Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I agree, but the studies were for adults. I don't believe the safety of rf exposure to young children over time is settled science. Wouldn't you be loath to accept such exposure as a PZB member only to find out 20 years down the road those kids are sick from it ?? Then you should really oppose the practice of giving children cell phones, the RF exposure from a cell phone next to the head is a lot higher than that from any cell phone tower. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Yes, but employing those people to do those things helps keep those pesky unemployment numbers down... -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janaki Kuruppu Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:00 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser which costs money, and raises the total cost of healthcare in the U.S. On Jul 1, 2008, at 5:00 PM, rlsimon wrote: That's why most medical offices have an employee to do all that! -Original Message- From: Janaki Kuruppu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: Re: US is access loser Ever hear of socialized medicine? Most of my relatives live in Europe. Some are doctors. They are very, very happy with their socialized medicine. Health care is their #1 reason for not wanting to live in the US. They are amazed how easily Americans are brainwashed by greedy insurance companies and the medical lobby. Recognizing that this is getting totally off-topic, but didn't that happen to this thread quite awhile ago?? I am a doctor, in the US, and I just spent more than an hour of my morning on the phone with three different insurance companies to get a required medication for one of my patients - and given the restrictions of the insurance formulary, I can only get one month of a medication which is medically indicated, and which I have no equivalent alternative for, and I'm going to have to go through this again in 30 days!!! Not to mention that the website that one of the insurance companies wants me to use to submit the request to is essentially non-function, and didn't give me the right contact number to get the answer I needed...argh!! Janaki Kuruppu * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
It is both a good thing and a bad things as this will be a toll road and it will cost the public to use it until it is paid for. Next we outsource police, fire, and courts. It will be nice to simply pay to have my noisy neighbor arrested and more efficient to try cases by auction. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Do you really want a system that drops out whenever it rains? So what is the problem? If you have bad service on my network my people will fix it. I know that parts of the network are old and up for replacement. Looks like I touched a raw nerve. People with wireless data plans should know that rain will attenuate their signal (producing a slower data rate) and that heavy rain may even block it completely. This happens with cell phones too. That is why cell towers increase power when it rains. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I think that it was settled decades ago: no substantiated risk. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rlsimon Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 5:36 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser I'm on the Planning/Zoning Board of our town. Recently we reviewed an app to put up a tower along the main road on a piece of land behing fire company #2 with good rental $$ for the town. I objected given it is kiddycorner across the street from the new school. They brought in a big gun (prof of engineering and physics from PennState who has over 100 pub on his resume about rf from cell towers, etc.) who gave a very detailed explanation with chartsgraphs showing the decrement of the signal strength and the dependency on the elevation and distance from the tower, etc. It passed. That was last year. No tower is growing yet. I think the evidence (including the fat packet provided) is the worries about that are bunk and junk science. I wonder if it is a settled issue or if there is still any doubt?? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Here they lure you in with cheap/free phones and stick you with the service contract. Over in many other countries you pay mucho bucks up front for the phone then shop for your plan I guess that is why it is so desirable to have poor schools. If people could do some rudimentary math they would quickly figure out that getting a $200 discount in exchange for $2500 worth of service contract is not as good a deal as paying full price and $600 for the same service. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
They do not have a multitude of carriers, and usually have a government monopoly, or one that is heavily subsidized by the government. Interesting logic. First we promote the nutty right-wing mantra that government is bad. Then we let the nutty process run for a couple of decades and discover that somebody else's system yields much better reslts. Then we attack that better system on the grounds that it doesn't follow the nutty right-wing mantra. Who shall we invade today? That will get everyone's mind off of it. Good plan. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
But here we are wiser. Taking cues from Microsoft, US businesses have learned the benefits of incompatibility. The best way to retain clients is to make them fearful of using any system but yours. Well played! Nice job of working a gratuitous potshot at MS into a conversation that has no relation whatsoever to anything that MS does. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Well played! Nice job of working a gratuitous potshot at MS into a conversation that has no relation whatsoever to anything that MS does. Not my fault if you are not paying attention. The strategy of incompatibility was not invented by the telcos. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Given M$'s history they probably got the strategy from someone else as well. On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well played! Nice job of working a gratuitous potshot at MS into a conversation that has no relation whatsoever to anything that MS does. Not my fault if you are not paying attention. The strategy of incompatibility was not invented by the telcos. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Who is attacking their system? It is not always a bad idea for a monopoly. I am not a right wing nut either. Ever hear of socialized medicine? Government monopolies also yield some pretty good airlines. Ever heard of Lufthansa. Stewart At 08:59 AM 7/1/2008, you wrote: They do not have a multitude of carriers, and usually have a government monopoly, or one that is heavily subsidized by the government. Interesting logic. First we promote the nutty right-wing mantra that government is bad. Then we let the nutty process run for a couple of decades and discover that somebody else's system yields much better reslts. Then we attack that better system on the grounds that it doesn't follow the nutty right-wing mantra. Who shall we invade today? That will get everyone's mind off of it. Good plan. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Ever hear of socialized medicine? Most of my relatives live in Europe. Some are doctors. They are very, very happy with their socialized medicine. Health care is their #1 reason for not wanting to live in the US. They are amazed how easily Americans are brainwashed by greedy insurance companies and the medical lobby. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Interestingly, in Belgium if I use up the PayGo card to zero, people can still call me inasmuch as the caller pays and the recipient does not!! Here in the USA they sell AIR twice; they've got us commin'goin' !! If the caller is on the same company as I had (Proximus), then nobody pays on weekends. Outcalls to landlines on weekends were free (but I think that was a promotion)... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Ever hear of socialized medicine? Most of my relatives live in Europe. Some are doctors. They are very, very happy with their socialized medicine. Health care is their #1 reason for not wanting to live in the US. They are amazed how easily Americans are brainwashed by greedy insurance companies and the medical lobby. Recognizing that this is getting totally off-topic, but didn't that happen to this thread quite awhile ago?? I am a doctor, in the US, and I just spent more than an hour of my morning on the phone with three different insurance companies to get a required medication for one of my patients - and given the restrictions of the insurance formulary, I can only get one month of a medication which is medically indicated, and which I have no equivalent alternative for, and I'm going to have to go through this again in 30 days!!! Not to mention that the website that one of the insurance companies wants me to use to submit the request to is essentially non-function, and didn't give me the right contact number to get the answer I needed...argh!! Janaki Kuruppu * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Oh yeah eh. The Canadian Health Care System is a model of efficiency too. A friend's doctor ordered a MRI for a concern about a possible heart ailment. The appointment was made with super efficiency for 6 months later. The 6 months goes by, they go to the appointment, only to find the tech called in sick and they need to reschedule. Yep...there wasn't anyone in a 3 hour radius that could come in to maintain the appointments. The new appointment was scheduled for 4 months later - they were able to get in earlier because the first appointment was canceled. The super-duper efficient eh Canadian Health Care system saved themselves the cost of a MRI. He died 3 months later. Amazingly enough, from a heart attack. Yep...that's just what we need. Good ol' soh-she-ah-lized medicine. -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Piwowar Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:49 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser Ever hear of socialized medicine? Most of my relatives live in Europe. Some are doctors. They are very, very happy with their socialized medicine. Health care is their #1 reason for not wanting to live in the US. They are amazed how easily Americans are brainwashed by greedy insurance companies and the medical lobby. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Not just Europe, but also Canada. My in-laws are retired and have free health care and prescription coverage. Could not understand why my daughter had a quite wedding to secure health care coverage and then plan a big wedding later. My first child was born in Canada and had sever congenital heart problems. Had the best care never a question of what procedure, best doctors (John Hopkins, Washington U.) and we were just starting out never got hit with a multi hospital bill. Money was never an issue. It works costly but it works. Stewart At 10:48 AM 7/1/2008, you wrote: Most of my relatives live in Europe. Some are doctors. They are very, very happy with their socialized medicine. Health care is their #1 reason for not wanting to live in the US. They are amazed how easily Americans are brainwashed by greedy insurance companies and the medical lobby. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
