Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Dominic
    Guest
    Hi there,

    Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
    etc) supports WAP Push?

    For those that support WAP Push, do they support cross-carrier WAP
    Push?

    Thanks
    Dom



    See More: WAP Push by major carriers?




  2. #2
    gopi
    Guest

    Re: WAP Push by major carriers?

    John S. <[email protected]> asserted:
    >[email protected] (Dominic) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
    > > etc) supports WAP Push?

    >
    > Nextel isn't a carrier.


    The God of Englightenment speaks, and we must all believe him.

    Perhaps there's some anal-retentive definition of "carrier" which
    disqualifies Nextel; is there a chance you can share your definition
    with us? By every normal definition of the word "carrier", Nextel is a
    carrier.

    Instead of snippy posts to Usenet, why not file a complaint with the
    SEC? Nextel always refers to themselves as a carrier. Everybody else
    seems to think they're a carrier. If you truly know why they're not,
    you should share this secret Gnostic wisdom with the rest of us
    instead of merely asserting it without comment.



  3. #3
    MarkF
    Guest

    Re: WAP Push by major carriers?

    [email protected] (gopi) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > John S. <[email protected]> asserted:
    > >[email protected] (Dominic) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
    > > > etc) supports WAP Push?

    > >
    > > Nextel isn't a carrier.

    >
    > The God of Englightenment speaks, and we must all believe him.
    >
    > Perhaps there's some anal-retentive definition of "carrier" which
    > disqualifies Nextel; is there a chance you can share your definition
    > with us? By every normal definition of the word "carrier", Nextel is a
    > carrier.
    >
    > Instead of snippy posts to Usenet, why not file a complaint with the
    > SEC? Nextel always refers to themselves as a carrier. Everybody else
    > seems to think they're a carrier. If you truly know why they're not,
    > you should share this secret Gnostic wisdom with the rest of us
    > instead of merely asserting it without comment.


    I have to agree with John that NEXTEL isn't considered a "cellular
    carrier". They are licensed as an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
    (ESMR) under Part 90 FCC R&R's which regulate two-way radio users.
    They don't have to follow the same cellular regulations as the rest
    and if they really wanted to could of blew off the FCC on E911 Phase 2
    requirements. Of course they eventually "want" to be a cellular
    carrier by requesting the band swap to get the 1.9 GHz spectrum so
    they did the right thing by putting GPS in their phones. Also once
    they deploy 1.9 GHz technology they will have to conform to Part 24
    FCC R&R's and John and I can then call NEXTEL a "carrier" :-)
    http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/broadbandpcs/

    Mark



  4. #4
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: WAP Push by major carriers?

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on 20 Oct 2004 16:42:37
    -0700, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

    >[email protected] (gopi) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> John S. <[email protected]> asserted:
    >> >[email protected] (Dominic) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> > > Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
    >> > > etc) supports WAP Push?
    >> >
    >> > Nextel isn't a carrier.

    >>
    >> The God of Englightenment speaks, and we must all believe him.
    >>
    >> Perhaps there's some anal-retentive definition of "carrier" which
    >> disqualifies Nextel; is there a chance you can share your definition
    >> with us? By every normal definition of the word "carrier", Nextel is a
    >> carrier.
    >>
    >> Instead of snippy posts to Usenet, why not file a complaint with the
    >> SEC? Nextel always refers to themselves as a carrier. Everybody else
    >> seems to think they're a carrier. If you truly know why they're not,
    >> you should share this secret Gnostic wisdom with the rest of us
    >> instead of merely asserting it without comment.

    >
    >I have to agree with John that NEXTEL isn't considered a "cellular
    >carrier". They are licensed as an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
    >(ESMR) under Part 90 FCC R&R's which regulate two-way radio users.
    >They don't have to follow the same cellular regulations as the rest
    >and if they really wanted to could of blew off the FCC on E911 Phase 2
    >requirements. Of course they eventually "want" to be a cellular
    >carrier by requesting the band swap to get the 1.9 GHz spectrum so
    >they did the right thing by putting GPS in their phones. Also once
    >they deploy 1.9 GHz technology they will have to conform to Part 24
    >FCC R&R's and John and I can then call NEXTEL a "carrier" :-)
    >http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/broadbandpcs/



    http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-911-detail.pl?id=23
    http://www.fcc.gov/911/basic/reports...ion/Nextel.pdf
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...1/nrwl0127.pdf
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...1/da011187.pdf
    are just a few of the many FCC documents that refer to NEXTEL as a "carrier";
    e.g., (from that last link)

