> They have a right of refusal, but if they do nothing Telstra can close it on
> their own accord. The rule change was to allow them to stop it, not to give
> themselves the power to allow it. It's an important disctinction.
Well, it seems to be pre-empting the government on this. At least one district
in SE Victoria has had its CDMA service shut down as of Nov 1.
I wonder how many other areas have also had their CDMA services terminated
before the Jan 08 deadline.
Certainly, by doing this they can rightly claim that NextG covers more than what
CDMA does, if they start closing CDMA down now...
"Marts" <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:8na9j3l0d1r0j93kd5ks9nmqc7tblv32mp@martz_57.c om...
> Alan Parkington wrote...
>
>> They have a right of refusal, but if they do nothing Telstra can close it
>> on
>> their own accord. The rule change was to allow them to stop it, not to
>> give
>> themselves the power to allow it. It's an important disctinction.
>
> Well, it seems to be pre-empting the government on this. At least one
> district
> in SE Victoria has had its CDMA service shut down as of Nov 1.
>
> I wonder how many other areas have also had their CDMA services terminated
> before the Jan 08 deadline.
>
> Certainly, by doing this they can rightly claim that NextG covers more
> than what
> CDMA does, if they start closing CDMA down now...
>
>
Pity this is in breach of their licence condition. Suggest this be reported
to the Minister's Office for resolution.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5p6j3lFppgudU1@mid.individual.net...
> Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>
>> Listen Roddles.. Telstra will close CDMA on 28-Jan.
>
> Even Telstra aint actually THAT stupid.
"Marts" <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:8na9j3l0d1r0j93kd5ks9nmqc7tblv32mp@martz_57.c om...
> Alan Parkington wrote...
>
>> They have a right of refusal, but if they do nothing Telstra can close it
>> on
>> their own accord. The rule change was to allow them to stop it, not to
>> give
>> themselves the power to allow it. It's an important disctinction.
>
> Well, it seems to be pre-empting the government on this. At least one
> district
> in SE Victoria has had its CDMA service shut down as of Nov 1.
load of crap. youve got a fault
> I wonder how many other areas have also had their CDMA services terminated
> before the Jan 08 deadline.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:04:14 GMT, "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5p6j3lFppgudU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Listen Roddles.. Telstra will close CDMA on 28-Jan.
>>
>> Even Telstra aint actually THAT stupid.
>
>Everything is still in the pipeline for Jan 28
It may well be in the pipeline, but the "equivalence verifcation" program which
was due to complete on Dec 18 *should-have* shown up the numerous holes in the
"equivalence".
If it didn't, the process is flawed.
If it did, the NextG rollout isn't complete and won't be by Jan 28.
"who where" <not me@bogpond.net> wrote in message
news:ftmvj35oqaghsfc7kp9ekvtfgqifgi1l1b@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:04:14 GMT, "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:5p6j3lFppgudU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Listen Roddles.. Telstra will close CDMA on 28-Jan.
>>>
>>> Even Telstra aint actually THAT stupid.
>>
>>Everything is still in the pipeline for Jan 28
>
> It may well be in the pipeline, but the "equivalence verifcation" program
> which
> was due to complete on Dec 18 *should-have* shown up the numerous holes in
> the
> "equivalence".
Telstra's already announced equivalence has been reached. Yet to see whether
the ACCC agrees
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "who where" <not me@bogpond.net> wrote in message
> news:ftmvj35oqaghsfc7kp9ekvtfgqifgi1l1b@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:04:14 GMT, "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5p6j3lFppgudU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Listen Roddles.. Telstra will close CDMA on 28-Jan.
>>>>
>>>> Even Telstra aint actually THAT stupid.
>>>
>>> Everything is still in the pipeline for Jan 28
>>
>> It may well be in the pipeline, but the "equivalence verifcation"
>> program which
>> was due to complete on Dec 18 *should-have* shown up the numerous
>> holes in the
>> "equivalence".
> Telstra's already announced equivalence has been reached.
And no one believes that lie.
> Yet to see whether the ACCC agrees
It aint up to the ACCC, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:33:43 GMT, "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"who where" <not me@bogpond.net> wrote in message
>news:ftmvj35oqaghsfc7kp9ekvtfgqifgi1l1b@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:04:14 GMT, "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5p6j3lFppgudU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Listen Roddles.. Telstra will close CDMA on 28-Jan.
