The NEW 3G for "the bush" - Any news on its rollout?

Paul Day wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:36:09 GMT Michael may have written:
>> The launch date is already known, and its not too far off
>
> The "known date" being July according to your "next month" post back in
> June?

Do I hear the sounds of squirming somewhere out there in "michaelland"?

---

› See More: The NEW 3G for "the bush" - Any news on its rollout?

"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
>
>>> He made this bull**** claim nearly 2 months ago that we'll be hearing
>>> news of the new service (I quoted it back to him in another note), so I
>>
>> Youve heard plenty about the new services already, and you will hear
>> more shortly
>
> You said that 2 months ago, that by now we'd be hearing "more". Well,
> two months on, and we have not heard "more". In fact, the local Telstra

Ive heard plenty. I've already got 4 new phones

> dealers (we have a few around here) keep pushing the opening date out
> and out. So, they either are as much out of the loop as the Telstra

The dealers have not been given the opening date, so if they are "pushing
the date out and out", then they are just making up bull****

> Whatever, the end result is the same - those who are in the same boat as
> myself who need to get new phones, are being advised to hold out for a
> little longer.

You arent being asked to hold out for anything. A new 3G 850 network is
coming. When it is ready, it will be announced.

Do you never buy a new phone because Nokia is always bring out a new model
"any time soon".

If you wait for the perfect phone, you will be waiting forever

> My beef with you is that you made a specific statement. It hasn't
> eventuated, and you go on about irrelevant migration offers.

So irrelevant that they were so popular that I had to wait 10 days for the
first phone?
>

"Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> "Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Basically we (CDMA customers) don't give a **** about 2G, GSM or
>>>>> existing 3G services. We're only interested in what CDMA customers are
>>>> You dont speak for all CDMA customers, thanks very much. Ive just
>>>> migrated my four CDMA prepaids to GSm prepaids, thanks very much
>>> He does speak for many, if not most CDMA customers whose only concern is
>>> whether we'll still be able to make calls in the same places that we can
>>> with CDMA. One of the major reasons they built the CDMA network was to
>>> overcome the range shortcomings of GSM.
>>
>> No, they built the CDMA network to replace the AMPS network, nothing to
>> do with the GSM network. Both networks have always had different intended
>> uses, advantages and disadvantages,.
>
> They told people they were building GSM to replace AMPS. Are you saying

No, they didnt

> that they lied? CDMA was only announced after people in country areas
> started complaining about the lack of performance of GSM. If GSM had

No, CDMA was only announced because the govt specifically decided to close
AMPS

> been able to provide even close to the same coverage that AMPS did, there
> would never have been a reason to build a CDMA network in Australia in the
> first place.

Correct.

>> If they alledgedly "built CDMA to overcome GSM limitations", then they
>> would have waited for AMPS to close, they would have built CDMA much
>> earlier.
>
> If they'd really had such a structured timeframe for the construction of
> the CDMA network, it surely wouldn't have taken so long for "advanced
> features" such as SMS and data transfer to be implemented. Perhaps the

I dont believe there was any delay in implementing those

> the implementation of them was postponed several times. It seems obvious
> to me that the rollout of the CDMA network was not as planned as it could
> have been. I don't think they could have rolled it out any

It was very well planned and implemented in the timeframe promised. Same as
the 3G 850 network is

> earlier because I don't think they'd even determined the need for it any
> earlier.

Crap

Michael wrote:
> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Michael wrote:
>>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> "Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Basically we (CDMA customers) don't give a **** about 2G, GSM or
>>>>>> existing 3G services. We're only interested in what CDMA customers are
>>>>> You dont speak for all CDMA customers, thanks very much. Ive just
>>>>> migrated my four CDMA prepaids to GSm prepaids, thanks very much
>>>> He does speak for many, if not most CDMA customers whose only concern is
>>>> whether we'll still be able to make calls in the same places that we can
>>>> with CDMA. One of the major reasons they built the CDMA network was to
>>>> overcome the range shortcomings of GSM.
>>> No, they built the CDMA network to replace the AMPS network, nothing to
>>> do with the GSM network. Both networks have always had different intended
>>> uses, advantages and disadvantages,.
>> They told people they were building GSM to replace AMPS. Are you saying
>
> No, they didnt
>
>> that they lied? CDMA was only announced after people in country areas
>> started complaining about the lack of performance of GSM. If GSM had
>
> No, CDMA was only announced because the govt specifically decided to close
> AMPS
>
>> been able to provide even close to the same coverage that AMPS did, there
>> would never have been a reason to build a CDMA network in Australia in the
>> first place.
>
> Correct.
>
>>> If they alledgedly "built CDMA to overcome GSM limitations", then they
>>> would have waited for AMPS to close, they would have built CDMA much
>>> earlier.
>> If they'd really had such a structured timeframe for the construction of
>> the CDMA network, it surely wouldn't have taken so long for "advanced
>> features" such as SMS and data transfer to be implemented. Perhaps the
>
> I dont believe there was any delay in implementing those

