Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:42:39 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> CDMA is far superior to TDMA. As I have stated in another forum, the CDMA
>> and GSM debate reminds me of the Beta versus VHS debates that occurred in
>> the 70s. The Beta Tape Standard was far superior to the VHS Standard, yet
>> the VHS Standard was chosen and adopted. GSM provides less capacity and
>> lower data rates, yet it is the world standard simply because it was
>> accepted first and was an easy upgrade path from TDMA. Unfortunately, the
>> world is now stuck with a sick and crippled dinosaur.
>
>Forever is a long time. Whether it's W-CDMA or CDMA2000, the world is
>moving to CDMA eventually. Voice will follow data.

W-CDMA and CDMA2000 are vastly different.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:42:26 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Then cite it.
>>
>> Check my back posts for actual GSM coverage outside of standard range.
>
>Then cite some realities where there are known extended GSM deployments that
>everyday GSM phones [like you and I can buy] will work. I have read some of
>your posts indicating tests that have extended the range, but I have not read
>any evidence of its deployment.

Sub-thread starting with
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/browse_frm/thread/1431a51caa0c4767/ecfe0b2b95120a5a?hl=en#ecfe0b2b95120a5a>
or <http://tinyurl.com/odzqo>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sub-thread starting with
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/browse_frm/thread/1431a51caa0c4767/ecfe0b2b95120a5a?hl=en#ecfe0b2b95120a5a>
>> or <http://tinyurl.com/odzqo>
>>
>
> That's not a citation! That is your own post indicating "I am pretty sure".
> In fact, the evidence you mention in that post is that you picked up a signal
> 35 miles out to see. Just out of curiousity ... do you really think your tiny
> little pulsating 1W signal made it 35 miles back to the tower with enough
> strength to overcome noise? Even so, I asked for a citation and not a quote
> of your posting about your own experience out to sea. Do you have that?

Thomas...you know very well John has come out from under his rock to
make a few drive by posts and will disappear...hoping his nonsense will
be forgotten. He has a habit of not answering hard questions with any
resoanable answer.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:32:13 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Sub-thread starting with
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/browse_frm/thread/1431a51caa0c4767/ecfe0b2b95120a5a?hl=en#ecfe0b2b95120a5a>
>> or <http://tinyurl.com/odzqo>
>
>That's not a citation!

I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.

>That is your own post indicating "I am pretty sure".
>In fact, the evidence you mention in that post is that you picked up a signal
>35 miles out to see.

Actually about 21 NM to the nearest land, or about 24 statute miles.

>Just out of curiousity ... do you really think your tiny
>little pulsating 1W signal made it 35 miles back to the tower with enough
>strength to overcome noise?

Obviously.

>Even so, I asked for a citation and not a quote
>of your posting about your own experience out to sea.

You actually asked for "evidence" ("cite some realities").

>Do you have that?

What I have is evidence, and good evidence at that.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:41:25 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> No- you are wrong and can post no evidence to the contrary. CDMA now
>>> covers
>>> most of rural america- GSM does not come close. But a nice try by the
>>> uneducated to skirt the facts.
>>
>>The GSM footprint is smaller than the CDMA footprint, ...
>
> Not true.


And yet you posted NOTHING to refute it. Why? Because nothing can refute
it. You have been caught once again showing your lack of a clue.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:32:13 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sub-thread starting with
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/browse_frm/thread/1431a51caa0c4767/ecfe0b2b95120a5a?hl=en#ecfe0b2b95120a5a>
>>> or <http://tinyurl.com/odzqo>
>>
>>That's not a citation!
>
> I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>

That proves it- you are indeed a clueless moron. Nothing more to be said
about it.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>That's not a citation!
>
> I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>

It isn't evidence (you can't quote yourself as "evidence" ... it isn't
plausible).

>>That is your own post indicating "I am pretty sure".
>>In fact, the evidence you mention in that post is that you picked up a signal
>>35 miles out to see.
>
> Actually about 21 NM to the nearest land, or about 24 statute miles.
>
>>Just out of curiousity ... do you really think your tiny
>>little pulsating 1W signal made it 35 miles back to the tower with enough
>>strength to overcome noise?
>
> Obviously.
>
>>Even so, I asked for a citation and not a quote
>>of your posting about your own experience out to sea.
>
> You actually asked for "evidence" ("cite some realities").

Posting a link to one of your own posts is not evidence. It is just evidence
that you made a post in the past and not evidence of a real deployment. It
should be pretty clear why citing yourself is not very plausible.

>
>>Do you have that?
>
> What I have is evidence, and good evidence at that.
>
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
>

I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:55 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>That's not a citation!
>>
>> I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>
>It isn't evidence (you can't quote yourself as "evidence" ... it isn't
>plausible).

We'll just have to disagree on that.

>> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
>
>I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.

I didn't think so.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> That's not a citation!
>> I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>>
>
> It isn't evidence (you can't quote yourself as "evidence" ... it isn't
> plausible).

Clearly you have not been reading this group for very long!

>> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
>>
>
> I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.
>

Always the last resort of someone who's been caught lying! "Well it must
be true, you can't prove otherwise!"

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> We'll just have to disagree on that.

Translation- John Navas got caught showing his lack of knowledge again.

>
>>> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
>>
>>I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.
>
> I didn't think so.
>

Don't you mean, "I didn't think"? That would be much more appropriate, you
clueless troll.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's not a citation!
>>>
>>> I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>>
>>It isn't evidence (you can't quote yourself as "evidence" ... it isn't
>>plausible).
>
> We'll just have to disagree on that.
>

You can not give that evidence because it does not exist ... just as I
thought.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.
>>
>
> Always the last resort of someone who's been caught lying! "Well it must
> be true, you can't prove otherwise!"

I am not sure who you are referring too, but I assume you are referring to
John. I was asking for evidence of extended GSM deployment and in particular,
I want evidence for its deployment in the US. It seems to me the only
evidence posted by Mr. Navas is that he was once on a boat at some distance
into the gulf of mexico and he picked up a signal ... so it must have been
extended GSM. Since he cites himself, I will make a post to the contrary that
I was with him that day and I will indicate that he was actually using a
Verizon Wireless phone. Further, I will post that post as evidence to support
my opinion.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.
>>>
>> Always the last resort of someone who's been caught lying! "Well it must
>> be true, you can't prove otherwise!"
>
> I am not sure who you are referring too, but I assume you are referring to
> John.

Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear.

I was asking for evidence of extended GSM deployment and in particular,
> I want evidence for its deployment in the US. It seems to me the only
> evidence posted by Mr. Navas is that he was once on a boat at some distance
> into the gulf of mexico and he picked up a signal ... so it must have been
> extended GSM.

In the words of the late Johnny Carson, "funny stuff."

> Since he cites himself, I will make a post to the contrary that
> I was with him that day and I will indicate that he was actually using a
> Verizon Wireless phone. Further, I will post that post as evidence to support
> my opinion.

I thought I saw you on the boat!