 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / October 2006Information...3g
I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen But it still baffles me. Like, why was Telstra selling "3g" phones earlier this year....like my Moto V3x as "3g" when they work on just about every frequency except the one that they have introduced as "Next Gen"? Was there a sudden change of plan? Or a bullshit marketing exercise to sell phones that were, already, obsolete? If so, why did they stock up on the bloody things if they weren't going to work on the new system. Also, listened to Burgess (Telstra exec) on ABC, yesterday. He gave the impression that "Next Gen" was an answer to rural problems with broadband internet connections. Yet, as far as I can discover from Bigpond is that "wireless Next Gen" only works with laptops. Why? Are PCs redundant, now, in the bush? Ignorant customer "service" people? Or a huge confidence trick to make telstra look good? Sorry.....not a techie. Just an old prick trying to come to grips with this sh.t. OK,. Have seen references to Optus 3g, recently. Where are they at? Too many questions? Yeah. --------------------------------------------------------------- If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. Since when does 3g = NextGen? >I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If so, why did they stock up on the bloody things if they weren't > going to work on the new system. On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:57:31 GMT, Used Car Dude (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Since when does 3g = NextGen? What generation would you call it? > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:57:31 GMT, Used Car Dude (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What generation would you call it? It's actually 3.5G since it incorporates HSDPA. >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:57:31 GMT, Used Car Dude (or one of their many >> personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It's actually 3.5G since it incorporates HSDPA. Dont be a w.nker. >Since when does 3g = NextGen? Buggered if I know. I don't think I said it did. But I have been hearing about the coming of 3g for a long time. Telstra sold me a 3g phone earlier this year. Told me how great it was gonna be. Anyway, my question still stands. >>I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> If so, why did they stock up on the bloody things if they weren't >> going to work on the new system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. > Buggered if I know. > I don't think I said it did. > But I have been hearing about the coming of 3g for a long time. > Telstra sold me a 3g phone earlier this year. Told me how great it > was gonna be. 3 have been running a 3G Network since they set up in Australia! Telstra have been leaching off that Network since they launched their 3G phones earlier this year. -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. <http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452> >> Buggered if I know. >> I don't think I said it did. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have been leaching off that Network since they launched their 3G phones > earlier this year. I would hardly say leaching. Firstly, they bought 1/2 of it. No more, no less. They basically made the network viable. Hutch could well have gone down the tubes without Telstra's help But thanks for asking >>Since when does 3g = NextGen? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Telstra sold me a 3g phone earlier this year. Told me how great it > was gonna be. And it is. > Anyway, my question still stands. Theyve all been answered >>>Since when does 3g = NextGen? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Theyve all been answered Not by you, aresehole. Your style seems to be name-calling. ---------------------------------------------------------- If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. > Since when does 3g = NextGen? 3G = NextG network, but NextG is not the sum of all 3G networks >>I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> If so, why did they stock up on the bloody things if they weren't >> going to work on the new system. >> Since when does 3g = NextGen? > >3G = NextG network, but NextG is not the sum of all 3G network That's good. Informative, too/ Anyway. got my "3G" phone, yesterday. When it connects to the network, I get a "2G" symbol on my screen. Tricky bastards, eh? I mean, calling something that isn't "3G" "3G" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. >>> Since when does 3g = NextGen? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When it connects to the network, I get a "2G" symbol on my screen. > Tricky bastards, eh? How is that relevant to whether your phone is 3G capable? >>>> Since when does 3g = NextGen? