Telstra confident Next G coverage adequate

From
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...03/2130816.htm

Telstra maintains its new mobile network will provide better coverage to
regional Tasmania, despite complaints from customers on King and Flinders
Islands.

The Flinders Mayor says some residents fear for their safety when Telstra
switches off its CDMA mobile network at the end of January.

Telstra Countrywide's northern manager, Michael Patterson, says he has
proved the new network is better on Flinders Island when combined with the
correct handsets and antennas.

"We've worked closely with people, the fishermen particularly in the south
of the island, and the network, the Next G network seems to be performing
better than CDMA there," he said.

"But also in terms of King Island we've worked very closely with all
industry I'm very confident that we've got the same if not better than
CDMA."

Alan Parkington <alanparkington@team.telstra.net> wrote:

> From
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...03/2130816.htm

> Telstra maintains its new mobile network will provide better coverage to regional Tasmania,

And it remains to be seen if the acma will agree on that.

> despite complaints from customers on King and Flinders Islands.

Funny that.

> The Flinders Mayor says some residents fear for their safety when
> Telstra switches off its CDMA mobile network at the end of January.

> Telstra Countrywide's northern manager, Michael Patterson, says he has proved the new network is better on Flinders
> Island when combined with the correct handsets and antennas.

What matters is whether the acma will agree with that.

And why should they have to change their handsets and antennas anyway ?

> "We've worked closely with people, the fishermen particularly in the south of the island, and the network, the Next G
> network seems to be performing better than CDMA there," he said.

And it remains to be seen if the acma will agree on that.

> "But also in terms of King Island we've worked very closely with all industry I'm very confident that we've got the
> same if not better than CDMA."

And it remains to be seen if the acma will agree on that.

Alan Parkington wrote...

> Telstra Countrywide's northern manager, Michael Patterson, says he has
> proved the new network is better on Flinders Island when combined with the
> correct handsets and antennas.

What a load of crap. "correct handsets", indeed.

The network is NextG. A NextG phone should work on it, anywhere that there is
coverage. If I live in Upper Burrumbidgee East then I shouldn't need to purchase
the Acme X100, if I own the Ajax DS9988 already.

This was never an issue with CDMA. The only thing was that as you get to
outlying areas you could extend your phone's range with one that works with a
car kit and external antenna.

That should still be the case now.

I should be able to fly over to King Island for a spot of fishing and know that
my Palm Treo 750 or Samsung A501 will work. I shouldn't have to buy say, the
Telstra 150 in order to get coverage.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:16:16 Marts may have written:
> The network is NextG. A NextG phone should work on it, anywhere that
> there is coverage. If I live in Upper Burrumbidgee East then I
> shouldn't need to purchase the Acme X100, if I own the Ajax DS9988
> already.

> This was never an issue with CDMA.

As much as I agree with you in principle, it _was_ actually an issue
with CDMA too. eg, Telstra sold the Nokia 2112 and it had shocking
reception while the Nokia 2280 and Nokia 6225 had excellent reception
and would work in fringe areas where the 2112 wouldn't.

The thing with mobiles and mediocre reception is that your average city
punter won't ever notice, but they will notice if the Ajax DS9988 isn't
offerred when available!

PD

--
Paul Day
http://www.enigma.id.au/

>> Telstra Countrywide's northern manager, Michael Patterson, says he has
>> proved the new network is better on Flinders Island when combined with
>> the correct handsets and antennas.
>
> What matters is whether the acma will agree with that.
>
> And why should they have to change their handsets and antennas anyway ?

Because the worlds moved on, ****wit, we don't have AMPS either, for a
reason

"Marts" <marts_57@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:8rqqn35led9sdplpm2bbtchco1dl7bkel1@martz_57.c om...
> Alan Parkington wrote...
>
>> Telstra Countrywide's northern manager, Michael Patterson, says he has
>> proved the new network is better on Flinders Island when combined with
>> the
>> correct handsets and antennas.
>
> What a load of crap. "correct handsets", indeed.
>
> The network is NextG. A NextG phone should work on it, anywhere that there
> is
> coverage. If I live in Upper Burrumbidgee East then I shouldn't need to
> purchase
> the Acme X100, if I own the Ajax DS9988 already.

No one said you did, but if you want the best performance, choose carefully.

A Hyundai Excel going up a steep hill with the air con isn't going to
perform as well as a V8 commodore either

> This was never an issue with CDMA. The only thing was that as you get to

Bull**** and crap.

Ever used a Motorola SC3160?

