Onstar = MVNO

First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the record
straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have been giving
out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they were correct)
Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work and no play...well,
you know :-)

The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they were an
MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on that Onstar
owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides thier own
"sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on hold, went to go
talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a cellular service and
they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused to tell me to what
extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all the more clueless. My
take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much about it and that Verizon
is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar basically an enhanced cell
phone.

Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad for
being the latter.

Thanx,

--
marx404

---

› See More: Onstar = MVNO

"marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have
> been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they were
> correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work and no
> play...well, you know :-)
>
> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they were
> an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on that
> Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides thier
> own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on hold, went
> to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a cellular service
> and they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused to tell me to what
> extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all the more clueless. My
> take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much about it and that Verizon
> is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar basically an enhanced cell
> phone.
>
> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
> they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad for
> being the latter.
>
> Thanx,
>
> --
> marx404
When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the GPS
is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was suprised to
find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but I have not
found any yet.

"John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
>> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have
>> been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they were
>> correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work and no
>> play...well, you know :-)
>>
>> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they were
>> an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on that
>> Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides thier
>> own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on hold,
>> went to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a cellular
>> service and they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused to tell
>> me to what extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all the more
>> clueless. My take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much about it
>> and that Verizon is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar basically
>> an enhanced cell phone.
>>
>> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
>> they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad for
>> being the latter.
>>
>> Thanx,
>>
>> --
>> marx404
> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the
> GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was suprised
> to find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but I have not
> found any yet.
"Higher Power" BULL****! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the new
ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
"BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you with
fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....

"Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
>>> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have
>>> been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they
>>> were correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work
>>> and no play...well, you know :-)
>>>
>>> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they
>>> were an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on
>>> that Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides
>>> thier own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on
>>> hold, went to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a
>>> cellular service and they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused
>>> to tell me to what extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all
>>> the more clueless. My take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much
>>> about it and that Verizon is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar
>>> basically an enhanced cell phone.
>>>
>>> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
>>> they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad
>>> for being the latter.
>>>
>>> Thanx,
>>>
>>> --
>>> marx404
>> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the
>> GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was
>> suprised to find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but
>> I have not found any yet.
> "Higher Power" BULL****! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the new
> ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>
>
Bull**** to you. It is very very very much higher poer than a handheld unit.
Period.

"Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
>>> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have
>>> been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they
>>> were correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work
>>> and no play...well, you know :-)
>>>
>>> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they
>>> were an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on
>>> that Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides
>>> thier own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on
>>> hold, went to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a
>>> cellular service and they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused
>>> to tell me to what extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all
>>> the more clueless. My take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much
>>> about it and that Verizon is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar
>>> basically an enhanced cell phone.
>>>
>>> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
>>> they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad
>>> for being the latter.
>>>
>>> Thanx,
>>>
>>> --
>>> marx404
>> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the
>> GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was
>> suprised to find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but
>> I have not found any yet.
> "Higher Power" BULL****! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the new
> ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>
>
3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.

John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
> "Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
>>>> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have
>>>> been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they
>>>> were correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work
>>>> and no play...well, you know :-)
>>>>
>>>> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they
>>>> were an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on
>>>> that Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides
>>>> thier own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on
>>>> hold, went to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a
>>>> cellular service and they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused
>>>> to tell me to what extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all
>>>> the more clueless. My take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much
>>>> about it and that Verizon is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar
>>>> basically an enhanced cell phone.
>>>>
>>>> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
>>>> they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad
>>>> for being the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Thanx,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> marx404
>>> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the
>>> GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was
>>> suprised to find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but
>>> I have not found any yet.
>> "Higher Power" BULL****! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the new
>> ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
>> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
>> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>>
>>
> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.
>
>

You should maybe ask a ham (I'm not one) what diff the wattage would
make. My experience is not much at high Mhz. More likely is that it is
an outside antenna that makes a bigger diff than the wattage, or so I
have seen using .5, 5 watt HT's and 25 watt dash mount moto radios. It
is still line of sight.

