 |
 | 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 / May 2008Telstra Doesn't know if NextG works in the Bush?
Here's one for ya, Parky. http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/traffic/soa/Blog-Telstra-not-sure-if-Next-G-works- in-the-bush/0,2001084676,339288362,00.htm Care to comment? That is, if you can string a sentence together that comprises your own thoughts and words... > Here's one for ya, Parky. > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/traffic/soa/Blog-Telstra-not-sure-if-Next-G-works- in-the-bush/0,2001084676,339288362,00.htm > > Care to comment? That is, if you can string a sentence together that > comprises your own thoughts and words... The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as compared to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 million square kilometres. >> Here's one for ya, Parky. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > compared > to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 million square kilometres. It still doesn't work in some areas that CDMA worked for us at work. Of course that could be the u-beaut ZTE 165 model phones which Telstra supplied as a replacement for the phones with some sort of track record. > The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the > old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as > compared to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 million square > kilometres. ...just not in all the same physical locations CDMA coverred. PD  SignaturePaul Day >> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the >> old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as >> compared to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 million square >> kilometres. > > ...just not in all the same physical locations CDMA coverred. Clearly it must cover almost all of the CDMA covered. And a hell of a lot more, 0.4m sq km. >>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the >>> old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Clearly it must cover almost all of the CDMA covered. and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more >>>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the >>>> old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more Where does it say that? >>>>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the >>>>> old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Where does it say that? Geez, you new on the planet? That was discussed at GREAT_LENGTH last year, and the original commitment was quoted where Telstra or their mouthpiece_du_jour gave that undertaking. And your challenging that now shows the lie to all the Telscum claims. You may have managed to hoodwink Conroy, but you've got a long way to go before you hoodwink the users. > > and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more > > Where does it say that? Go read the archives Alan... We did this one to death last year. Telstra have been quoted in media releases and in Senate Estimates meetings saying they would _match_ CDMA coverage square km for square km. PD SignaturePaul Day http://www.enigma.id.au/ >> > and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have been quoted in media releases and in Senate Estimates meetings > saying they would _match_ CDMA coverage square km for square km. they said nothing of the kind, you liar > PD >> > and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have been quoted in media releases and in Senate Estimates meetings > saying they would _match_ CDMA coverage square km for square km. NextG covers MORE sq km than CDMA, so case closed. >>> > and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > NextG covers MORE sq km than CDMA, so case closed. bull-sh.t ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>> > and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> NextG covers MORE sq km than CDMA, so case closed. > bull-sh.t How could it not, when NextG covers 99.n% of the population and CDMA does 98.n% of the population? > > NextG covers MORE sq km than CDMA, so case closed. > bull-sh.t Nope, he's correct there. NextG _does_ cover more square km of Australia than CDMA did. It's just that it doesn't cover _all_ of the square km that CDMA did. PD SignaturePaul Day >> > NextG covers MORE sq km than CDMA, so case closed. >> bull-sh.t > > Nope, he's correct there. NextG _does_ cover more square km of Australia > than CDMA did. It's just that it doesn't cover _all_ of the square km > that CDMA did. Same as CDMA didnt cover all of the same square km as AMPS did > PD >>> > NextG covers MORE sq km than CDMA, so case closed. >>> bull-sh.t [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Same as CDMA didnt cover all of the same square km as AMPS did yep, we were dudded TWICE. thegoons wrote... > > NextG covers MORE sq km than CDMA, so case closed. > bull-sh.t Whether or not NG has more coverage than CDMA, I found out last weekend that it doesn't do it, region by region. Imagine this - Optus has better coverage in some rural areas (not regional or large country urban centres) than that of NextG. How embarrassing (for Telstra) is that??? >>>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the >>>> old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more that was never the intention >>>>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than >>>>> the old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > that was never the intention It was what Telstra claimed to the Senate. >>>>>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than >>>>>> the old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It was what Telstra claimed to the Senate. Burgess also brown-eyed the Senate and Rudd. Parliamentarians get to obey Telstra now, and handover the $4.7bill, else have their parliamentary telephones disconnected. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> rebel <me@privacy.net> wrote >>>>> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote >>>>>> Alan Poxington wrote >>>>>>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint >>>>>>> than the old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square >>>>>>> kilometres as compared to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 >>>>>>> million square kilometres. >>>>>> ...just not in all the same physical locations CDMA coverred. >>>>> Clearly it must cover almost all of the CDMA covered. >>>> and it was *supposed to* cover all of it, and more >>> that was never the intention >> It was what Telstra claimed to the Senate. > Burgess also brown-eyed the Senate and Rudd. And got raped with a telephone pole when he did that. > Parliamentarians get to obey Telstra now, and handover the $4.7bill, else have their parliamentary telephones > disconnected. Telstra doesnt even provide their parliamentary phones, fuckwit. Michael wrote... > Clearly it must cover almost all of the CDMA covered. > > And a hell of a lot more, 0.4m sq km. What's that in terms of percentage for total land mass of Oz and total populated area? A poofteenth, perhaps? > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A poofteenth, perhaps? As in, the differential? see below In any case the NextG total landmass is in the 10+ precentage, around 12 or 15% I think, and the sq km difference is NextG - 2.0m sq km plus CDMA - 1.6m sq km So thats an extra 400,000sq km - not something to sneeze at also nextG will only grow. CDMA is dead. Michael wrote... > also nextG will only grow. CDMA is dead. It must be stunted, then, in some areas. In NE Vic over the weekend I found that NextG coverage hasn't improved since I was last up that way a year ago. And in a couple of spots Optus coverage was better than NextG. > The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the > old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as > compared to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 million square > kilometres. Dunno about NextG, but was in Dubbo NSW today. Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in centre of town - sh.t coverage. If I wasn't paying only 10 cents for 30 seconds (Soul Comms) I would dump them like a dirty turd. >> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the >> old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in centre > of town - sh.t coverage. Optus has always had woeful coverage outside the capital cities.. > > Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in > > centre of town - sh.t coverage. > > > > Optus has always had woeful coverage outside the capital cities.. So if Telstra could come up with a better deal...? >> > Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in >> > centre of town - sh.t coverage. >> >> Optus has always had woeful coverage outside the capital cities.. > > So if Telstra could come up with a better deal...? Telstra already has the best coverage, best service and of course keeps all profits here in Australia. Other companies funnel their massive profits overseas to prop up the nepotists like Singapore or India. > > So if Telstra could come up with a better deal...? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Other companies funnel their massive profits overseas to prop up the > nepotists like Singapore or India. I just went to the Telstra web page to search for a plan. Because my phone is with Optus, the page told me to go to a Telstra shop. What's the big bloody secret? Frankly I haven't the time. (BTW my spend is >$500-00 pcm, with 3 other mobiles in company probably each ~$200-00 pcm.) At present we pay 18 cents flag fall & 10 cents per 30 seconds. Telstra have anything near that at all? >> > So if Telstra could come up with a better deal...? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > At present we pay 18 cents flag fall & 10 cents per 30 seconds. Telstra > have anything near that at all? The $50 pm "Telstra Business Mobile Select voice call plan" (ridiculously complicated name) is $50 pm and entitled you to free, untimed calls to landlines and Telstra mobiles (no flagfall). Calls to non-Telstra mobiles are charged a 35c per minute with a 30c flagfall. It's only available to business customers (requires an ABN). That may be of interest to you (unless you make a lot of calls to Optus, Voda, and 3 mobiles). > The $50 pm "Telstra Business Mobile Select voice call plan" (ridiculously > complicated name) is $50 pm and entitled you to free, untimed calls to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That may be of interest to you (unless you make a lot of calls to Optus, > Voda, and 3 mobiles). http://www.telstra.com.au/business/products/mobiles/plansandpricing/mobileselect.htm Seems you also need a "Business Line Select plan" with Telatra to qualify. I assume that's a business PSTN service. (I'm not familiar with Telstra's terminology and pricing anymore. When I was last with them, the AMPS network was still running and you had a choice of Flexiplan 20, Standard, 80, 130, and 240.) > Seems you also need a "Business Line Select plan" with Telatra