WHOA Do you know anything about the Canadian health care system besides that??? The problem is that the hospitals are not funded enough. The problem is rationing which heaven forbid we do not want. If it is critical and an emergency they will treat. Otherwise you need to wait in line. Not lack of Doctors. Stewart At 11:05 AM 7/1/2008, you wrote: Oh yeah eh. The Canadian Health Care System is a model of efficiency too. A friend's doctor ordered a MRI for a concern about a possible heart ailment. The appointment was made with super efficiency for 6 months later. The 6 months goes by, they go to the appointment, only to find the tech called in sick and they need to reschedule. Yep...there wasn't anyone in a 3 hour radius that could come in to maintain the appointments. The new appointment was scheduled for 4 months later - they were able to get in earlier because the first appointment was canceled. The super-duper efficient eh Canadian Health Care system saved themselves the cost of a MRI. He died 3 months later. Amazingly enough, from a heart attack. Yep...that's just what we need. Good ol' soh-she-ah-lized medicine. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
The super-duper efficient eh Canadian Health Care system saved themselves the cost of a MRI. He died 3 months later. Amazingly enough, from a heart attack. Yep...that's just what we need. Good ol' soh-she-ah-lized medicine. Yes, our system is way better. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/hospital.death.ap/index.html * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
As a matter of fact, yes. I am pretty well versed in the pluses and minuses of the much heralded Canadian Health Care System. I wasn't questioning the lack of doctors or the skills of said doctors. I understand there are funding and rationing issues. But the age-old question is who decides. In our flawed system, the doctors decide what needs to be done. When the government runs it... who makes the decision? Someone from Finance, IT, Public Affairs, etc? In my friend's case (and by extension, of his wife and 9 6-year old girls and infant son he left behind), I'm assuming his condition wasn't judged as an emergency when his doc requested the MRI. Chances are, it wasn't. But maybe 6 months later it might have helped if there was some way to *actually* have the MRI done instead of saying Sorry...sorry... the tech called in sick. You'll all just have to keep waiting. None of your conditions are important enough. -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rev. Stewart Marshall Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:20 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser WHOA Do you know anything about the Canadian health care system besides that??? The problem is that the hospitals are not funded enough. The problem is rationing which heaven forbid we do not want. If it is critical and an emergency they will treat. Otherwise you need to wait in line. Not lack of Doctors. Stewart At 11:05 AM 7/1/2008, you wrote: Oh yeah eh. The Canadian Health Care System is a model of efficiency too. A friend's doctor ordered a MRI for a concern about a possible heart ailment. The appointment was made with super efficiency for 6 months later. The 6 months goes by, they go to the appointment, only to find the tech called in sick and they need to reschedule. Yep...there wasn't anyone in a 3 hour radius that could come in to maintain the appointments. The new appointment was scheduled for 4 months later - they were able to get in earlier because the first appointment was canceled. The super-duper efficient eh Canadian Health Care system saved themselves the cost of a MRI. He died 3 months later. Amazingly enough, from a heart attack. Yep...that's just what we need. Good ol' soh-she-ah-lized medicine. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Oh yeah eh. The Canadian Health Care System is a model of efficiency too. A friend's doctor ordered a MRI for a concern about a possible Certainly tragic, but what is the screw-up rate at US hospitals? Would it have been better to not provide MRI in the region because it was too sparsely populated or there weren't enough technicians to back each other up? This is just another case of the wacko Ronald Regan trick of cherry picking rare cases to justify horrible practices nationwide. Find one welfare mother in Chicago with a fancy car and use that to justify cutting health care for all children in the US. To keep this on topic: the problem with privatizing broadband is that greedy corporations cherry pick their customers, turning the map into a crazy quilt of haves and have nots. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Oh. Wow. I see your point. Our system just sucks so badly that we should abandon it. While I feel sorry for this woman and her family for their loss, I'm sure we can find lots of examples of how any system sucks. So because of this, you don't really expect me to say, I will warmly embrace the Canadian Health Care System as the best in the world now. Yeah... I didn't think you expected me to do that -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Dunford Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:20 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser The super-duper efficient eh Canadian Health Care system saved themselves the cost of a MRI. He died 3 months later. Amazingly enough, from a heart attack. Yep...that's just what we need. Good ol' soh-she-ah-lized medicine. Yes, our system is way better. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/hospital.death.ap/index.html * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Ronald Regan trick? Geez.. you had to dig deep for that one didn't you. This is just one incident I know all too well, but there are lots of others too. But I'm not about to take your bait - as feeble as it is - and go into this with you. I think I'll take the high road here and just blame MS for it. Obviously all the ills of the world are the fault of MS. -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Piwowar Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:50 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser Oh yeah eh. The Canadian Health Care System is a model of efficiency too. A friend's doctor ordered a MRI for a concern about a possible Certainly tragic, but what is the screw-up rate at US hospitals? Would it have been better to not provide MRI in the region because it was too sparsely populated or there weren't enough technicians to back each other up? This is just another case of the wacko Ronald Regan trick of cherry picking rare cases to justify horrible practices nationwide. Find one welfare mother in Chicago with a fancy car and use that to justify cutting health care for all children in the US. To keep this on topic: the problem with privatizing broadband is that greedy corporations cherry pick their customers, turning the map into a crazy quilt of haves and have nots. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I am a doctor, in the US, and I just spent more than an hour of my morning on the phone with three different insurance companies to get a required medication for one of my patients.. But we do not call it rationing. What is the job title for an MBA who makes life and death medical decisions overiding doctors' standard medical practice? Not to mention that the website that one of the insurance companies wants me to use to submit the request to is essentially non-function, and didn't give me the right contact number to get the answer I needed...argh!! Do you think this lack of function was a design decision or merely fortunate happenstance for the insurer? Do they have an motivation to fix it? (See this is still about computers.) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Interestingly, in Belgium if I use up the PayGo card to zero, people can still call me inasmuch as the caller pays and the recipient does not!! Here in the USA they sell AIR twice; they've got us commin'goin' !! If the caller is on the same company as I had (Proximus), then nobody pays on weekends. Outcalls to landlines on weekends were free (but I think that was a promotion)... I was just looking at the iPhone rate plans for Switzerland. Tha base plan is $25/month, but does not include talk time. You have to buy talk time separately. Here is the most interesting part. Swisscom does not sell talk time by the minute, the sell it by the HOUR. And an hour of talk time goes for 68 CENTS (0.70 CHF). Yes, cents, not dollars. I'm really starting to feel rotten about this. The main reason I'm not getting an iPhone turns out to be that I live in the USA. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Oh. Wow. I see your point. Our system just sucks so badly that we should abandon it. Not my point at all. My point was that neither healthcare system is without serious flaws. If I have the money, then the US system can't be beat (let's admit it, if this woman had had enough money, she'd have been resting comfortably in a private room at Johns Hopkins rather than lying dead on the floor of a Brooklyn ER). If I don't have the money, well, the Canadian system is sounding pretty good. Surely we can do better. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
