"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
> 4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
> 4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
> 3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 2> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> > It is not a marriage.
>
> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
> opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
>

Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
that make it a dog? The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
doesn't make it right.

Ed

 

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
> 4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
> 4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
> 3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 2> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> > It is not a marriage.
>
> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
> opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite---- couples."
>

Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
that make it a dog? The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
doesn't make it right.

Ed

 

Brent,

For your info ....

Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
(Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA. They are doing this purely
from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
"------ spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
(Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
for the fewest dollars.

I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
telecommunication market.

Bob Shuman

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ywqzb.212011$Dw6.768736@attbi_s02...
> In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> > CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> > movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as
a
> > universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> > envelope.
>
> You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
> years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
> GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new
features.
>
> And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for
those
> features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
> dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
> instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
>
> Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
> there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
> of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
> minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
> product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
> NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
>
> Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
> phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
> called but it is a japan only MA.
>
>

 

Brent,

For your info ....

Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
(Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA. They are doing this purely
from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
"------ spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
(Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
for the fewest dollars.

I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
telecommunication market.

Bob Shuman

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ywqzb.212011$Dw6.768736@attbi_s02...
> In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> > CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> > movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as
a
> > universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> > envelope.
>
> You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
> years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
> GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new
features.
>
> And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for
those
> features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
> dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
> instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
>
> Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
> there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
> of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
> minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
> product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
> NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
>
> Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
> phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
> called but it is a japan only MA.
>
>

 

Brent,

For your info ....

Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
(Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA. They are doing this purely
from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
"------ spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
(Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
for the fewest dollars.

I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
telecommunication market.

Bob Shuman

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ywqzb.212011$Dw6.768736@attbi_s02...
> In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> > CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> > movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as
a
> > universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> > envelope.
>
> You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
> years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
> GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new
features.
>
> And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for
those
> features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
> dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
> instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
>
> Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
> there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
> of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
> minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
> product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
> NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
>
> Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
> phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
> called but it is a japan only MA.
>
>

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
4> how does it detract from your marriage?

3> It is not a marriage.

2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
2> couples."

> Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> dog, does that make it a dog?

We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
relationship.

You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

> The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
union between members of the same race."

> Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> way to fix a perceived injustice.

While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

DS

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
4> how does it detract from your marriage?

3> It is not a marriage.

2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
2> couples."

> Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> dog, does that make it a dog?

We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
relationship.

You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

> The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
union between members of the same race."

> Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> way to fix a perceived injustice.

While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

DS

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
4> how does it detract from your marriage?

3> It is not a marriage.

2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
2> to opposite---- couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite----
2> couples."

> Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> dog, does that make it a dog?

We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
relationship.

You have yet to explain why the --- of the two partners is at all relevant
other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

> The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
union between members of the same race."

> Trying to extend those laws to cover same --- unions is not the right
> way to fix a perceived injustice.

While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

DS

 

In article <bqlerl$51g@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,

> For your info ....

> Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
> (Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
> and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
> technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
> Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
> systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
> from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
> are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA.

Tell me something I don't know.

> They are doing this purely
> from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
> global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
> most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
> new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

Nothing I don't know.

> That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
> even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
> of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
> "------ spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
> industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
> matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
> move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
> (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
> infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
> higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
> for the fewest dollars.

I referenced 3G in my previous post.

> I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
> that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
> consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
> telecommunication market.

My comments were with regards to the handset development and adding the
additional features and so forth. The very pushing of the technology that
was claimed to be absent from the European market. GSM has been in the
lead posistion in that regard for a good length of time. That makes it
the wrong example to pick for the point he was trying to make.

Europeans were more willing to pay for various wiz-bang features and
was a more mature wireless market than that of the USA. The US market
has come a long way, but it wasn't the innovation of companies or
anything like that, it was the demands of the customers. Europeans
demanded better and got better, US buyers didn't want much more than
a phone-for-emergencies for many years. Now they want more.
Same can be said for the market for automobiles. US gets alot more the
plain A-to-B toastermobile with cup holders while europeans get something
that can actually turn and brake.

Ignoring this dynamic makes his choice of using a cellular MAs for
his example a poor one.

The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.

It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.

 

In article <bqlerl$51g@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,

> For your info ....

> Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
> (Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
> and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
> technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
> Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
> systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
> from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
> are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA.

Tell me something I don't know.

> They are doing this purely
> from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
> global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
> most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
> new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

Nothing I don't know.

> That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
> even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
> of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
> "------ spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
> industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
> matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
> move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
> (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
> infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
> higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
> for the fewest dollars.

I referenced 3G in my previous post.

> I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
> that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
> consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
> telecommunication market.

My comments were with regards to the handset development and adding the
additional features and so forth. The very pushing of the technology that
was claimed to be absent from the European market. GSM has been in the
lead posistion in that regard for a good length of time. That makes it
the wrong example to pick for the point he was trying to make.

Europeans were more willing to pay for various wiz-bang features and
was a more mature wireless market than that of the USA. The US market
has come a long way, but it wasn't the innovation of companies or
anything like that, it was the demands of the customers. Europeans
demanded better and got better, US buyers didn't want much more than
a phone-for-emergencies for many years. Now they want more.
Same can be said for the market for automobiles. US gets alot more the
plain A-to-B toastermobile with cup holders while europeans get something
that can actually turn and brake.

Ignoring this dynamic makes his choice of using a cellular MAs for
his example a poor one.

The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.

It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.