TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."

In article <[email protected]>, George
<[email protected]> wrote:

> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
> decided to give up trying.

Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
phones sounds like sour grapes.

--
Charles

---

› See More: TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."

Charles wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, George
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
>> decided to give up trying.
>
> Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
> phones sounds like sour grapes.
>

Yes, my buddy used to do acceptance testing and they just couldn't
produce CDMA handsets that could get past acceptance testing.

Bingo!!!

They are still wrangling over it legally. Nokia, refusing to play nice, tried to
go it alone - and failed miserably. Now they are simply doing a cut and run,
so to speak.

Navas then falsely interpreting this as a decline in CDMA is complete horse
crap.

"Apology accepted"??? What an ass...!



"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:241220061055167563%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, George
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
>> decided to give up trying.
>
> Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
> phones sounds like sour grapes.
>
> --
> Charles

Charles wrote:

> Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> that was their problem?

Cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I could understand a smaller handset maker deciding to concentrate
solely on GSM because the market is so much bigger for GSM handsets. But
for the largest handset maker to write off hundreds of millions of
customers is pretty bizarre.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:458e92bf$0$68997
[email protected]:

> It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the
> leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users.
> Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million
> users in the U.S. alone.
>
>

NTSC is the "installed base" of analog TV in the US as well....It's the
worst TV system on the planet with only 525 lines vs 800 or more for
everyone else.

We've done it again, by the way! ATSC is the DTV system America has
settled on. Compared to the European DTV standard, it sucks just as bad as
NTSC but is cheaper to deploy and more profitable to sell....any questions?

Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the
best".

Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital
schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.

Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe.
They have REPEATERS!

At 24 Dec 2006 06:46:23 -0800 SMS wrote:

> It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the
leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users.
Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million
users in the U.S. alone.

Nokia is fed up with our whole system of carrier subsidies destroying the
perceived value of phones, and tired of the profit loss customizing
software and features for individual carriers. Add to that the Qualcomm
licensing fees and Nokia's happy to let an OEM handle that for the CDMA
market. There's still money to be made in OEM- lots of Companies do it.

Long term, Nokia and is trying to create a marketplace where desire for
the latest handsets leads to direct sales outside of the carrier. That's
a far more reachable goal with GSM than CDMA in the current market.

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe.
> They have REPEATERS!

Which is only feasible because of the higher population density in Europe.
But everything has trade-offs. If you don't mind living in cramped
quarters, with the government interfering in every aspect of your
life, by all means move to Europe.

--
John Richards (who lived in Europe for 13 years)

At 24 Dec 2006 11:59:16 -0500 Larry wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
> in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
> matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.

If you have a GSM phone that's true today.

If you don't, you've accepted that trade-off.

> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in
Europe.
> They have REPEATERS!

....and a fraction of the geography to cover!

Seasons greetings Larry....

"crazy oddball digital schemes"...??

Sure, we could get into the whole Beta vs VHS discussion. Which is
an example of another inferior technology that eventually prevailed.

But defending an obviously (and proven) superior standard - you bet!!

I'd rather have the superior technology for my every day use - thank you very much.


"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:458e92bf$0$68997
> [email protected]:
>
>
> NTSC is the "installed base" of analog TV in the US as well....It's the
> worst TV system on the planet with only 525 lines vs 800 or more for
> everyone else.
>
> We've done it again, by the way! ATSC is the DTV system America has
> settled on. Compared to the European DTV standard, it sucks just as bad as
> NTSC but is cheaper to deploy and more profitable to sell....any questions?
>
> Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the
> best".
>
> Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital
> schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
> in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
> matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.
>
> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe.
> They have REPEATERS!
>

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe. They have REPEATERS!
>
> Which is only feasible because of the higher population density in Europe.
> But everything has trade-offs. If you don't mind living in cramped
> quarters, with the government interfering in every aspect of your
> life, by all means move to Europe.
>
> --
> John Richards (who lived in Europe for 13 years)


Along with the extreme difference in geographical area (and population density), there is another
BIG factor.

As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government involvement in all things
in most, if not all European countries. Certainly wireless is included. Down to and including the digital
protocol that was chosen. It most certainly was government influenced over there, (vs the market here).