You know, if you watch the ER video you will see someone walk by and ignore the woman lying on the floor. It's a little fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure it was Gates. I think I'll take the high road here and just blame MS for it. Obviously all the ills of the world are the fault of MS. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Until very recently the Feds counted everyone in a zip code as having broadband if ONE had broadband. I believe they also don't count anything 1.5 and lower as broadband now. This reason below is probably partly why I sit at 1.3mbit and will according to a Qwest rep, sit there forever. There is no reason for Qwest to upgrade to higher speeds because we are trapped in an area with zero competition. So I get high prices, no extras, horrible support and slow speed...and if I complain I get 'so what?' from Qwest. Or worse I get reps that actually say my 1.3mbit is faster then the 15+mbit cable my neighbors have. Mike On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Larry Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To keep this on topic: the problem with privatizing broadband is that greedy corporations cherry pick their customers, turning the map into a crazy quilt of haves and have nots. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Thanks, Tom. I wander away for half a day, suddenly we're onto Canadian medicine. Everyone should understand that each country over there has several telcom companies, competing in the marketplace - hardly socialised. It's just that they agree to use the same standard - and multiband - gsm system. Everyone comes out ahead. My friends coming here from there are amazed at our supine acceptance of utter mediocrity. Taking the Reverend's point that more towers are needed in a larger place such as the US, wouldn't it make greater sense to have those towers available uniformly to all companies? Save the redundant outlay for better service? Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase the handset one wishes, merely switch sim cards, instead of trashing a useless unit on deciding to switch to another company? My t-mobil service is hardly perfect here, but my handset becomes a Maserati everywhere over there. Our buy, then dump economic mentality gives me great concern. Chad --- On Tue, 7/1/08, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 9:53 AM Over there, one receives signal in the depth of metro, the remote of mountains, in the middle of water. Row together, all benefit. Until then, we in the US will waste time and money with 19th century equivalence, a burden to all. But here we are wiser. Taking cues from Microsoft, US businesses have learned the benefits of incompatibility. The best way to retain clients is to make them fearful of using any system but yours. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
OK here is how it works very often. I live in LA (Lower Alabama) on the east side. Last year they came through and repaved the main north south artery. One intersection was supposed to be fixed. It did not get done in conjunction with the paving job. Now this is a multi million dollar fix involving realigning the intersection and putting up a light. The reason for this is to save lives. It is a highly dangerous intersection. The fix had been approved and funded and at the last minute they pulled the funding, why? So they could give it to another part of the state to lure a business into the area! Yeah this stuff happens all the time and the criteria stinks Stewart At 12:22 PM 7/1/2008, you wrote: Have and have nots? When did broadband become a fundamental right? There are lots of things that we all would like, price not considered, that do not rise to the level of a fundamental right. Most adults want to be able to drive, but driving is not a right, no matter how inconvenient not being able to drive is. Nor is there a right to have a six lane macadam highway everywhere it is convenient to have one, some folks have to make do with a two lane road if that is what the traffic needs are. Unfortunately, some folks who need a six lane road get a two lane road because government won't build one, preferring to redirect gasoline taxes to other than road construction and maintenance, or interest groups fight against building one, and both won't let a private interest build one either. We are seeing a similar phenomena here - the government built the most basic infrastructure of the internet, because it served a recognized constitutionally legitimate government function (national defense - the internet was for military / civilian command and control), just as the interstate highway system was started to facilitate military traffic in time of war. Both enabled enhanced civilian uses and expansion followed. What you call greedy corporations I call management doing its job - maximizing return on investment by building where the ROI is greatest first, and public resistance to infrastructure least. I WANT faster internet access at my home in the country, but I don't claim any right to it that rises to a level where the government should provide it. Those concerned about urban sprawl (and I am not saying you are) should welcome that crazy quilt map as yet another inducement to live more densely where providing services is cheaper, preserving the wealthy's ability to also have a country home with vistas unspoiled by bourgeois housing developments. Matthew On Jul 1, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote: Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
It is a highly dangerous intersection. The fix had been approved and funded and at the last minute they pulled the funding, why? So they could give it to another part of the state to lure a business into the area! Yeah this stuff happens all the time and the criteria stinks You mean that they should have raised taxes and done both? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Ah yes... Tom is the overseer of all that is good or bad... Sorry Charlie.. I mean Tom, if you didn't like my example. Next time I want to make a point, I'll be sure to site multiple areas of concern. I do think the discussion on health care is a little bit out of bounds, so I'll gladly drop it... -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Piwowar Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:13 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser Thanks, Tom. I wander away for half a day, suddenly we're onto Canadian medicine. I didn't do that. I just didn't let a poor example go unchallenged. Everyone comes out ahead. My friends coming here from there are amazed at our supine acceptance of utter mediocrity. We have all been brainwashed so thoroughly to defend our crappy system with jingoistic pride. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Have and have nots? When did broadband become a fundamental right? You are coming from a strange place. Broadband is not a fundamental right, but it is fundamental to the operation of a modern technological society. With crappy broadband the US falls further and further behind. If we want to maintain a high standard of living broadband is important. Widely available broadband is especially important now that we are facing increasing energy prices. Of course, our present course is designed to shift wealth to a small minority and shove much of the current middle class under the poverty line. Crappy health care is part of that plan. So are manipulated energy prices. So is crappy broadband. Such a society has been described as islands of opulence surrounded by squalor. You see lots of that in Latin America. We are now in the early stages in the US. Since the year 2000 we have been witnessing the rapid end of the American Era. It didn't have to happen. We can act to slow the process. Broadband is one part of it. Did anyone notice in my post on Swisscom that 1 CHF = $1. Wow! That hurts. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
No what it did was let us subsidize a project in Mobile while we got nothing. Mobile is a fast growing area and has way more industry than we do. Our tax base is very low. (Low industry) We constantly try and lure industry here, but because the politicians have not put the roads here we can't get them. We just lost out on a VW plant because there is not interstate connector for transportation. Guess what They are building a port in Mobile, they get a plant. Balance is all I call for. Stewart At 02:16 PM 7/1/2008, you wrote: You mean that they should have raised taxes and done both? Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Interchangable parts doesn't mean interoperability. The guns you refer to were interchangeable only as far as the same model/manufacturer. When I ran mac os pre X, after a clean install I ususally made copies of my finder and system suitcase, I could then given strange problems later on, replace the ones that had been running for months or whatever with the 'clean' copy. I could also take them to other macs with the same OS version and switch them. That's interchangable. I couldn't have taken my finder to a windows machine and put it in there...that would have been interoperability. And I couldn't have taken a trigger from a SW and used it on a Colt. Mike On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom's comment had been in reply to a discussion of multiple incompatible phone systems. It is well documented that MS has fostered their incompatible systems in an attempt to gain advantage. This is a frequent subject for analysis in economics texts. It was entirely appropriate for Tom to bring it up as a parallel example to the phone systems, but it was wrong for him to attribute a significant proportion of US business' behavior to the following of MS' example. This has been going on for much longer than MS has been any kind of power. I remember from my high school history class, one of the dates I had to memorize was for the introduction of rifles made with interchangeable parts. Yes, interoperability is that important. I have since forgotten the date. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I agree, but the studies were for adults. I don't believe the safety of rf exposure to young children over time is settled science. Wouldn't you be loath to accept such exposure as a PZB member only to find out 20 years down the road those kids are sick from it ?? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I agree, but the studies were for adults. I don't believe the safety of rf exposure to young children over time is settled science. Wouldn't you be loath to accept such exposure as a PZB member only to find out 20 years down the road those kids are sick from it ?? No, I would loathe to tremble in the corner in fear every time some crackpot gets a soapbox and announces that they *know* that X causes cancer/autism/scurvy/odd socks. We'd be much, much poorer and backwards as a people if the precautionary principle was the rule. Talk is cheap. Proof is something else altogether. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Don't you JOKE about odd socks! It's a serious matter. On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Jeff Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the road those kids are sick from it ?? No, I would loathe to tremble in the corner in fear every time some crackpot gets a soapbox and announces that they *know* that X causes cancer/autism/scurvy/odd socks. We'd be much, much poorer and backwards as a people if the precautionary principle was the rule. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Ah yes... Tom is the overseer of all that is good or bad... Ah yes, when you can't prevail on the merits switch to personal attacks. I certainly would. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Interchangable parts doesn't mean interoperability. The guns you refer to were interchangeable only as far as the same model/manufacturer. It was the first step. Before then each individual rifle was a unique item. Then the benefits of uniformity within a plant were discovered. Then uniformity across plants and some amount of uniformity across models. Of course too much uniformity can cause problems too. Farmers are susceptible to plagues when crops are too uniform and computers are susceptible to viruses when software is too uniform. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
