Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    John Navas
    Guest
    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
    self-proclaimed [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:

    >I know this thread is a little old, but there was just
    >a good article regarding AT&T Wireless and NTT
    >Docomo.
    >
    >The article is entitled:
    >"ANALYSIS: What does AT&T Wireless get from Tokyo connection?" ...


    >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
    >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE.


    True, for the time being at least -- EDGE is quite competitive.

    >But the
    >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
    >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA.


    The article doesn't say that. The reason ATTWS (not AT&T) went the GSM route,
    like Cingular, is simply that GSM made more sense than the alternative
    (CDMA2000).

    >If not
    >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
    >the CDMA.


    The article doesn't say that either -- that's something else you made up.
    What it does say:

    All is not lost of course. Cash rich AT&T will pay a price to launch W-CDMA
    but the reward may come in the form of differentiated services and
    applications, particularly for enterprise users. ... The carrier has worked
    hard to develop synergistic ties in content packaging through its mMode
    suite, adapted from the legendary success of iMode in Japan.

    The article is pretty upbeat on ATTWS (not AT&T) overall.

    >"http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=64355"


    Interested parties are advised to read the article for themselves, rather than
    relying on Steven's spin.

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



    See More: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update




  2. #2
    hatoncat
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update


    Isaiah Beard wrote:
    > *hatoncat wrote:
    >
    > > The site lists Sprint as a 2.5G carrier when it is obviously a 3G
    > > carrier.

    >
    > Uhh, no it's not. While the CDMA2000 1x spec can achieve speeds of
    > 144k
    > and is this recognized as 3G, Sprint PCS doesn't consistently
    > deliver
    > that speed (which is the minimum to be considered 3G). The speed
    > usually hovers at about 50-60k.
    >
    > At present there are no true 3G carriers in the U.S. Except for
    > perhaps
    > Verizon which is testing out 1x EvD0 in a couple fo cities.
    >
    > Regardless, it's just a label. I really don't see why people get
    > all
    > hyped up over it. *


    You are completely wrong on this matter. The 3G spec defines the
    requirement for a BURST rate of 144k. Since Sprint's network actually
    burts at above 144k it is clearly 3G.

    Sprint states that average speed so that people won't feel as if Sprint
    promised them an always 144k network.

    --
    Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap




  3. #3
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
    [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:

    >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
    >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
    >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
    >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
    >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
    >the CDMA. ...


    The above is fantasy. Here's reality:

    <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
    The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
    Rod Nelson
    Chief Technology Officer
    AT&T Wireless

    It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
    see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
    more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
    assumptions rooted in technology.

    When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
    evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
    advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
    assessed.

    Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
    migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
    for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.

    [MORE]

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



  4. #4
    Male Bomb
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

    What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?

    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
    > [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    >
    > >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
    > >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
    > >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
    > >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
    > >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
    > >the CDMA. ...

    >
    > The above is fantasy. Here's reality:
    >
    > <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
    > The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
    > Rod Nelson
    > Chief Technology Officer
    > AT&T Wireless
    >
    > It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
    > see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
    > more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
    > assumptions rooted in technology.
    >
    > When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
    > evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
    > advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
    > assessed.
    >
    > Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
    > migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
    > for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.
    >
    > [MORE]
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
    > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  5. #5
    hatoncat
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update


    Male Bomb wrote:
    > *What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We f*cked up?
    >
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > >
    > > In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44

    > -0000,
    > > [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    > >
    > > >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
    > > >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
    > > >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
    > > >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
    > > >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
    > > >the CDMA. ...

    > >
    > > The above is fantasy. Here's reality:
    > >
    > > <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
    > > The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
    > > Rod Nelson
    > > Chief Technology Officer
    > > AT&T Wireless
    > >
    > > It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made

    > to
    > > see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is

    > even
    > > more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
    > > assumptions rooted in technology.
    > >
    > > When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
    > > evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers

    > with
    > > advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
    > > assessed.
    > >
    > > Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision

    > to
    > > migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and

    > decision
    > > for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.
    > >
    > > [MORE]
    > >
    > > --
    > > Best regards,
    > > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES

    > FOR
    > > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES:

    > <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular
    > groups] *


    Or, you guys really should have hired somebody that rolled out GSM in
    Europe. We don't have a clue...?

    Or, Geez we had no idea how bad GSM is in implementation in a country
    as big as the United States?

    --
    Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap




  6. #6
    P Howard
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

    Just like a VZW CTO and a Sprint PCS CTO and T Mobile CTO would say the
    same thing, "Its nice to know we chose the best path."

    Come on... of course all of them are going to say the same damn thing.
    MB makes a good point.

    --
    Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


    [email protected] (Male Bomb) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?
    >
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > >
    > > In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
    > > [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    > >
    > > >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
    > > >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
    > > >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
    > > >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
    > > >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
    > > >the CDMA. ...

