejudices, and made-up "facts" just don't cut it.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0abj76h6no6338ptspbjjtffh3kbdbjtk1@4ax.com...
>
> What never changes is your stream of ad hominems. I guess you know that
> your suppositions, prejudices, and made-up "facts" just don't cut it.
>

Everyone remember the black knight in Monte Python's The Holy Grail?

After refusing to stand down stand aside. Arthur fights the black knight and, after a short battle, the knight's left arm
is hacked off.
The Knight still refuses to stand aside, insisting "'Tis but a scratch", and "I've had worse," Next his right arm is
severed, but the knight
still does not concede. The Knight is literally 'disarmed', but the Knight insists "It's just a flesh wound!". Arthur
chops off the Black
Knight's right leg. The Knight still will not admit to defeat and insists "I'm invincible!". Arthur finally whacks off
the left leg, too. After
having all four limbs severed, the Black Knight still is screaming threats - "Come back here and take what's coming to
you!
I'll bite your legs off!"

Navas, just like the black knight above, also suffers from unchecked overconfidence and a staunch refusal ever to give
up.
Even in complete and utter defeat, he is defiant and belligerent - well beyond the absurd.

Just like our Johnny....

Nessnet wrote:
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:0abj76h6no6338ptspbjjtffh3kbdbjtk1@4ax.com...
>>
>> What never changes is your stream of ad hominems. I guess you know that
>> your suppositions, prejudices, and made-up "facts" just don't cut it.
>>
>
> Everyone remember the black knight in Monte Python's The Holy Grail?
>
> After refusing to stand down stand aside. Arthur fights the black knight
> and, after a short battle, the knight's left arm is hacked off.
> The Knight still refuses to stand aside, insisting "'Tis but a scratch",
> and "I've had worse," Next his right arm is severed, but the knight
> still does not concede. The Knight is literally 'disarmed', but the
> Knight insists "It's just a flesh wound!". Arthur chops off the Black
> Knight's right leg. The Knight still will not admit to defeat and
> insists "I'm invincible!". Arthur finally whacks off the left leg, too.
> After
> having all four limbs severed, the Black Knight still is screaming
> threats - "Come back here and take what's coming to you!
> I'll bite your legs off!"
>
> Navas, just like the black knight above, also suffers from unchecked
> overconfidence and a staunch refusal ever to give up.
> Even in complete and utter defeat, he is defiant and belligerent - well
> beyond the absurd.
>
> Just like our Johnny....
>
>

Obviously he's keeping you entertained!

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message news:vPCdneWJXcILXOTRnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Nessnet wrote:
>>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:0abj76h6no6338ptspbjjtffh3kbdbjtk1@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> What never changes is your stream of ad hominems. I guess you know that
>>> your suppositions, prejudices, and made-up "facts" just don't cut it.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone remember the black knight in Monte Python's The Holy Grail?
>>
>> After refusing to stand down stand aside. Arthur fights the black knight
>> and, after a short battle, the knight's left arm is hacked off.
>> The Knight still refuses to stand aside, insisting "'Tis but a scratch",
>> and "I've had worse," Next his right arm is severed, but the knight
>> still does not concede. The Knight is literally 'disarmed', but the
>> Knight insists "It's just a flesh wound!". Arthur chops off the Black
>> Knight's right leg. The Knight still will not admit to defeat and
>> insists "I'm invincible!". Arthur finally whacks off the left leg, too.
>> After
>> having all four limbs severed, the Black Knight still is screaming
>> threats - "Come back here and take what's coming to you!
>> I'll bite your legs off!"
>>
>> Navas, just like the black knight above, also suffers from unchecked
>> overconfidence and a staunch refusal ever to give up.
>> Even in complete and utter defeat, he is defiant and belligerent - well
>> beyond the absurd.
>>
>> Just like our Johnny....
>>
>>
>
> Obviously he's keeping you entertained!

I shall have my 'last laugh' here and move on...