According to the physicists, they settled it without the need for any medical trials at all. The root cause of cancer is the disruption of molecular bonds, and radio waves aren't energetic enough to do that. I'm no physicist, but Bob Park (Voodoo Science) is, and that's what he says... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
which costs money, and raises the total cost of healthcare in the U.S. On Jul 1, 2008, at 5:00 PM, rlsimon wrote: That's why most medical offices have an employee to do all that! -Original Message- From: Janaki Kuruppu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: Re: US is access loser Ever hear of socialized medicine? Most of my relatives live in Europe. Some are doctors. They are very, very happy with their socialized medicine. Health care is their #1 reason for not wanting to live in the US. They are amazed how easily Americans are brainwashed by greedy insurance companies and the medical lobby. Recognizing that this is getting totally off-topic, but didn't that happen to this thread quite awhile ago?? I am a doctor, in the US, and I just spent more than an hour of my morning on the phone with three different insurance companies to get a required medication for one of my patients - and given the restrictions of the insurance formulary, I can only get one month of a medication which is medically indicated, and which I have no equivalent alternative for, and I'm going to have to go through this again in 30 days!!! Not to mention that the website that one of the insurance companies wants me to use to submit the request to is essentially non-function, and didn't give me the right contact number to get the answer I needed...argh!! Janaki Kuruppu * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Don't give up hope yet. It hasn't been that long since the NJ legislature opened up the FIOS market by enabling statewide franchises so that the FIOS companies don't have negotiate with every little municipality. The FIOS companies (mostly Verizon) will pick the low-hanging fruit first, the higher income population dense areas, but eventually they will spread to the suburbs and beyond as well. Go to http://www.dslreports.com/gmaps/fios to look at the current FIOS coverage for NEW Jersey, and consider that next to nothing was there a couple of years ago. You can also look at the predicted coverage to see if it is coming where you live. In the meanwhile, if you have good cellular coverage, have you considered a wireless data plan? Those seem to have recently gone down in price somewhat, and that would get you something a little faster than dialup. David On Jun 29, 2008, at 3:19 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: Date:Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:51:07 -0400 From:rlsimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: US is access loser On NPR there was a story claiming the US was a winner initially in the lineup of those nations affording access to broadband internet being amongst the top 4 while now we are 15th behing Luxembourg ...I know this for sure having recently visited Belgium where just about everyone has it (even cell phone access is cheap and 5 bars even in the littlest backwater village in the mountains). Here in NJ, the most populous state in the nation, I live 45 minutes from Philadelphia and can only get Comcast cable (I'd rather eat dirt than deal with that bunch!!) with DSL FIOS not even on the planning boards!! ...huh?? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Florida is doing a lot of public private construction of roads and bridges and so that is now being explored. Except for opposition from land owners and NMBY folks and those small towns who say we will loose all our traffic it looks like it might get started and done in 5 years. Much faster than if you waited for the public folks to do it. It is both a good thing and a bad things as this will be a toll road and it will cost the public to use it until it is paid for. When I visit my family, in Florida, I drive down on tax-payer financed roads. Once in Florida, I enjoy paying many tolls to drive around the state. This is an artifact of the Republican mentality of corporate welfare. Why pay for public utilities, like roads, by spreading the costs amongst all taxpayers when you can let a private company build it and then put its hand into the public pocket in perpetuity (how many tolls disappear?) Virginia started towards this same sort of corporate welfare but the movement has slowed after seeing the results in other states (and after electing more Democrats). * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
A private venture already investing in rural broadband, no guvmint handout necessary, competing with cellular business models no less. Demand, meet supply. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901 697.html * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
And I look forward to the nether regions freezing over before I see a Verizon FIOS truck in my area of central MD of 1 - 5 acre lots mixed in with 100+ acre family farms. I still don't have reliable cell coverage (which is not a bad thing when the boss wants to reach me ...), and Comcast's cable service is, well, comcastic, which is actually worse than with Adelphia, which was a serious step down from the old mom pop cable company which actually laid the fiber for my cable modem back in 1999 and which provided great service. It probably helped that we were customer #4, and the first three were employees. Matthew On Jun 29, 2008, at 6:32 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote: We look forward to becoming your broadband provider of choice, deploying state of the art network technology at a reasonable price to our customers, wherever they may be. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Rural and small town America has outsourced the fire departments for years - it is called the local volunteer fire department. We also outsource part of the police force - the local volunteer auxiliary police who do crowd control and general event security. It seems to work just fine, though the VFD's are coming under stress now because so many folks no longer work near where they live. Matthew On Jun 30, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Tom Piwowar wrote: It is both a good thing and a bad things as this will be a toll road and it will cost the public to use it until it is paid for. Next we outsource police, fire, and courts. It will be nice to simply pay to have my noisy neighbor arrested and more efficient to try cases by auction. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Problem with wireless is the rollout is not complete so there is little room for the ultimate solution to reliability; redundancy. -Original Message- From: Eric S. Sande [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:21 PM To: rlsimon Cc: 'Computer Guys Discussion List' Subject: Re: US is access loser I am loath to expect the optical solution will stand the traffic demands over the short term. I can't understand why more has not gone into wireless as a longer term solution with less disruptive infrastructure demands albeit the view of a tower herethere which pales in comparison to the omnipresent telephone poles up and down every byway ... Wireless is fine but so far it is a sub-optimal technology in terms of speed and reliability. You have to know that in wired telecom reliability is the single driving force. We CAN'T fall below established regulatory standards in terms of service delivery. It has to work all the time. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
It is my understanding that at present most wireless companies lease space on towers and do not own the towers. Plus you need to have a tower about every 20 miles. Stewart At 12:23 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: Problem with wireless is the rollout is not complete so there is little room for the ultimate solution to reliability; redundancy. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Several wireless companies were competing to implement wireless networks in Silicon Valley. MetroFi won the contract and started to deploy a free wireless solution about 3 years ago. They offered free wireless - that was supposed to be supported by browser ads and a premium service that had no ads. They leased telephone and light poles in the cities they served for their antennas. They just folded due to the costs involved and are trying to sell their infrastructure to the cities they served. I was an early adopter and had them install a wireless antenna (on a DirecTV mount) to the side of my house as the nearest telephone pole was basically too far away. Even with the antenna, I still had spotty service. Some of the local cities are thinking of buying the service. Foster City said NFW as the infrastructure was for sale for $200,000 with an estimated yearly maintenance cost of $125,000. Others are looking into it. Wireless of any sort (free or premium) is pretty much on life support in the SF Bay Area. Larry -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rev. Stewart Marshall Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:29 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser It is my understanding that at present most wireless companies lease space on towers and do not own the towers. Plus you need to have a tower about every 20 miles. Stewart At 12:23 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: Problem with wireless is the rollout is not complete so there is little room for the ultimate solution to reliability; redundancy. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
