 |
 | 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 2008Optus to Compete with Telstra in Rural Areas
This will be interesting to watch. http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23665246-5014239,00.html Given my experiences over the past weekend with Optus v NextG rural coverage, I'll be keen to see what Optus will have to offer us "bushies" and at what cost. If Optus' claims that 900 Mhz is the way to go versus Telstra's 850Mhz, maybe it will end up providing better coverage. Who knows? Time will tell, I s'pose. >This will be interesting to watch. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Who knows? Time will tell, I s'pose. Optus would have to spend an awful lot of money to come even close to the coverage Telstra has in rural Queensland. If I drive from Longreach to Rockhampton (about 700kms) with my LG TU-500 in a car kit, I find there is about 10 kms of the whole road that isnt covered by Telstra NextG. A mate who uses a Nokia NextG in a car kit along this same road reports the same sort of coverage. If I drive Longreach to Brisbane (1280 kms) in the same vehicle, I find there might be a total of 250kms total that whole trip that isnt in NextG coverage. Mostly, there is a 15-25km gap between towns that mightnt be covered. Pretty decent coverage, overall. Trips off the major highways do tend to get much less coverage, but in comparison to Optus, it's profoundly better coverage. If I drive around our property (60 kms outside Longreach), there is maybe 25% of it not covered by NextG coverage with a car kit. My 2 cents is Optus wont ever be able to match the money Telstra have spent on infrastructure, unless we have some form of comminication breakthrough that allows them a huge advantage over what Telstra have already in place. I'd question how accurate your coverage experiences were when travelling rural Victoria with a NextG phone. Were you using a car kit at all? Someone else queried if your phone night need some setting changes. I drove around a fair chunk of it late last year with my NextG phone (no car kit), and I found the coverage to be pretty reasonable. There are black spots, but I seemed to have little trouble getting a NextG signal most places. Certainly all of the major towns and centres had great coverage. My 2 cents. Cheers, Rod. ---------- Rod - Out back And we know how far 2 cents goes these days >>This will be interesting to watch. >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Rod - Out back > Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote >> This will be interesting to watch. >> http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23665246-5014239,00.html Pretty vague about exactly what they plan to do apart from how much they plan to spend. >> Given my experiences over the past weekend with Optus v NextG rural coverage, >> I'll be keen to see what Optus will have to offer us "bushies" and at what cost. >> If Optus' claims that 900 Mhz is the way to go versus Telstra's >> 850Mhz, maybe it will end up providing better coverage. >> Who knows? Time will tell, I s'pose. > Optus would have to spend an awful lot of money to come > even close to the coverage Telstra has in rural Queensland. True, the digital cliff with GSM means that the base density has to be much higher in those very low density of population areas. > If I drive from Longreach to Rockhampton (about 700kms) with my > LG TU-500 in a car kit, I find there is about 10 kms of the whole road > that isnt covered by Telstra NextG. A mate who uses a Nokia NextG > in a car kit along this same road reports the same sort of coverage. > If I drive Longreach to Brisbane (1280 kms) in the same vehicle, > I find there might be a total of 250kms total that whole trip that > isnt in NextG coverage. Mostly, there is a 15-25km gap between > towns that mightnt be covered. Pretty decent coverage, overall. But not as good as GlobalStar. > Trips off the major highways do tend to get much less coverage, > but in comparison to Optus, it's profoundly better coverage. > If I drive around our property (60 kms outside Longreach), there > is maybe 25% of it not covered by NextG coverage with a car kit. And a car kit isnt always very practical either, particularly for accidents. > My 2 cents is Optus wont ever be able to match the money > Telstra have spent on infrastructure, unless we have some > form of comminication breakthrough that allows them a > huge advantage over what Telstra have already in place. They can obviously spend much more than telstra has, but are unlikely to bother. > I'd question how accurate your coverage experiences were when > travelling rural Victoria with a NextG phone. Were you using a car [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > little trouble getting a NextG signal most places. Certainly all of > the major towns and centres had great coverage. >> If I drive Longreach to Brisbane (1280 kms) in the same vehicle, >> I find there might be a total of 250kms total that whole trip that >> isnt in NextG coverage. Mostly, there is a 15-25km gap between >> towns that mightnt be covered. Pretty decent coverage, overall. > > But not as good as GlobalStar. But who wants to f.ck around with GlobalStar when you can just use a bog-standard mobile nowadays (NextG)? Sat networks are now even more irrelevant. Relevant only to the 1% of population who can't be NextG. 10-15 years ago when GSM was all we had an 87% pop coverage was the best, they were more relevant Now they are close to useless. And f.ck GlobalStar, those in the know use iridium > Sat networks are now even more irrelevant. Relevant only to the 1% of > population who can't be NextG. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now they are close to useless. And in some countries illegal as well. >>> If I drive Longreach to Brisbane (1280 kms) in the same vehicle, >>> I find there might be a total of 250kms total that whole trip that >>> isnt in NextG coverage. Mostly, there is a 15-25km gap between >>> towns that mightnt be covered. Pretty decent coverage, overall. >> But not as good as GlobalStar. > But who wants to f.ck around with GlobalStar when you can just use a bog-standard mobile nowadays (NextG)? Anyone who can end up dead if they cant call for assistance when the sh.t hits the fan. > Sat networks are now even more irrelevant. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > Relevant only to the 1% of population who can't be NextG. It aint the population that matters, fuckwit. > 10-15 years ago when GSM was all we had an 87% pop coverage was the best, they were more relevant It aint the population that matters, fuckwit. > Now they are close to useless. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > And f.ck GlobalStar, those in the know use iridium Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >> 10-15 years ago when GSM was all we had an 87% pop coverage was the best, >> they were more relevant > > It aint the population that matters, fuckwit. Of course it is, fuckwit. People use mobile phones, not cows >>> 10-15 years ago when GSM was all we had an 87% pop coverage was the best, they were more relevant >> It aint the population that matters, fuckwit. > Of course it is Nope. > People use mobile phones, not cows It aint the cows that matters, its those driving down the roads, fuckwit. > > It aint the population that matters, fuckwit. > > Of course it is, fuckwit. > > People use mobile phones, not cows And people aren't as static as Census and Electrol Roll population data suggests. Just because there is no population somewhere doesn't meant people aren't going to want to use their mobile there. PD  SignaturePaul Day >> > It aint the population that matters, fuckwit. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > suggests. Just because there is no population somewhere doesn't meant > people aren't going to want to use their mobile there. Correct. But catering for 99% of the population aint a bad effort. It's only 1% of the rest that would even want a Sat phone. Ten years ago there was a market for 13% of the population. Now, hardly anyone (1%) >>>> It aint the population that matters, fuckwit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Ten years ago there was a market for 13% of the population. Now, > hardly anyone (1%) Wrong, as always. A hell of a lot more than 1% of the population are outside the range of a NextG base at some time, even if they are using the best car systems, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>> If I drive Longreach to Brisbane (1280 kms) in the same vehicle, >>> I find there might be a total of 250kms total that whole trip that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sat networks are now even more irrelevant. Relevant only to the 1% of > population who can't be NextG. or the millions of square miles that have no mobile coverage at all you dumb fuckwit > 10-15 years ago when GSM was all we had an 87% pop coverage was the best, > they were more relevant > > Now they are close to useless. > > And f.ck GlobalStar, those in the know use iridium ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> Sat networks are now even more irrelevant. Relevant only to the 1% of >> population who can't be NextG. > > or the millions of square miles that have no mobile coverage at all you > dumb fuckwit Which is still 1% OF THE POPULATION, fuckwit. People use mobiles, now cows >>> Sat networks are now even more irrelevant. Relevant only to the 1% of population who can't be NextG. >> or the millions of square miles that have no mobile coverage at all you dumb fuckwit > Which is still 1% OF THE POPULATION, fuckwit. Wrong. What matters is those in vehicles in those areas, not the percentage of the population that 'lives' there, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > People use mobiles, now cows They dont even have cows there, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child. Rod Out back wrote... > I'd question how accurate your coverage experiences were when travelling rural Question all you like. I can only relate what I experienced. If you choose to question that, so be it. The world ain't gonna stop any time soon, because of it. > Victoria with a NextG phone. Were you using a car kit at all? Someone else No car kit. I was riding with a group of friends on motorcycles. > queried if your phone night need some setting changes. I drove around a fair The settings are limited. And when set to "auto" it does what it does. See my other post titled "Cell Info Not Updating on a NextG Phone" for more details. > chunk of it late last year with my NextG phone (no car kit), and I found the > coverage to be pretty reasonable. I couldn't tell you what coverage is like between towns or between stops, rather. The phone was always in a jacket pocket so I couldn't see what it was doing. And I was not going to stop every so often just to check the phone coverage, either. > This will be interesting to watch. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If Optus' claims that 900 Mhz is the way to go versus Telstra's 850Mhz, > maybe it will end up providing better coverage. The lower the frequency for UMTS, the better the spread of coverage. However, the higher, the better the inbuilding penetration > > If Optus' claims that 900 Mhz is the way to go versus Telstra's > > 850Mhz, maybe it will end up providing better coverage. > > The lower the frequency for UMTS, the better the spread of coverage. > However, the higher, the better the inbuilding penetration So what is the optimal frequency for spread and "penetration"? > Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote >> This will be interesting to watch. >> http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23665246-5014239,00.html >> Given my experiences over the past weekend with Optus v NextG rural coverage, I'll be keen to see what Optus will >> have to offer us "bushies" and at what cost. >> If Optus' claims that 900 Mhz is the way to go versus Telstra's >> 850Mhz, maybe it will end up providing better coverage. > The lower the frequency for UMTS, the better the spread of coverage. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > However, the higher, the better the inbuilding penetration Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >> This will be interesting to watch. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The lower the frequency for UMTS, the better the spread of coverage. That's not true over such a low range of frequencies. The frequencies in question are all line of sight. And they're all capable of reaching the limit of the GSM timing advance range. > However, the higher, the better the inbuilding penetration Wrong. The higher the frequency, the worse the penetration through concrete etc. >This will be interesting to watch. >http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23665246-5014239,00.html >Given my experiences over the past weekend with Optus v NextG rural >coverage, I'll be keen to see what Optus will have to offer us "bushies" >and at what cost. >If Optus' claims that 900 Mhz is the way to go versus Telstra's 850Mhz, >maybe it will end up providing better coverage. >Who knows? Time will tell, I s'pose. Indeed. I wonder if the technology Optus is planning to use is the same as what Telstra is deploying as '3G'? Craig. SignatureSUN RIPENED KERNELS - Surplus Sun Microsystems Equipment, Parts + Accessories Location: Sydney, Australia - Web: http://www.sunrk.com.au - Get back on track at the SunShack - Web: http://www.sunshack.org - Cobalt Users mailing list Web: http://lios.apana.org.au/mailman/listinfo/cobalt_users >> This will be interesting to watch. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Craig. I'm guessing it is. As an example, you can buy a Nokia 6120C which is a GSM & UMTS 850/2100 mhz phone or you can buy a Nokia 6121 which is the same phone except with UMTS 900/2100 instead of the 850. >>This will be interesting to watch. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Indeed. I wonder if the technology Optus is planning to use is the same as > what Telstra is deploying as '3G'? Its just UMTS. Its all the same, really, just different frequencies and vendors
|
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.