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.
"Rod Out back" <someone@Ihatespam.bigpond.com> wrote in message
newslk7249hf8q5kapf8ckfqapk048obrn0k2@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 13:17:56 +1000, Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote:
>
>>This will be interesting to watch.
>>
>>http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.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.
>>
>
> 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
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
> 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.
> 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.
"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
news:4823c1e1$0$11203$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> This will be interesting to watch.
>
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.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.
However, the higher, the better the inbuilding penetration
>> 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 fuck 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 fuck GlobalStar, those in the know use iridium
On Sat, 10 May 2008 03:45:34 GMT "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 03:43:11 GMT "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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"?
>>> 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 fuck 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 shit hits the fan.
> Sat networks are now even more irrelevant.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking 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 fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> And fuck GlobalStar, those in the know use iridium
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>> 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 fucking 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 fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 03:43:11 +0000, Michael wrote:
> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4823c1e1$0$11203$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> 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.
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.
"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yT8Vj.9076$ko5.989@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> 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 fuck 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.
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 fuck GlobalStar, those in the know use iridium
>
>
>
>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'?
Kralizec Craig wrote:
> Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> writes:
>
>> This will be interesting to watch.
>
>> http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.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.
>
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.
"Kralizec Craig" <cd@lios.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:g0991q$lt$1@yoda.apana.org.au...
> Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> writes:
>
>>This will be interesting to watch.
>
>>http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.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'?
Its just UMTS. Its all the same, really, just different frequencies and
vendors
>> 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.
>> 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
>>> 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.
On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:51 Michael may have written:
> > 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.
"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1210634052.77956@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:51 Michael may have written:
>> > 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.
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%)
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1210634052.77956@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:51 Michael may have written:
>>>> 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.
>
> 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%)
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.
Optus to Compete with Telstra in Rural Areas 
lk7249hf8q5kapf8ckfqapk048obrn0k2@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