"vey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
>> "Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
>>>>> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar
>>>>> have been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned,
>>>>> they were correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all
>>>>> work and no play...well, you know :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they
>>>>> were an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on
>>>>> that Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides
>>>>> thier own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on
>>>>> hold, went to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a
>>>>> cellular service and they use Verizon (and other providers), but
>>>>> refused to tell me to what extent. I asked our corporate trainer and
>>>>> he was all the more clueless. My take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl
>>>>> to know much about it and that Verizon is the backbone of Onstar,
>>>>> period, with Onstar basically an enhanced cell phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the
>>>>> more they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My
>>>>> bad for being the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanx,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> marx404
>>>> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only
>>>> the GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was
>>>> suprised to find out there are actually areas that it will not work,
>>>> but I have not found any yet.
>>> "Higher Power" BULL****! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the
>>> new ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at
>>> all.
>>> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
>>> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>>>
>>>
>> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.
>
> You should maybe ask a ham (I'm not one) what diff the wattage would make.
> My experience is not much at high Mhz. More likely is that it is an
> outside antenna that makes a bigger diff than the wattage, or so I have
> seen using .5, 5 watt HT's and 25 watt dash mount moto radios. It is still
> line of sight.

All you said is true. The ability to receive a signal from a cell tower is
not related to power transmission level of the cell unit but the ability to
reach the tower is. That is what OnStar is about. So if the vehicle can get
a message out then the GPS knows where the vehicle is so help can be
summoned. If you are in need of medical attention you can press the correct
key and help is on the way.

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.

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.

The current OnStar is digital only for sure. Many old customers aren't too
happy 'bout that as analog working areas are now left w/o service. Some dead
spots where analog only used to work can be found down certain areas of
rural I-20 in SC. (of course what in SC isn't rural) Another is anywhere
within a 10 mile radius of the Robinson Nuclear Plant in Hartsville, SC. We
can see the cell towers but no bars, yet, Onstar connects every time.
Much of rural SC and many other rural country areas will be TSOL w/o analog
I'm afraid.

--
marx404


"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.

John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.

You would be describing the older 3 watts analog phone technology. CDMA is
optimized for fractional watt handsets. Phones closer to a tower are
instructed to go to a lower power setting, so even it was a 3 watts CDMA
phone...it would be constantly running in a low power mode.

"John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
>>>> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have
>>>> been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they
>>>> were correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work
>>>> and no play...well, you know :-)
>>>>
>>>> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they
>>>> were an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on
>>>> that Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides
>>>> thier own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on
>>>> hold, went to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a
>>>> cellular service and they use Verizon (and other providers), but
>>>> refused to tell me to what extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he
>>>> was all the more clueless. My take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to
>>>> know much about it and that Verizon is the backbone of Onstar, period,
>>>> with Onstar basically an enhanced cell phone.
>>>>
>>>> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the
>>>> more they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My
>>>> bad for being the latter.
>>>>
>>>> Thanx,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> marx404
>>> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the
>>> GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was
>>> suprised to find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but
>>> I have not found any yet.
>> "Higher Power" BULL****! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the
>> new ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
>> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
>> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>>
>>
> Bull**** to you. It is very very very much higher poer than a handheld
> unit. Period.
John...John...John.....
If you took the time to research this out (maybe go to the FCC's website)
and actually look up the type acceptance of this equipment you will find the
*REAL* ratings of it. You can't believe a shill from BlondeStar as to what
is really going on.They have been instructed to tell you what YOU want to
hear.
The older AMPS mobiles and bagphones were indeed 3 watt units.The newer
stuff was 600Mw in power. You will find a lot of it running less than
1/4watt (250Mw).
On 880Mhz/1950Mhz *ANTENNA IS EVERYTHING*. ALL new handhelds have E-911
chipset in them, so a handheld CAN get the same help as a BlondeStar. The
BlondeStar user interface is for the helpless/brain-dead that lack
commonsense in emergency incidents, most others can deal with it.
Personally speaking *I* don't need my car calling Chevy and reporting it
needs a oil change, I don't require a nanny to help me get my keys back and
I don't welcome a "Checklist" sent to me from GM on non-required "service"
that they want to push on me.....
"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!!!

