NEWS: Cingular claims US first with HSDPA handset

Data-tastic
<http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/18/cingular_lg_cu500_hspda/>

Cingular yesterday claimed a US first for its new HSDPA phone, a
skinny black clamshell from LG, dubbed the CU500.

Cingular boasts that its new phone breaks the speed barrier, but given
Joe Public's indifference, nay hostility, to mobile data,
few people will be aware that there is a speed barrier to break. Still
customers can always talk faster on their shiny new phones.

HSDPA is often known as "Super 3G", or "3.5G" - it's up to five times
faster than vanilla 3G networks. This means that watching video and
browsing the internet by phone becomes much less of a chore - even if
the costs are hugely inflated compared with, say, watching video on
your laptop by Wi-Fi.

The LG CU500 comes preloaded with AOL, Yahoo! and MSN messenger
clients, a "full featured" music player - and optional Bluetooth
stereo headset - and a 1.3 megapixel camera. It is available in 18
major markets - Cingular expects to roll out its 3G network to most
major markets by the end of the year. It costs $99 with a two-year
contract. Choose the most expensive plan and you can get a $50 mail-in
rebate.

...

[MORE]

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

---

› See More: NEWS: Cingular claims US first with HSDPA handset

Cingular can CLAIM and PROMISE the moon!

And doubt they will deliver on time, the rated speed or even at all.

Cingular is PRO at worthless public "Fluff". If they follow true to form, it
will be released 2 years late, in a few major cities and backed up with tons
of bull**** techno-babble as to why it supposedly works...but doesnt at YOUR
house...

Meanwhile..Verizon is here NOW....it works NOW...it's coast to coast NOW...
NO promises, no Cingular bull****...

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>Data-tastic
><http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/18/cingular_lg_cu500_hspda/>
>
> Cingular yesterday claimed a US first for its new HSDPA phone, a
> skinny black clamshell from LG, dubbed the CU500.
>
> Cingular boasts that its new phone breaks the speed barrier, but given
> Joe Public's indifference, nay hostility, to mobile data,
> few people will be aware that there is a speed barrier to break. Still
> customers can always talk faster on their shiny new phones.
>
> HSDPA is often known as "Super 3G", or "3.5G" - it's up to five times
> faster than vanilla 3G networks. This means that watching video and
> browsing the internet by phone becomes much less of a chore - even if
> the costs are hugely inflated compared with, say, watching video on
> your laptop by Wi-Fi.
>
> The LG CU500 comes preloaded with AOL, Yahoo! and MSN messenger
> clients, a "full featured" music player - and optional Bluetooth
> stereo headset - and a 1.3 megapixel camera. It is available in 18
> major markets - Cingular expects to roll out its 3G network to most
> major markets by the end of the year. It costs $99 with a two-year
> contract. Choose the most expensive plan and you can get a $50 mail-in
> rebate.
>
> ...
>
> [MORE]
>

Problem with LG brand phones is the radio sucks. LG needs to get the main
function down (a radio that can reach a tower and hear a tower clearly) and
then start adding gee whiz functions.

Seems like the phone makers have forgotten the critical function of their
products, a relaible sensitive radio first everything else second. Motorola
used to have great radios, then the Razr line came along and the quality of
the radio fell to average at best.

Don't understand why the phone companies don't get after the phone makers
on that issue, a bad radio makes their network seem bad.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <[email protected]>, "Eric Cartman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Cingular can CLAIM and PROMISE the moon!
>
>And doubt they will deliver on time, the rated speed or even at all.
>
>Cingular is PRO at worthless public "Fluff". If they follow true to form, it
>will be released 2 years late, in a few major cities and backed up with tons
>of bull**** techno-babble as to why it supposedly works...but doesnt at YOUR
>house...
>
>Meanwhile..Verizon is here NOW....it works NOW...it's coast to coast NOW...
>NO promises, no Cingular bull****...

Verizon only works 'fast' in the major cities (Atlanta, Vegas, Dallas etc)
it is like a bottom tier DSL in the third tier cities and non-existant in
small towns. (talking data) No signal at all in Pacolet Mills, SC, but
oddly my cell phone can find a digital tower to tell me I have voice mail
etc as well as make and receive voice calls from the Hardees in the center
of town. Go figure...

