 |
 | 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 / Providers / Cingular / December 2006TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."
"http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601406" "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for Verizon and Sprint users: their GSM-based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries, CR observed." That's great news, as there are certainly a lot of non-U.S. countries. Actually, you can use CDMA phones in a lot of non-U.S. countries as well, just not as many as with GSM phones. And there are several countries where CDMA works but GSM doesn't, including Japan and Korea. CDMA is growing by leaps and bounds, with a lot of new deployments in 4Q2006, and more coming next year, especially at 450MHz. >"http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601406" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Actually, you can use CDMA phones in a lot of non-U.S. countries as >well, just not as many as with GSM phones. Actually not very many, and more importantly not with local pre-paid SIMs, a huge advantage of GSM over CDMA2000. >And there are several >countries where CDMA works but GSM doesn't, including Japan and Korea. That's 2, not "several". GSM works in vastly more places than CDMA2000. See GSMWorld.com >CDMA is growing by leaps and bounds, with a lot of new deployments in >4Q2006, and more coming next year, especially at 450MHz. CDMA2000 is actually on the decline, with Nokia having abandoned it, Sprint migrating to WiMAX, other countries thinking of dumping it (e.g., India), and even Qualcomm is hedging its bets. Kindly take your CDMA2000 trolling someplace else.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > CDMA2000 is actually on the decline, with Nokia having abandoned it, Here're two of Nokia's new phones for VerizonWireless (cdma2000 EV-DO) http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/6315i/0,7747,,00.html http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/6305i/0,7747,,00.html There are more cdma2000 phone on the Nokia USA web site. Look for model numbers ending in "i". So, obviously, Nokia hasn't abandoned cdma2000. > and even Qualcomm is hedging its bets. How, by taking advantage of revenue they could gain by leveraging their intellectual property and give stockholders dividends by producing W-CDMA chips, or by buying an OFDM patent bearing company, and buying Bluetooth and WiFi companies? Qualcomm is aiming to be a behemoth in wireless (can you blame them?), and is making a lot of money selling wireless chipsets. Aren't truly free markets great? > Kindly take your CDMA2000 trolling someplace else. cdma450 demonstrates, even in Europe, that European government policies can't totally "snuff out" the free market, although a Swedish carrier who wanted to offer cdma450 was denied permission to do so by the government. cdma450 is blooming where it fills a market need. More carriers around the world are expanding their cdma2000 markets. And, where cdma2000 and W-CDMA compete head-to-head NTT DoCoMo lost subscribers due to wireless number portability. (They lost them to cdma2000 operator KDDI.) You accuse him of being the troll? You've demonstrated that you haven't researched your conjectures and are also indicating that you anti free-market and pro-government regulation. Why? > Here're two of Nokia's new phones for VerizonWireless (cdma2000 EV-DO) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Look for model numbers ending in "i". > So, obviously, Nokia hasn't abandoned cdma2000. Nokia has stopped producing new CDMA handsets. According to an article I read a couple of months ago, they are now having their CDMA phones built for them by two companies, Pantech and someone else I've forgotten (Samsung maybe?) So the only thing Nokia is building for CDMA phones going forward is their logo! >> CDMA2000 is actually on the decline, with Nokia having abandoned it, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Look for model numbers ending in "i". >So, obviously, Nokia hasn't abandoned cdma2000. <http://www.mobiledia.com/news/47935.html> Nokia and Sanyo announced today that they will not be forming the new CDMA device company preliminarily announced in February. The Finnish company said on it would pull out of CDMA phone manufacturing, which it sees as a shrinking market in the longer term. Recent developments may indicate that the CDMA emerging markets business is looking more challenging. <http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/081106-nokia-to-lay-off-us.html> Nokia will cut a few hundred jobs as it shuts down its CDMA handset development. The company has been developing CDMA (Code-Division Multiple Access) products at a facility in San Diego but is now turning to ODMs (original device manufacturers) for all its CDMA phones. It expects to eliminate about 600 jobs in the process, cutting a work force of about 1,150 to roughly 550, said spokesman Keith Nowak. In the future, the San Diego unit will work with the ODMs and also help to develop Nokia GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) and UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) products. Apology accepted. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Piss off John. Absolutely no apology offered - or is needed. Nokia chose to go it's own way and (try to) develop it's own CDMA chips. And did a fairly shitty job of it - thus it's just cutting it's losses now because they did a such a completely lousy job at CDMA on their own. Certainly, you can spin this, twist reality and believe what you want. Using this to further push your absolutely bogus argument (CDMA is in decline) is however completely false and frankly asinine. And again shows how delusional you are. And, it certainly doesn't change the actual TRUTH. Which is that CDMA is actually growing, not declining, as you always falsely contend. >>> CDMA2000 is actually on the decline, with Nokia having abandoned it, >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Apology accepted. > Which is that CDMA is actually growing, not declining, as you always falsely > contend. It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users. Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million users in the U.S. alone. >> Which is that CDMA is actually growing, not declining, as you always >> falsely [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million > users in the U.S. alone. For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently decided to give up trying. > For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently > decided to give up trying. Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA phones sounds like sour grapes. SignatureCharles >> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently >> decided to give up trying. > > Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and > that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA > phones sounds like sour grapes. Yes, my buddy used to do acceptance testing and they just couldn't produce CDMA handsets that could get past acceptance testing. Bingo!!! They are still wrangling over it legally. Nokia, refusing to play nice, tried to go it alone - and failed miserably. Now they are simply doing a cut and run, so to speak. Navas then falsely interpreting this as a decline in CDMA is complete horse crap. "Apology accepted"??? What an a.s...! >> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently >> decided to give up trying. > > Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and > that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA > phones sounds like sour grapes. Again, this is another cut & paste job by navas. His low IQ can't comprehend the argumentative statement. The only way to justify his idiotic statement is to cut and paste some paragraph out of the context. > Bingo!!! > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA > > phones sounds like sour grapes. > Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and > that was their problem? Cutting off their nose to spite their face. I could understand a smaller handset maker deciding to concentrate solely on GSM because the market is so much bigger for GSM handsets. But for the largest handset maker to write off hundreds of millions of customers is pretty bizarre. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:458e92bf$0$68997 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the > leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users. > Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million > users in the U.S. alone. NTSC is the "installed base" of analog TV in the US as well....It's the worst TV system on the planet with only 525 lines vs 800 or more for everyone else. We've done it again, by the way! ATSC is the DTV system America has settled on. Compared to the European DTV standard, it sucks just as bad as NTSC but is cheaper to deploy and more profitable to sell....any questions? Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the best". Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that matters more than what modulation scheme it's using. Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe. They have REPEATERS! > Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe. > They have REPEATERS! Which is only feasible because of the higher population density in Europe. But everything has trade-offs. If you don't mind living in cramped quarters, with the government interfering in every aspect of your life, by all means move to Europe. SignatureJohn Richards (who lived in Europe for 13 years) >> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe. They have REPEATERS! > > Which is only feasible because of the higher population density in Europe. > But everything has trade-offs. If you don't mind living in cramped > quarters, with the government interfering in every aspect of your > life, by all means move to Europe. Along with the extreme difference in geographical area (and population density), there is another BIG factor. As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government involvement in all things in most, if not all European countries. Certainly wireless is included. Down to and including the digital protocol that was chosen. It most certainly was government influenced over there, (vs the market here). Qualcom is American and god forbid using something from the USA (and paying the greedy yanks...) Even though CDMA is a quite superior technology, Eurocentric protectionism prevailed. Then there are the "repeaters" as Larry so often blabs about... Again a case of direct government involvement - do you honestly think there were many - if any NIMBY roadblocks to site placement? I doubt it... > As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government > involvement in all things [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Even though CDMA is a quite superior technology, Eurocentric protectionism > prevailed. Not taking one side or the other here ... but I find it humorous that folks who don't want "big government" involved are quick to allow a monopolistic corporation to be involved in the same aspects of their lives. :-) >> As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government >> involvement in all things [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > who don't want "big government" involved are quick to allow a monopolistic > corporation to be involved in the same aspects of their lives. :-) Not sure what you are getting at. There is plenty of competition in the mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others. "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in news:f4Vjh.37257 $wc5.21813@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: > Not sure what you are getting at. There is plenty of competition in the > mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular, > Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others. But, is that an illusion created for the consumers? They're all members of the same "club", the CTIA (www.ctia.org).... They all act, approximately, the same, arrogant, aloof, demanding... They all play the same contract games with subsidies to prevent churning... Are they REALLY competitors, or simply tentacles of the same octopus, like oil companies are, bankers are, broadcasters are, cable companies are, many other corporations are?? If I want to steal your customers, I offer them something really grand, really cheap and, most of all, industry shaking. Cellphone companies never do this. They all make lots of noise in overpriced advertising, but they never, just like gas companies, get far afield of what their CTIA bretheren are doing.....price fixing. Yes, you can choose any CTIA member for your phone, just like you can choose any Federal Reserve banker to hold your money..... For entertainment value Larry, you are something... Nothing like a good conspiracy theory rant to get a nice chuckle. Now..... I sure hope it is only meant as entertainment. Not to actually be taken seriously. That would be an entirely different story... If one were to actually believe this craziness, one would most likely also believe that ANY company in business, trying to make a profit and maximize shareholder value is greedy and evil. That a company isn't entitled to make a profit on the BILLIONS of dollars it spends? This is simple capitalism vs communism. You a commie Larry? > "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in news:f4Vjh.37257 > $wc5.21813@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Yes, you can choose any CTIA member for your phone, just like you can > choose any Federal Reserve banker to hold your money..... > If one were to actually believe this craziness, one would most likely > also believe that ANY company in business, trying to make a profit and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You a commie Larry? You must have read someone else's post.....?? MANY companies in business trying to maximize profits conspire with their competitors to fix prices high. That's what the anti-trust laws are supposed to, but are unsuccessful on purpose, prevent. There's no difference between the collusion in cellular phone companies and gasoline companies or telephone companies. They form a CARTEL...go look it up as you seem to have some kind of convenient amnesia...FIX PRICES HIGH...and they all reap in the profits. This is not a NEW concept. It has been going on since before Pharoah freed the Jews. Duhhh..... All companies are entitled to make as many billions of dollars as the MARKET will bear. Mine is no different. Now, what's the communist bullshit you've rolled out to justify corporate cartel behaviour? Can you define a communist? Do you know what it is, or is this the spin bullshit to deflect the idea of cartel existence and its effect on cellular (or cable) pricing? Anyone who questions the cartel's existence is to be attacked as an "evil commie", is that it? God you're so transparent.....You should have a radio talk show. Communism, by the way, has nothing to do with corporate cartels and corporate greed.... Larry, just pointing out the absurdity of making blanket statements. Deliberately yanking your chain so you'd dig your hole a bit deeper. Rabid paranoia and gross generalization are both quite stupid. Yet, you seem to do both quite regularly. Doctors are all bad a while back.... Broadcasters ("Jewish")... Gas companies... Telephone companies... Bankers.... Cable companies.... Who did I miss? Why don't you just say ALL corporations...? ALL business...? God.... you are so paranoid and negative.... (and really easy BTW) >> If one were to actually believe this craziness, one would most likely >> also believe that ANY company in business, trying to make a profit and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Communism, by the way, has nothing to do with corporate cartels and > corporate greed.... >> There is plenty of competition in the >> mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > never, just like gas companies, get far afield of what their CTIA bretheren > are doing.....price fixing. Can a business afford to greatly undercut a competitor's prices if it means losing money? Instead of imagining some grand conspiracy, could it be that all the wireless companies have pretty much the same cost basis and the same technological limits? SignatureJohn Richards > Can a business afford to greatly undercut a competitor's prices if it > means losing money? Instead of imagining some grand conspiracy, could > it be that all the wireless companies have pretty much the same cost > basis and the same technological limits? Ask WalMart. They do it every day and it takes EIGHT armored cars to haul it off from the new Superstore near me. It almost fills the truck...8 times a day! Let's have a little check.....Go to: http://www.ctia.org/research_statistics/index.cfm/AID/10030 the cartel's own statistics..... Click up the number of subscribers....219,420,467 Now, click up total revenue....