>>>>
>>>> Even Telstra aint actually THAT stupid.
>>>
>>>Everything is still in the pipeline for Jan 28
>>
>> It may well be in the pipeline, but the "equivalence verifcation" program
>> which
>> was due to complete on Dec 18 *should-have* shown up the numerous holes in
>> the
>> "equivalence".
>
>Telstra's already announced equivalence has been reached. Yet to see whether
>the ACCC agrees
Tel$tra's stated concept of equivalence - based on sheer area coverage - is
different to everybody else's expectation that ALL the CDMA territory will be
covered by NextG, which it ain't. The "equivalence verification" program was
intended to demonstrate the latter. Maybe they've realised it isn't covering
the CDMA territory
>>>>>> Listen Roddles.. Telstra will close CDMA on 28-Jan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Telstra aint actually THAT stupid.
>>>>
>>>>Everything is still in the pipeline for Jan 28
>>>
>>> It may well be in the pipeline, but the "equivalence verifcation"
>>> program
>>> which
>>> was due to complete on Dec 18 *should-have* shown up the numerous holes
>>> in
>>> the
>>> "equivalence".
>>
>>Telstra's already announced equivalence has been reached. Yet to see
>>whether
>>the ACCC agrees
>
> Tel$tra's stated concept of equivalence - based on sheer area coverage -
> is
> different to everybody else's expectation that ALL the CDMA territory will
> be
> covered by NextG, which it ain't. The "equivalence verification" program
> was
Which is a borked concept.
Take a look at the GSM, then the CDMA, and then the 3G maps, for the same
area, at ground level, and you will understand why
> intended to demonstrate the latter. Maybe they've realised it isn't
> covering
> the CDMA territory
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:26:29 in aus.comms.mobile Michael may have written:
> > Tel$tra's stated concept of equivalence - based on sheer area
> > coverage - is different to everybody else's expectation that ALL the
> > CDMA territory will be covered by NextG, which it ain't. The
> > "equivalence verification" program was
>
> Which is a borked concept.
Not if you're a consumer.
> > intended to demonstrate the latter. Maybe they've realised it isn't
> > covering the CDMA territory
>
> It covers much more than the CDMA territory.
In raw coverage area, sure. But does it cover every square km of the
country that CDMA currently provides coverage to when using similar
MS equipment?
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:26:29 GMT, "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Listen Roddles.. Telstra will close CDMA on 28-Jan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even Telstra aint actually THAT stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>Everything is still in the pipeline for Jan 28
>>>>
>>>> It may well be in the pipeline, but the "equivalence verifcation"
>>>> program
>>>> which
>>>> was due to complete on Dec 18 *should-have* shown up the numerous holes
>>>> in
>>>> the
>>>> "equivalence".
>>>
>>>Telstra's already announced equivalence has been reached. Yet to see
>>>whether
>>>the ACCC agrees
>>
>> Tel$tra's stated concept of equivalence - based on sheer area coverage -
>> is
>> different to everybody else's expectation that ALL the CDMA territory will
>> be
>> covered by NextG, which it ain't. The "equivalence verification" program
>> was
>
>Which is a borked concept.
I think everyone except the mouths at Tel$tra agrees on that.
>Take a look at the GSM, then the CDMA, and then the 3G maps, for the same
>area, at ground level, and you will understand why
I know why. I know what their VP was supposed to do.
>> intended to demonstrate the latter. Maybe they've realised it isn't
>> covering
>> the CDMA territory
>
>It covers much more than the CDMA territory.
But it still doesn't cover ALL of the CDMA territory ....
>> > Tel$tra's stated concept of equivalence - based on sheer area
>> > coverage - is different to everybody else's expectation that ALL the
>> > CDMA territory will be covered by NextG, which it ain't. The
>> > "equivalence verification" program was
>>
>> Which is a borked concept.
>
> Not if you're a consumer.
Which I am, and its the only relevant demonstration of equivalence for me as
a consumer
>> > intended to demonstrate the latter. Maybe they've realised it isn't
>> > covering the CDMA territory
>>
>> It covers much more than the CDMA territory.
