Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51   Report Post  
Old October 16th 05, 08:59 PM
mainframe_dude
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground

Busted by the ShockWatch !

Same thing happend to me, several
Datapoint computers (1985)
all had been subjected to over 5g's
so we refused the shipment,
shipper had to pay big $$$ to have
new items reshipped via a competior !

  #53   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 05, 09:34 PM
Bill Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground

Guido Sarducci from NYC wrote:


UPS uses company drivers and FedEx Home uses
subcontractors/independants so they have less
overhead, so lower fees.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My local FedEx contractor delivers on Saturday, too.

73, Bill W6WRT
  #54   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 05, 09:36 PM
Bill Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground

Guido Sarducci from NYC wrote:


Don't spend a lot of money on those self adhesive
ship labels, instead use regular paper and get
one of those glue sticks that the kids use at school,
that turns your plain paper label into a stick on label
for a few cents !



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you're going to use glue sticks, test them first for water
resistance. The kind I use at work come off quite easily.

73, Bill W6WRT
  #55   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 05, 09:39 PM
Bill Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Let me also say that, from my experience, UPS and FedEx Ground break
things at about the same rate. But when FedEx damages something,
they promptly inspect it and pay out without a fuss, while UPS will
do almost anything to avoid paying insurance claims. Admittedly I
have had only three UPS issues, but all were nightmares.
--scott



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also... never ship anything when UPS's union is in negotiations. Things
get mysteriously "damaged" in transit. Some of their drivers are
incredibly stupid if they think that helps things.

73, Bill W6WRT


  #56   Report Post  
Old October 30th 05, 02:11 PM
Earl Needham
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground


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


  #57   Report Post  
Old October 30th 05, 03:00 PM
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground

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."
  #58   Report Post  
Old October 30th 05, 04:08 PM
Chuck Harris
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground

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
  #59   Report Post  
Old October 30th 05, 04:26 PM
Clif Holland
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground


"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


  #60   Report Post  
Old October 30th 05, 07:36 PM
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground

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."
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 10:22 PM
Cold Water Pipe Ground? [email protected] Antenna 7 March 13th 05 03:12 PM
Grounding Rod Alan J Giddings Shortwave 21 January 21st 04 10:10 PM
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 12 October 16th 03 07:44 PM
FS/FT Commercial VHF/UHF & Test Gear - Long List David Little Swap 0 October 9th 03 03:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017