There was with SMS for one. I bought my first CDMA phone when the
network was first switched on. I bought it from the Telstra Shop in
Loganholme. I specifically asked when SMS would be available. They
said that within 6 months it would. It was nearly 2 years before it was
available. So either Telstra staff were lying or it was delayed. It
was one or the other.

"It was very well planned and implemented in the timeframe promised. Same as
the 3G 850 network is"
But you keep changing the timeframe or keeping it secret!.
There is no transparency at all.


"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Michael wrote:
>>> "Graeme Willox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> "Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Basically we (CDMA customers) don't give a **** about 2G, GSM or
>>>>>> existing 3G services. We're only interested in what CDMA customers
>>>>>> are
>>>>> You dont speak for all CDMA customers, thanks very much. Ive just
>>>>> migrated my four CDMA prepaids to GSm prepaids, thanks very much
>>>> He does speak for many, if not most CDMA customers whose only concern
>>>> is whether we'll still be able to make calls in the same places that we
>>>> can with CDMA. One of the major reasons they built the CDMA network
>>>> was to overcome the range shortcomings of GSM.
>>>
>>> No, they built the CDMA network to replace the AMPS network, nothing to
>>> do with the GSM network. Both networks have always had different
>>> intended uses, advantages and disadvantages,.
>>
>> They told people they were building GSM to replace AMPS. Are you saying
>
> No, they didnt
>
>> that they lied? CDMA was only announced after people in country areas
>> started complaining about the lack of performance of GSM. If GSM had
>
> No, CDMA was only announced because the govt specifically decided to close
> AMPS
>
>> been able to provide even close to the same coverage that AMPS did, there
>> would never have been a reason to build a CDMA network in Australia in
>> the first place.
>
> Correct.
>
>>> If they alledgedly "built CDMA to overcome GSM limitations", then they
>>> would have waited for AMPS to close, they would have built CDMA much
>>> earlier.
>>
>> If they'd really had such a structured timeframe for the construction of
>> the CDMA network, it surely wouldn't have taken so long for "advanced
>> features" such as SMS and data transfer to be implemented. Perhaps the
>
> I dont believe there was any delay in implementing those
>
>> the implementation of them was postponed several times. It seems obvious
>> to me that the rollout of the CDMA network was not as planned as it could
>> have been. I don't think they could have rolled it out any
>
> It was very well planned and implemented in the timeframe promised. Same
> as the 3G 850 network is
>
>> earlier because I don't think they'd even determined the need for it any
>> earlier.
>
> Crap
>

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>>> He made this bull**** claim nearly 2 months ago that we'll be hearing
>>>> news of the new service (I quoted it back to him in another note), so I
>>>
>>> Youve heard plenty about the new services already, and you will hear
>>> more shortly
>>
>> You said that 2 months ago, that by now we'd be hearing "more". Well,
>> two months on, and we have not heard "more". In fact, the local Telstra
>
> Ive heard plenty. I've already got 4 new phones
>
>> dealers (we have a few around here) keep pushing the opening date out
>> and out. So, they either are as much out of the loop as the Telstra
>
> The dealers have not been given the opening date, so if they are "pushing
> the date out and out", then they are just making up bull****
>
>> Whatever, the end result is the same - those who are in the same boat as
>> myself who need to get new phones, are being advised to hold out for a
>> little longer.
>
> You arent being asked to hold out for anything. A new 3G 850 network is
> coming. When it is ready, it will be announced.
>
> Do you never buy a new phone because Nokia is always bring out a new model
> "any time soon".
>
> If you wait for the perfect phone, you will be waiting forever
>
>> My beef with you is that you made a specific statement. It hasn't
>> eventuated, and you go on about irrelevant migration offers.
>
> So irrelevant that they were so popular that I had to wait 10 days for the
> first phone?
>>
>
>

Notice how he does not address the real issues Emjaye?.
- No mention of not meeting his own "2 month" timeframe

Michael wrote:

>> My beef with you is that you made a specific statement. It hasn't
>> eventuated, and you go on about irrelevant migration offers.
>
> So irrelevant that they were so popular that I had to wait 10 days for
> the first phone?

Yes, irrelevant. What you're talking about has ****all to do with the
new 3G service.

Intel Inside wrote:

> Notice how he does not address the real issues Emjaye?.
> - No mention of not meeting his own "2 month" timeframe

Yeah, it sticks out like dogs' balls.

Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for his
"migration" was.

Whatever, I think that we've been conned. He's obviously a troll and we
bit.

"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Intel Inside wrote:
>
>> Notice how he does not address the real issues Emjaye?.
>> - No mention of not meeting his own "2 month" timeframe
>
> Yeah, it sticks out like dogs' balls.
>
> Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for his
> "migration" was.

two motorola L6 and two sagem

as per the website quoted
www.telstra.com.au/cdmaupgrade

>
> Whatever, I think that we've been conned. He's obviously a troll and we
> bit.
>

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:36:27 GMT, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

Michael... **** phones... and you need four **** phones?

>
>"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Intel Inside wrote:
>>
>>> Notice how he does not address the real issues Emjaye?.
>>> - No mention of not meeting his own "2 month" timeframe
>>
>> Yeah, it sticks out like dogs' balls.
>>
>> Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for his
>> "migration" was.
>
>two motorola L6 and two sagem
>
>as per the website quoted
>www.telstra.com.au/cdmaupgrade
>
>>
>> Whatever, I think that we've been conned. He's obviously a troll and we
>> bit.
>>
>

It suits him - hes full of it, atleast in this ng

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:36:27 GMT, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Michael... **** phones... and you need four **** phones?
>
>>
>>"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Intel Inside wrote:
>>>
>>>> Notice how he does not address the real issues Emjaye?.
>>>> - No mention of not meeting his own "2 month" timeframe
>>>
>>> Yeah, it sticks out like dogs' balls.
>>>
>>> Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for his
>>> "migration" was.
>>
>>two motorola L6 and two sagem
>>
>>as per the website quoted
>>www.telstra.com.au/cdmaupgrade
>>
>>>
>>> Whatever, I think that we've been conned. He's obviously a troll and we
>>> bit.
>>>
>>
>

Michael said....

>> Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for
>> his "migration" was.
>
> two motorola L6 and two sagem

Trust you to pick two phones which have bugger all detail with respect
to "technical specifications" on their respective websites.

They appear to be GSM phones, going by what info that there is.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 08:36:27 GMT, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Michael... **** phones... and you need four **** phones?

The L6 was $99 and the Sagem's were free.

Sounds like a good deal to me

>
>>
>>"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Intel Inside wrote:
>>>
>>>> Notice how he does not address the real issues Emjaye?.
>>>> - No mention of not meeting his own "2 month" timeframe
>>>
>>> Yeah, it sticks out like dogs' balls.
>>>
>>> Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for his
>>> "migration" was.
>>
>>two motorola L6 and two sagem
>>
>>as per the website quoted
>>www.telstra.com.au/cdmaupgrade
>>
>>>
>>> Whatever, I think that we've been conned. He's obviously a troll and we
>>> bit.
>>>
>>
>

"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael said....
>
>>> Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for
>>> his "migration" was.
>>
>> two motorola L6 and two sagem
>
> Trust you to pick two phones which have bugger all detail with respect
> to "technical specifications" on their respective websites.
>
> They appear to be GSM phones, going by what info that there is.

<laugh>

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Michael said....
>>
>>>> Pity that he won't tell us what these "4 new phones" that he got for
>>>> his "migration" was.
>>>
>>> two motorola L6 and two sagem
>>
>> Trust you to pick two phones which have bugger all detail with respect
>> to "technical specifications" on their respective websites.
>>
>> They appear to be GSM phones, going by what info that there is.
>
> <laugh>
>
>

Rather than 'laughing' you should be providing a reference because Emjaye
has admitted difficulties in finding technical information about those
phones. Or are you that imprerceptive?.
Lift your game Michael