    > >
    > > The above is fantasy. Here's reality:
    > >
    > > <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
    > > The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
    > > Rod Nelson
    > > Chief Technology Officer
    > > AT&T Wireless
    > >
    > > It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
    > > see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
    > > more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
    > > assumptions rooted in technology.
    > >
    > > When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
    > > evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
    > > advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
    > > assessed.
    > >
    > > Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
    > > migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
    > > for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.
    > >
    > > [MORE]
    > >
    > > --
    > > Best regards,
    > > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
    > > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  7. #7
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

    Not an engineer, but an officer of the company. Hence he has not only has
    knowledge, but also legal liability with regard to the accuracy of his
    statements. They are thus the best available evidence for what actually
    happened. Steven, on the other hand, has no knowledge and no substantiation
    for his claims, which are directly contradicted by this officer of the
    company. The only reasonable conclusion is that Steven is off in the Twilight
    Zone.

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:34:04 -0000,
    [email protected] (Male Bomb) wrote:

    >What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?
    >
    >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    ><[email protected]>:
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
    >> [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    >>
    >> >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
    >> >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
    >> >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
    >> >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
    >> >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
    >> >the CDMA. ...

    >>
    >> The above is fantasy. Here's reality:
    >>
    >> <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
    >> The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
    >> Rod Nelson
    >> Chief Technology Officer
    >> AT&T Wireless
    >>
    >> It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
    >> see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
    >> more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
    >> assumptions rooted in technology.
    >>
    >> When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
    >> evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
    >> advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
    >> assessed.
    >>
    >> Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
    >> migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
    >> for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.
    >>
    >> [MORE]


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



  8. #8
    Steven M. Scharf
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update


    "P Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Just like a VZW CTO and a Sprint PCS CTO and T Mobile CTO would say the
    > same thing, "Its nice to know we chose the best path."
    >
    > Come on... of course all of them are going to say the same damn thing.
    > MB makes a good point.


    It's like the GSM trade group's statements about GSM versus CDMA,
    versus the CDMA trade associations statements about GSM versus
    CDMA. Most people prefer independent analysis, and take self-serving
    statements with many grains of salt.

    Steve





  9. #9
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul
    2003 15:00:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Male Bomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?

    >
    >That statement from the AT&T CTO sounds like a desperate
    >attempt to rationalize ...


    Funny, but that's just what I'm thinking about your post, a desperate attempt
    to rationalize your absurd, unsubstantiated claims about ATTWS and CDMA2000.

    Sorry, Steven, but no cigar.

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



  10. #10
    P Howard
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

    John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
    speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?

    --
    Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <Z%[email protected]>:
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul
    > 2003 15:00:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Male Bomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >> What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?

    > >
    > >That statement from the AT&T CTO sounds like a desperate
    > >attempt to rationalize ...

    >
    > Funny, but that's just what I'm thinking about your post, a desperate attempt
    > to rationalize your absurd, unsubstantiated claims about ATTWS and CDMA2000.
    >
    > Sorry, Steven, but no cigar.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
    > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  11. #11
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:52:26 -0000,
    [email protected] (P Howard) wrote:

    >John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
    >speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?


    What higher call capacity and faster 3g speeds as compared to the GSM
    migration path?

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



  12. #12
    P Howard
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

    CDMA alone can hold more calls per channel than GSM because of spread
    spectrum transmission. CDMA 1xrtt doubles that capacity. CDMA 1xrtt,
    first generation 3g offers average throughput of 50-70k vs 30-40k on
    GPRS. 1xEVDO averages 800-1200kbps vs EDGE at 300-400kbps.

    --
    Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:52:26 -0000,
    > [email protected] (P Howard) wrote:
    >
    > >John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
    > >speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?

    >
    > What higher call capacity and faster 3g speeds as compared to the GSM
    > migration path?
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
    > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  13. #13
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:14:49 -0000,
    [email protected] (P Howard) wrote:

    >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    ><[email protected]>:
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:52:26 -0000,
    >> [email protected] (P Howard) wrote:
    >>
    >> >John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
    >> >speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?

    >>
    >> What higher call capacity and faster 3g speeds as compared to the GSM
    >> migration path?


    This likes like a CMDA2000 troll to me, so I'll make one and only one
    response:

    >CDMA alone can hold more calls per channel than GSM because of spread
    >spectrum transmission. CDMA 1xrtt doubles that capacity. CDMA 1xrtt,
    >first generation 3g offers average throughput of 50-70k vs 30-40k on
    >GPRS. 1xEVDO averages 800-1200kbps vs EDGE at 300-400kbps.


    To quote Rod Nelson, Chief Technology Officer, AT&T Wireless:

    * GSM has almost double the capacity of TDMA - and with AMR codec software
    deployed, will quadruple TDMA capacity, making GSM voice capacity equal
    to or better than CDMA2000

    * Single Antenna Interference Cancellation, in development, will provide an
    additional 60-100 percent increase in voice capacity.

