Cell Info Not Updating on a NextG phone

>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> 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"

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

"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1210681201.93384@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17:50 Kwyjibo may have written:
>> > 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

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"
>>>
>>> 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.)"
>
> 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 fuckers.

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.

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1210633874.919421@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:53:23 Michael may have written:
>>>>> 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.
>
> 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.

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68rufaF2v0gapU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote
>>>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> 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.
>
> 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.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:37:37 GMT, "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
>news:1210681201.93384@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17:50 Kwyjibo may have written:
>>> > 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
>
>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

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.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:34:58 Michael may have written:
> 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

--
Paul Day

>
> They didnt close CDMA just in Upper East Wonthaggi Heights- they closed it
> NATIONALLY

Yes, they did. GET OVER IT!

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:36:18 Michael may have written:
> 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

--
Paul 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.
>>
>>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.

Not a relevant comparison, as every CDMA base was replaced with a NextG one,
and then some


>
> Yeah, right.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:34:09 Michael may have written:
> > 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

--
Paul Day

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:37:37 Michael may have written:
> 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

--
Paul Day

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:35:38 Michael may have written:
> > 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

--
Paul Day

On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:34:01 Paul Day may have written:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:37:37 Michael may have written:
> > 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/Legi...25735B001C6639)

PD

--
Paul 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?

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.

Snapper wrote:

> 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.

And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to
scratch.

John

On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:28:08 John Henderson may have written:
> > 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.
>
> 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

--
Paul 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?

Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote
> 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.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 00:00:37 -0500, Paul Day wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:34:58 Michael may have written:
>> 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)

Is there anything else? If not, I'd say he simply fucked 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.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:53:23 +0000, Michael wrote:

>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Lie.
>
> 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.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17:50 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:n%2Wj.527$IK1.16@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
>> news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> 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.

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.

"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
news:gfe034lqg18lmtbnka8pp6c8nosno4hhao@yarwho.com ...
> 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.

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
>

>> > 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?

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).

>> 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)
>
> Is there anything else? If not, I'd say he simply fucked 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

"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g0r994$fp3$2@news.datemas.de...
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:53:23 +0000, Michael wrote:
>
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
>> news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> 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.

See previous post for response
>
>

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
> news:gfe034lqg18lmtbnka8pp6c8nosno4hhao@yarwho.com ...
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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 <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g0r994$fp3$2@news.datemas.de...
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:53:23 +0000, Michael wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
>>> news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Lie.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> See previous post for response

Completely useless, as always with your lying shit, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child.

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 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)
>>
>> Is there anything else? If not, I'd say he simply fucked up.
>
> 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.