Article re CELCOs clamping down on 'unlimited'

John Navas wrote:
> Nope. What it actually says is:
>
> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
> additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>
> 1. The key word there is "3G", which presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service,
> not EGPRS(EDGE) service.

Interesting. I had a disagreement with JN awhile back regarding what
was 3G service. I said EDGE is not 3G but something less (2.5G). JN
vehemently argued with me that EDGE is 3G. It seems he has changed his
tune.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...0c9c2b76c71fb9

John Navas wrote:
(GomJabbar wrote
>> EDGE is
>> not 3G - it is considered 2.5G.

> I disagree.

And again.........

John Navas wrote:
(SMS wrote
>> Argh, the sub-dividing of 1G/2G/3G has gotten out of hand. Technically,
>> EDGE is not 3G, ...

> Actually it is.

---

› See More: Article re CELCOs clamping down on 'unlimited'

Well, at least most Cingular customers won't have to worry about being
cut-off for 3G data use since so little of the country is covered in 3G
service!

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>> Do have a nice day, assuming you have days on your planet.
>
> Decatur, you have no irrefutable evidence that John Navas lives on a
> planet, much less one that has days.

Well, that's why I had presume that...as I have no actual verifiable
non-anecdotal proof that I could Google for.

GomJabbar wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> Nope. What it actually says is:
>>
>> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
>> additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>>
>> 1. The key word there is "3G", which presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service,
>> not EGPRS(EDGE) service.
>
> Interesting. I had a disagreement with JN awhile back regarding what
> was 3G service. I said EDGE is not 3G but something less (2.5G). JN
> vehemently argued with me that EDGE is 3G. It seems he has changed his
> tune.

GPRS is 2.5G, while EDGE is somewhere in-between GPRS and UMTS (true
3G). Some people got upset that EDGE was not really 3G, and since it's
faster than GPRS, there were weasel statements such as "3G-like
performance," and the inevitable "2.75G."

With 1xEVDO being much faster than 1xEV (3G) and with HSDPA being much
faster than UMTS (3G), some publications are calling 1xEVDO and HSDPA, "4G."

Navas always knew that EDGE was not 3G, but he was upset about Verizon's
1xEV which did have a maximum data rate that made it true 3G (even
though the typical data rates were not that much apart). This is the
reason that he was mis-stating the facts about 3G.

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:54:59 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>GomJabbar wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> Nope. What it actually says is:
>>>
>>> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
>>> additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>>>
>>> 1. The key word there is "3G", which presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service,
>>> not EGPRS(EDGE) service.
>>
>> Interesting. I had a disagreement with JN awhile back regarding what
>> was 3G service. I said EDGE is not 3G but something less (2.5G). JN
>> vehemently argued with me that EDGE is 3G. It seems he has changed his
>> tune.
>
>GPRS is 2.5G, while EDGE is somewhere in-between GPRS and UMTS (true
>3G). Some people got upset that EDGE was not really 3G, and since it's
>faster than GPRS, there were weasel statements such as "3G-like
>performance," and the inevitable "2.75G."
>
>With 1xEVDO being much faster than 1xEV (3G) and with HSDPA being much
>faster than UMTS (3G), some publications are calling 1xEVDO and HSDPA, "4G."
>
>Navas always knew that EDGE was not 3G, but he was upset about Verizon's
>1xEV which did have a maximum data rate that made it true 3G (even
>though the typical data rates were not that much apart). This is the
>reason that he was mis-stating the facts about 3G.

Total rubbish.

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

On 1 Jun 2006 21:50:03 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote
in <[email protected]>:

>Well, at least most Cingular customers won't have to worry about being
>cut-off for 3G data use since so little of the country is covered in 3G
>service!

There's actually good UMTS/HSDPA coverage in several major areas, in
addition to widespread EGPRS(EDGE) coverage.

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

On 1 Jun 2006 21:36:27 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote
in <[email protected]>:

>
>John Navas wrote:
>> Nope. What it actually says is:
>>
>> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
>> additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>>
>> 1. The key word there is "3G", which presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service,
>> not EGPRS(EDGE) service.
>
>Interesting. I had a disagreement with JN awhile back regarding what
>was 3G service. I said EDGE is not 3G but something less (2.5G). JN
>vehemently argued with me that EDGE is 3G. It seems he has changed his
>tune.