$60,450,669,000.00 X 2 = 120,901,338,000.00 divided by 219,420,467 = $551.00 per sub. divided by 12 = $45.91/month. The average local monthly bill = $49.30 on another page. Maybe that's taxes and the other add-on loads bureaucrats have dreamed up. $120B/year is an amazing total. Divided by 197,576 cell towers = $611,923.20 per year revenue on EACH tower. Not a bad return on investment, minus the downsized stores with no chairs to sit on while you're waiting for service. Now, how much are their POTS costs? It doesn't say. They don't have "lines" into the cells, like the old telephone systems. The cell has a microwave link and a data server someplace. Phone numbers are CHEAP! Skype sells me an incoming telephone number for $28/year. I doubt that's at cost, don't you? Interconnect must be even cheaper in the US and Canada. Skype sells me outgoing service to POTS, an interconnect from their system, for $15/year....truly unlimited service...no "airtime", no time limits, no monthly fee. I can't believe Ebay is losing its a.s providing this next year, can you? There's gotta be a small profit in it. Even if it were at cost, $43/year - $551 per sub is a reasonable profit margin for any business. I wish mine were that much! I bet $43/sub/year is double what it really costs. Of course, this is just a guess. We seem to average 322 minutes a month, if you divide the 850B+ airtime minutes here by the 219,420,467 of us in June of 06. I'm about average on that. Alarmingly, divided by the 197,576 towers you get 4,302,141 airtime minutes per cell average. Does anyone know what kind of average loading this is and how close to capacity this average represents? Of course, it means nothing because so many towers are along interstates and virtually unloaded while other towers are located on Wall Street making a "few more calls" per hour...(c; My point is, they're not going broke at these prices. Click up cell sites for fun..... From Jun 05 to Jun 06, the GRAND TOTAL new cell sites for ALL carriers across the entire country was a measily 19,551 new sites. I, personally, think someone with revenues of $121,000,000,000.00 can afford to fill in a few more holes than these, don't you? Anyone that read this far without falling over asleep....think about those numbers next time you can't make a phone call from your living room....(c; > Can a business afford to greatly undercut a competitor's prices if it means > losing money? Instead of imagining some grand conspiracy, could it be > that all the wireless companies have pretty much the same cost basis and > the same technological limits? Not the same cost basis at all, which is why similar prices for service don't result in identical profit margins. The carriers that went from AMPS to TDMA to GSM, spent a lot more money on capital expenditures than the ones that went from AMPS to CDMA. This is why Verizon's margins have been so much higher. Now that Cingular has completed its GSM conversion, its margins are going up, but still lag considerably. Unfortunately, you can't price your products higher just because your cost basis is higher, unless you offer some other compelling advantage. As the Consumer Reports and JD Power surveys show, there is no compelling advantage that Cingular could charge more for. >Unfortunately, you can't price your products higher just because your >cost basis is higher, unless you offer some other compelling advantage. And the collolary to that absolutely true statement is that there is no reason to price lower unless you want to trade margin for share, which Wall Street is very unlikely to approve of. > And the collolary to that absolutely true statement is that there is no reason > to price lower unless you want to trade margin for share, which Wall Street is > very unlikely to approve of. Yet the Japanese car companies do exactly that. The problem with trading margin for share is that all the company's existing customers that are perfectly happy to pay higher prices, are also beneficiaries of lower prices, not just new customers that they might snag. And of course they don't want to create a price war that ends up benefiting no-one. I.e., I would gladly have paid $20,000 for our Toyota Camry LE, rather than the $17,000 we paid. The fact that Toyota was trying to buy market share, and keep their factories at full capacity, benefited me greatly. Even if GM or Ford had dropped the price of whatever competing vehicle they were offering to $13,000, it would not have caused me to buy their product. > Can a business afford to greatly undercut a competitor's prices if it > means > losing money? Instead of imagining some grand conspiracy, could it be > that all the wireless companies have pretty much the same cost basis > and the same technological limits? Naaah, it's more fun to believe it's all a vast conspiracy controlled by a few men in a secret room giving their monthly "cut" to the Illuminati... > Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with > in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that > matters more than what modulation scheme it's using. If you have a GSM phone that's true today. If you don't, you've accepted that trade-off. > Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe. > They have REPEATERS! ...and a fraction of the geography to cover! > ...and a fraction of the geography to cover! Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe. decaturtxcowboy <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in news:XBVjh.41289 $wP1.32181@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: > Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe. Americans' geography training is fun to play with. I lived and worked in Iran for a little over 2 years back in the late 70's, leaving 28 days before the Shahanshah fled the country. Most people I meet know there is a country called Iran, but have an awful time placing it on a globe, even "educated" people. My favorite question to Americans is still: "Compared to something in the United States, how big is Iran (in area)?" Answers range from Rhode Island to California and Texas, usually, some saying Alaska rarely....Some think it's a tiny island in the Arabian Gulf like Bahrain. A Bahraini blogger, Mahmood (http://mahmood.tv), shows us in the last few days a huge pile of Iranian Rials his wife will be taking with her on a trip from Bahrain to Iran, shortly. There's nearly 500,000 Rials. But, he says he's not rich....that's only $US530. Other things have gotten much bigger since I left in the late 70's, I see. Mahmood is a great fun read. He owns Gulf Broadcast, a video production company. He just the opposite of the bloodthirsty, Islamic terrorist America's Jewish TV wants you to think about to keep the bankers' war machine running. His garden is beautiful. His politics makes the king and religious zealots puke... (c; Just to put it on topic....Bahrain has GSM phones that work anywhere Mahmood travels. Their phone system is German, the finest equipment oil money can buy. I can call home from Bahrain's phones faster than I can call home from Atlanta...direct satellite all the way. There are huge satellite ground stations around the main telephone campus. > decaturtxcowboy <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote in news:XBVjh.41289 > $wP1.32181@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: > >> Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe. > > Americans' geography training is fun to play with. Blatant diversionary tactic. > I lived and worked in > Iran for a little over 2 years back in the late 70's, leaving 28 days > before the Shahanshah fled the country. Maybe you should have stayed there. > He just the > opposite of the bloodthirsty, Islamic terrorist America's Jewish TV wants > you to think about to keep the bankers' war machine running. "Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true colors. SignatureMike > "Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true > colors. Do you dispute that Jews own and control American commercial TV, or is this the usual anti-semetic bullshit everytime someone dares say "jew" outside a synagogue? Perhaps you should choose any American TV network and look at who owns them and controls the content.....perhaps. While you're researching that, get a list of the top 50 bureaucrats in any Federal bureaucracy and compare names....They're quite easy to spot. Then, do the Federal Reserve Corporation, who controls the money and power in the country. This isn't a state secret..... And the hole just gets deeper and deeper. You sometimes strike me as intelligent. Then..... maybe not. Actually post what you ask below. Then - start backpedaling. >> "Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true >> colors. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > This isn't a state secret..... > Actually post what you ask below. > Then - start backpedaling. Did you do your homework, yet? Larry SignatureStop answering and clicking email spammers, stupids! As I said before.... post it. I have seen these EXACT loony 'jew conspiracy' rants before. And, took a real hard look. "Homework' already done... And, when actually looked at - they are COMPLETE garbage. History also reflects just where this type of demented thinking goes. So, again really - PLEASE post what you are blathering about below. I hear crow tastes alot like chicken.... While we are at it - Let's hear about that NASA/Apollo soundstage as well? I need a good laugh. (Repeat post - FYI...) "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns98A587F3B6F87noonehomecom@208.49.80.253... > Do you dispute that Jews own and control American commercial TV, or is this > the usual anti-semetic bullshit everytime someone dares say "jew" outside a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This isn't a state secret..... >> Actually post what you ask below. >> Then - start backpedaling. > > Did you do your homework, yet? > > Larry >> "Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true >> colors. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Perhaps you should choose any American TV network and look at who owns them > and controls the content.....perhaps. It's true, I get my check every month, along with a survey for my input on what the content should be. Fox-Rupert Murdoch-Catholic CBS-Leslie Moonves-Jewish NBC-Bob Wright-Catholic ABC-Anne Sweeney-?? I can't believe that the anti-Semites are still using the "Jews control Hollywood" schtick. I guess that they should really change their tune to "the Pope controls American TV." The networks are all part of publicly traded corporations, they are owned by the stockholders. Actually, what is true, is that Jews had a tremendous presence in the founding of early Hollywood movie companies, and were disproportionately a larger percentage of producers and writers. > Then, do the Federal Reserve Corporation, who controls the money and power > in the country. > > This isn't a state secret..... I thought you were a little looney, but it is a shame to see you are an anti-Semitic nutter...... SignatureCharles >> Then, do the Federal Reserve Corporation, who controls the money and power >> in the country. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I thought you were a little looney, but it is a shame to see you are an > anti-Semitic nutter...... This is not news. He's slammed me at least a few times because I'm Jewish. He'll deny it, of course, but I have Google Groups to back me up. His latest crap before this was some stupid remark about the "Jew bankers" who are screwing everyone. :) SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room. Seasons greetings Larry.... "crazy oddball digital schemes"...?? Sure, we could get into the whole Beta vs VHS discussion. Which is an example of another inferior technology that eventually prevailed. But defending an obviously (and proven) superior standard - you bet!! I'd rather have the superior technology for my every day use - thank you very much. > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:458e92bf$0$68997 > $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe. > They have REPEATERS! > Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the > best". The converse is true too. Europe would have been much better off with a transition to CDMA, and the carriers wanted to switch, but the governments wouldn't allow it. > Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital > schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with > in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that > matters more than what modulation scheme it's using. Whatever the reason for our plethora of systems, and the differences, the fact remains that Nokia is writing off a lot of potential business. CDMA, in one form or another, is taking over, all over the globe. It'd have been nice to settle on one system, but that didn't happen. The reason that CDMA dominates in the U.S. has a practical basis. It's much more bandwidth efficient, and there is more limited spectrum available in the U.S.. It also has much greater range, which doesn't matter in dense European cities, but matters a lot when you're trying to cover the most possible area of a sparsely populated large country like the U.S.. Look at GM's OnStar system, which is going from AMPS to CDMA, due to their effort to keep as much coverage as possible. > It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users. Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million users in the U.S. alone. Nokia is fed up with our whole system of carrier subsidies destroying the perceived value of phones, and tired of the profit loss customizing software and features for individual carriers. Add to that the Qualcomm licensing fees and Nokia's happy to let an OEM handle that for the CDMA market. There's still money to be made in OEM- lots of Companies do it. Long term, Nokia and is trying to create a marketplace where desire for the latest handsets leads to direct sales outside of the carrier. That's a far more reachable goal with GSM than CDMA in the current market. > "http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601406" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > CDMA is growing by leaps and bounds, with a lot of new deployments in > 4Q2006, and more coming next year, especially at 450MHz. That's a little bogus. I'm not positive but I don't think any Verizon or Sprint phone will roam in Japan, I think the CDMA frequency assignments in Japan are different. You can, however, roam in both Japan and Korea with a GSM SIM if you buy a WCDMA phone to put it in (and if you stick to the cities). I also doubt whether Verizon or Sprint will be offering phones supporting 450 MHz, that is in the middle of an amateur band in the US and is hence unavailable for use in their service area. There used to be, however, a saving grace to CDMA roaming with a Verizon phone, that being that if the phone worked in the country you were in the charges (for local and incoming calls at least) were a reasonably modest (for international roaming) $0.69 per minute. Unfortunately, since Verizon has almost doubled its prices for most countries (Sprint's prices were always outrageous), even that advantage has mostly gone and there remains no reason to carry a US CDMA phone outside the country. Or almost no reason. I still think Verizon's North America's Choice plans are a fantastic deal if you travel frequently to Canada or (particularly) Mexico. This is one of the two reasons I have a Verizon phone, the other being SF bay area mountain coverage. Dennis Ferguson > That's a little bogus. I'm not positive but I don't think any Verizon or > Sprint phone will roam in Japan, I think the CDMA frequency assignments in > Japan are different. Soon. Samsung has a phone that works, and there is already CDMA roaming for Korean users in Japan. > "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for Verizon and > Sprint users: their GSM-based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. > countries, CR observed." "Usually" is probably rather overstated: Unless someone specifically purchased an unlocked phone from their U.S.-based GSM carrier, I'd say the odds of the average person having such a phone is perhaps... 1 in 10? Granted, trying to use a CDMA phone outside the U.S. is probably a 1 in 1000 shot; I'd be surprised if we could find anyone who has successfully taken, e.g., a Sprint phone and gotten it to work in, say, Japan. But perhaps I'm horribly mistaken... >> "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for Verizon and >> Sprint users: their GSM-based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an unlocked phone from their U.S.-based GSM carrier, I'd say the odds of the > average person having such a phone is perhaps... 1 in 10? True, but the frequent European or Asian traveler has probably figured it out. > Granted, trying to use a CDMA phone outside the U.S. is probably a 1 in 1000 > shot; I'd be surprised if we could find anyone who has successfully taken, > e.g., a Sprint phone and gotten it to work in, say, Japan. But perhaps I'm > horribly mistaken... No, you're not mistaken. However the story is different in Korea, where it's relatively easy to use a CDMA phone, as well as in China, India, etc. New CDMA networks are being deployed in a lot of countries, and coverage is expanding in existing countries. It's not that these countries were so keen on a second standard, but in the densely populated countries, they needed the higher efficiency of CDMA. > No, you're not mistaken. However the story is different in Korea, where > it's relatively easy to use a CDMA phone, as well as in China, India, > etc. New CDMA networks are being deployed in a lot of countries, and > coverage is expanding in existing countries. It's not that these > countries were so keen on a second standard, but in the densely > populated countries, they needed the higher efficiency of CDMA. Also note that you can get a combo CDMA 800/1900 & GSM 900/1800 handset from Verizon. This gives you the best of both worlds. You get Verizon's superior U.S. network, and you can roam on CDMA and GSM in other countries. Personally, I prefer buying a prepaid GSM SIM card when traveling, as it's much more cost efficient. Even when I can claim the cost on an expense report, it just galls me to pay the international roaming charges. >... However the story is different in Korea, where >it's relatively easy to use a CDMA phone, as well as in China, India, >etc. New CDMA networks are being deployed in a lot of countries, and >coverage is expanding in existing countries. It's not that these >countries were so keen on a second standard, but in the densely >populated countries, they needed the higher efficiency of CDMA. In fact CDMA2000 is on the decline, but in and out of the USA; e.g., signs that India may switch from CDMA2000 to GSM. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > >... However the story is different in Korea, where > >it's relatively easy to use a CDMA phone, as well as in China, India, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In fact CDMA2000 is on the decline, but in and out of the USA; e.g., > signs that India may switch from CDMA2000 to GSM. in fact, cdma is the fastest growing technology in china. you need to stop talking about things you are ignorant of, john. doing so, as you do often lately, makes you look silly and lessens your credibility to speak to any subject you might know something about. > > >... However the story is different in Korea, where > > >it's relatively easy to use a CDMA phone, as well as in China, India, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > do often lately, makes you look silly and lessens your credibility to > speak to any subject you might know something about. Anus navas worships Nokia. Whatever Nokia claims or says must be right. Actually, this is another case of navas cut and paste. > > > >... However the story is different in Korea, where > > > >it's relatively easy to use a CDMA phone, as well as in China, India, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Anus navas worships Nokia. Whatever Nokia claims or says must be right. > Actually, this is another case of navas cut and paste. i admit it .... i am astounded at the volume of incorrect information he puts out. > In fact CDMA2000 is on the decline, but in and out of the USA; e.g., > signs that India may switch from CDMA2000 to GSM. And then, again, they may not. (The roaming revenue from the overseas GSM users is hard not to go after, so lets get enough of a network going so we can rake in the roaming revenue! Aren't free markets great?) >> "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for Verizon and >> Sprint users: their GSM-based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >an unlocked phone from their U.S.-based GSM carrier, I'd say the odds of the >average person having such a phone is perhaps... 1 in 10? Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers in good standing. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers in > good standing. Is this done while-you-wait at a company store, or does the phone need to be sent in? --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA >>> "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for Verizon >>> and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers in > good standing. > > Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers > > in good standing. > > Is this done while-you-wait at a company store, or does the phone need > to be sent in? Neither- generally you call them and they give you a gazillion-digit code you type into the phone to remove the subsidy lock. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Actually, at aleast if it is a T-mobile phone, 1st a call is made to customer care from a phone other than your cell, so that you can give them the 15 digit IMEI number from your cell. The representative fills out a for and sends it off to the research department to get the Subsidy Unlock code, which typically is then emailed to the email addreess you provided duringg your call. The turn around time is usually about 24 hours, unless they donot have it on file and have to send off to the manufacturer for it. If you donot get an email from them one way or other within 72 hours you should call, as sometimes, the email address gets mis-typed. They can give you the instructions over the phone. > Is this done while-you-wait at a company store, or does the phone need to be > sent in? >> Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers in >> good standing. > >Is this done while-you-wait at a company store, or does the phone need to be >sent in? The unlock code is given to you. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> It is done through e-mail initiated by a phone call to customer service. I did this recently for both my Cingular and T-Mobile phones. Cingular responded with the code in 4 days, T-Mobile responded in about 20 hours. On par with Cingular service, they provided instructions that didn't work properly. I had to call them a couple of times before I reached someone that stumbled upon the proper procedure to unlock my Siemens phone. Walt Kienzle >>> Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers in >>> good standing. >> >>Is this done while-you-wait at a company store, or does the phone need to >>be >>sent in? Be more careful when quoting, Walt -- you put me in your header, but deleted my remarks, making it look like I posted something I didn't write. To respond to Make, follow-up to Mike's posting, not my response. Also, don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread -- it's confusing. Thanks. >It is done through e-mail initiated by a phone call to customer service. I >did this recently for both my Cingular and T-Mobile phones. Cingular [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>be >>>sent in? SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Also, don't switch posting > styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread -- it's confusing. > Thanks. And a bit of 'snipping' helps clear up and straighten out replies. >> "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for Verizon >> and Sprint users: their GSM-based phones can usually be used in many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > purchased an unlocked phone from their U.S.-based GSM carrier, I'd say the > odds of the average person having such a phone is perhaps... 1 in 10? Absolutely incorrect. You do not need an unlocked phone to have service. If your phone functions on the 900/1800/1900 GSM frequency bands and your local service provider has a roaming agreement with the overseas provider your phone will work. However you per minute cost might be through the roof, so by having an unlocked phone you can purchase a local SIM card and get much better rates. > Granted, trying to use a CDMA phone outside the U.S. is probably a 1 in > 1000 shot; I'd be surprised if we could find anyone who has successfully > taken, e.g., a Sprint phone and gotten it to work in, say, Japan. But > perhaps I'm horribly mistaken... > Absolutely incorrect. You do not need an unlocked phone to have service. > If your phone functions on the 900/1800/1900 GSM frequency bands and your > local service provider has a roaming agreement with the overseas provider > your phone will work. However you per minute cost might be through the roof, > so by having an unlocked phone you can purchase a local SIM card and get > much better rates. Yes, thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of the "buying a pre-paid SIM" approach for overseas use, and thinking that was going to work perhaps 1 time in 10. My mother spends most of her time in New Zealand these days. She has one of the Sprint/Samsung CDMA/GSM phones (SCH-A790), which shes uses with a pre-paid Vodafone SIM in NZ. Interestingly, the phone will roam in CDMA mode on Telecom NZ's network... but the rates are outrageous, and you say. > My mother spends most of her time in New Zealand these days. She has one of > the Sprint/Samsung CDMA/GSM phones (SCH-A790), which shes uses with a pre-paid > Vodafone SIM in NZ. Interestingly, the phone will roam in CDMA mode on > Telecom NZ's network... but the rates are outrageous, and you say. Yeah, if you're interested in the most international roaming, without prepaid SIMs but willing to pay the high roaming charges, then the CDMA/GSM phones are definitely the best choice. Not only can you roam in countries with no GSM at all, such as South Korea, but you can roam onto both GSM and CDMA networks in countries that have both. This advantage is increasing as CDMA networks in formerly GSM-only countries are being greatly expanded. Alas, some of the new CDMA networks coming on-line soon will be 450 MHz. It never ends. I keep an unlocked 900/1800 GSM phone for use with prepaid SIMs in Europe in parts of Asia. I have a lot of colleagues that tried to use Cingular GSM with a tri-band 900/1800/1900 phone, back when Cingular was 1900 MHz only GSM in the west (and the rest of Cingular was TDMA), and they gave up because the GSM coverage in the western region was terrible, and the GSM roaming onto Voicestream (now T-Mobile) in the rest of the country was expensive. Some of them have switched back to Cingular now, using a quad-band phone, as the coverage is much improved ever since the 800 MHz GSM deployment. > > "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for > > Verizon and Sprint users: their GSM-based phones can usually be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > say the odds of the average person having such a phone is perhaps... > 1 in 10? Others have pointed out it's pretty easy to get a phone unlocked by Cingular or T-Mo, but forgetting that, an unlocked phone is NOT required for international roaming- both Cingular and T-Mobile have roaming agreements with other GSM carriers worldwide. The rates are certainly high vs. using prepaid SIMs abroad, but they require no hassles on the users part- dial the customer's US cellular number and it rings wherever (albeit for $1-5/minute depending on location!) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
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.