-Original Message- Correct, to an extent. My town (Middleburg) leases to most of the carriers on our two water towers. We prohibit private towers inside town limits. No one wants the eye sore of private towers here. It was a unanimous vote? *No one* wants rental income from the carriers? Or was it just the people who bothered to show up for the meeting? A woman came to my house with a petition last year, to block the proposed building of a cell tower in our neighborhood. My neighborhood is a cellular black hole and I wouldn't mind better coverage at all. It would be in the middle of a rather large and tall thicket of trees, on land owned by the community swimming pool (which is always one foot in the financial grave) and abutted by my kids' elementary school. Lots and lots of buffer zone. She had all sorts of Very Scary[tm] reasons, including declining property values, why we shouldn't allow it to be put in. When I asked her how the an adjacent development, which has a nearly identical setup, sans trees to hide in, fared in terms of property values, she started blubbering how it wasn't the same (because, you know, the laws of economics operate differently there) and wouldn't give me a straight answer. I asked her a few more questions about her other dubious claims and it was obvious that she hadn't encountered anyone skeptical of her horror stories yet. She scurried off rather than answer any of them. Turns out, her house will be one of the closer homes, albeit about 300 feet away on the other side of the thicket. Funny that. I find it strange how many of us will tolerate all sorts of technological eyesores on our streets: power lines, telephone poles, traffic lights, mailboxes, street lights, lines for phones and cable, satellite dishes, cars, trucks, roads, etc, but lose all rationality when it comes to cell towers. Does the DSM IV have anything on this yet? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Middleburg has had this in effect for at least 5-10 years. I am on the town council and listen closely when someone complains. No one has complained. Middleburg is a small historic town (fewer than 700 residents) laid out around the time of the revolutionary war with England. It is in the middle of horse country. Scenic preservation and view-sheds are important here. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Wright Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:48 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser -Original Message- Correct, to an extent. My town (Middleburg) leases to most of the carriers on our two water towers. We prohibit private towers inside town limits. No one wants the eye sore of private towers here. It was a unanimous vote? *No one* wants rental income from the carriers? Or was it just the people who bothered to show up for the meeting? A woman came to my house with a petition last year, to block the proposed building of a cell tower in our neighborhood. My neighborhood is a cellular black hole and I wouldn't mind better coverage at all. It would be in the middle of a rather large and tall thicket of trees, on land owned by the community swimming pool (which is always one foot in the financial grave) and abutted by my kids' elementary school. Lots and lots of buffer zone. She had all sorts of Very Scary[tm] reasons, including declining property values, why we shouldn't allow it to be put in. When I asked her how the an adjacent development, which has a nearly identical setup, sans trees to hide in, fared in terms of property values, she started blubbering how it wasn't the same (because, you know, the laws of economics operate differently there) and wouldn't give me a straight answer. I asked her a few more questions about her other dubious claims and it was obvious that she hadn't encountered anyone skeptical of her horror stories yet. She scurried off rather than answer any of them. Turns out, her house will be one of the closer homes, albeit about 300 feet away on the other side of the thicket. Funny that. I find it strange how many of us will tolerate all sorts of technological eyesores on our streets: power lines, telephone poles, traffic lights, mailboxes, street lights, lines for phones and cable, satellite dishes, cars, trucks, roads, etc, but lose all rationality when it comes to cell towers. Does the DSM IV have anything on this yet? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I find it strange how many of us will tolerate all sorts of technological eyesores on our streets: power lines, telephone poles, traffic lights, mailboxes, street lights, lines for phones and cable, satellite dishes, cars, trucks, roads, etc, but lose all rationality when it comes to cell towers. I have seen some well camouflaged cell towers made to look like pine trees. Not bad at all. I would expect being in a dead zone would be depressing on property values too. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Yes but mailboxes, street lights, lines for phones and cable, satellite dishes, etc don't emit harmful waves that will let you cook an egg. :- ) I heard it was the mailboxes that beam messages into your head. I'm starting a petition to have these dangerous boxes removed. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I heard it was the mailboxes that beam messages into your head. Hey, beaming messages into your head is my department. I'm the guy who is part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Not only do I work for the phone company but I also belong to the NRA and possibly the Republican Party, although I'm not sure about that last item as they have gotten too liberal for me. I can say that we have known how to defeat your tinfoil hat technology for some time, Earthlings. ;-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I'm on the Planning/Zoning Board of our town. Recently we reviewed an app to put up a tower along the main road on a piece of land behing fire company #2 with good rental $$ for the town. I objected given it is kiddycorner across the street from the new school. They brought in a big gun (prof of engineering and physics from PennState who has over 100 pub on his resume about rf from cell towers, etc.) who gave a very detailed explanation with chartsgraphs showing the decrement of the signal strength and the dependency on the elevation and distance from the tower, etc. It passed. That was last year. No tower is growing yet. I think the evidence (including the fat packet provided) is the worries about that are bunk and junk science. I wonder if it is a settled issue or if there is still any doubt?? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I wonder if it is a settled issue or if there is still any doubt?? There's doubt about the amount of RF radiation you get from a handset transmitting next to your brain. I doubt that the transmissions from a tower would be an issue unless you were right next to the antenna. Like within a few meters. I'm not a cellular/mobile expert but I try not to use my cell phone generally, not out of health concerns but rather because the overall quality sucks compared to landlines. It is convenient but it's not my device of choice. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I know a church that has gotten a nice monthly income from leasing space inside their bell tower for Antenna space. Stewart I have seen some well camouflaged cell towers made to look like pine trees. Not bad at all. I would expect being in a dead zone would be depressing on property values too. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Hmm... on top of a church bell tower, eh? What better way for all that radiation to be spread out from the sheer height alone and who ever said radiation only goes outwards and not down I'll be all those parishioners don't even suspect they're being bombarded by massive doses of cell phone radiation during mass. :-) -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rev. Stewart Marshall Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:55 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser I know a church that has gotten a nice monthly income from leasing space inside their bell tower for Antenna space. Stewart I have seen some well camouflaged cell towers made to look like pine trees. Not bad at all. I would expect being in a dead zone would be depressing on property values too. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I've tried to use my landline as much as possible. I've got ATT more bars in more places except Cupertino and my 50+ year old wood frame construction house apparently. Unless bars refers to drinking establishments, which is what I generally need when I have to try to make a phone call and can't get a signal (or when I have to call Comcast about my poor internet connection). The only downside to using my landline is when I use the cordless, I can't get very far down the block before the signal drops out and the longest RJ-11 cable I can find is about 100'. :-) Larry -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric S. Sande Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:57 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser I wonder if it is a settled issue or if there is still any doubt?? There's doubt about the amount of RF radiation you get from a handset transmitting next to your brain. I doubt that the transmissions from a tower would be an issue unless you were right next to the antenna. Like within a few meters. I'm not a cellular/mobile expert but I try not to use my cell phone generally, not out of health concerns but rather because the overall quality sucks compared to landlines. It is convenient but it's not my device of choice. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Well it is a Lutheran Mass so we wear our aluminum hats. :-) Stewart At 05:09 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: Hmm... on top of a church bell tower, eh? What better way for all that radiation to be spread out from the sheer height alone and who ever said radiation only goes outwards and not down I'll be all those parishioners don't even suspect they're being bombarded by massive doses of cell phone radiation during mass. :-) Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I am not sure what it is with many of you and cell phones but my signal and reception and clarity are pretty darn good. I live in just this side of the hinterland and we have a very hilly area (Antennas are placed on the high points) Even in many supposedly rural areas I have good coverage and signal and call quality. There are a few areas where we loose signal. Usually because of no antennas (Like on Federal property) or low lying areas. But my wife can talk to my son as he drives home and he lives in the boonies. Part of the problem is phones. Some of these neat slick thin phones have lousy antennas. (I have friends who sell them and the tell me these things) My son had a RAZR and the reception was abominable. He now has a Q and he has no problems. Stewart At 05:02 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: I've tried to use my landline as much as possible. I've got ATT more bars in more places except Cupertino and my 50+ year old wood frame construction house apparently. Unless bars refers to drinking establishments, which is what I generally need when I have to try to make a phone call and can't get a signal (or when I have to call Comcast about my poor internet connection). The only downside to using my landline is when I use the cordless, I can't get very far down the block before the signal drops out and the longest