Note people on Cingular ask to borrow my Verizon phone when we are in
Pacolet Mills -- the town wired phones are you guessed it BellSouth.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Rico wrote:

> Problem with LG brand phones is the radio sucks. LG needs to get the main
> function down (a radio that can reach a tower and hear a tower clearly) and
> then start adding gee whiz functions.
>
> Seems like the phone makers have forgotten the critical function of their
> products, a relaible sensitive radio first everything else second. Motorola
> used to have great radios, then the Razr line came along and the quality of
> the radio fell to average at best.
>
> Don't understand why the phone companies don't get after the phone makers
> on that issue, a bad radio makes their network seem bad.

Having visited Korea many times, (and having rented LG phones because I
was always there to go to LG), I think the reason for the performance
issues of their phones is that they design them for areas with a much
better infrastructure of towers. Europe and Asia have a lot better
wireless coverage than the U.S., and the radios don't have to be as good
to "reach a tower."

I never had a problem with LG CDMA phones in Korea, but in the U.S.
their phones were never as good as the Motorola CDMA phones.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rico wrote:
>
>> Problem with LG brand phones is the radio sucks. LG needs to get the main
>> function down (a radio that can reach a tower and hear a tower clearly) and
>> then start adding gee whiz functions.
>>
>> Seems like the phone makers have forgotten the critical function of their
>> products, a relaible sensitive radio first everything else second. Motorola
>> used to have great radios, then the Razr line came along and the quality of
>> the radio fell to average at best.
>>
>> Don't understand why the phone companies don't get after the phone makers
>> on that issue, a bad radio makes their network seem bad.
>
>Having visited Korea many times, (and having rented LG phones because I
>was always there to go to LG), I think the reason for the performance
>issues of their phones is that they design them for areas with a much
>better infrastructure of towers. Europe and Asia have a lot better
>wireless coverage than the U.S., and the radios don't have to be as good
>to "reach a tower."
>
>I never had a problem with LG CDMA phones in Korea, but in the U.S.
>their phones were never as good as the Motorola CDMA phones.

Of course it is easy to have a lot of infrastrure in S Korea, it has a land
mass less then California... <wink>

But you do have a point to some degree. I'd like better coverage but admit
to being two faced about it, I don't really want a lot more eyesores err
towers on the tops of the ridges in the mountains. Still how hard is it to
build a better radio, as I said Motorola used to do it.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In alt.internet.wireless Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
| In article <[email protected]>, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
|>Rico wrote:
|>
|>> Problem with LG brand phones is the radio sucks. LG needs to get the main
|>> function down (a radio that can reach a tower and hear a tower clearly) and
|>> then start adding gee whiz functions.
|>>
|>> Seems like the phone makers have forgotten the critical function of their
|>> products, a relaible sensitive radio first everything else second. Motorola
|>> used to have great radios, then the Razr line came along and the quality of
|>> the radio fell to average at best.
|>>
|>> Don't understand why the phone companies don't get after the phone makers
|>> on that issue, a bad radio makes their network seem bad.
|>
|>Having visited Korea many times, (and having rented LG phones because I
|>was always there to go to LG), I think the reason for the performance
|>issues of their phones is that they design them for areas with a much
|>better infrastructure of towers. Europe and Asia have a lot better
|>wireless coverage than the U.S., and the radios don't have to be as good
|>to "reach a tower."
|>
|>I never had a problem with LG CDMA phones in Korea, but in the U.S.
|>their phones were never as good as the Motorola CDMA phones.
|
| Of course it is easy to have a lot of infrastrure in S Korea, it has a land
| mass less then California... <wink>

How about having a lot of infrastructure in Rhode Island?

Of course if it's an issue of making the infrastructure be as large as
people travel to, you need to also include Las Vegas for Californians.


| But you do have a point to some degree. I'd like better coverage but admit
| to being two faced about it, I don't really want a lot more eyesores err
| towers on the tops of the ridges in the mountains. Still how hard is it to
| build a better radio, as I said Motorola used to do it.