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >How is that relevant to whether your phone is 3G capable? Typo.VB is a hobby.....makes typos happen a bit too often. The symbol I get is "3G" Glad you are here! Would be a boring group without you. Keep up the good work. -------------------------------------------------------------- If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. brian w edginton wrote: > Anyway. got my "3G" phone, yesterday. What sort of phone did you get? > When it connects to the network, I get a "2G" symbol on my screen. > Tricky bastards, eh? Did you get a "NextG" phone or an older 3G one, such as a Nokia 6233, or Motorola Razr VX? >brian w edginton wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> When it connects to the network, I get a "2G" symbol on my screen. >> Tricky bastards, eh? Actually, that "2g" symbol was, as I have said, a VB induced typo. Says "3G" in fact. Apologies. >Did you get a "NextG" phone or an older 3G one, such as a Nokia 6233, or >Motorola Razr VX? New phone is a Telstra F850 (VTE...whatever that means) The one they sold me as "3g" earlier this year was a Moto V3x. Although it won't work on Telstra's Next Gen is a way better phone in terms of build.....doesn't have the Toltoy feel that the ZTE does. ZTE is pretty crappy, actually. Camera is of a much lesser quality, too. No worries....not something I want to use much, anyway. Only bitched because I felt deceived......thought I was gonna get better coverage. No intention of using the internet stuff. No worries....the Moto will be my primary phone. On Optus. Good coverage, here. Telstra phone will be used on the odd occasion that I travel....and for the one hour "free" call period, each day. Back to my original thought.....why was Telstra selling "3G" phones when they knew they weren't gonna work on the new system? A case of "sales at any cost"? If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. brian said.... > New phone is a Telstra F850 (VTE...whatever that means) > The one they sold me as "3g" earlier this year was a Moto V3x. > Although it won't work on Telstra's Next Gen is a way better phone in > terms of build.....doesn't have the Toltoy feel that the ZTE does. > ZTE is pretty crappy, actually. Camera is of a much lesser quality, I checked one out in a Telstra shop the other day. I wasn't impressed with it. The Samsung and LG models were much better in terms of outward appearance of quality. What they're relative performance and reliability would be like I have no idea. I s'pose that time will tell. > Back to my original thought.....why was Telstra selling "3G" phones > when they knew they weren't gonna work on the new system? Probably for those who want to use the existing 3G networks in areas where they get coverage, I s'pose. I couldn't understand why they bothered to sell 'em out where I live. Unless they rely on consumers thinking that they're getting a whiz bang phone... Used said.... > Since when does 3g = NextGen? Presumably "Next G" = Next Generation. I s'pose that these 3G phones look similar to Capt. Kirk's communicator, perhaps they could have named it TOS.... > Used said.... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I s'pose that these 3G phones look similar to Capt. Kirk's communicator, > perhaps they could have named it TOS.... What would its users have been called, though? >> Used said.... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What would its users have been called, though? tossers, obviously ... > I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen > But it still baffles me. Yeah, its surprisingly complicated. > Like, why was Telstra selling "3g" phones earlier this year.... > like my Moto V3x as "3g" when they work on just about every > frequency except the one that they have introduced as "Next Gen"? NextGen which was just turned on officially days ago is just one form of 3G, which happens to use the cdma band, 850MHz. > Was there a sudden change of plan? Yes, the mex decided to replace cdma with nextgen. > Or a bullshit marketing exercise to sell phones that were, already, obsolete? Nope, Telstra chose to jointly offer 3G with 3, the company. That is an entirely separate system to NextGen. > If so, why did they stock up on the bloody things > if they weren't going to work on the new system. Two commpletely different systems. > Also, listened to Burgess (Telstra exec) on ABC, yesterday. You've gotta watch out for that bugger, while he doesnt actually lie publicly, he can be VERY economical with the truth. > He gave the impression that "Next Gen" was an answer > to rural problems with broadband internet connections. You can claim that, particularly with those that cant get adsl. What he failed to mention is that its a relatively expensive way to get broadband usage charges wise. > Yet, as far as I can discover from Bigpond is that > "wireless Next Gen" only works with laptops. Why? Essentially because they use a cardbus card and few PCs have a cardbus slot, tho that can be added. Its a lot easier to sell it for laptops because they all have a cardbus slot. > Are PCs redundant, now, in the bush? Nope, most obviously with the hordes that can get adsl fine. > Ignorant customer "service" people? More that its not easy to explain this stuff to the average customer. > Or a huge confidence trick to make telstra look good? That too. NextGen has some technical advantages, but its far from clear that its worth the massive cost, or that anyone much would actually bother with it if the cdma system