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:10:32 -0400, in
<vPCdneWJXcILXOTRnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

>Nessnet wrote:
>>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:0abj76h6no6338ptspbjjtffh3kbdbjtk1@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> What never changes is your stream of ad hominems. I guess you know that
>>> your suppositions, prejudices, and made-up "facts" just don't cut it.
>>
>> Everyone remember the black knight in Monte Python's The Holy Grail?
>>
>> After refusing to stand down stand aside. Arthur fights the black knight
>> and, after a short battle, the knight's left arm is hacked off.
>> The Knight still refuses to stand aside, insisting "'Tis but a scratch",
>> and "I've had worse," Next his right arm is severed, but the knight
>> still does not concede. The Knight is literally 'disarmed', but the
>> Knight insists "It's just a flesh wound!". Arthur chops off the Black
>> Knight's right leg. The Knight still will not admit to defeat and
>> insists "I'm invincible!". Arthur finally whacks off the left leg, too.
>> After
>> having all four limbs severed, the Black Knight still is screaming
>> threats - "Come back here and take what's coming to you!
>> I'll bite your legs off!"
>>
>> Navas, just like the black knight above, also suffers from unchecked
>> overconfidence and a staunch refusal ever to give up.
>> Even in complete and utter defeat, he is defiant and belligerent - well
>> beyond the absurd.
>>
>> Just like our Johnny....
>
>Obviously he's keeping you entertained!

More like occupied. Can you say "hissy fit"? Dreaming up ever more
silly ad hominems because he/she/it has nothing more persuasive to say,
Childish, self-destructive, and sad.

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

"Nessnet" <richard.no@spam.nessnet.dot.com> wrote in
news:WLGdnZEBJqEHpeTRnZ2dnUVZ5jmdnZ2d@giganews.com :

> I'm pretty sure it was waaay back in high school physics class.
>
>

Had AM been invented yet?.....(c;]

UHF....around 20 Mhz?

Tubes had numbers like 78, 80, 76, 43?

Just foolin' around.....I got some of these tubes if you need them....

On 8/28/2010 4:55 PM, John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:49:00 -0700, in
> <4c793e29$0$1672$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2010 9:36 AM, Nessnet wrote:
>>>
>>> "John Navas"<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d0ci76hrij3hs406lqcr2d68eral9ov80s@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again:
>>>> I've posted authoritative papers. Did you miss them again?
>>>> You post anecdotes, suppositions, and made-up "facts".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's try this again Johnny.....
>>>
>>> Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that
>>> you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
>>> I don't need to quote something pulled out of my *** - just basic high
>>> school physics.
>>>
>>> As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal
>>> takes place due to properties of the medium (air in
>>> most cases). Path loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE
>>> WAVELENGTH of the operating frequency and the
>>> distance between the transmitter and receiver. The path loss is derived
>>> from the Friis transmission equation and is
>>> defined as:
>>>
>>> Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/?) dB
>>>
>>> where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and ? is
>>> the WAVELENGTH .
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Trying to explain this to someone that lacks an engineering background
>> is hopeless.
>
> Since I have an engineering background that can't possibly be the issue.

Why not? Lots of folks claim to have credentials.


>
> As we both know, the real issue is how I disprove your made-up "facts"
> with real evidence and authoritative citations.

What a total drama queen. Anyone with a real background in the sciences
knows that anyone can cherry pick a paper they don't understand to prove
anything. And that is the typical style of politicians and writers who
don't really understand something.

>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>

As I said you are quite the drama queen.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4c793e29$0$1672$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> On 8/28/2010 9:36 AM, Nessnet wrote:
>>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:d0ci76hrij3hs406lqcr2d68eral9ov80s@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Wrong again:
>>> I've posted authoritative papers. Did you miss them again?
>>> You post anecdotes, suppositions, and made-up "facts".
>>>
>>
>> Let's try this again Johnny.....
>>
>> Let me make it REAL simple for ya: - not quoting some "citation' that
>> you obviously didn't actually comprehend at all
>> I don't need to quote something pulled out of my *** - just basic high
>> school physics.
>>
>> As waves propagate out from a transmitter, attenuation of the signal
>> takes place due to properties of the medium (air in
>> most cases). Path loss describes this attenuation as a FUNCTION OF THE
>> WAVELENGTH of the operating frequency and the
>> distance between the transmitter and receiver. The path loss is derived
>> from the Friis transmission equation and is
>> defined as:
>>
>> Path Loss = 20 log(4*p*r/?) dB
>>
>> where r is the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and ? is
>> the WAVELENGTH .
>
> <snip>
>
> Trying to explain this to someone that lacks an engineering background is
> hopeless.

I don't have a dog in this fight but wavelength is but one part of the
elements in the determination. If it were the only element p2p microwave
links would not work. If the blanked application of that engineering were
gospel then God help NASA.

