Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...

At 01 Dec 2007 23:45:15 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:

> > it apple wins, they'll have product on day one. that's just how they
> > roll.
> >
>
> That would mean that they are building the network now. Funny- I don't
see
> any expenses for that in their financial reports. So tell me- how are
they
> building the netwrok today to be ready for day one?


They don't have to build it, silly, they'll just use the existing TV
station towers currently broadcasting on those frequencies, remember?
Oxy's already explained all that... Remember the "instant network?"



Try to keep up, Cozmic... ;-)

In article
<linuxlovesosx-DA81AC.22385901122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:

> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
> > The spectrum is 400 days (?) from being AWARDED.
> >
> > Next comes type certification of equipment.
> >
> > Then the manufacturing of equipment (mainly chipsets).
> >
> > Then the network build out.
> >
> > Or are you dreaming that in 400 days everything will magically start
> > working?
>
> it apple wins, they'll have product on day one. that's just how they
> roll.

So, that's your prediction? For everyone to see?

What waffling will you use when that doesn't happen? What excuse will
you have about how you "really didn't mean THAT" when that doesn't
happen?

Lawyers.
Contract terms.

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-432F91.12591301122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
> is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...
>
> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
> like a hot potato.
>
> AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so
> they need to play nice or end up like IBM.
>
> ---
>
> Important Parts Here:
>
> What I believe is troubling the relationship between AT&T and Apple is
> the upcoming auction for 700-MHz wireless spectrum and AT&T's discovery
> that -- as I have predicted for weeks -- Apple will be joining Google in
> bidding. AT&T thought its five-year "exclusive" iPhone agreement with
> Apple would have precluded such a bid, but that just shows how poorly
> Randall Stephenson understood Steve Jobs. Steve always hurts his friends
> to see how much they really love him, so AT&T probably should have
> expected this kind of corporate body blow.
>
> To his credit, Stephenson took the dispute to the streets this way,
> showing he isn't intimidated by Jobs. It was a bold and rare response
> for big business and was definitely unexpected by Cupertino, which won't
> underestimate AT&T again.
>
> I'm not privy to any inside details here, but there are two ways I can
> see Jobs rationalizing his auction position and they aren't necessarily
> exclusive. He could claim to intend the 700-MHz auction participation as
> a pure investment, just a good use for the $30+ billion Apple has
> squirreled away.
>
> Nah.
>
> Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network
> for which it has no voice ambitions. Maybe all MacBooks will soon get
> 700-MHz access cards.
>
> This excuse rings truer, but of course it would still be a scam on
> Steve's part.
>
> It would not surprise me at all if this were the case and when the
> 700-MHz network is finally up and running Jobs claims astonishment that
> the most popular data application is Voice over IP, a direct competitor
> to AT&T Wireless. This may be part of the reason why Apple has been so
> slow approving third-party iPhone applications. Wouldn't your first
> application be a VoIP client?
>
> ---
>
> Full Article Here:
>
> http://snipurl.com/1uh83
>
> -

Ness-Net wrote:
> Larry, bud - just 'cause you and I haven't seen eye to eye in the past....
>
> No reason why a fanatic fanboy like Oxy should get by with posting
> this totally obvious fanatical fanboy fiction.
>
> This evening, my "meds" are doing just fine, thanks.
> But, it doesn't change the subject at hand.
>
> Oxy posts complete fanboy fiction.
>
>
Absolutely true but he is delusional and really believes he is "Steves"
girlfriend and has all of the scoop on everything in "Steves" mind and
speaks for "Steve".

Reasoning with him is about as valuable as going down to the psych ward
of your local hospital this afternoon and trying to establish a dialogue
with those unfortunate folks. It would be a total waste of your time.

I am also have an engineering background and understand your frustration
but you really aren't dealing with a sensible or rational person. The
best thing you could possibly do is ignore him.

> apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, so it
> will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google.

Um, no. Jobs and Woz had a short period of time where they made money being
thieves building blue boxes to steal long distance service.

You've got your head so far up your ass you can practically see daylight
again.

In article <YbadnZcsD5S1YszanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

>
> And, unlike Oxy, **I** post information from reliable sources - not some
> fanboy blog...
> Care to verify the story?? Below may help...

And the rest of you mostly counter with other blogs. Go figure.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:frudnYSCzqhnzc_anZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@giganews.com :

> No reason why a fanatic fanboy like Oxy should get by with
posting
> this totally obvious fanatical fanboy fiction.
>
>

He isn't "getting by" with anything. I find him rather amusing,
if a little pitiful. You mustn't get so upset. It's bad for
your heart!

He's a funny buffoon, if nothing else. Teenagers are like that,
unless the school bureaucrats make drug addicts out of them when
they're in elementary school, at least in America.

Oxy is just proof positive of how well sheer advertising and hype
can hypnotize common people out of good sense.

He was gone for a while, almost a day. I missed him...(c;

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:

> > apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, so it
> > will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google.
>
> Um, no. Jobs and Woz had a short period of time where they made money being
> thieves building blue boxes to steal long distance service.
>
> You've got your head so far up your ass you can practically see daylight
> again.

but apple continued to develop telephony ideas throughout its history.
knowledge navigator was a wireless phone concept, the shipping product
GeoPort was a telephony device. Apple developed several software only
phones, all long before the iPhone became so successful.

the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone posting
here, so this knowledge confuses many people, mainly the so called "cell
experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong interest
in wireless communications.

they simply have no idea... i do...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1377/...3bffa46ca8.jpg

http://snipurl.com/1uim8

-

Todd Allcock wrote:
> They don't have to build it, silly, they'll just use the existing TV
> station towers currently broadcasting on those frequencies, remember?
> Oxy's already explained all that... Remember the "instant network?"

I was about to say I didn't understand why he brought up the TV towers,
but then I remembered his obvious lack of understanding many topics - RF
propagation for one.

There is no advantage of placing an access point more than one hundred
feet above the average terrain...even if the tower space if free.

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-1429AD.10140102122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:

> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:
>
>> > apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, so
>> > it will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google.
>>
>> Um, no. Jobs and Woz had a short period of time where they made
>> money being thieves building blue boxes to steal long distance
>> service.
>>
>> You've got your head so far up your ass you can practically see
>> daylight again.
>
> but apple continued to develop telephony ideas throughout its history.
> knowledge navigator was a wireless phone concept, the shipping product
> GeoPort was a telephony device. Apple developed several software only
> phones, all long before the iPhone became so successful.

So they have no experience with hardware phones, only second rate software
solutions. Ehanks for clarifying.

>
> the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone posting
> here,

Not true.

> so this knowledge confuses many people,

No- your stupidity confuses many people.

> mainly the so called
> "cell experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong
> interest in wireless communications.

We don't understand it because it doesn't exist.

>
> they simply have no idea... i do...
>

You barely understand how to power your computer on.