>
> In raw coverage area, sure. But does it cover every square km of the
> country that CDMA currently provides coverage to when using similar
> MS equipment?
Nope, which is what I said in the other post when I told others to look at a
coverage map
And GSM doesnt cover everything that AMPS did, nor did CDMA cover everything
that AMPS did.
>>> Tel$tra's stated concept of equivalence - based on sheer area coverage -
>>> is
>>> different to everybody else's expectation that ALL the CDMA territory
>>> will
>>> be
>>> covered by NextG, which it ain't. The "equivalence verification"
>>> program
>>> was
>>
>>Which is a borked concept.
>
> I think everyone except the mouths at Tel$tra agrees on that.
>
>>Take a look at the GSM, then the CDMA, and then the 3G maps, for the same
>>area, at ground level, and you will understand why
>
> I know why. I know what their VP was supposed to do.
>
>>> intended to demonstrate the latter. Maybe they've realised it isn't
>>> covering
>>> the CDMA territory
>>
>>It covers much more than the CDMA territory.
>
> But it still doesn't cover ALL of the CDMA territory ....
Which is irrelevant.
And due to the sheer amount of coverage of NextG over CDMA, there are more
places covered by NextG (but not by CDMA) than the reverse./
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:54:25 in aus.comms.mobile Michael may have written:
> And GSM doesnt cover everything that AMPS did, nor did CDMA cover
> everything that AMPS did.
Which is why a large number of AMPS BSs were left on for long after CDMA
was activated and why the handsets were dual AMPS/CDMA-95, no?
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:55:11 in aus.comms.mobile Michael may have written:
> >>It covers much more than the CDMA territory.
> >
> > But it still doesn't cover ALL of the CDMA territory ....
>
> Which is irrelevant.
....not if you're about to lose your one source of mobile coverage.
"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1196295438.242187@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:54:25 in aus.comms.mobile Michael may have written:
>> And GSM doesnt cover everything that AMPS did, nor did CDMA cover
>> everything that AMPS did.
>
> Which is why a large number of AMPS BSs were left on for long after CDMA
> was activated and why the handsets were dual AMPS/CDMA-95, no?
Sorry, you've become a bit forgetful in your old age.
AMPS was switched off on a regional basis, not everything went at once.
there was no "piecemeal" closure of individual bases.
and when AMPS was completely closed this sentence STILL applied ">> And GSM
doesnt cover everything that AMPS did, nor did CDMA cover
>> everything that AMPS did."
"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1196295491.797936@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:55:11 in aus.comms.mobile Michael may have written:
>> >>It covers much more than the CDMA territory.
>> >
>> > But it still doesn't cover ALL of the CDMA territory ....
>>
>> Which is irrelevant.
>
> ...not if you're about to lose your one source of mobile coverage.
To you, the individual, its not irrelevant.
to the rest of australia and telstra as an organisation, it is.
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote
>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> And GSM doesnt cover everything that AMPS did, nor did CDMA cover everything that AMPS did.
>> Which is why a large number of AMPS BSs were left on for long after
>> CDMA was activated and why the handsets were dual AMPS/CDMA-95, no?
> Sorry,
Liar.
> you've become a bit forgetful in your old age.
Nope.
> AMPS was switched off on a regional basis, not everything went at once.
No one ever said otherwise, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
> there was no "piecemeal" closure of individual bases.
No one ever said otherwise, you stupid dunny cleaning fuckwit child.
> and when AMPS was completely closed this sentence STILL applied " And GSM doesnt cover everything that AMPS did, nor
> did CDMA cover everything that AMPS did."
Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1196295491.797936@colossus.enigma.id.au...
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:55:11 in aus.comms.mobile Michael may have
>> written:
>>>>> It covers much more than the CDMA territory.
>>>>
>>>> But it still doesn't cover ALL of the CDMA territory ....
>>>
>>> Which is irrelevant.
>>
>> ...not if you're about to lose your one source of mobile coverage.
>
> To you, the individual, its not irrelevant.
>
> to the rest of australia and telstra as an organisation, it is.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
And what matters is what is what is relevant to the ACMA anyway.
Re: Telstra warns on CDMA 
Linear Mode
