(-=H=-) wrote in news:GQ73f.1$z21.0@dfw-
service2.ext.ray.com:

Hi all,

I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from
Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used
FedEx Ground. Here's why:

Two packages:
(1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900
(2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100

FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77
UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07

UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost
45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive.
To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money.

Something to think about next time you're shipping packages!

73,
Dean K5DH


It's not only cheaper to use FedEx they do a better job. We ship computer
equipment all over the USA, i.e. will build the Conquest Systems :-) The
guys at UPS kick the boxs all over, the guys at FedEx carry them. When
we used UPS about 8% where damaged on delivery with FedEx less the .01%
of .01% get damaged.


--
kla1899

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

Earl
KD5XB

--
Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico USA

Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.


Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott


Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

-Chuck

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.


Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott


Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

-Chuck

The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought.

--

Clif Holland KA5IPF
www.avvid.com

Chuck Harris wrote:

Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress,
though.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the
spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all
seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing
broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country
spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate
Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:11:33 -0700, Earl Needham wrote:


What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

"They"? UPS never applied for any 220 MHz license nor do they
operate on 220 MHz, then or now.

The culprit was a certain "also-ran" equipment manufacturer who had
a bright idea (and whose CEO had "juice" with the FCC from whence he
came) but never could produce equipment that worked on that band.
They approached UPS to get them interested, but UPS got tired of
waiting for working equipment and looked elsewhere (800 MHz).

Gotta keep the urban legends straight!! ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

"-=H=-" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from
Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used
FedEx Ground. Here's why:

Two packages:
(1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900
(2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100

FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77
UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07

UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost
45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive.
To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money.

Something to think about next time you're shipping packages!

73,
Dean K5DH

AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear!
"Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab!

73

Jerry

I received a roll of guy cable (almost like a block of iron) today via
UPS and would you believe they damaged it. Nothing gets shipped UPS from
this person.



Jerry wrote:
"-=H=-" wrote in message
...

Hi all,

I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from
Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used
FedEx Ground. Here's why:

Two packages:
(1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900
(2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100

FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77
UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07

UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost
45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive.
To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money.

Something to think about next time you're shipping packages!

73,
Dean K5DH


AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear!
"Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab!

73

Jerry