On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:03:44 Michael may have written:
> > See Paul Day's quote of Max Jennings' remarks made Feb 13, 2006.
>
> See previous post for response
Where?
And don't say "the original thread last year" because:
a) You demanded I repost it here.
b) You ignored it then just like you're ignoring it now.
On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:03:32 Michael may have written:
> > 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
Nup, 'fraid not. Don't pretend you don't know what a "coverage
footprint" is. A footprint is the actual location coverred by something,
not the raw figure of the area it coverrs.
From dictonary.com:
2. The surface space occupied by a structure or device: the footprint
of a building; a microcomputer with a space-saving footprint.
3. The area within which a spacecraft is supposed to land.
4. The designated area affected or covered by a device or phenomenon:
the footprint of a communications satellite.
And if you read the amendment to Telstra's license, you'll see the
government have read Telstra's comments just like everyone else in this
brown land has, except for you of course, and tried to make them commit
to them.
On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:38:39 Michael may have written:
> No different to the way that customers made calls using CDMA in the same
> fashion.
>
> No different from offshore oil rigs making calls using cells on the mainland
> in the same fashion. Or fishing trawlers.
Yeah, and it's lucky Telstra committed to suppling those areas already
coverred with CDMA with the new NextG service, isn't it Michael.
> > Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Why bother with
> > phones that won't work within the normal range of the towers? ie. demand that the
> > phone providers provide phones that meet a minimum specification which includes
> > reception levels?
>
> Because not all phones are the same. Its been that way since AMPS was
> around.
I think you missed my point. We know that not all phones were created equal. I'm
saying, why didn't Telstra request that the manufacturers build the phones to a
minimum standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range
capability?
> No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be better.
No? If not, then at lease Telstra said that it should be "the same", at least,
didn't it?
And in the case of my original post, it seems that GSM has coverage where NG
doesn't, but I clearly recall there being good CDMA coverage. I'm talking about
a place called Bruthern, in east Gippsland.
> The ask was on Telstra to have the same amount of coverage or more, and they
> beat that easily
Which isn't much comfort to those in rural areas who once had good CDMA coverage
but now have marginal or non-existant NextG coverage.
Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote
> Michael wrote
>>> Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Why
>>> bother with phones that won't work within the normal range of
>>> the towers? ie. demand that the phone providers provide phones
>>> that meet a minimum specification which includes reception levels?
>> Because not all phones are the same. Its been that way since AMPS was around.
>
> I think you missed my point.
You never ever had a point.
> We know that not all phones were created equal. I'm saying, why didn't
> Telstra request that the manufacturers build the phones to a minimum
> standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range capability?
"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:72m934he90rje80q6ccdn0avppl8o9o6rh@yarwho.com ...
> Michael wrote...
>
>> > Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Why bother
>> > with
>> > phones that won't work within the normal range of the towers? ie.
>> > demand that the
>> > phone providers provide phones that meet a minimum specification which
>> > includes
>> > reception levels?
>>
>> Because not all phones are the same. Its been that way since AMPS was
>> around.
>
> I think you missed my point. We know that not all phones were created
> equal. I'm
> saying, why didn't Telstra request that the manufacturers build the phones
> to a
> minimum standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range
> capability?
Then you would only have 1 or 2 phones to choose from.
Ever noticed car makers do the same thing? Would you like to be forced to
buy a Holden Statesman if you could get something cheaper and smaller? That
better suited your needs?
>
>> No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be
>> better.
>
> No? If not, then at lease Telstra said that it should be "the same", at
> least,
> didn't it?
Yes, at the network level. And its not the same, its actually better
> And in the case of my original post, it seems that GSM has coverage where
> NG
> doesn't, but I clearly recall there being good CDMA coverage. I'm talking
> about
> a place called Bruthern, in east Gippsland.
>
>> The ask was on Telstra to have the same amount of coverage or more, and
>> they
>> beat that easily
>
> Which isn't much comfort to those in rural areas who once had good CDMA
> coverage
> but now have marginal or non-existant NextG coverage.
> > minimum standard or specification that would ensure their maximum range
> > capability?
>
> Then you would only have 1 or 2 phones to choose from.
Bullshit.
> Ever noticed car makers do the same thing? Would you like to be forced to
> buy a Holden Statesman if you could get something cheaper and smaller? That
> better suited your needs?
Totally irrelevant analogy.
If you want to use a car one, then look at it like fitting cars with ten litre
fuel tanks rather than 70l tanks. Or designing them so that they only run on
98RON fuels, thus making it difficult to either get petrol as not all servos
sell the stuff or forcing you to run a lower grade fuel and suffering poor
performance as a result.
Thing is, all Telstra had to do was to say to Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc.
that the NextG phones needed to comply with a minimum spec, say, along the lines
of the Telstra 165 model phone.
So, instead we get phones that are only good around major urban centres, others
which aren't bad along highways and others which will work out in the sticks if
used with a car kit and antenna.
>>> No one ever promised that the coverage on a particular site would be better.
>> No? If not, then at lease Telstra said that it should be "the same", at least, didn't it?
> Yes, at the network level. And its not the same, its actually better
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>> And in the case of my original post, it seems that GSM has coverage where NG doesn't, but I clearly recall there
>> being good CDMA coverage. I'm talking about a place called Bruthern, in east Gippsland.
>>> The ask was on Telstra to have the same amount of coverage or more,
>>> and they beat that easily
>> Which isn't much comfort to those in rural areas who once had good
>> CDMA coverage but now have marginal or non-existant NextG coverage.
> Thing is, all Telstra had to do was to say to Motorola, Nokia, Samsung,
> etc.
> that the NextG phones needed to comply with a minimum spec, say, along the
> lines
> of the Telstra 165 model phone.
Sorry, lets live in the real world, and have a choice of handsets, instead
of just 1.
> Sorry, lets live in the real world, and have a choice of handsets, instead
> of just 1.
So, let's discuss your version of the real world. Tell us why, if Telstra
mandated a minimum specification for telephone reception, why we'd only have one
phone to "choose" from?
On Mon, 26 May 2008 19:04:45 +1000, Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Michael wrote...
>
>> Sorry, lets live in the real world, and have a choice of handsets, instead
>> of just 1.
>
>So, let's discuss your version of the real world. Tell us why, if Telstra
>mandated a minimum specification for telephone reception, why we'd only have one
>phone to "choose" from?
and if that were the case, why they currently offer all those sub-standard
units?
"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:fisj34p45il0fhn6vbej99i0755626lr5u@yarwho.com ...
> Michael wrote...
>
>> Sorry, lets live in the real world, and have a choice of handsets,
>> instead
>> of just 1.
>
> So, let's discuss your version of the real world. Tell us why, if Telstra
> mandated a minimum specification for telephone reception, why we'd only
> have one
They do mandate a minimum specification. Its just not YOUR specification.
But you get that, because THEY run the network, and YOU dont
On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:13:48 Snapper may have written:
> Pity that you won't answer my question, rather than trying to steer us off on
> some tangent about "my" specification.
"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:4kgq34t0ig6dfmjsthph5jpbmffghq9epb@yarwho.com ...
> Michael wrote...
>
>> They do mandate a minimum specification. Its just not YOUR specification.
>> But you get that, because THEY run the network, and YOU dont
>
> Pity that you won't answer my question, rather than trying to steer us off
> on
> some tangent about "my" specification.
Your specification is a wank.If you want the Rolls Royce phone, buy it. I
did.
>
Re: Cell Info Not Updating on a NextG phone 
Linear Mode