RJ-11 cable I can find is about 100'. :-) Larry Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I used to have a Nokia 32xx series (I can't remember which model it was but it was a candybar type (as I found out one day)). It got slightly better reception at home. Work is the place where cell phone signals go to die - even if I wear a tinfoil hat too. That was a pretty good phone - I only stopped using it after it decided not to turn on anymore. After the power switch fell out (yes, fell out), I just made sure I kept the battery charged. If the phone powered off, I'd stick a small screwdriver in where the power button was and fiddle it around until the phone turned back on. I've been amazed in the boonies when I get a good signal. I guess in the middle of Silicon Valley, there's no need for a strong signal... ;-) You gotta love ATT Larry -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rev. Stewart Marshall Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:17 PM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser I am not sure what it is with many of you and cell phones but my signal and reception and clarity are pretty darn good. I live in just this side of the hinterland and we have a very hilly area (Antennas are placed on the high points) Even in many supposedly rural areas I have good coverage and signal and call quality. There are a few areas where we loose signal. Usually because of no antennas (Like on Federal property) or low lying areas. But my wife can talk to my son as he drives home and he lives in the boonies. Part of the problem is phones. Some of these neat slick thin phones have lousy antennas. (I have friends who sell them and the tell me these things) My son had a RAZR and the reception was abominable. He now has a Q and he has no problems. Stewart At 05:02 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: I've tried to use my landline as much as possible. I've got ATT more bars in more places except Cupertino and my 50+ year old wood frame construction house apparently. Unless bars refers to drinking establishments, which is what I generally need when I have to try to make a phone call and can't get a signal (or when I have to call Comcast about my poor internet connection). The only downside to using my landline is when I use the cordless, I can't get very far down the block before the signal drops out and the longest RJ-11 cable I can find is about 100'. :-) Larry Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I am not sure what it is with many of you and cell phones but my signal and reception and clarity are pretty darn good. A few factors play into this. Inside steel framed office buildings (well actually reinforced concrete, mostly, where I am) you are in a Faraday cage. If you aren't near a window, it's hit or miss as to whether cellular works. You can pretty much forget it in an elevator inside one of these buildings. Oh, I also live in a reinforced concrete apartment building that is surrounded by others of the same type. Even getting FM radio is problematical. Luckily most stations I listen to have Internet feeds. On the street it's a little better. But it still doesn't work some of the time. It works fine outside of the city. If you can accept the poor sound quality. I'm using an issue cell phone, an LG that's pretty old by modern standards, fairly bulky with the extra big battery. Maybe there are better ones out there. I take what I can get... It has been physically rock solid and I have to admit that like all of the equipment I've been issued it's adequate for the job. But it can't redefine physics. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I live in the official hinterland ...pop 1100. And I tried fones from the big4 ...no dice for tmo or next/spr (even with an antenna on a tower right behind our town hall 1mi away) ...verizon had some signal, but ATT gives me 5 bars at my desk (so I can ramble on all day) and at my kitchen table (so I can read the local paper and check my email) as well as at my recliner chair (not 5 bars sadly, but enough to make calls and look up the tv schedule on zap2it) all this on my trusty old original RazrV3 phone !! -Original Message- From: Rev. Stewart Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 6:17 PM Subject: Re: US is access loser I am not sure what it is with many of you and cell phones but my signal and reception and clarity are pretty darn good. I live in just this side of the hinterland and we have a very hilly area (Antennas are placed on the high points) Even in many supposedly rural areas I have good coverage and signal and call quality. There are a few areas where we loose signal. Usually because of no antennas (Like on Federal property) or low lying areas. But my wife can talk to my son as he drives home and he lives in the boonies. Part of the problem is phones. Some of these neat slick thin phones have lousy antennas. (I have friends who sell them and the tell me these things) My son had a RAZR and the reception was abominable. He now has a Q and he has no problems. Stewart At 05:02 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: I've tried to use my landline as much as possible. I've got ATT more bars in more places except Cupertino and my 50+ year old wood frame construction house apparently. Unless bars refers to drinking establishments, which is what I generally need when I have to try to make a phone call and can't get a signal (or when I have to call Comcast about my poor internet connection). The only downside to using my landline is when I use the cordless, I can't get very far down the block before the signal drops out and the longest RJ-11 cable I can find is about 100'. :-) Larry Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I just read that iPhone service plans with unlimited data start at $24 USD in Hong Kong. That is about 1/4 of the lowest US price. That's what we mean by being losers. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Yeah, but they have to stand in long iPhone data plan lines to get it. Then they have to go stand in the voice plan line. I don't even want to think about the accessories line. -Original Message- I just read that iPhone service plans with unlimited data start at $24 USD in Hong Kong. That is about 1/4 of the lowest US price. That's what we mean by being losers. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
They do not have a multitude of carriers, and usually have a government monopoly, or one that is heavily subsidized by the government. I am not sure if many knew this but recently Bell Canada (The Canadian offshoot of the Bell Companies) Was recently cleared to allow the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund to be one of their biggest shareholders. At one time the Ontario Provincial Government was a huge shareholder/owner of Savin Business Equipment. This is not unusual in many foreign companies. (Including Airlines) and they sometimes are fairly good companies. Stewart At 09:47 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: I don't know about the iphone in Asia but 18 months ago I took my unlocked T-mobile Samsung GSM flip phone to Thailand and Laos and could buy a $5 dollar SIM card (with $5 of minutes credit) in a kiosk in most any grocery store etc and then similarly recharged that $5 or $10 a pop at any convenience stand when I needed to. Could not have been easier. Made our similar purchases via a cell carrier customer service center or walk-a-mile across the parking lot and thru a US mega-grocery/ Mall Best Buy chain store look like Soviet era style bizness. Every tuk-tuk (moped taxi) driver and longboat driver had one and they didn't have much else. In my mind, they sure know how to make it work and keep it simple. db Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Thanks to Gerald for pointing once more to the archaic wireless system we enjoy, seemingly without protest. In 1886, captains of industry here decided that, yes, it was a good idea to establish standard gauge railroads. Before that, cargo had to be transferred upon arriving at a different dimension rail, a great loss of income. Perhaps our modern captains (hello, Verizon, ATT?) might come to an understanding that the worldwide gsm standard isn't such a bad thing, interchangeable sim cards work to the benefit of all, including profit margins. And guess what? Over there, one receives signal in the depth of metro, the remote of mountains, in the middle of water. Row together, all benefit. Until then, we in the US will waste time and money with 19th century equivalence, a burden to all. Chad * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
GSM is not a world standard. It is used in a good portion of the world but CDMA is also recognized as a standard. The reason for lack of signal is not CDMA vs. GSM it is lack of antennas!! As I stated earlier you must have antennas about every 20 miles to get good coverage. ( I think it might be longer) In mountainous areas and hilly areas, you need them closer to fill in the blanks. Our problem is that we have such a wide area we simply need more antenna coverage. When I was in Northern Ontario a couple years ago my phone (CDMA) would not work most of the time I was there, except for a few areas. If I had, had a GSM it would have. Next time I go I will get a GO phone or similar and use it up there. Stewart At 10:44 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote: Thanks to Gerald for pointing once more to the archaic wireless system we enjoy, seemingly without protest. In 1886, captains of industry here decided that, yes, it was a good idea to establish standard gauge railroads. Before that, cargo had to be transferred upon arriving at a different dimension rail, a great loss of income. Perhaps our modern captains (hello, Verizon, ATT?) might come to an understanding that the worldwide gsm standard isn't such a bad thing, interchangeable sim cards work to the benefit of all, including profit margins. And guess what? Over there, one receives signal in the depth of metro, the remote of mountains, in the middle of water. Row together, all benefit. Until then, we in the US will waste time and money with 19th century equivalence, a burden to all. Chad Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Precisely. The Internet was created using public tax dollars and then given away by corrupt politicians to greedy corporations. The public has been on the short end of battle after battle. What you are seeing in the US is the result of media consolidation and the giving away and selling of our public infrastructure to the highest bidder. The final battle is the one over network neutrality. Now that these greedy corporations have seized control of 94% of US broadband their next steps are to meter your access, jack up prices, and make it difficult for you to reach services that are not run by their buiness partners. Reregulation and forceful management of the public trust is the only solution. Sending a few crooks to jail would be nice too. On NPR there was a story claiming the US was a winner initially in the lineup of those nations affording access to broadband internet being amongst the top 4 while now we are 15th behing Luxembourg ...I know this for sure having recently visited Belgium where just about everyone has it (even cell phone access is cheap and 5 bars even in the littlest backwater village in the mountains). Here in NJ, the most populous state in the nation, I live 45 minutes from Philadelphia and can only get Comcast cable (I'd rather eat dirt than deal with that bunch!!) with DSL FIOS not even on the planning boards!! ...huh?? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