On 29/08/10 8:39 AM, NotMe wrote:

<snip>

> I don't have a dog in this fight but wavelength is but one part of the
> elements in the determination. If it were the only element p2p microwave
> links would not work. If the blanked application of that engineering were
> gospel then God help NASA.

There's no fight. It's reality versus fiction. You're correct that
wavelength is just one determination, but it's one of the key
differences between the cellular and PCS digital systems.

You could argue that since cellular handsets are allowed to transmit at
higher power that this is another big factor, but that ceased to be an
issue when analog bag phones went away. You can still buy boosters that
boost cellular to 3 watts and PCS to 2 watts, but few people bother with
this. OTOH, the ERP of cellular base stations is typically higher than
that of PCS base stations, which is one other factor contributing to
cellular's coverage advantage especially in areas where PCS carriers
find it difficult to compensate by installing more sites.

In any case, getting back to the original subject of this thread, the
issue with Virgin Mobile's coverage is not chiefly a PCS versus cellular
issue, it's that you're limited to _only_ Sprint's native network, with
no roaming allowed (not even extra cost roaming). For those that don't
travel outside of Sprint's limited native coverage area (which Sprint's
maps clearly show), Virgin now is offering some very attractively priced
plans, both for voice and data. For those that venture more than a few
miles outside urban and suburban core areas, they'd almost certainly be
very unhappy with Virgin and should look at other prepaid or postpaid
services that offer wider coverage, albeit at higher prices.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:15:57 -0700, in
<4c7a8799$0$1593$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 29/08/10 8:39 AM, NotMe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I don't have a dog in this fight but wavelength is but one part of the
>> elements in the determination. If it were the only element p2p microwave
>> links would not work. If the blanked application of that engineering were
>> gospel then God help NASA.
>
>There's no fight. It's reality versus fiction. You're correct that
>wavelength is just one determination, but it's one of the key
>differences between the cellular and PCS digital systems.

Citation? Oh wait, we're supposed to just take your word for it.
Wrong again(tm).

>You could argue that since cellular handsets are allowed to transmit at
>higher power that this is another big factor, but that ceased to be an
>issue when analog bag phones went away. You can still buy boosters that
>boost cellular to 3 watts and PCS to 2 watts, but few people bother with
>this. OTOH, the ERP of cellular base stations is typically higher than
>that of PCS base stations, which is one other factor contributing to
>cellular's coverage advantage especially in areas where PCS carriers
>find it difficult to compensate by installing more sites.

Wrong again(tm):
It's actually a relatively small difference,
as I've shown here many times. Again:

Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.

It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range
for 1900, or a maximum of about 20% more towers along a flat rural
highway strip, or a maximum of 50% more towers in area coverage, and
then only when range is limited only by maximum power, which is
rarely the case in metro areas. Tower spacing is only near maximum
in flat rural areas (and current small handsets don't come close to
maximum power levels).

>In any case, getting back to the original subject of this thread, the
>issue with Virgin Mobile's coverage is not chiefly a PCS versus cellular
>issue, it's that you're limited to _only_ Sprint's native network, with
>no roaming allowed (not even extra cost roaming). For those that don't
>travel outside of Sprint's limited native coverage area (which Sprint's
>maps clearly show), Virgin now is offering some very attractively priced
>plans, both for voice and data. For those that venture more than a few
>miles outside urban and suburban core areas, they'd almost certainly be
>very unhappy with Virgin and should look at other prepaid or postpaid
>services that offer wider coverage, albeit at higher prices.

Wrong again(tm):
Sprint actually has a good coverage area, not a "limited" one.

--
John

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin

On 8/27/2010 4:39 AM, George wrote:

> When VZW owns both 800 & 1,900 licenses in a market they always put EvDO
> data on 1,900 because that equipment is colocated. Data is a lot more
> tolerant than voice for the end user and it is well known in practice
> that 1,900 doesn't work as well at the same site spacing as 800 MHz. And
> for an interesting experiment you can demonstrate yourself if you know
> you are in an area using both bands. Take any VZW phone that has both 1X
> and EvDO and go to a weak signal area like say in a metal building and
> watch which signal will always disappear first due to effects of the
> higher frequencies.

There's a good paper from Motorola on the trade-offs inherent in the
different frequencies.

