🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <nj3456praioq3mlij37c4bcst6i8n0d6i3@4ax.com> John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:26:13 -0700, in
><1fj3565k3evc6jje3ij8shhfkftbgp6et6@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>In message <3t2356h5420lsqfvhe1h5cp12nnqt9vk59@4ax.com> John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:41:02 -0700, in
>>><4c5176da$0$22167$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Kaye wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I know that it's nice to have good cell coverage, but the antennas are 
>>>>> unsightly.  Especially in a city such as SF where people are proud of the 
>>>>> architecture and the views, hanging antennas on the sides of buildings makes 
>>>>> them really really ugly.
>>>>
>>>>I was at a meeting where T-Mobile was given approval for a rooftop 
>>>>antenna with the only caveat being that they had to shield the equipment 
>>>>(not the tower) from view from the nearby neighborhood. They refused.
>>>>
>>>>The early carriers (who eventually morphed into Verizon and AT&T) have 
>>>>the advantage of having been able to install lots of towers before 
>>>>neighborhoods realized what was happening, in addition to the advantage 
>>>>of being on 800 MHz not 1900 MHz.
>>>
>>>There is no such advantage, as the citations I've posted make clear.
>>
>>So you're saying that all other things being equal, a 800MHz signal and
>>a 1900MHz signal will penetrate typical buildings and other structures
>>equally?
>
>Read the cited references.

You didn't cite any... 

Or, you could try answering the question, it's a pretty straightforward,
either "They'll penetrate equally well" or one or the other will
penetrate better.