Qualcom is American and god forbid using something from the USA (and paying the greedy yanks...)
Even though CDMA is a quite superior technology, Eurocentric protectionism prevailed.

Then there are the "repeaters" as Larry so often blabs about... Again a case of direct government
involvement - do you honestly think there were many - if any NIMBY roadblocks to site placement?

I doubt it...

Again, this is another cut & paste job by navas. His low IQ can't
comprehend the argumentative statement. The only way to justify his
idiotic statement is to cut and paste some paragraph out of the context.


In article <[email protected]>,
"Ness net" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bingo!!!
>
> They are still wrangling over it legally. Nokia, refusing to play nice, tried
> to
> go it alone - and failed miserably. Now they are simply doing a cut and run,
> so to speak.
>
> Navas then falsely interpreting this as a decline in CDMA is complete horse
> crap.
>
> "Apology accepted"??? What an ass...!
>
>
>
> "Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:241220061055167563%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, George
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
> >> decided to give up trying.
> >
> > Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> > that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
> > phones sounds like sour grapes.
> >
> > --
> > Charles
>
>

"SinghaLvr" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:24:30 -0500, Ness net wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government
>> involvement in all things
>> in most, if not all European countries. Certainly wireless is included. Down
>> to and including the digital
>> protocol that was chosen. It most certainly was government influenced over
>> there, (vs the market here).
>>
>> Qualcom is American and god forbid using something from the USA (and paying
>> the greedy yanks...)
>> Even though CDMA is a quite superior technology, Eurocentric protectionism
>> prevailed.
>
> Not taking one side or the other here ... but I find it humorous that folks
> who don't want "big government" involved are quick to allow a monopolistic
> corporation to be involved in the same aspects of their lives. :-)

Not sure what you are getting at. There is plenty of competition in the
mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular,
Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> ...and a fraction of the geography to cover!

Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe.

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in news:f4Vjh.37257
[email protected]:

> Not sure what you are getting at. There is plenty of competition in the
> mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular,
> Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others.
>
>

But, is that an illusion created for the consumers?

They're all members of the same "club", the CTIA (www.ctia.org)....
They all act, approximately, the same, arrogant, aloof, demanding...
They all play the same contract games with subsidies to prevent churning...

Are they REALLY competitors, or simply tentacles of the same octopus, like
oil companies are, bankers are, broadcasters are, cable companies are, many
other corporations are??

If I want to steal your customers, I offer them something really grand,
really cheap and, most of all, industry shaking. Cellphone companies never
do this. They all make lots of noise in overpriced advertising, but they
never, just like gas companies, get far afield of what their CTIA bretheren
are doing.....price fixing.

Yes, you can choose any CTIA member for your phone, just like you can
choose any Federal Reserve banker to hold your money.....

decaturtxcowboy <[email protected]> wrote in news:XBVjh.41289
[email protected]:

> Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe.
>
>

Americans' geography training is fun to play with. I lived and worked in
Iran for a little over 2 years back in the late 70's, leaving 28 days
before the Shahanshah fled the country. Most people I meet know there is
a country called Iran, but have an awful time placing it on a globe, even
"educated" people.

My favorite question to Americans is still:

"Compared to something in the United States, how big is Iran (in area)?"

Answers range from Rhode Island to California and Texas, usually, some
saying Alaska rarely....Some think it's a tiny island in the Arabian Gulf
like Bahrain.

A Bahraini blogger, Mahmood (http://mahmood.tv), shows us in the last few
days a huge pile of Iranian Rials his wife will be taking with her on a
trip from Bahrain to Iran, shortly. There's nearly 500,000 Rials. But,
he says he's not rich....that's only $US530. Other things have gotten
much bigger since I left in the late 70's, I see. Mahmood is a great fun
read. He owns Gulf Broadcast, a video production company. He just the
opposite of the bloodthirsty, Islamic terrorist America's Jewish TV wants
you to think about to keep the bankers' war machine running. His garden
is beautiful. His politics makes the king and religious zealots puke...
(c;

Just to put it on topic....Bahrain has GSM phones that work anywhere
Mahmood travels. Their phone system is German, the finest equipment oil
money can buy. I can call home from Bahrain's phones faster than I can
call home from Atlanta...direct satellite all the way. There are huge
satellite ground stations around the main telephone campus.