AT&T keeps getting owned...

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Gas Man

This is the problem with asking for the govt to do something in common sense. They really don't have any cs! They make laws about stupid stuff but not something that would actually help.

It's all about lobbys my friend...The same thing goes for TV. Digital and HD television has been a reality in other countries for a decade or better but we were last in because the companies that run stuff would rather pad some Senator's bank account than pony up the loot to make the necessary changes. It's the same reason we can't get universal WiFi off the ground. Every time it looks like it might be getting close some "stumbling block" suddenly materializes. A LOT of companies would take a severe beating, Companies with huge network investments and large "campaign contribution" accounts.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

It's all about lobbys my friend...The same thing goes for TV. Digital and HD television has been a reality in other countries for a decade or better but we were last in because the companies that run stuff would rather pad some Senator's bank account than pony up the loot to make the necessary changes. It's the same reason we can't get universal WiFi off the ground. Every time it looks like it might be getting close some "stumbling block" suddenly materializes. A LOT of companies would take a severe beating, Companies with huge network investments and large "campaign contribution" accounts.

It is also about deciding what the individuals and the companies should be responsible for providing rather than what the government should be providing those individuals and mandating from those companies. I could be wrong but as far as I know the government didn't mandate either wired HD or digital TV. All they did was mandate broadcast HD. When the cable, phone, and satellite companies decided that 1) offering HD and digital could be profitable and 2) they would be at a competitive disadvantage if they didn't offer those services.

You can then factor in money, and not just on the lobbying or corporate side. America has a significantly different population density when compared to most of the rest of the world. Compared to the typical nation providing universal Wi-Fi or mandating TV signal types America has about 20% and sometimes less than 10% of the people occupying the same amount of space. Exacerbating that is, unlike places like Canada or Russia, we actually have a decent number of people living throughout most of our territory. To provide universal Wi-Fi equally nationwide would take a much larger per capita investment than almost any other country. Considering the availability of other options why would the government want to get involved? Personally I think it would be a ridiculous waste of resources with what can charitably be described as a dubious benefit.

[Homeslice]

Not to mention, I'd rather not be bombarded by more electromagnetic radiation than I already am. People don't seem to think about all their cellphones, hotspot devices, routers, etc. beaming all that shit within inches of where they're sitting or working. 20-30 years from now when long-term cancer statistics are finally studied, I'll bet there will be some interesting findings. And turn your damn phone off if you're going to carry it on your body.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Not to mention, I'd rather not be bombarded by more electromagnetic radiation than I already am. People don't seem to think about all their cellphones, hotspot devices, routers, etc. beaming all that shit within inches of where they're sitting or working. 20-30 years from now when long-term cancer statistics are finally studied, I'll bet there will be some interesting findings. And turn your damn phone off if you're going to carry it on your body.

Why? Unless you're an avid pocket-dialer, your phone isn't transmitting if you're not on a call. GPS is receive only, so that doesn't change anything.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

Why? Unless you're an avid pocket-dialer, your phone isn't transmitting if you're not on a call. GPS is receive only, so that doesn't change anything.

Well, when you see people walking down the street talking on bluetooth or with earbuds, where is their phone usually? In their pocket.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Well, when you see people walking down the street talking on bluetooth or with earbuds, where is their phone usually? In their pocket.

Can you hear me now?? Not exactly the most convenient time to turn your phone off.

[Homeslice]

As far as I know, phones send a transmission every few minutes so that the network can figure out if it needs to re-assign it to a different tower or whatever. So just because you're not making a call doesn't mean your phone isn't emitting radiation.

Plus, if people are texting you while your phone is in your pocket, you get exposed to those signals. And then there's the people who leave their browser active, or are downloading a show or movie while it's in their pocket...

Not to mention that every phone manufacturer has declared that they meet radiation safety standards only when it's carried in an "approved" holster......not when it is carried right next to the body in your pocket. Radiation becomes exponentially higher the closer it is to you.

I am no engineer, so that is just stuff I've heard.

[Rangerscott]

I dont want to have kids and dont feel like having my balls cut so I made a jock phone strap craddle. Cuddles my droid right under my ball sack.

[marko138]

Originally Posted by Rangerscott

I dont want to have kids and dont feel like having my balls cut so I made a jock phone strap craddle. Cuddles my droid right under my ball sack.

Respect.

[Gas Man]

Originally Posted by Rangerscott

I dont want to have kids and dont feel like having my balls cut so I made a jock phone strap craddle. Cuddles my droid right under my ball sack.

Damn will that work? I was going to go in for a snip next month or so.