Get your facts straight before you post

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Telstra Countrywide's northern manager, Michael Patterson, says he has proved the new network is better on Flinders
>>> Island when combined with the correct handsets and antennas.

>> What matters is whether the acma will agree with that.

>> And why should they have to change their handsets and antennas anyway ?

> Because the worlds moved on

No it hasnt. The ****wit mex and its arse lickers just wanted to gouge even more.

> we don't have AMPS either, for a reason

Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put that in
the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning ****wit child.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:35:49 Michael may have written:
> A Hyundai Excel going up a steep hill with the air con isn't going to
> perform as well as a V8 commodore either

No, but it will still work. It doesn't go "Nope, too steep. I'm stopping
at the base of the hill thanks."

PD

--
Paul Day
http://www.enigma.id.au/

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:03:10 Rod Speed may have written:
> > we don't have AMPS either, for a reason
>
> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put that
> in the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning
> ****wit child.

Would be long gone by now though. Only place you find it in in North
America is cells in sparsely populated areas where it's not been worth
spending a dime on upgrading to CDMA. Considering Telstra spent money
expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the footprint of AMPS, I'd say they'd have
got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only network by now.

PD

--
Paul Day
http://www.enigma.id.au/

Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> we don't have AMPS either, for a reason

>> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put that in
>> the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning ****wit child.

> Would be long gone by now though.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

> Only place you find it in in North America is cells in sparsely populated
> areas where it's not been worth spending a dime on upgrading to CDMA.

We have those in spades.

> Considering Telstra spent money expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the footprint of
> AMPS, I'd say they'd have got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only network by now.

Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?

And if it hadnt been for that Vodafone contract, we may not
even have had cdma at all until much later than we did either.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:43:41 Rod Speed may have written:
> > Considering Telstra spent money expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the
> > footprint of AMPS, I'd say they'd have got rid of it all to run a
> > CDMA-only network by now.
>
> Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?

Government grants. Unless those grants simply went towards more AMPS
BTSs.

> And if it hadnt been for that Vodafone contract, we may not
> even have had cdma at all until much later than we did either.

Yeah, true. Especially in rural areas where bandwidth really isn't an
issue.

PD

--
Paul Day
http://www.enigma.id.au/

Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Considering Telstra spent money expanding CDMA
>>> well _beyond_ the footprint of AMPS, I'd say they'd
>>> have got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only network by now.

>> Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?

> Government grants. Unless those grants simply went towards more AMPS BTSs.

And that would likely to have been what happened if that fool had
not put the end of the AMPS system in the Vodafone contract.

>> And if it hadnt been for that Vodafone contract, we may not
>> even have had cdma at all until much later than we did either.

> Yeah, true. Especially in rural areas where bandwidth really isn't an issue.

"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1199612716.505176@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:03:10 Rod Speed may have written:
>> > we don't have AMPS either, for a reason
>>
>> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put that
>> in the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning
>> ****wit child.
>
> Would be long gone by now though. Only place you find it in in North
> America is cells in sparsely populated areas where it's not been worth
> spending a dime on upgrading to CDMA. Considering Telstra spent money
> expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the footprint of AMPS, I'd say they'd have
> got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only network by now.

He's right

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5uclqvF1hij3jU1@mid.individual.net...
> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> we don't have AMPS either, for a reason
>
>>> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put that in
>>> the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning ****wit
>>> child.
>
>> Would be long gone by now though.
>
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
>> Only place you find it in in North America is cells in sparsely populated
>> areas where it's not been worth spending a dime on upgrading to CDMA.
>
> We have those in spades.
>
>> Considering Telstra spent money expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the
>> footprint of
>> AMPS, I'd say they'd have got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only network
>> by now.
>
> Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?

Because they are hopelessly behind in mobile technology when compared to
Europe and the rest of the world

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5uclqvF1hij3jU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>>> we don't have AMPS either, for a reason
>>
>>>> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put
>>>> that in the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny
>>>> cleaning ****wit child.
>>
>>> Would be long gone by now though.
>>
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>> claim.
>>> Only place you find it in in North America is cells in sparsely
>>> populated areas where it's not been worth spending a dime on
>>> upgrading to CDMA.
>>
>> We have those in spades.
>>
>>> Considering Telstra spent money expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the
>>> footprint of
>>> AMPS, I'd say they'd have got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only
>>> network by now.
>>
>> Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?
>
> Because they are hopelessly behind in mobile technology when compared
> to Europe and the rest of the world

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.