 |
 | 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 2008Cell Info Not Updating on a NextG phone
After my recent jaunt around NE Victoria when I got home I found that the phone was displaying cell info from an area some distance from here. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe someone here can explain it. But I suspect that it (the cell in question) was the first one that the phone picked up after it entered back into a NextG coverage area. Why doesn't it update to show the current cell area? The phone's a Samsung A501. > After my recent jaunt around NE Victoria when I got home I > found that the phone was displaying cell info from an area [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The phone's a Samsung A501. UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet. Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G (plain old GSM) cell. John John Henderson wrote... > UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet. > Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G > (plain old GSM) cell. That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG. Not looking good for Telstra's claim about NextG being more widespread than its GSM or any other telco's networks, for that matter. In some areas there is Optus GSM coverage where there is no NextG coverage. Then I'm seeing GSM coverage where you'd think that there'd be NextG. Trouble is, when I'm travelling the phone's tucked away in the pocket, so I can't easily see what the coverage is doing and when I was in this area whether or not the 3G symbol was active on the phone. There was every chance that Next g coverage existed where your phone went to 2G, however the 2G signal may have been slightly stronger To really maximise your Next G coverage, I would recommend that you change the settings on your phone to stay on Next G only. With your phone switching between frequencies you may get drop outs. Although you technically are supposed to switch without a problem, sometimes dropouts do occur. > John Henderson wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I can't easily see what the coverage is doing and when I was in this area > whether or not the 3G symbol was active on the phone. Bubba wrote... > There was every chance that Next g coverage existed where your phone went to > 2G, however the 2G signal may have been slightly stronger Why would it do that? > To really maximise your Next G coverage, I would recommend that you change > the settings on your phone to stay on Next G only. The A501 has the following settings under "Network" 1. Automatic (which it's default is) 2. GSM 900/1800 3. GSM 850/1900 4. UMTS I just selected option 3. The antenna bar shows no signal and the 3G symbol isn't being displayed. And it's "searching" for a network connection. I then selected UMTS. As I changed it a message "UMTS only works inside 3G coverage areas" was displayed. Back at the main screen the signal is back to full strength and the 3G symbol is present. "3G" in this case refers to NextG as that is all there is as far as 3G services go in this area. I then changed it to GSM 900/1800. On the main screen I have full bars but there is an "E" symbol next to it. I do not know what that means. I'll have to look the manual up if I can find it. And shortly after I changed it to GSM 900 the cell name changed to the one where I live. I changed it back to "auto" and 3G is once more displayed. Next test was to remove the battery, wait a few seconds and put it back in and turn it on. The "cell name" is now back to Telstra. Which is what it normally displays. So, what you say is correct, then. Maybe there wasn't a NextG signal at all when I came back into a coverage area, so it briefly picked up the GSM cell, then as I travelled further it connected back to a NextG cell but the GSM cell name stayed. I would have thought that if there were two signals, GSM and UMTS/3G/NextG that it would've automatically picked NextG regardless of the strength. When I travel around here and particularly at work, NextG can drop down to one bar. I can compare my wife's GSM phone signal and often it may be getting a better signal. But in those cases it isn't swapping around. So, I'd be tipping that on the weekend that the phone didn't pick up a NG signal, only a GSM one.  SignatureWomen do come with instructions. Just ask them. > Bubba wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > So, I'd be tipping that on the weekend that the phone didn't > pick up a NG signal, only a GSM one. That sounds reasonable. But did you have it set to "Automatic" or "UMTS" back on the weekend? Even if you had it set to "UMTS", it may still have decoded a 2G cell broadcast message while it was scanning for a usable (or better) 3G signal, and stored that as a result of a quirk in the firmware. It's even possible that cell name came from a non-Telstra GSM cell - I once had a GSM phone with a firmware bug like that. John John Henderson wrote... > > So, I'd be tipping that on the weekend that the phone didn't > > pick up a NG signal, only a GSM one. > > That sounds reasonable. But did you have it set to "Automatic" > or "UMTS" back on the weekend? Automatic. > I then changed it to GSM 900/1800. On the main screen I have full bars but > there > is an "E" symbol next to it. I do not know what that means. I'll have to > look > the manual up if I can find it. "EDGE" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Data_Rates_for_GSM_Evolution SignatureKwyj. >> There was every chance that Next g coverage existed where your phone went >> to >> 2G, however the 2G signal may have been slightly stronger > > Why would it do that? It doesnt. If there is any NextG it will stay