Haven't changed my position. My comment was about Cingular, which uses
the term "3G" to refer to the special SIM needed for its new UMTS
handsets in order to distinguish them from regular SIMs.

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

On Thu, 25 May 2006 04:32:59 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]>
wrote in <%[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>>> Dot #3 - The article you quoted states carriers are cutting back data
>>> access.
>>
>> Nope. What it actually says is:
>>
>> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
>> additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>
>What it ALSO says is "Verizon Wireless has been sending out *service
>cancellation* notices "

What Verizon may (or may not) be doing is irrelevant to Cingular
subscribers.

>> 1. The key word there is "3G", which presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service,
>> not EGPRS(EDGE) service.
>
>The other key word in the article is "bandwidth"
>
>The key driving issue is using bandwidth. A bandwidth consuming hog like
>VoIP doesn't care what technology is carrying it - EDGE or 3G.

Actually it does matter -- a given amount of bits is transmitted less
efficiently by slower services. There's also a difference in latency,
which matters for VoIP.

>You are
>assuming this is exclusively a 3G issue, to quote you - "which
>presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service."

I'm taking the article on its face, rather than trying to read things
into it.

>You can't make that assumption, as you said - "3. There's too little
>information to know what's really going on"

Patently true.

>The article CLEARLY states there is a bandwidth issue. You can use VoIP
>on EDGE, aka Medianet.

What the article actually states is that some very high users are
apparently getting what they should have expected. It's satellite
Internet all over again.

>> 2. That's not "cutting off data access."
>
>Reread your article.

Again, Verizon isn't relevant here.

> The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Verizon Wireless has
> been sending out *service cancellation* notices to high-speed EV-DO
> cellular data customers who the operator claims over-use the service.
>
>How do you read a service cancellation is different than "cutting off
>data access." Actually its worse...not just data access, but voice
>service as well.

Again, Verizon isn't relevant here.

>> 3. There's too little information to know what's really going on, if anything.
>
>ROFL...Nice try at ducking the issue. I know you can do better than
>that! <wink>
>
>Sure looks like REAL EVIDENCE there *IS* something going on.
>
>1. Users are using too much bandwidth. Let me see you deny that.

We have no idea how much they were using. They might have well been
using gigabytes.

>2. Users are getting service canceled. Let me see you deny that.

Again, Verizon isn't relevant here.

>And please, use a dictionary to play Scrabble next time....

I rarely play Scrabble. I prefer the outdoors.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 21:50:03 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote
> in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Well, at least most Cingular customers won't have to worry about being
> >cut-off for 3G data use since so little of the country is covered in 3G
> >service!
>
> There's actually good UMTS/HSDPA coverage in several major areas, in
> addition to widespread EGPRS(EDGE) coverage.

Spoken like a true Cingular sycophant. Just look at the nationwide
map. How much is covered in UMTS/HSDPA? Maybe 5%? Coverage may be
great in that 5%, but that is not what I am referring to. I don't
dispute EDGE coverage, but that is not 3G in the opinion of the
majority. See map below for Cingular's 3G coverage area. (It's those
few blue spots - if you are not colorblind).

http://hsdpa-coverage.com/wireless-i.../HSDPA-map.gif

I don't have a link to a nationwide Verizon 3G (EV-DO) map, but I do
have one for a list of areas covered. Seems somewhat more extensive
than Cingular's to me.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/c...ROADBANDACCESS

I think I vindicated my position, quoted at the top. ;-)

John Navas wrote:

> Haven't changed my position. My comment was about Cingular, which uses
> the term "3G" to refer to the special SIM needed for its new UMTS
> handsets in order to distinguish them from regular SIMs.

I am not surprised that you have not changed your position. But at
least Cingular has changed theirs.