But better is totally inconsistent with today's extreme hyper short term
market growth investment strategies. See where Motorola is today.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / [email protected] |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:10:10 +0000, John Navas wrote:

> Data-tastic
> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/18/cingular_lg_cu500_hspda/>
>
> Cingular yesterday claimed a US first for its new HSDPA phone, a skinny
> black clamshell from LG, dubbed the CU500.
>
> Cingular boasts that its new phone breaks the speed barrier, but given
> Joe Public's indifference, nay hostility, to mobile data, few people
> will be aware that there is a speed barrier to break. Still customers
> can always talk faster on their shiny new phones.
>
> HSDPA is often known as "Super 3G", or "3.5G" - it's up to five times
> faster than vanilla 3G networks. This means that watching video and
> browsing the internet by phone becomes much less of a chore - even if
> the costs are hugely inflated compared with, say, watching video on your
> laptop by Wi-Fi.
>
> The LG CU500 comes preloaded with AOL, Yahoo! and MSN messenger clients,
> a "full featured" music player - and optional Bluetooth stereo headset -
> and a 1.3 megapixel camera. It is available in 18 major markets -
> Cingular expects to roll out its 3G network to most major markets by the
> end of the year. It costs $99 with a two-year contract. Choose the most
> expensive plan and you can get a $50 mail-in rebate.

It's also comes preloaded CRIPPLED! Got mine yesterday, and today I
learned that the CU500 (unlike the CU320), will force the user to confirm
each and every HTTP connection initiated by a Java applet (at least,
applets not blessed by Cingular). Big deal, you say? Try using google
maps: http://google.com/gmm. I pay $100/month so Cingular can pull stupid
stunts like this!? (Literally every connection; not just every
instantiation of the applet.)

I've been waiting for this phone for months, now I'm regretting not having
gone w/ Sprint.

In article <[email protected]>, William Ahern <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:10:10 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>
>> Data-tastic
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/18/cingular_lg_cu500_hspda/>
>>
>> Cingular yesterday claimed a US first for its new HSDPA phone, a skinny
>> black clamshell from LG, dubbed the CU500.
>>
>> Cingular boasts that its new phone breaks the speed barrier, but given
>> Joe Public's indifference, nay hostility, to mobile data, few people
>> will be aware that there is a speed barrier to break. Still customers
>> can always talk faster on their shiny new phones.
>>
>> HSDPA is often known as "Super 3G", or "3.5G" - it's up to five times
>> faster than vanilla 3G networks. This means that watching video and
>> browsing the internet by phone becomes much less of a chore - even if
>> the costs are hugely inflated compared with, say, watching video on your
>> laptop by Wi-Fi.
>>
>> The LG CU500 comes preloaded with AOL, Yahoo! and MSN messenger clients,
>> a "full featured" music player - and optional Bluetooth stereo headset -
>> and a 1.3 megapixel camera. It is available in 18 major markets -
>> Cingular expects to roll out its 3G network to most major markets by the
>> end of the year. It costs $99 with a two-year contract. Choose the most
>> expensive plan and you can get a $50 mail-in rebate.
>
>It's also comes preloaded CRIPPLED! Got mine yesterday, and today I
>learned that the CU500 (unlike the CU320), will force the user to confirm
>each and every HTTP connection initiated by a Java applet (at least,
>applets not blessed by Cingular). Big deal, you say? Try using google
>maps: http://google.com/gmm. I pay $100/month so Cingular can pull stupid
>stunts like this!? (Literally every connection; not just every
>instantiation of the applet.)

And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
Where are the real trust busters when we need them?

>
>I've been waiting for this phone for months, now I'm regretting not having
>gone w/ Sprint.
>
>

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
> technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
> marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
> owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
> Where are the real trust busters when we need them?
>

AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.

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

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:09:43 +0000, Eric Cartman wrote:

> Cingular can CLAIM and PROMISE the moon!
>
> And doubt they will deliver on time, the rated speed or even at all.
>
> Cingular is PRO at worthless public "Fluff". If they follow true to form, it
> will be released 2 years late, in a few major cities and backed up with tons
> of bull**** techno-babble as to why it supposedly works...but doesnt at YOUR
> house...
>
> Meanwhile..Verizon is here NOW....it works NOW...it's coast to coast NOW...
> NO promises, no Cingular bull****...

Yes and Verizon is cancelling people's data accounts at an alarming rate
for doing things such as streaming video and music and anything else that
goes against their policy of ONLY using EV-DO to email and surf the web.
Why people use Verizon as an example compared to Cingular is beyond me.
Not surprisingly, Verizon is against 3G routers whereas Sprint and
Cingular actually embrace it and have worked with companies such as
Junxion and others. I'm using HSDPA and have for a while and there is no
comparison but if you must use EV-DO, Sprint's policy is that you do not
run a server with public access over the EV-DO link.


Dave

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:08:44 -0700, David W Studeman
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:09:43 +0000, Eric Cartman wrote:
>
>> Cingular can CLAIM and PROMISE the moon!
>>
>> And doubt they will deliver on time, the rated speed or even at all.
>>
>> Cingular is PRO at worthless public "Fluff". If they follow true to form, it
>> will be released 2 years late, in a few major cities and backed up with tons
>> of bull**** techno-babble as to why it supposedly works...but doesnt at YOUR
>> house...
>>
>> Meanwhile..Verizon is here NOW....it works NOW...it's coast to coast NOW...
>> NO promises, no Cingular bull****...
>
>Yes and Verizon is cancelling people's data accounts at an alarming rate
>for doing things such as streaming video and music and anything else that
>goes against their policy of ONLY using EV-DO to email and surf the web.
>Why people use Verizon as an example compared to Cingular is beyond me.

Sadly, a few here are so consumed by personal vendettas against Cingular
that facts don't matter.

>Not surprisingly, Verizon is against 3G routers whereas Sprint and
>Cingular actually embrace it and have worked with companies such as
>Junxion and others. I'm using HSDPA and have for a while and there is no
>comparison but if you must use EV-DO, Sprint's policy is that you do not
>run a server with public access over the EV-DO link.

HSDPA is indeed very good.

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

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:55:33 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
>> technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
>> marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
>> owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
>> Where are the real trust busters when we need them?
>
>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.

Even with regard to the local loop, since ready alternatives exist, and
since other competitors are free to run their own local loops.

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

In article <[email protected]>, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
>> technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
>> marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
>> owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
>> Where are the real trust busters when we need them?
>>
>
>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.
>

Ever try to call the fire department using your Direct TV box, they'll show
up in time to save the chimney. There is no choice for the consumer. I know
you are brain washed into thinking cable = choice, it does not, you are
just trading one monopoy for another. This is why the fight over net
neutrality is so critical, because as a consumer you in fact have very few
to no choices about the wire into your home.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:55:33 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
><[email protected]> wrote in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.cingular Rico <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> And they wonder why the public doesn't jump all over these new wireless
>>> technologies they add to the phones. (answer all monopolies are run by the
>>> marketing brain dead) Cingular isn't a monoploy he says, well AT&T which
>>> owns cingular is a monopoly for the local loop in all areas it services.
>>> Where are the real trust busters when we need them?
>>
>>AT&T is a monopoly in nothing [OK, you are partly right, the local loop for
>>customers without alternatives means they are a local monopoly]. A large
>>percentage of customers in AT&T's area can use Cable for phone, broadband or
>>Internet. They also have an option to use DBS for TV and Internet [the latter
>>being pretty marginal] and they also have the option for using cell phones
>>rather than a land line. No, they are not a monopoly.
>
>Even with regard to the local loop, since ready alternatives exist, and
>since other competitors are free to run their own local loops.
>

I don't know what country you live in John but in the entire USA there are
three wire options into people's homes, the bell monopoly, the cable
monopoly and the power monopoly. That is it, no one else is allowed by law
to play. There ar esome reasonable and pratical reasons for this, but
nver-the-less that is all the choice a consumer has and actually only two
of them are even remotely viable. Are you sure you aren't in the direct pay
of AT&T, I mean you are better then the official spokes person, even they
admit there are very limited choices.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.