on NextG >> To really maximise your Next G coverage, I would recommend that you >> change [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > symbol > isn't being displayed. Because GSM in Aus is at 900 and 1800 mhz, not 850 and 1900. Option 3 is for Seppo's > I then changed it to GSM 900/1800. On the main screen I have full bars but > there > is an "E" symbol next to it. I do not know what that means. I'll have to > look E = Edge = high-speed data. Completely normal > It doesnt. If there is any NextG it will stay on NextG Actually, I've found my 6120c will happily stay on 2100MHz/Three for quite some time if that's the first signal it finds as I come out of a black-spot (eg, tunnel). Found it still happy on 2100MHz/Three up to twelve hours later. PD SignaturePaul Day For best results, set it to UMTS and Manual However, change it to Automatic should you ever take it overseas > Bubba wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > So, I'd be tipping that on the weekend that the phone didn't pick up a NG > signal, only a GSM one. Also you are using a "Group A" handset, which is the worst for rural areas when it comes to Next G > Bubba wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > So, I'd be tipping that on the weekend that the phone didn't pick up a NG > signal, only a GSM one. > Also you are using a "Group A" handset, which is the worst for rural areas > when it comes to Next G Group A doesn't neccesarily mean "worse". It can also simply mean "can't be fitted with an external antenna". PD SignaturePaul Day The it would be a "Group B" >> Also you are using a "Group A" handset, which is the worst for rural >> areas [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > PD > The it would be a "Group B" Not if it can't take an external antenna it wouldn't nope. 6120c is the classic example. Excellent reception, but isn't given a Blue Tick because it has no external anetnna connector. PD SignaturePaul Day Bubba wrote... > Also you are using a "Group A" handset, which is the worst for rural areas > when it comes to Next G I have no idea. It's a Samsung A501 which I purchased soon after NextG commenced service. Its 2 year contract is up in October. > John Henderson wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG. No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas > Not looking good for Telstra's claim about NextG being more widespread > than its GSM or any other telco's networks, for that matter. It looks fine. You could have been camped onto that 2G cell for 5 seconds for all you know > Trouble is, when I'm travelling the phone's tucked away in the pocket, so > I can't easily see what the coverage is doing and when I was in this area > whether or not the 3G symbol was active on the phone. So your point is irrelevant >> John Henderson wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. Lie. SignatureKwyj. >>> John Henderson wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Lie. Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will always be covered by NextG" Supply same artifact for CDMA over GSM, and GSM over AMPS > Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote >>> Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote >>>> John Henderson wrote... >>>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet. >>>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G >>>>> (plain old GSM) cell. >>>> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG. >>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. Yes Telstra did. >> Lie. > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will always be covered by NextG" Have a look at what Telstra said to the Senate, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > Supply same artifact for CDMA over GSM, and GSM over AMPS He never said anything about those, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > >> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. > > > > Lie. > > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will > always be covered by NextG" Proof already supplied. You choose to ignore it. PD SignaturePaul Day >> >> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Proof already supplied. You choose to ignore it. Haha. You loser. You cant even supply a single fact for something that you claim has been stated by Telstra, time and time again >>>>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Haha. You loser. You cant even supply a single fact for something > that you claim has been stated by Telstra, time and time again He already did previously, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. You chose to ignore it then, so there aint any point in posting it again. > > Proof already supplied. You choose to ignore it. > > Haha. You loser. You cant even supply a single fact for something that you > claim has been stated by Telstra, time and time again I can paste it for you yet again if you want, but we all know you're just going to ignore it yet again: Hansard for ECITA 46, 13th Feb. 2006: Mr Jennings. "I will address two aspects of that. First, the network. Because they would largely be using CDMA now, their coverage footprint will remain. That is a given." (Mr Max Jennings, General Manager, Wireless Access Services, Telstra) PD SignaturePaul Day >>>> John Henderson wrote... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you > will always be covered by NextG" From the Telstra marketing brochure: "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA" If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by NextG now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit. > Supply same artifact for CDMA over GSM, and GSM over AMPS How about you jam a pineapple up your arse - spikey end first. SignatureKwyj. > > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you > > will always be covered by NextG" > > From the Telstra marketing brochure: > "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA" Michael argues that Telstra's use of the word "same" merely means "The same _number_ of square km coverred (but not neccesarily in the same _location_ as those coverred by CDMA.)" However, numerous other sources (including Telstra answering to a couple of Senate Estimates Committee hearings) clarify it as what every sane person assumes the words "same" and "equivalent" to mean when talking about a mobile phone service. I've pasted some quotes from Telstra in here a couple of times now but Michael chooses to ignore them. PD SignaturePaul Day >> > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you >> > will always be covered by NextG" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > same _number_ of square km coverred (but not neccesarily in the same > _location_ as those coverred by CDMA.)" Yeah, and they even lied about that too. They based their square km estimate on their claim that some cells have a range of 200km, but failed to mention that they measured that range by using a NextG handset in an aeroplane that was associated with a NextG tower on top of a mountain. Dirty misleading f.ckers. > However, numerous other sources (including Telstra answering to a couple > of Senate Estimates Committee hearings) clarify it as what every sane > person assumes the words "same" and "equivalent" to mean when talking > about a mobile phone service. I've pasted some quotes from Telstra in > here a couple of times now but Michael chooses to ignore them. Which just goes to show that Mikey doesn't have a clue. SignatureKwyj. >>> > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, >>> > you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > tower on top of a mountain. > Dirty misleading f.ckers. No different to the way that customers made calls using CDMA in the same fashion. No different from offshore oil rigs making calls using cells on the mainland in the same fashion. Or fishing trawlers. > No different to the way that customers made calls using CDMA in the same > fashion. > > No different from offshore oil rigs making calls using cells on the mainland > in the same fashion. Or fishing trawlers. Yeah, and it's lucky Telstra committed to suppling those areas already coverred with CDMA with the new NextG service, isn't it Michael. ;) PD SignaturePaul Day >> > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you >> > will always be covered by NextG" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > person assumes the words "same" and "equivalent" to mean when talking > about a mobile phone service. I've pasted some quotes from Telstra in And anyone speaking in the context of closing a NATIONAL NETWORK and replacing it with another NATIONAL NETWORK would clearly believe "same" and "equivalent" refers to the total coverage supplied by those respective NATIONAL NETWORKS. They didnt close CDMA just in Upper East Wonthaggi Heights- they closed it NATIONALLY >>> > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you >>> > will always be covered by NextG" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >They didnt close CDMA just in Upper East Wonthaggi Heights- they closed it >NATIONALLY By your reasoning (sic) if CDMA covered 98% of Oz, and let's be kind and say nextG covers 99% of Oz, then .,.. To apply NextG over ALL of mainland Australia and NONE of Tasmania (which is less than 1% of Oz) would be same/equivalent or better. Yeah, right. >>And anyone speaking in the context of closing a NATIONAL NETWORK and >>replacing it with another NATIONAL NETWORK would clearly believe "same" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is > less than 1% of Oz) would be same/equivalent or better. Not a relevant comparison, as every CDMA base was replaced with a NextG one, and then some > Yeah, right. > > To apply NextG over ALL of mainland Australia and NONE of Tasmania > > (which is less than 1% of Oz) would be same/equivalent or better. > > Not a relevant comparison, as every CDMA base was replaced with a NextG one, > and then some Yep, because Telstra committed to supplying at least the same coverage footprint as CDMA. You appear to have forgotten to reply to _my_ posts in this thread Michael. I hope you're not going to ignore them yet again! ;) PD SignaturePaul Day > They didnt close CDMA just in Upper East Wonthaggi Heights- they closed it > NATIONALLY Yes, they did. GET OVER IT! > And anyone speaking in the context of closing a NATIONAL NETWORK and > replacing it with another NATIONAL NETWORK would clearly believe "same" and > "equivalent" refers to the total coverage supplied by those respective > NATIONAL NETWORKS. Nup, seems only you think that. Not even Telstra agree with you. PD SignaturePaul Day > > And anyone speaking in the context of closing a NATIONAL NETWORK and > > replacing it with another NATIONAL NETWORK would clearly believe "same" and > > "equivalent" refers to the total coverage supplied by those respective > > NATIONAL NETWORKS. > > Nup, seems only you think that. Not even Telstra agree with you. And in fact, the Australian Government certainly doesn't agree with you either. From the amendment to Telstra's carrier licence conditions: (a) the existence of equivalent or better coverage is to be determined having regard to: (i) the area that a signal emitted from a base station covers as it is propagated around the base station; and (ii) the extent to which a signal emitted from a base station is of sufficient strength to enable the