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in April 2008 auctioned 62
megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The band is highly prized
because the low frequency allows signals to travel farther and provide
better in-building coverage than higher frequencies such as 1900 MHz. As
a result, operators need fewer base stations to cover an area, which
translates into lower overhead costs—a major asset for any operator
looking to be aggressive on the pricing front."

"http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/Business/Solutions/Industry%20Solutions/Service%20Providers/Network%20Operators/LTE/_Document/Static%20Files/LTE's%20Spectrum%20of%20Opportunity.pdf?localeId=3 3"

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:14:49 -0700, in
<4c7c0358$0$1623$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 8/27/2010 4:39 AM, George wrote:
>
>> When VZW owns both 800 & 1,900 licenses in a market they always put EvDO
>> data on 1,900 because that equipment is colocated. Data is a lot more
>> tolerant than voice for the end user and it is well known in practice
>> that 1,900 doesn't work as well at the same site spacing as 800 MHz. And
>> for an interesting experiment you can demonstrate yourself if you know
>> you are in an area using both bands. Take any VZW phone that has both 1X
>> and EvDO and go to a weak signal area like say in a metal building and
>> watch which signal will always disappear first due to effects of the
>> higher frequencies.
>
>There's a good paper from Motorola on the trade-offs inherent in the
>different frequencies.
>
>"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in April 2008 auctioned 62
>megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The band is highly prized
>because the low frequency allows signals to travel farther and provide
>better in-building coverage than higher frequencies such as 1900 MHz. As
>a result, operators need fewer base stations to cover an area, which
>translates into lower overhead costs—a major asset for any operator
>looking to be aggressive on the pricing front."
>
>"http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/Business/Solutions/Industry%20Solutions/Service%20Providers/Network%20Operators/LTE/_Document/Static%20Files/LTE's%20Spectrum%20of%20Opportunity.pdf?localeId=3 3"

That's marketing fluff, not a study or technical paper.

Again:

Radio Propagation by Prof. Randy H. Katz, University of California,
Berkeley <http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/1propagation.pdf>.

Shows that frequency is not an issue in outdoor range,
and a relatively minor issue in indoor penetration.

Radio interface system planning for GSM/GPRS/UMTS By Jukka Lempiäinen,
Matti Manninen <http://books.google.com/books?id=sC07kmasEWsC&pg=PA86>

"It should be noted that some studies have shown that the
average penetration loss for some types of building DECREASE when
the frequency is increased, e.g. from 900 MHz to 1800 MHz."
[emphasis added]

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:4c7c0358$0$1623$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> On 8/27/2010 4:39 AM, George wrote:
>
>> When VZW owns both 800 & 1,900 licenses in a market they always put
>> EvDO data on 1,900 because that equipment is colocated. Data is a lot
>> more tolerant than voice for the end user and it is well known in
>> practice that 1,900 doesn't work as well at the same site spacing as
>> 800 MHz. And for an interesting experiment you can demonstrate
>> yourself if you know you are in an area using both bands. Take any
>> VZW phone that has both 1X and EvDO and go to a weak signal area like
>> say in a metal building and watch which signal will always disappear
>> first due to effects of the higher frequencies.
>
> There's a good paper from Motorola on the trade-offs inherent in the
> different frequencies.
>
> "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in April 2008 auctioned
> 62 megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The band is highly
> prized because the low frequency allows signals to travel farther and
> provide better in-building coverage than higher frequencies such as
> 1900 MHz. As a result, operators need fewer base stations to cover an
> area, which translates into lower overhead costs—a major asset for any
> operator looking to be aggressive on the pricing front."
>
> "http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/Business/Solutions/Industry%20Solu
> tions/Service%20Providers/Network%20Operators/LTE/_Document/Static%20Fi
> les/LTE's%20Spectrum%20of%20Opportunity.pdf?localeId=3 3"
>

FCC and the comm corps are hell bent on running ANY private repeater
systems off the air and onto a pay-per-view ******** system of Motorola
Trunk radios, Sellphones and big corporate communications systems so
every little cab company that's been running its own, really cheap-to-
keep FM repeater system since WW2 can start paying some big corporation
by the month to use their radio system, instead of what the cab company
has been doing for over 50 years....virtually free after initial
investment.

It's a cryin' shame. Everyone must be a corporate slave, just like us.

2013 the "transition" to slavery will be complete and you'll no longer be
able to afford a cheap radio system, interconnected to the telephone
system or not.

It's been a helluva ride before the greed took over the government......