On Jun 29, 2008, at 10:51 AM, rlsimon wrote: On NPR there was a story claiming the US was a winner initially in the lineup of those nations affording access to broadband internet being amongst the top 4 while now we are 15th behing Luxembourg ...I know this for sure having recently visited Belgium where just about everyone has it (even cell phone access is cheap and 5 bars even in the littlest backwater village in the mountains). Here in NJ, the most populous state in the nation, I live 45 minutes from Philadelphia and can only get Comcast cable (I'd rather eat dirt than deal with that bunch!!) with DSL FIOS not even on the planning boards!! ...huh?? Most Americans are perfectly happy with whatever levels of communications services are currently available to them. Most Americans are not aware of what levels of service COULD be available to them. Most Americans who have cell phone or internet service are quite fat and happy with what they have. For the most part, they just do not know any better. My opinions only. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
On NPR there was a story claiming the US was a winner initially in the lineup of those nations affording access to broadband internet being amongst the top 4 while now we are 15th behing Luxembourg ...I know this for sure having recently visited Belgium where ... While it is certainly true that communications in the US leave MUCH to be desired, and that certain greedy companies are treating customers like dirt, there are certain facts that must be considered. I have prepared the informative table below. :) Country Area (sq. mi.) --- Luxembourg 999 Belgium 11,787 USA 3,794,083 Put another way, the US has to wire up 3,798 Luxembourgs. :) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
There is another stark difference in that we are much farther apart than any of those European countries. Put in population density and see this difference. Luxembourg 481/sq.mi. Belgium 892/sq.mi. USA 80/sq.mi. Years ago the rural phone customers used to be subsidized by metropolitan phone customers. Because the density was so much less and cable runs were so much farther. Stewart At 12:51 PM 6/29/2008, you wrote: While it is certainly true that communications in the US leave MUCH to be desired, and that certain greedy companies are treating customers like dirt, there are certain facts that must be considered. I have prepared the informative table below. :) Country Area (sq. mi.) --- Luxembourg 999 Belgium 11,787 USA 3,794,083 Put another way, the US has to wire up 3,798 Luxembourgs. :) Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Put another way, the US has to wire up 3,798 Luxembourgs. :) This is such silly logic that it is hard to respond. Compare the difficulty of burying fiber in an urban area to doing the same in a rural area. In the city they are lucky to bury a couple hundred feet in a day. In rural areas the speed of the trencher is many miles per day. The US failure has nothing to do with population density. Taken another way. If your argument were true, why does broadband in US urban areas still suck? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
It may be true that most Americans are happy with what they have, because they don't know of anything better (ignorance is bliss). People were relatively happy with dial-up until they experienced broadband. But most of us have limited options as far as broadband goes. I have a choice of Verizon DSL or Hughes Net. While there is cable on road, my house is too far back for the cable company to run the cable for one house. Hughes Net cost at least $60 per month and I am assuming that you can loose your connection in a storm. (It happens with my DirecTV signal.) Thus, my only real choice is Verizon DSL. Am I correct in assuming that many of these other countries have some kind of government support in developing a broadband system? Steve Brownfield Steve Rigby wrote: On Jun 29, 2008, at 10:51 AM, rlsimon wrote: On NPR there was a story claiming the US was a winner initially in the lineup of those nations affording access to broadband internet being amongst the top 4 while now we are 15th behing Luxembourg ...I know this for sure having recently visited Belgium where just about everyone has it (even cell phone access is cheap and 5 bars even in the littlest backwater village in the mountains). Here in NJ, the most populous state in the nation, I live 45 minutes from Philadelphia and can only get Comcast cable (I'd rather eat dirt than deal with that bunch!!) with DSL FIOS not even on the planning boards!! ...huh?? Most Americans are perfectly happy with whatever levels of communications services are currently available to them. Most Americans are not aware of what levels of service COULD be available to them. Most Americans who have cell phone or internet service are quite fat and happy with what they have. For the most part, they just do not know any better. My opinions only. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
1.) If you are trying too bury it you are stupid. Of course you cant bury it in urban areas that does not make sense. Pole to pole is much faster and easier. (In some urban areas they set up underground conduits where it is much easier and much better to do underground.) 2.) Broadband access among rural folks still sucks. One of my members that lives not 2 miles from my house has to resort to satellite to get broadband access. Cable does not serve her house nor does DSL. Go out west where many folks have no access to broadband service except for satellite. Stewart At 01:40 PM 6/29/2008, you wrote: This is such silly logic that it is hard to respond. Compare the difficulty of burying fiber in an urban area to doing the same in a rural area. In the city they are lucky to bury a couple hundred feet in a day. In rural areas the speed of the trencher is many miles per day. The US failure has nothing to do with population density. Taken another way. If your argument were true, why does broadband in US urban areas still suck? Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I have FIOS at home and a shared T1 at work. Talk about a let down. On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Stephen Brownfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be true that most Americans are happy with what they have, because they don't know of anything better (ignorance is bliss). People were relatively happy with dial-up until they experienced broadband. But most of us have limited options as far as broadband goes. I have a choice of Verizon DSL or Hughes Net. While there is cable on road, my house is too far back for the cable company to run the cable for one house. Hughes Net cost at least $60 per month and I am assuming that you can loose your connection in a storm. (It happens with my DirecTV signal.) Thus, my only real choice is Verizon DSL. Am I correct in assuming that many of these other countries have some kind of government support in developing a broadband system? Steve Brownfield Steve Rigby wrote: On Jun 29, 2008, at 10:51 AM, rlsimon wrote: On NPR there was a story claiming the US was a winner initially in the lineup of those nations affording access to broadband internet being amongst the top 4 while now we are 15th behing Luxembourg ...I know this for sure having recently visited Belgium where just about everyone has it (even cell phone access is cheap and 5 bars even in the littlest backwater village in the mountains). Here in NJ, the most populous state in the nation, I live 45 minutes from Philadelphia and can only get Comcast cable (I'd rather eat dirt than deal with that bunch!!) with DSL FIOS not even on the planning boards!! ...huh?? Most Americans are perfectly happy with whatever levels of communications services are currently available to them. Most Americans are not aware of what levels of service COULD be available to them. Most Americans who have cell phone or internet service are quite fat and happy with what they have. For the most part, they just do not know any better. My opinions only. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I have FIOS at home and a shared T1 at work. Talk about a let down. Which one aren't you happy with? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
My FIOS speed is around that of a T3 no problems there. The office T! gets bogged down pretty easily being shared by around 20 people.. On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Eric S. Sande [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have FIOS at home and a shared T1 at work. Talk about a let down. Which one aren't you happy with? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
On Jun 29, 2008, at 3:22 PM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: I have FIOS at home and a shared T1 at work. Talk about a let down. which? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
1.) If you are trying too bury it you are stupid. Of course you cant bury it in urban areas that does not make sense. Pole to pole is much faster and easier. (In some urban areas they set up underground conduits where it is much easier and much better to do underground.) We can do it either buried or aerial optical or copper. It's a challenge but we prefer buried optical for reliability. It's not true that you can't trench in cities. At the height of the Internet boom in 2000 there were dozens of companies tearing up the streets of DC to lay fiber. That infrastructure is there. Much of it remains to be utilized. As far as rural areas yes that is a challenge. Aerial is often the only available solution. But aerial is a bitch to maintain because it is subject to weather. So if it costs me more to provide the service than I'm getting out of it in rate of return I am behind the regulatory eight ball in terms of being a public utility. I'll guarantee you voice services as mandated and I will build out as fast as I can to get my broadband up to the standards of Luxembourg. Europeans aren't dealing with the same scale issues I am. Happy surfing. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Europeans aren't dealing with the same scale issues I am. You must not be using a Piwowar projection map. The US is about the size of Rhode Island on a Mercator map and Luxemburg looks to be the size of China. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