connection and maintenance of voice calls using only an appropriate handheld mobile phone handset; and (iii) the extent to which a signal emitted from a base station is of sufficient strength to enable the connection and maintenance of voice calls using an appropriate mobile phone used in connection with an external aerial; (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.ns f/framelodgmentattachments/43D10834C7AA6F5CCA25735B001C6639) PD SignaturePaul Day Paul Day wrote... > Michael argues that Telstra's use of the word "same" merely means "The > same _number_ of square km coverred (but not neccesarily in the same > _location_ as those coverred by CDMA.)" My understanding is, and Michael, if I remember correctly, posted that here in the past, was that where there was a CDMA tower, a NextG cell would be commissioned. And that Telstra would be building MORE NG towers than what there were CDMA ones. So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did. > My understanding is, and Michael, if I remember correctly, > posted that here in the past, was that where there was a CDMA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG > cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did. And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to scratch. John > > My understanding is, and Michael, if I remember correctly, > > posted that here in the past, was that where there was a CDMA [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to > scratch. Which was exactly the ACA's finding. They found that on their little road trip, the coverage footprint itself was (almost) equivalent. Considering their path of travel was known to Telstra well in advance of the NextG test, you'd hope they put a lot of effort into making sure every square inch had equivalent coverage. However, their finding was that the handsets weren't up to scratch, hence an "equivalent" service was not being provided, hence they weren't meeting their new license condition, hence they had to delay the CDMA closure. And because their test was only along a known route, it's understandable that Telstra perhaps didn't put the same effort into ensuring coverage equivalence in every other NextG cell across the country which explains why some people with acceptable NextG handsets find CDMA provided a better coverage footprint in their local area. And I notice Michael has suddenly gone silent in this thread since I dragged out the archives showing Telstra committed to providing an equivlant coverage footprint and that everybody other than him understands "service equivalence" to mean the same footprint and handset quality, not just the same raw number of sq km coverred. PD SignaturePaul Day John Henderson wrote... > > So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then > > either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG > > cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did. > > And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to > scratch. Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Why bother with phones that won't work within the normal range of the towers? ie. demand that the phone providers provide phones that meet a minimum specification which includes reception levels? Isn't the whole point of NextG to provide coverage in areas where other networks won't reach, hence why they went with 850Mhz network rather than simply extending the existing higher frequency GSM/3G network out into the stix? > John Henderson wrote >>> So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, >>> then either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the >>> new NG cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did. >> And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to scratch. > Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Nope. > Why bother with phones that won't work within the normal range of the towers? Because not everyone wants to use the phone in a car kit. > ie. demand that the phone providers provide phones that meet > a minimum specification which includes reception levels? Pity that not everyone wants to use the phone in a carkit. > Isn't the whole point of NextG to provide coverage > in areas where other networks won't reach, Nope. Its about a hell of a lot more than just that, particularly when the cdma system already did that. > hence why they went with 850Mhz network They used that because they had purchased that spectrum space for the cdma system. > rather than simply extending the existing higher frequency GSM/3G network out into the stix? Pity about the digital cliff that GSM has. No surprise that this fool has to bludge off a union. >> > So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then >> > either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > providers provide phones that meet a minimum specification which includes > reception levels? Because not all phones are the same. Its been that way since AMPS was around. > Isn't the whole point of NextG to provide coverage in areas where other > networks > won't reach, hence why they went with 850Mhz network rather than simply No, the idea of NextG is to provide more total coverage than the network it is replacing (CDMA). Michael wrote... > > Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Why bother with > > phones that won't work within the normal range of the towers? ie. demand that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because not all phones are the same. Its been that way since AMPS was > around. I think you missed my point. We know that not all phones were created equal. I'm saying, why didn't Telstra request that the manufacturers build the phones to a minimum standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range capability? > Michael wrote >>> Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Why >>> bother with phones that won't work within the normal range of >>> the towers? ie. demand that the phone providers provide phones >>> that meet a minimum specification which includes reception levels? >> Because not all phones are the same. Its been that way since AMPS was around. > > I think you missed my point. You never ever had a point. > We know that not all phones were created equal. I'm saying, why didn't > Telstra request that the manufacturers build the phones to a minimum > standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range capability? Not even possible. > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > minimum standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range > capability? Then you would only have 1 or 2 phones to choose from. Ever noticed car makers do the same thing? Would you like to be forced to buy a Holden Statesman if you could get something cheaper and smaller? That better suited your needs? Michael wrote... > > minimum standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range > > capability? > > Then you would only have 1 or 2 phones to choose from. Bullshit. > Ever noticed car makers do the same thing? Would you like to be forced to > buy a Holden Statesman if you could get something cheaper and smaller? That > better suited your needs? Totally irrelevant analogy. If you want to use a car one, then look at it like fitting cars with ten litre fuel tanks rather than 70l tanks. Or designing them so that they only run on 98RON fuels, thus making it difficult to either get petrol as not all servos sell the stuff or forcing you to run a lower grade fuel and suffering poor performance as a result. Thing is, all Telstra had to do was to say to Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. that the NextG phones needed to comply with a minimum spec, say, along the lines of the Telstra 165 model phone. So, instead we get phones that are only good around major urban centres, others which aren't bad along highways and others which will work out in the sticks if used with a car kit and antenna. > Thing is, all Telstra had to do was to say to Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, > etc. > that the NextG phones needed to comply with a minimum spec, say, along the > lines > of the Telstra 165 model phone. Sorry, lets live in the real world, and have a choice of handsets, instead of just 1. Michael wrote... > Sorry, lets live in the real world, and have a choice of handsets, instead > of just 1. So, let's discuss your version of the real world. Tell us why, if Telstra mandated a minimum specification for telephone reception, why we'd only have one phone to "choose" from? >Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >mandated a minimum specification for telephone reception, why we'd only have one >phone to "choose" from? and if that were the case, why they currently offer all those sub-standard units? > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mandated a minimum specification for telephone reception, why we'd only > have one They do mandate a minimum specification. Its just not YOUR specification. But you get that, because THEY run the network, and YOU dont > phone to "choose" from? Michael wrote... > They do mandate a minimum specification. Its just not YOUR specification. > But you get that, because THEY run the network, and YOU dont Pity that you won't answer my question, rather than trying to steer us off on some tangent about "my" specification. > Pity that you won't answer my question, rather than trying to steer us off on > some tangent about "my" specification. That's Michael for you... PD SignaturePaul Day > Michael wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on > some tangent about "my" specification. Your specification is a w.nk.If you want the Rolls Royce phone, buy it. I did. Michael wrote... > Your specification is a w.nk.If you want the Rolls Royce phone, buy it. I > did. Ah, so you have no answer to my question, and you're unable to justify how the NextG phone specs were arrived at. Hence why we have a range of phones from crap to acceptable as far as regional reception and performance goes. Best stick to your day job, Michael, whatever that is. > Paul Day wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the past, was that where there was a CDMA tower, a NextG cell would be > commissioned. That is my understanding >And that Telstra would be building MORE NG towers than what there > were CDMA ones. Yep > So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then either they > aren't > replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG cells don't have the same range > as > what CDMA did. The technologies are not the same. Depending on the geography and other factors, the NextG coverage on a particular site compared to the CDMA coverage may be the same, better, or less. No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be better. The ask was on Telstra to have the same amount of coverage or more, and they beat that easily >> Paul Day wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be better. Telstra did just that, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > The ask was on Telstra to have the same amount of coverage or more, You're lying, as always, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > and they beat that easily You're lying, as always, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. Michael wrote... > No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be better. No? If not, then at lease Telstra said that