to > qualify. That's where we dip out. >>>> Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in >>>> centre of town - sh.t coverage. >>> >>> Optus has always had woeful coverage outside the capital cities.. >> >> So if Telstra could come up with a better deal...? > Telstra already has the best coverage, Pig ignorant lie, GlobalStar does. > best service Pig ignorant lie. > and of course keeps all profits here in Australia. Pig ignorant lie, heaps of those are given to fuckwit yanks. > Other companies funnel their massive profits overseas to prop up the nepotists like Singapore or India. Leaves fuckwit spivvy little yank wogs for dead. Least the chinese dont run any operation they get involved in into the ground. > John Phillips <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote >>> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million >>> square kilometres as compared to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 million square kilometres. >> Dunno about NextG, but was in Dubbo NSW today. >> Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in centre of town - sh.t coverage. Pig ignorant lie. > Optus has always had woeful coverage outside the capital cities.. Pig ignorant lie. >> The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the >> old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in centre > of town - sh.t coverage. Don't know about that. My brother was in & around Dubbo for 3 days 2 weeks ago, he called me 5 or 6 times & other people & didn't have any problems, others calling him didn't have any problems either (didn't go to voicemail). Maybe you were just unlucky when they had some localised network outages or maybe you need to get your phone checked? Granted out in the sticks Optus don't have great coverage (or any) but I've found around NSW at least, in the regional towns & cities, Optus have just as good a coverage as Telstra GSM (you can't compare GSM to CDMA different technologies, different strengths & weaknesses). John Phillips wrote... > Only place Optarse worked was outside the airport, and right in centre > of town - sh.t coverage. > > If I wasn't paying only 10 cents for 30 seconds (Soul Comms) I would > dump them like a dirty turd. I'm not sure that I follow your logic here. If Optus has sh.t coverage (and in my experience, it does out where I live and travel), then why stick with it? Cheap calls are great if the calls can be made in the first place. But if you can't use it when you want or need to, then what is the point with persisting with it? > I'm not sure that I follow your logic here. If Optus has sh.t coverage > (and in my experience, it does out where I live and travel), then why > stick with it? Cheap calls are great if the calls can be made in the > first place. But if you can't use it when you want or need to, then > what is the point with persisting with it? Not in the scrub that much these days, mainly capital cities. Alan Parkington wrote... > The Next G network offers a larger mobile coverage footprint than the > old CDMA network, covering more than 2 million square kilometres as compared > to CDMA which covered more than 1.6 million square kilometres. Parky, I asked if you could comment on this in your own words, not to parrot a Telstra PR blurb. The issue here is that Telstra is using some guy who lives in a rural area with tenuous links to a famous actor and a famous movie to sprout the greatness of NextG. Yet they're not even sure whether the guy can get NextG, despite the advertising claims that he makes that he can. So, I ask again, mate, what are your thoughts on this? . > So, I ask again, mate, what are your thoughts on this? There are now more than 35 Next G mobile handsets and each has unique features and performance levels. Telstra recommends that customers living or travelling in rural areas should consider one of Telstra's seven Blue Tick handsets, which are designed to maximise handheld coverage. > There are now more than 35 Next G mobile handsets and each has unique > features and performance levels. Telstra recommends that customers > living or travelling in rural areas should consider one of Telstra's > seven Blue Tick handsets, which are designed to maximise handheld > coverage. So which handset is the best of the best for performance on 3G? You should get a job as either a politician or a public servant who has to answer to one. Your avoiding of the questions and posting Telstra PR blurb as a response shows that you'd be good at doing either of the above. Of course you may well be doing that now... Alan Parkington wrote... > . > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or travelling in rural areas should consider one of Telstra's seven Blue > Tick handsets, which are designed to maximise handheld coverage. >. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >or travelling in rural areas should consider one of Telstra's seven Blue >Tick handsets, which are designed to maximise handheld coverage. and for some inexplicable reason, T-shops are still promoting that ZTE POS. > and for some inexplicable reason, T-shops are still promoting that > ZTE POS. I asked Parky through this group on 24 April which handset was the best of the best for 3G in the bush, or wherever, still no reply. Given that he is either a 'bot of half public servant, and probably pissed off early Thursday to play golf, etc., it will be interesting to see the reply, if indeed there is any reply at all. |
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.