🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7/29/2010 10:48 PM, John Navas wrote:
> 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".
>
I believe you declared "it is a myth"...