it should be "the same", at least, didn't it? And in the case of my original post, it seems that GSM has coverage where NG doesn't, but I clearly recall there being good CDMA coverage. I'm talking about a place called Bruthern, in east Gippsland. > The ask was on Telstra to have the same amount of coverage or more, and they > beat that easily Which isn't much comfort to those in rural areas who once had good CDMA coverage but now have marginal or non-existant NextG coverage. >> No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be >> better. > > No? If not, then at lease Telstra said that it should be "the same", at > least, > didn't it? Yes, at the network level. And its not the same, its actually better > And in the case of my original post, it seems that GSM has coverage where > NG [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > coverage > but now have marginal or non-existant NextG coverage. Correct. There are many hard knocks in life. >>> No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be better. >> No? If not, then at lease Telstra said that it should be "the same", at least, didn't it? > Yes, at the network level. And its not the same, its actually better Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim. >> And in the case of my original post, it seems that GSM has coverage where NG doesn't, but I clearly recall there >> being good CDMA coverage. I'm talking about a place called Bruthern, in east Gippsland. >>> The ask was on Telstra to have the same amount of coverage or more, >>> and they beat that easily >> Which isn't much comfort to those in rural areas who once had good >> CDMA coverage but now have marginal or non-existant NextG coverage. > Correct. > There are many hard knocks in life. Pity about what telstra claimed. >>>>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet. >>>>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > From the Telstra marketing brochure: > "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA" Which they do, as total coverage is more. Still doesnt state "if you are covered by CDMA, you will always be covered by NextG" > If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by > NextG now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit. It sure is the same > Which they do, as total coverage is more. > > Still doesnt state "if you are covered by CDMA, you will always be covered > by NextG" Mr Jennings. "I will address two aspects of that. First, the network. Because they would largely be using CDMA now, their coverage footprint will remain. That is a given." (Mr Max Jennings, General Manager, Wireless Access Services, Telstra) > > If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by > > NextG now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit. > > It sure is the same Only if you're deluding yourself. PD SignaturePaul Day Michael wrote... > > If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by > > NextG now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit. > > It sure is the same How do you figure that? Or is Telstra's definition of "same" different to what the rest of us use? >>>>> John Henderson wrote... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by NextG > now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit. It could, arguably, be "better" coverage though. It's very subjective. Which is the reason, of course, why no-one should rely on marketing brochures. >>>> John Henderson wrote... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will > always be covered by NextG" See Paul Day's quote of Max Jennings' remarks made Feb 13, 2006. >>>>> John Henderson wrote... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > See Paul Day's quote of Max Jennings' remarks made Feb 13, 2006. See previous post for response >>>>>> John Henderson wrote... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > See previous post for response Completely useless, as always with your lying sh.t, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > > See Paul Day's quote of Max Jennings' remarks made Feb 13, 2006. > > See previous post for response Where? And don't say "the original thread last year" because: a) You demanded I repost it here. b) You ignored it then just like you're ignoring it now. PD SignaturePaul Day > No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion > that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas 'fraid they did Michael. We've had this discussion previously in here and I pasted a whole bunch of quotes from Telstra management saying it would cover every square km that CDMA did. A couple of them were from Senate Estimate Committee meetings. Are you accusing Telstra management of lying to Parliament? ;) PD SignaturePaul Day >> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion >> that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Senate Estimate Committee meetings. Are you accusing Telstra management > of lying to Parliament? ;) You still havent supplied any quotes. Saying "NextG will cover the same AMOUNT of area (or more)" does not state "NextG will cover the exact same places, people and objects, as CDMA" > PD > Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote >>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas >> 'fraid they did Michael. We've had this discussion previously in here >> and I pasted a whole bunch of quotes from Telstra management saying it would cover every square km that CDMA did. A >> couple of them were from Senate Estimate Committee meetings. Are you accusing Telstra management of lying to >> Parliament? ;) > You still havent supplied any quotes. That was done when it was discussed previously. > Saying "NextG will