🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:19:05 -0700, in
<2q4456h5erv7jfegqt0154vtb0uqblfh7g@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
<Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>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... 

I did.  Do keep up.  Otherwise, "Google is your friend".

-- 
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!"  [with apologies to John Huston]