SMS wrote:
>
> 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 loved the On-Star ad where the family locked their keys out of their car
in some kind of camping location. They act as if On-Star saved their lives.
I mean, would they have starved or would they have realized the only thing
between them and civilization was a piece of glass, with rocks all around.

I always thought Ford should have parodied that ad, but in their case the
family just entered their PIN on the door-pad and they are in (while the
other family are hoping for a cell signal).


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
> I always thought Ford should have parodied that ad, but in their case the
> family just entered their PIN on the door-pad and they are in (while the
> other family are hoping for a cell signal).

There was a parody of a women locked INSIDE her car and the "On-Star" rep
asked what that beeping noise was...her keys were in the ignition and she
was in the front seat.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bull**** to you. It is very very very much higher poer than a handheld
>> unit.
>> Period.
>
> Was.
>
> Not anymore, not now that they're on Verizon's digital service.
>
> But then, you'd have to know something about cell phone systems to
> understand that. If you don't, you'll just go around spouting
> "bull****!" all the time.

You are the misinformed one Elmo. Check your facts buddy. Onstar outputy is
3 watts period. A handheld is 0.6 watts, Period. 3 watts is much more power
than 0.6 watts. Now how much difference that actually makes in the field is
a whole other discussion. But that isn't the beef now is it?

"Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Roger Buttsnort" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "marx404" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
>>>>> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar
>>>>> have been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned,
>>>>> they were correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all
>>>>> work and no play...well, you know :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they
>>>>> were an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on
>>>>> that Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides
>>>>> thier own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on
>>>>> hold, went to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a
>>>>> cellular service and they use Verizon (and other providers), but
>>>>> refused to tell me to what extent. I asked our corporate trainer and
>>>>> he was all the more clueless. My take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl
>>>>> to know much about it and that Verizon is the backbone of Onstar,
>>>>> period, with Onstar basically an enhanced cell phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the
>>>>> more they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My
>>>>> bad for being the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanx,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> marx404
>>>> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only
>>>> the GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was
>>>> suprised to find out there are actually areas that it will not work,
>>>> but I have not found any yet.
>>> "Higher Power" BULL****! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the
>>> new ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at
>>> all.
>>> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
>>> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>>>
>>>
>> Bull**** to you. It is very very very much higher poer than a handheld
>> unit. Period.
> John...John...John.....
> If you took the time to research this out (maybe go to the FCC's website)
> and actually look up the type acceptance of this equipment you will find
> the *REAL* ratings of it. You can't believe a shill from BlondeStar as to
> what is really going on.They have been instructed to tell you what YOU
> want to hear.
> The older AMPS mobiles and bagphones were indeed 3 watt units.The newer
> stuff was 600Mw in power. You will find a lot of it running less than
> 1/4watt (250Mw).
> On 880Mhz/1950Mhz *ANTENNA IS EVERYTHING*. ALL new handhelds have E-911
> chipset in them, so a handheld CAN get the same help as a BlondeStar. The
> BlondeStar user interface is for the helpless/brain-dead that lack
> commonsense in emergency incidents, most others can deal with it.
> Personally speaking *I* don't need my car calling Chevy and reporting it
> needs a oil change, I don't require a nanny to help me get my keys back
> and I don't welcome a "Checklist" sent to me from GM on non-required
> "service" that they want to push on me.....
> "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!!!
Roger, I ain't got a dog in that fight. Onstar uses 3 watts of power a
handheld 0.6. That is what I said. This is true. As far as whether it makes
a big difference or whether Onstar is any good was never my point. I am not
arguing that.

Thanks