Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22
  1. #16
    John B. Coarsey, PE
    Guest

    Re: Onstar = MVNO


    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> "BlondeStar" is useless fluff for a HIGH price. If you are married to a
    >> person that cant find their ass with both hands and a detailed
    >> instruction
    >> book, GET THEM BLONDESTAR!!!

    >
    > (hint: maybe John B. Coarsey, PE isn't married to such a person; maybe
    > he IS such a person)


    Maybe, Elmo, but I get my facts correct before I post. You on the other hand
    do not. Please make sure of the facts before you spout off.





    See More: Onstar = MVNO




  2. #17
    John B. Coarsey, PE
    Guest

    Re: Onstar = MVNO


    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I had a case last summer in the Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park,
    >> Co
    >> where my Verizon V3c Razr had no service but the OnStar did. The OnStar
    >> has
    >> quite an antenna arrangement abouve the headliner.

    >
    > The V3c is a pure digital phone, whereas your older Onstar system was
    > using Verizon's analog system.
    >
    > When Verizon's analog system shuts down, the analog Onstar systems will
    > stop working. Onstar announced that some time ago.
    >

    No it is pure digital.





  3. #18
    John B. Coarsey, PE
    Guest

    Re: Onstar = MVNO


    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.

    >
    > That was the fact, before OnStar went to digital cellular. Back when
    > they used analog cellular from Verizon, they indeed were 3 watt systems.
    >
    > But that changed. In fact, older Onstar systems will stop working here
    > pretty soon, when Verizon shuts down their analog system early next
    > year. Onstar switched their equipment to use the digital service, and
    > it's not 3 watts--not by far. It's back down to the standard 0.6 watt
    > signal used for digital.
    >


    Well, I beg to disagree with you, its still 3 watts for digital as well. An
    upgrade is avialable for the analog system but we aren't discussing that.





  4. #19
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Onstar = MVNO

    > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> "Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "BlondeStar" is useless fluff for a HIGH price. If you are married
    >>> to a person that cant find their ass with both hands and a detailed
    >>> instruction
    >>> book, GET THEM BLONDESTAR!!!

    >>
    >> (hint: maybe John B. Coarsey, PE isn't married to such a person;
    >> maybe he IS such a person)

    >
    > Maybe, Elmo, but I get my facts correct before I post. You on the
    > other hand do not. Please make sure of the facts before you spout off.


    Instead of making an even bigger fool of yourself, by insulting people, how
    about proving your assertion? You made the claim, you back it up.


    --
    Mike





  5. #20
    John B. Coarsey, PE
    Guest

    Re: Onstar = MVNO


    "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
    >
    >> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.

    >
    > This is for older On-Star systems that used AMPS only. You got far better
    > coverage with AMPS than with CDMA.
    >
    > The current On-Star system is digital only, and is 0.6 watts. Much of the
    > geographic coverage has been lost. They could have kept a tri-mode phone
    > for On-Star since rural AMPS will be around for many, many years, but
    > apparently they did not do this.
    >
    > It really isn't worth paying for On-Star any more, unless you frequently
    > lock your keys in your car in the areas that have CDMA coverage.


    I have posted numerous times that it is 3 watts. I have been handed printed
    technical documentation from GM stating this. hearing this from you makes me
    wonder if I have my facts correct. To Roger and Elmo please accept my
    apologies since I may in fact be wrong.





  6. #21
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Onstar = MVNO

    At 22 Oct 2007 09:05:49 -0400 wrote:

    > > When Verizon's analog system shuts down, the analog Onstar
    > > systems will stop working. Onstar announced that some time ago.
    > >

    > No it is pure digital.



    *Sigh*

    http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts...cellphone.html

    "OnStar-equipped vehicles have one of three types of equipment: analog-
    only, analog/digital-ready, and dual-mode (analog and digital). OnStar
    advises that analog-only equipped vehicles (generally, cars older than
    2003 models) cannot be upgraded and that OnStar service in such vehicles
    will not work after December 31, 2007. Analog/digital-ready equipped
    vehicles must be upgraded in order to work after December 31, 2007. Dual-
    mode equipped vehicles will continue to work after December 31, 2007. To
    determine the type of OnStar equipment in your vehicle and whether your
    OnStar service will work after December 31, 2007, contact OnStar. You can
    contact OnStar by pressing the blue OnStar button in your vehicle,
    calling OnStar toll-free at 1-866-579-7726 (have your OnStar account
    number or your vehicle identification number available), or visiting
    OnStar’s Web site at https://myonstar.com/adt.os. Enter your vehicle
    identification number to determine if the transition affects your
    vehicle."






  7. #22
    John B. Coarsey, PE
    Guest

    Re: Onstar = MVNO


    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I have posted numerous times that it is 3 watts. I have been handed
    >> printed
    >> technical documentation from GM stating this.

    >
    > Old documentation, for sure.
    >
    > Did you ask for CURRENT documentation?
    >
    > The current implementation uses CDMA, and the transmitter is 600
    > milliwatts--just like a handheld phone.



    No, I haven't. Sorry to you guys and the group. I usually have my act
    together but when I get mislead by someone who should know that hurts. I've
    learned a lot. I should have said "according to my source" and not put it
    out as fact when I did not see the nameplate myself. Thanks for bearing with
    me, and now I'm off to eat about three or four crow pies.

    later,





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12