A more rational approach -- how I would like to change thecell phone industry.
 

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Brilliant stupid canned comment.

California has a government.

The US has a government.

I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
have
California start pushing at the state level.

States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal republic,
hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cell phone industry.
 

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

That is incorrect. The person that said 3khz is way closer than your wild
guess.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the?cell phone industry.
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Don Bowey wrote:
On 7/19/07 4:42 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:

The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

If he is commenting on the bandwidth of a message network channel/circuit,
including cellular, it is about 3 kHz.

Exactly.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
 

On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article ,
"Dana" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Brilliant stupid canned comment.

California has a government.

The US has a government.

I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
have
California start pushing at the state level.

States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal republic,
hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.




Naïve point of view. The feds grabbed? Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
 

John Navas wrote:
Spectral efficiency be damned as long as you get yours? ;)

Damned right

A more rational approach -- how I would like to change the cellphone industry.
 

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:00 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:

Digital cell phones should stop using the compression they use and
start using monaural WMA compression with a CBR of 20 kbps or less and
a sample rate of at least 44.1 KHz. In addition, the following must
also apply:
The audio bandwidth of the phone system is about 3 KHz.

Actually more like 10 KHz.

Ahhhhh...an answer by obsfucation! Without qualifying the signal levels at
10 KHz, his answer would be correct.

According to AT&T's "Notes on the Network", the bandwidth is actually 400
Hz to 3,200 Hz where you have specific audio levels measured in decibels.

This will it explain it on terms equatable to John's telecommunications
skill set. http://communication.howstuffworks.com/telephone6.htm

A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
 

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article ,
"Dana" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Brilliant stupid canned comment.

California has a government.

The US has a government.

I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
have
California start pushing at the state level.

States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
republic,
hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.




Naïve point of view.

Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
federal republic.

The feds grabbed?

Yep, common knowledge

Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?

It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
destroys the purpose of the Senate.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecellphone industry.
 

On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article ,
"Dana" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article ,
"Dana" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Brilliant stupid canned comment.

California has a government.

The US has a government.

I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
have
California start pushing at the state level.

States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
republic,
hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.




Naïve point of view.

Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
federal republic.

The feds grabbed?

Yep, common knowledge

Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?

It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
destroys the purpose of the Senate.




I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities as
a citizen, but there it is..........

A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecellphone industry.
 

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 8:44 PM, in article ,
"Dana" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article
,
"Dana" wrote:


"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote
in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Brilliant stupid canned comment.

California has a government.

The US has a government.

I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives
than
have
California start pushing at the state level.

States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
republic,
hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.




Naïve point of view.

Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
federal republic.

The feds grabbed?

Yep, common knowledge

Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?

It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
destroys the purpose of the Senate.




I don't understand how you can so readily kiss-off your responsibilities
as
a citizen, but there it is..........

Actually being a citizen requires that you understand our form of
government, which is a federal republic, with a federal government that has
clearly defined powers. All other powers, are for the people and the states.

A more rational approach -- how I would like to changethecell phone industry.
 

On Jul 19, 8:44 pm, "Dana" wrote:
"Don Bowey" wrote in message

...





On 7/19/07 6:59 PM, in article ,
"Dana" wrote:

"Don Bowey" wrote in message
...
On 7/19/07 4:41 PM, in article
,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:56:57 -0500, wrote in
:

How about just national enforcing Californias proposed Consumer code
for cell phone companies.

Really bad idea. The market works better without government
interference.

Brilliant stupid canned comment.

California has a government.

The US has a government.

I'd rather we work issues with our elected Federal representatives than
have
California start pushing at the state level.

States are more responsive than the feds, Besides we are a federal
republic,
hence the states should be taking back what the feds have grabbed.

Naïve point of view.

Not at all, and accurate statement reflecting current affairs with our
federal republic.

The feds grabbed?

Yep, common knowledge

Do you recall how the state's
representatives become feds?

It is a mistake having popular elections for the state Senators. Kind of
destroys the purpose of the Senate.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep - The US Senators should be 'appointed' by the
King of the State {Oops Governor} cause their should
represent the Big {Money} People.

the divine right of money & the golden rule :
those with the gold make the rules ~ RHF
.
.
.. .