OK ...here goes!! I just got back from Belgium visiting the family for the first time since 2001. Already in 2001 when we were going along the highway from Brussels to the eastern city of Liege with the car radio turned off, the radio suddenly turned itself on and gave us a traffic accident update on the roadway ahead ...now THAT is useful. In 2001 the cellular service had some spots where signals were lacking; now in 2008 we went to every backwater village there is and my fone was always pegged at 5 bars; moreover, since I only have a RazrV3 and it doesn't have high speed net, I didn't use the net much, but I did get GPRS via the WAP browser reliably everywhere. When we arrived, our family needed only use teletext to look at the arrival times for flights at Brussels International Airport in Zaventem. Most people there had their cell phones (they call them GSMs or simply G). Coin phones are a thing of the past, but phones were seen on the street herethere which worked with debit cards. Much of the communication network is quite visible in the countryside, however. Cell towers are another blight on the gorgeous countryside together with aeoliennes (wind turbines) that are turning up there in great numbers (apparently the country with the most currently is Germany). And, of course, the nuclear electric generating reactor at Tihange dominates the horizon from many locales with the plumes created; the price we pay for energy hungry life!! -Original Message- From: Rev. Stewart Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:13 PM Subject: Re: US is access loser 1.) If you are trying too bury it you are stupid. Of course you cant bury it in urban areas that does not make sense. Pole to pole is much faster and easier. (In some urban areas they set up underground conduits where it is much easier and much better to do underground.) 2.) Broadband access among rural folks still sucks. One of my members that lives not 2 miles from my house has to resort to satellite to get broadband access. Cable does not serve her house nor does DSL. Go out west where many folks have no access to broadband service except for satellite. Stewart At 01:40 PM 6/29/2008, you wrote: This is such silly logic that it is hard to respond. Compare the difficulty of burying fiber in an urban area to doing the same in a rural area. In the city they are lucky to bury a couple hundred feet in a day. In rural areas the speed of the trencher is many miles per day. The US failure has nothing to do with population density. Taken another way. If your argument were true, why does broadband in US urban areas still suck? Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Take a look at this!! Doel, Belgium. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/DoelMolen.jpg/451px -DoelMolen.jpg * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Lest I remind you that most of these enterprises are government controlled and government funded enterprises. Yes there is a density of Antennas but that is the only way to get coverage. Most places here do not have service because no one will allow them to place an antenna for service. Wind Turbines? NMBY is the biggest problem, (Not in My Back Yard) Sen Kennedy tried to pass legislation or protest the placement of Turbines in MA as it would spoil his view. Most of Europe relies on Nuclear for their power. Again most of these are government controlled and government funded enterprises and no one tells the government no! Stewart At 04:37 PM 6/29/2008, you wrote: OK ...here goes!! I just got back from Belgium visiting the family for the first time since 2001. Already in 2001 when we were going along the highway from Brussels to the eastern city of Liege with the car radio turned off, the radio suddenly turned itself on and gave us a traffic accident update on the roadway ahead ...now THAT is useful. In 2001 the cellular service had some spots where signals were lacking; now in 2008 we went to every backwater village there is and my fone was always pegged at 5 bars; moreover, since I only have a RazrV3 and it doesn't have high speed net, I didn't use the net much, but I did get GPRS via the WAP browser reliably everywhere. When we arrived, our family needed only use teletext to look at the arrival times for flights at Brussels International Airport in Zaventem. Most people there had their cell phones (they call them GSMs or simply G). Coin phones are a thing of the past, but phones were seen on the street herethere which worked with debit cards. Much of the communication network is quite visible in the countryside, however. Cell towers are another blight on the gorgeous countryside together with aeoliennes (wind turbines) that are turning up there in great numbers (apparently the country with the most currently is Germany). And, of course, the nuclear electric generating reactor at Tihange dominates the horizon from many locales with the plumes created; the price we pay for energy hungry life!! Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Am I correct in assuming that many of these other countries have some kind of government support in developing a broadband system? Yeah, that's a point. I don't believe we ever got a dime out of the government outside of the Federal Cost Recovery Surcharge, which was actually pretty big money, check your phone bill. But that was meant to compensate local phone companies for the cost of doing business after the Bell monopoly was broken up and the local companies no longer got a slice of the ATT long distance revenue. In terms of building out a next generation optical network we are pretty much on our own as far as financing is concerned. We are confident that our investment will pay off, in the long run. It is certainly true that European and Asian governments subsidize telecom to a greater extent than in the United States. We never expected to get any handouts and we are not looking for them. We look forward to becoming your broadband provider of choice, deploying state of the art network technology at a reasonable price to our customers, wherever they may be. So I think that's the end of the infomercial, I think I can call some marketing guys if you want more spin :-). * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I am loath to expect the optical solution will stand the traffic demands over the short term. I can't understand why more has not gone into wireless as a longer term solution with less disruptive infrastructure demands albeit the view of a tower herethere which pales in comparison to the omnipresent telephone poles up and down every byway ... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I am loath to expect the optical solution will stand the traffic demands over the short term. I can't understand why more has not gone into wireless as a longer term solution with less disruptive infrastructure demands albeit the view of a tower herethere which pales in comparison to the omnipresent telephone poles up and down every byway ... Wireless is fine but so far it is a sub-optimal technology in terms of speed and reliability. You have to know that in wired telecom reliability is the single driving force. We CAN'T fall below established regulatory standards in terms of service delivery. It has to work all the time. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Lest I remind you that most of these enterprises are government controlled and government funded enterprises. Do you refuse to drive on any roadway that was not privately built? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Wireless is fine but so far it is a sub-optimal technology in terms of speed and reliability. Do you really want a system that drops out whenever it rains? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I have FIOS at home and a shared T1 at work. Talk about a let down. Why would anyone use T1 today? T1 is 1.5 Mbps. That was considered fast 10 years ago, but is crappy even by US standards. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Been there done that not interested. Stewart At 07:40 PM 6/29/2008, you wrote: Wireless is fine but so far it is a sub-optimal technology in terms of speed and reliability. Do you really want a system that drops out whenever it rains? Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
You might be better off driving on private roads in some parts. To get from Panama City, FL. north you have to take an old 4 lane public access road that goes through every town with appropriately slow speeds. There has been talk of a publicly constructed 4 lane or more interstate connector highway but it has never gotten off the drawing board (funding issues etc. etc.) Florida is doing a lot of public private construction of roads and bridges and so that is now being explored. Except for opposition from land owners and NMBY folks and those small towns who say we will loose all our traffic it looks like it might get started and done in 5 years. Much faster than if you waited for the public folks to do it. It is both a good thing and a bad things as this will be a toll road and it will cost the public to use it until it is paid for. Stewart At 07:39 PM 6/29/2008, you wrote: Lest I remind you that most of these enterprises are government controlled and government funded enterprises. Do you refuse to drive on any roadway that was not privately built? Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
Do you really want a system that drops out whenever it rains? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. If you are saying that a copper network is subject to weather I'll agree. That's why we are replacing it. Its physics. If you are talking about wireless, well your call will eventually be carried on the PSTN. That's a fact. So what is the problem? If you have bad service on my network my people will fix it. I know that parts of the network are old and up for replacement. So what is your problem? You make one call and I'll send out a professional, no charge unless you managed to screw it up yourself, which I doubt you would do. I don't see this as an issue, Dr. Piwowar. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] US is access loser
I reverse commute. T1 is the best they can get out in the sticks without paying through the nose. We get spoiled in the close in DC suburbs. On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have FIOS at home and a shared T1 at work. Talk about a let down. Why would anyone use T1 today? T1 is 1.5 Mbps. That was considered fast 10 years ago, but is crappy even by US standards. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