Quoted from link below:
"BroadbandConnect is Cingular's 3G network operating on the worldwide
standard for wide-area wireless data communication based on Global
Systems for Mobile communications (GSM™). BroadbandConnect is the
first widely-available service in the world to use HSDPA (High Speed
Downlink Packet Access). The technology behind BroadbandConnect is the
only 3G technology natively supporting simultaneous voice and data"

http://www.cingular.com/midtolarge/network

That page also refers to EDGE and GPRS, without stating 2G, 2.5G, 3G or
some other reference. And certainly GPRS cannot by ANY stretch of the
imagination be considered 3G - even by JN. So in other words, these
are other technologies available when 3G Broadband Connect is not.

GomJabbar wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2006 21:50:03 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote
>> in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Well, at least most Cingular customers won't have to worry about being
>>> cut-off for 3G data use since so little of the country is covered in 3G
>>> service!
>> There's actually good UMTS/HSDPA coverage in several major areas, in
>> addition to widespread EGPRS(EDGE) coverage.
>
> Spoken like a true Cingular sycophant. Just look at the nationwide
> map. How much is covered in UMTS/HSDPA? Maybe 5%? Coverage may be
> great in that 5%, but that is not what I am referring to. I don't
> dispute EDGE coverage, but that is not 3G in the opinion of the
> majority. See map below for Cingular's 3G coverage area. (It's those
> few blue spots - if you are not colorblind).

Analysts are constantly citing the vast difference in 3G coverage levels
between Verizon and Sprint, and Cingular.

You can see a summary of the areas covered by each carrier at
"http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-11288_16-5664933-4.html"

EDGE is not included in the Cingular coverage list, since technically it
is not 3G.

Interesting link SMS. I haven't been following Sprint/Nextel, and I
was surprised that they have more 3G coverage than Verizon.

>From SMS's link above, Cingular states the following: "ETA for
nationwide service: End of 2006 for "most major markets."" Hmmm, I
wonder just what "most major markets" actually means? Time will tell
(because Cingular certainly won't).

John Navas wrote:
>> The key driving issue is using bandwidth. A bandwidth consuming hog like
>> VoIP doesn't care what technology is carrying it - EDGE or 3G.
>
> Actually it does matter -- a given amount of bits is transmitted less
> efficiently by slower services. There's also a difference in latency,
> which matters for VoIP.

*That is to what I was referring to.*

I was referring to the fact that VoIP is a bandwidth hog REGARDLESS of
the technology used to carry it.



>> The article CLEARLY states there is a bandwidth issue. You can use VoIP
>> on EDGE, aka Medianet.
>
> What the article actually states is that some very high users are
> apparently getting what they should have expected.

And they expected to get their service canceled???? *Total rubbish.*



>> How do you read a service cancellation is different than "cutting off
>> data access." Actually its worse...not just data access, but voice
>> service as well.
>
> Again, Verizon isn't relevant here.

Moot point. The questions was..."How do you read a service cancellation
is different than "cutting off data access." Actually its worse...not
just data access, but voice service as well."



>> 1. Users are using too much bandwidth. Let me see you deny that.
>
> We have no idea how much they were using. They might have well been
> using gigabytes.

Moot point how much they are using. All that matters they were using too
much and get service canceled.

GomJabbar wrote:
> Interesting link SMS. I haven't been following Sprint/Nextel, and I
> was surprised that they have more 3G coverage than Verizon.
>
>>From SMS's link above, Cingular states the following: "ETA for
> nationwide service: End of 2006 for "most major markets."" Hmmm, I
> wonder just what "most major markets" actually means? Time will tell
> (because Cingular certainly won't).

Rolling out HSPDA or UMTS is much more difficult than EV-DO, so it isn't
surprising that Cingular is so far behind in their coverage. In a few
years it'll all be equal, and this whole discussion will be moot.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>>> The key driving issue is using bandwidth. A bandwidth consuming hog
>>> like VoIP doesn't care what technology is carrying it - EDGE or 3G.
>>
>> Actually it does matter -- a given amount of bits is transmitted less
>> efficiently by slower services. There's also a difference in latency,
>> which matters for VoIP.
>
> *That is to what I was referring to.*

CORRECTION - That is NOT to what I was referring to.


> I was referring to the fact that VoIP is a bandwidth hog REGARDLESS of
> the technology used to carry it.