Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    Giles
    Guest

    Re: Telstras Next G

    > >> $olstra Shop told me March / April for a Next G Nokia. Should I believe them.??
    >
    > They use the dates supplied by Nokia, which are usually plucked out of
    > Nokia's arse


    And the latest plucked from Nokia Australia GM Shaun Colligan is not
    until at least the second half of 2007.

    http://australianit.news.com.au/arti...nbv%5E,00.html




    See More: Telstras Next G




  2. #32
    Tsunami Australia
    Guest

    Re: Telstras Next G

    On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:02:04 +1000, "JimM"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> thegoons said....
    >>
    >>> Many independent dealers are now suing Telstra for the delays as Telstra
    >>> diverted Brightstar shipments to Telstra Shops. and diverted them from
    >>> Telstra Licensed Shops and other dealers.

    >>
    >> A mate of mine runs a "Telstra shop" here where I live. Around the
    >> corner is another "Telstra Shop". However, I think the latter is more of
    >> a Telstra shop as you've described, and he (the former) may simply be a
    >> licensed dealer.
    >>
    >> Anyway, I rocked up to his shop the week after NextG opened and enquired
    >> about what phones are available. Dunno, said the sales assistant. There
    >> was nothing in the shop to indicate that the NextG service had been
    >> commissioned.
    >>
    >> So, I went to the other shop. In it were NextG posters and the then
    >> currently available handsets on display. The only one not available was
    >> the Samsumg A701.
    >>
    >> Later on I went back to the other shop and asked someone different about
    >> NextG (I prefered to give this shop my business). However, she too knew
    >> nothing. I said that The other shop has them available and the shop is
    >> decked out in NextG promotional banners, posters, etc.. Oh, was all she
    >> said...
    >>
    >> I dunno how long it was before they started selling NextG products as I
    >> ended up getting the phone from the other mob.
    >>
    >> So, there may well be some truth to Telstra giving selected
    >> dealers/resellers preferential treatment. I wonder if Optus and other
    >> mobile phone companies do the same.
    >>

    >
    >If these`allegations are true, wouldn't these be of interest to the ACCC..??
    >


    I know there's been a lot of similar accusations flung around this
    area, with the dealers claiming exactly the same.



  3. #33
    Tsunami Australia
    Guest

    Re: Telstras Next G

    On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:24 +1100, davmel
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jeremy Quirke wrote:
    >>
    >> "davmel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> T-Mobile 3G subscribers are the ones that will be stuck with the
    >>> greatest limitation in handsets, since they will be required to support
    >>> the oddball 1700/2100 Tx/Rx pair with the base stations transmitting in
    >>> the 1700 band and receiving in the 2100 band, whereas the most common
    >>> UMTS 2100 band has the base station transmit in the 2100 band and
    >>> receive in the 1900 MHz allocation.

    >>
    >> Actually a minor correction - the NodeB/BTS transmits in 2100 and UE in
    >> 1700 (which explains why I could see the network on my plain old
    >> UMTS2100 handset). But I agree that we're creating the GSM1900/850
    >> situation all over again, but T-Mobile is probably the worst example
    >> yet of custom frequency use.

    >
    >OK, good to confirm that since it makes sense that the mobile handset
    >transmits with lower power on a lower frequency than the BTS if at all
    >possible, however I remember seeing details that the opposite was true
    >when the spectrum was auctioned off.
    >The silly part is that thanks to T-Mobile and the FCC we will now
    >require quad band GSM and quad band UMTS handsets for true roaming
    >capability (and that's before the yanks get into the 450 and 700 MHz
    >band potential deployments and Europe considers UMTS at 900.)
    >If any network will be the odd one out though it will be T-Mobile since
    >the frequency pair just won't be used anywhere else. They should have
    >waited and saved up for the ex-broadcast TV 700 band spectrum.


    450mhz in any country is worth too many $$$ in normal 12.5khz
    commercial 2way radio frequencies to be used by wideband services such
    as phones. So whilst it is always possible, I highly doubt phones will
    get below 700mhz.



  4. #34
    davmel
    Guest

    Re: Telstras Next G

    Tsunami Australia wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:24 +1100, davmel
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Jeremy Quirke wrote:
    >>> "davmel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>> T-Mobile 3G subscribers are the ones that will be stuck with the
    >>>> greatest limitation in handsets, since they will be required to support
    >>>> the oddball 1700/2100 Tx/Rx pair with the base stations transmitting in
    >>>> the 1700 band and receiving in the 2100 band, whereas the most common
    >>>> UMTS 2100 band has the base station transmit in the 2100 band and
    >>>> receive in the 1900 MHz allocation.
    >>> Actually a minor correction - the NodeB/BTS transmits in 2100 and UE in
    >>> 1700 (which explains why I could see the network on my plain old
    >>> UMTS2100 handset). But I agree that we're creating the GSM1900/850
    >>> situation all over again, but T-Mobile is probably the worst example
    >>> yet of custom frequency use.

    >> OK, good to confirm that since it makes sense that the mobile handset
    >> transmits with lower power on a lower frequency than the BTS if at all
    >> possible, however I remember seeing details that the opposite was true
    >> when the spectrum was auctioned off.
    >> The silly part is that thanks to T-Mobile and the FCC we will now
    >> require quad band GSM and quad band UMTS handsets for true roaming
    >> capability (and that's before the yanks get into the 450 and 700 MHz
    >> band potential deployments and Europe considers UMTS at 900.)
    >> If any network will be the odd one out though it will be T-Mobile since
    >> the frequency pair just won't be used anywhere else. They should have
    >> waited and saved up for the ex-broadcast TV 700 band spectrum.

    >
    > 450mhz in any country is worth too many $$$ in normal 12.5khz
    > commercial 2way radio frequencies to be used by wideband services such
    > as phones. So whilst it is always possible, I highly doubt phones will
    > get below 700mhz.


    True, the 400 to 500MHz spectrum is already heavily utilised in many
    countries, although a great deal of it is poorly assigned and could
    easily be better utilised if more users were on a shared trunking system.
    Everyone seems to forget the ridiculous under-utilisation of the
    spectrum allocated to the military between 230 and 400MHz. I still can't
    believe that after all this time it hasn't been sliced up for more
    useful commercial purposes.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123