    4. In an effort to continue the ongoing evaluation of the state of
    readiness of E911 technologies pursuant to the E911 Fourth Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and in order to evaluate Nextelís waiver request,
    we direct Nextel, A WIRELESS CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE E911 PHASE II
    RULES, to provide further information regarding Nextelís ability to
    meet Phase II requirements. Nextel is directed to provide the
    information as requested in the following questions and correspond
    its answers to the numbers relating to each question:
    [emphasis added]

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>



  5. #5
    MarkF
    Guest

    Re: WAP Push by major carriers?

    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-911-detail.pl?id=23
    > http://www.fcc.gov/911/basic/reports...ion/Nextel.pdf
    > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...1/nrwl0127.pdf
    > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...1/da011187.pdf
    > are just a few of the many FCC documents that refer to NEXTEL as a "carrier";
    > e.g., (from that last link)
    >
    > 4. In an effort to continue the ongoing evaluation of the state of
    > readiness of E911 technologies pursuant to the E911 Fourth Memorandum
    > Opinion and Order and in order to evaluate Nextel?s waiver request,
    > we direct Nextel, A WIRELESS CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE E911 PHASE II
    > RULES, to provide further information regarding Nextel?s ability to
    > meet Phase II requirements. Nextel is directed to provide the
    > information as requested in the following questions and correspond
    > its answers to the numbers relating to each question:
    > [emphasis added]



    Oh I totally agree John that the FCC is so mixed up as to what to do
    with NEXTEL on a lot of matters. As they fall under Part 90
    http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr90_03.html
    they don't have a single requirement for E911.
    The Part 22 carriers have it *****ed out in black and white...
    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...7cfr22.921.htm

    Go figure! The FCC quite often won't even follow its own rules or
    they make them up as they go along. Once the NPSPAC/806 swap is
    completed you can be sure that NEXTEL petitions the FCC to re-classify
    the 821-823/866-869 spectrum as a new cellular block so they don't
    have to keep site licensing as a Part 90 licensee. That will save
    them a ton of money on coordination/licensing costs.



  6. #6
    Joe Mahma
    Guest

    Re: WAP Push by major carriers?

    Sprint can answer your questions.
    I do have a question and another comment: Is a mut a dog? Is a dog a
    mut? Obviously 2 questions and now that makes 2 comments. So when I go
    fishing if I don't hold my mouth right then I dont catch fish.
    MarkF wrote:
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > >
    > > http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-911-detail.pl?id=23
    > > http://www.fcc.gov/911/basic/reports...ion/Nextel.pdf
    > > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...1/nrwl0127.pdf
    > > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...1/da011187.pdf
    > > are just a few of the many FCC documents that refer to NEXTEL as a

    "carrier";
    > > e.g., (from that last link)
    > >
    > > 4. In an effort to continue the ongoing evaluation of the state

    of
    > > readiness of E911 technologies pursuant to the E911 Fourth

    Memorandum
    > > Opinion and Order and in order to evaluate Nextel?s waiver

    request,
    > > we direct Nextel, A WIRELESS CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE E911 PHASE

    II
    > > RULES, to provide further information regarding Nextel?s ability

    to
    > > meet Phase II requirements. Nextel is directed to provide the
    > > information as requested in the following questions and

    correspond
    > > its answers to the numbers relating to each question:
    > > [emphasis added]

    >
    >
    > Oh I totally agree John that the FCC is so mixed up as to what to do
    > with NEXTEL on a lot of matters. As they fall under Part 90
    > http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...7cfr90_03.html
    > they don't have a single requirement for E911.
    > The Part 22 carriers have it *****ed out in black and white...
    >

    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...7cfr22.921.htm
    >
    > Go figure! The FCC quite often won't even follow its own rules or
    > they make them up as they go along. Once the NPSPAC/806 swap is
    > completed you can be sure that NEXTEL petitions the FCC to

    re-classify
    > the 821-823/866-869 spectrum as a new cellular block so they don't
    > have to keep site licensing as a Part 90 licensee. That will save
    > them a ton of money on coordination/licensing costs.





  • Similar Threads