wasnt going to be turned off. That last will be interesting to watch in the runnup to the next election. It wouldnt surprise me if the Nats manage to monster the govt into no allowing telstra to turn the cdma system off, even if NextGen does manage to achieve about the same coverage as cdma. If cdma isnt turned off, NextGen hasnt gotta hope in hell of being economically viable. > Sorry.....not a techie. Just an old prick trying to come to grips with this sh.t. > OK,. Have seen references to Optus 3g, recently. Where are they at? Basically just the capital citys and close. Its less clear what Optarse plans to do about upgrading their entire GSM network for 3G. They can do some surprising things, I was rather surprised that they chose to spend so much extending their GSM coverage in the bush, where most would just use cdma anyway. > Too many questions? > Yeah. >> I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >> Too many questions? >> Yeah. Great info. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. >I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen > > But it still baffles me. > Like, why was Telstra selling "3g" phones earlier this year....like my > Moto V3x as "3g" when they work on just about every frequency except Telstra's first 3G network was at frequency 2100mhz, which falls back to GSM 900/1800 when necessary > the one that they have introduced as "Next Gen"? > Was there a sudden change of plan? Or a bullshit marketing exercise > to sell phones that were, already, obsolete? Read up, and try not to be a fool. CDMA is going, so Telstra is using those frequenceis (~850 mhz), to launch a 3G network there. Due to the lower frequency, you get better coverage breadth (and less depth), than 3G 2100. Horses for courses. 850mhz for breadth of coverage, probably 2100mhz for better depth of coverage Same as we currently use GSM900/1800 vs CDMA 850 > Also, listened to Burgess (Telstra exec) on ABC, yesterday. > He gave the impression that "Next Gen" was an answer to rural problems > with broadband internet connections. Yes, each 3G 850 base station has super fast HSDPA (?) broadband. This will help customers who cant get ADSL or ISDN on the landline > Yet, as far as I can discover from Bigpond is that "wireless Next Gen" > only works with laptops. > Why? Are PCs redundant, now, in the bush? Here's a clue - a laptop IS a PC! > Sorry.....not a techie. Just an old prick trying to come to grips with > this sh.t. > > OK,. Have seen references to Optus 3g, recently. Where are they at? They have a 3G 2100 network with Voda. >>I have had some great help, here.....in relation to Next gen >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >They have a 3G 2100 network with Voda. Sorry...being a fool helps keep me sane. Might try something else, one day. What do you do? (it ain't a big success) Ok...a laptop is a PC. I f.cking knew that. But, why does Telstra discriminate between laptops and PCs?? Anyway, thanks, Michael! your post was sooooo bloody informative. Why the f.ck do you come here if you,already, know everything? To show off and become famous like "you know who". --------------------------------------------------------------- If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. > Sorry...being a fool helps keep me sane. dont apologise > Might try something else, one day. > What do you do? > (it ain't a big success) > Ok...a laptop is a PC. > I f.cking knew that. > But, why does Telstra discriminate between laptops and PCs?? Is what way do they discriminate? > Anyway, thanks, Michael! you are so most welcome > your post was sooooo bloody informative. i agree > Why the f.ck do you come here if you,already, know everything? to teach mere mortals like you > To show off and become famous like "you know who". i follow in his footsteps > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't > be in it. >> Sorry...being a fool helps keep me sane. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >i follow in his footsteps You are a saint! Just remember to wipe your feet. --------------------------------------------------------------- If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. brian w edginton wrote: > Why the f.ck do you come here if you,already, know everything? > To show off and become famous like "you know who". Because he's a pompous git who likes to think that he has something over the rest of us. Unfortunately for him, it seems that mobile phones amount to the sum of what he may refer to has his "life". While the rest of us merely consider them as tools, or gadgets. In other words, if they were to stop working tomorrow, it may be a bit of an inconvenience at first. But the planet will continue to revolve, people will continue to worry about the kids' schooling, health, mortgage payments and so on. > CDMA is going, so Telstra is using those frequenceis (~850 > mhz), to launch a 3G network there. Due to the lower [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Same as we currently use GSM900/1800 vs CDMA 850 So will Telstra be adding 2100 MHz cells to its "Next G" network to add what you're calling coverage "depth"? John |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.