cover the same AMOUNT of area (or more)" does not > state "NextG will cover the exact same places, people and objects, as CDMA" Pity about what telstra actually said to the Senate. >> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That was done when it was discussed previously. We are not currently discussing it previously, we are discussing it now. And given you cant supply any quotes, just proves that it was never stated at all >>> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > We are not currently discussing it previously, we are discussing it now. When you ignored it when it was quoted previously, there isnt any point in quoting it again now, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > And given you cant supply any quotes, He already did, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > just proves that it was never stated at all Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. > We are not currently discussing it previously, we are discussing it now. Of course we're not currently discussing it previously. That doesn't even make sense. However, you ignored it previously and will no doubt ignore it now as well. > And given you cant supply any quotes, just proves that it was never stated > at all You lie - again. May as well start with the Hansard entry. And this time, unlike last time, don't ignore the most important quoted words: "their coverage footprint will remain." Hansard for ECITA 46, 13th Feb. 2006: Senator Coonan. "We know what consumers want here: they want to be able to continue to have a good coverage and to be able to have at least as good a service as they get with CDMA. We know what consumers want. This is a very technical inquiry group that we have convened here to make sure that these issues can be sorted out in the long-term interests of consumers." Senator CONROY. "As it stands we are basically being told by Telstra, 'Trust us; we'll deliver what we.re telling you,' even though it actually has not been done anywhere else in the world." Senator Coonan. "I do not think Telstra is saying, 'Trust us'. What Telstra is saying is, 'We will work with you, the department, and we will work with you, the regulator, to make sure that service standards are at least equivalent to CDMA and to make sure that the services to consumers are not interrupted.'" Mr Jennings. "I will address two aspects of that. First, the network. Because they would largely be using CDMA now, their coverage footprint will remain. That is a given." (Mr Max Jennings, General Manager, Wireless Access Services, Telstra) PD SignaturePaul Day >> We are not currently discussing it previously, we are discussing it now. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > (Mr Max Jennings, General Manager, Wireless Access Services, Telstra) Is there anything else? If not, I'd say he simply f.cked up. Funnily enough, the "very technical inquiry group" (consisting of Senators Coonan and Conroy) didn't think to challenge that assertion of Jennings. But in any case, after reviewing the transcript, Telstra really should have written to the committee and clarified the statement. >> Senator CONROY. "As it stands we are basically being told by Telstra, >> 'Trust us; we'll deliver what we.re telling you,' even though it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Is there anything else? If not, I'd say he simply f.cked up. Max's comments indicate that the "given" is that the coverage footprint (total coverage amount) will remain. And that is correct, Telstra have a larger NextG footprint than CDMA >>> Senator CONROY. "As it stands we are basically being told by >>> Telstra, 'Trust us; we'll deliver what we.re telling you,' even [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Max's comments indicate that the "given" is that the coverage > footprint (total coverage amount) will remain. You're lying, as always, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > And that is correct, Telstra have a larger NextG footprint than CDMA You're lying, as always, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > > Is there anything else? If not, I'd say he simply f.cked up. > > Max's comments indicate that the "given" is that the coverage footprint > (total coverage amount) will remain. And that is correct, Telstra have a > larger NextG footprint than CDMA Nup, 'fraid not. Don't pretend you don't know what a "coverage footprint" is. A footprint is the actual location coverred by something, not the raw figure of the area it coverrs. From dictonary.com: 2. The surface space occupied by a structure or device: the footprint of a building; a microcomputer with a space-saving footprint. 3. The area within which a spacecraft is supposed to land. 4. The designated area affected or covered by a device or phenomenon: the footprint of a communications satellite. And if you read the amendment to Telstra's license, you'll see the government have read Telstra's comments just like everyone else in this brown land has, except for you of course, and tried to make them commit to them. PD SignaturePaul Day > > 'fraid they did Michael. We've had this discussion previously in here > > and I pasted a whole bunch of quotes from Telstra management saying it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You still havent supplied any quotes. Sure did. Read your archives. Not my fault if you choose to put your hands over your ears, shut your eyes tight and sing loudly. > Saying "NextG will cover the same AMOUNT of area (or more)" does not state > "NextG will cover the exact same places, people and objects, as CDMA" 'fraid that's not what was said. PD SignaturePaul Day |
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.