    * EDGE software triples the data speeds of GPRS using the same spectrum and
    radio frequency.

    * UMTS provides additional capacity and quality-of-service mechanisms, and
    flexibility in managing resources between voice and data services. And
    more than triples the data speed of EDGE.

    To quote Bill Clift, Chief Technical Officer, Cingular Wireless:

    Cingular Wireless vigorously evaluated competing air-interface technologies
    and migration strategies, and several factors played into the decision to
    deploy GSM/GPRS/EDGE:

    * Speed -- GPRS and EDGE data rates in a loaded network compare very well
    with any other 3G technology in a similar mobile environment.

    * GSM’s capacity and spectrum efficiency is competitive with any other
    technology choice that Cingular might have made.

    To quote Chris Pearson, Executive Vice President, 3G Americas:

    Many CDMA operators are currently in the midst of deploying 1XRTT, AN
    INTERIM STEP TOWARDS 3G that promises to use spectrum more
    efficiently. Time will tell whether that is the truth but the fact is
    that, based on best-case data from CDMA vendors, 1XRTT with EVRC
    handles up to 156 Erlangs per sector. Bearing in mind that GSM with
    AMR handles 142 Erlangs, it is a great stretch to argue that 1XRTT
    has a major advantage over GSM. GSM operators also can deploy dynamic
    frequency and channel allocation (DFCA), which assigns calls to
    channels based on conditions such as signal and interference. With
    AMR and DFCA, GSM can handle 170 Erlangs per sector – an improvement
    on 1XRTT’s 156. [emphasis added]

    In the near future, 1XRTT operators will probably be able to deploy a
    technology called selective mode vocoder (SMV), which could provide
    20% more capacity over EVRC. The catch is that SMV-like methods can
    be applied to GSM to produce almost identical capacity gains. Thus,
    while one technology may have slightly higher capacity gains at one
    point in time, another technology is always preparing to leap-frog
    over it.

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



  14. #14
    Steven Scharf
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

    [email protected] (Male Bomb) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We
    > ****ed up?


    Rod Nelson, AT&T CTO, is not just the CTO of AT&T Wireless,
    he's also the chairman of the board of 3G Americas "a
    wireless industry organization dedicated to unifying the
    Americas through the GSM evolution to EDGE and UMTS."

    What else could he say? The fact that he felt compelled to
    say anything to defend the GSM decision at all is pretty
    telling evidence that it didn't all work out quite as
    expected. There were real reasons why AT&T went the GSM
    route, but they had nothing to do with technology. In many
    situations there are the real reasons for doing what you do,
    and the excuses you make for public consumption.

    As it was written in Business 2.0 back in November of
    2000, "Standing in Qualcomm's way are AT&T Wireless's
    massive existing investment in its TDMA network
    infrastructure and its chief technology officer, Rod Nelson,
    who is a TDMA diehard."

    Continuing, the article states: "the partnership with
    DoCoMo is pushing AT&T further toward the W-CDMA camp.
    As part of the deal, AT&T laid out its migration plan, which is
    to overlay its TDMA network with GSM and a data standard
    called EDGE in the intermediate term, and then ultimately
    move over to W-CDMA."

    "http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:U4Cggy5Y7hEJ:http://www.business2.com/articles/we...hl=en&ie=UTF-8"

    Does anyone still doubt the reasons that AT&T went the
    GSM route? There are 9.8 billion of them!

    Rod Nelson is the same guy who claimed that AT&T would
    leapfrog over 2.5G and go straight to 3G and have it
    rolled out nationwide by 2002. Yet AT&T is behind in
    even rolling out EDGE 2.5G, and UMTS 3G isn't scheduled
    until the end of 2004. Lately he backpedaled and said
    that the demand for 3G wasn't there anyway, though AT&T
    is now in a frenzy to get 3G rolled out in just 4 cities
    by next year. Of course he could claim that EDGE is really
    3G and that it was just delayed a year.

    I don't fault the guy for saying what he has to day, I
    just would hope that people would look at his statements
    in context of his position as chairman of the board of
    3G America's; he clearly has an agenda, more than one
    in fact.

    Steve
    -------
    http://www.sfbacell.com
    San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  15. #15
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:41:17 -0000,
    [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:

    >I don't fault the guy for saying what he has to day, I
    >just would hope that people would look at his statements
    >in context of his position as chairman of the board of
    >3G America's; he clearly has an agenda, more than one
    >in fact.


    Pot ... kettle ... black.

    Still no cigar, Steve, ad hominems and innuendos notwithstanding. You have
    nothing to back up your absurd claim that ATTWS would have gone CDMA2000 but
    for coercion by NTT DoCoMo.

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast