Next G covers all CDMA areas: Telstra

Michael wrote...

> There are some facts on NWAT about the number of bases, and number of sq km
> of coverage, seems like Telstra has put a lot of effort in.

I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What is being
questioned though, is the overall performance against that of CDMA. A lot of
people have reported shortcomings in the NextG service. It is then up to Telstra
to address these problems, if indeed, they do need addressing. If they don't,
then it's down to two things. One, that Telstra isn't interested in providing
the same coverage in all areas as what CDMA offered, or two, that the customers'
phones aren't up to the task. But then, that could come back to Telstra given
that it sells the phones for the service and that there is no customer support
when it comes to choosing a phone other than what features it has and what the
customer can afford to buy.

ie. for say, the Mallee, the T-Shop people won't suggest that they buy the Acme
Z100 rather than the Motorola V9 because of how one performs in that particular
region.

Looks like they are addressing it in part, with the release of this new NG phone
that has an external antenna and which is "ruggedised' for farmers or outdoor
workers, and which will work with an external antenna equiped car kit to boost
range and which should work anywhere that a NG signal can be propagated.



--
First things first, but neccesarily in that order

---

› See More: Next G covers all CDMA areas: Telstra

Some terminal ****wit that is actually so stupid that its about
the last fool in the country to use 1 way satellite, claiming to be
Craig Welch <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bull**** and lie its way out of its predicament and fooled
absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, completely out of town.

Some terminal ****wit that is actually so stupid that its about
the last fool in the country to use 1 way satellite, claiming to be
Craig Welch <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bull**** and lie its way out of its predicament and fooled
absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, completely out of town.

Some terminal ****wit that is actually so stupid that its about
the last fool in the country to use 1 way satellite, claiming to be
Craig Welch <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bull**** and lie its way out of its predicament and fooled
absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, completely out of town.

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> Not when the network is shut down it aint. Didnt happen with the
>>>>> previous network shutdowns, you stupid dunny cleaning ****wit child.
>>>
>>>> we didnt have MNP then
>>>
>>> Yes we did, you stupid dunny cleaning ****wit child.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> MNP wasn't even around when One Tel went arse-over. There was some
>> development work being done on it, and that code was rushed into
>> production on MICA to allow the One Tel customers to use the Telstra
>> network.
>
> Nope.

Here we go - Some ****wit who wasn't even there telling me what I worked
on........

> No "code" was required for OneTel on MICA

Wrong.

> - simply the addition of some IMSI ranges to a couple of tables, etc.

And CoolGen/Cobol code to validate the new ranges, plus a bunch of changes
to stored procedures within the database. - THAT is code, stupid.
Here's a hint for you, ****wit. Track down the Solve docket for that
particular change and have a look at the list of approvers. One of the names
on that list is mine.

--
Kwyj.

>>> You watch. Corse even Telstra wont actually be stupid enough to
>>> try stopping people from MNPing their CDMA number once the
>>> CDMA system is turned off, you stupid dunny cleaning ****wit child.
>
>> To create an MNP event, the service must be active.
>
> Irrelevant to the law on that, you stupid dunny cleaning ****wit child.

You made the claim, you get to prove it. Which law?

"Marts" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ridol35gj9s7n2taa2c52kjtabq76elh9m@martz_57.com...
> Michael wrote...
>
>> >>>>>>> Switch over to GSM/NextG or else you lose your CDMA number. Once
>> >>>>>>> its
>> >>>>>>> gone, it's gone.
>
> Why is this? If I had my CDMA number disconnected, which is what I did,
> then got
> a new number for my NextG, which is what I did (reasons are not
> important), I
> can categorically state that within two weeks someone else had gotten the
> number, as those who were trying to call me on the old number can attest
> to.
> They couldn't figure out why a woman's voice was in the message bank.

Someone released it from quarantine when they shouldnt have; the number
should stay in quarantine for 180 days

>> We did NOT have MNP at AMPS closure, moron. MNP was introduced in Sep
>> 2001,
>> ****wit
>
> What's "MNP"?

mobile number portability

>> >> if they disconnected the number due to network closure, and no MNP
>> >> event was in progress - they are under no obligation to reconnect
>> >
>> > Bare faced lie.
>>
>> you make the claim, you get to prove it
>
> Well, he doesn't actually. We can either believe him or we can believe
> you. We

Sorry, bit of an "in" joke with Roddles, its one of his favorite lines

> get to choose. We also get to choose whether to take either of your
> arguments at
> face value, or we can look it up ourselves, if we are inclined to do so,
> and if
> we think that it's important enough to do so.

yup

> And either of you can choose whether to post supporting evidence of your
> claims,
> too. It's entirely up to you.
>
> There is no obligation for anyone to prove anything that they write.
> Likewise,
> there is no obligation for anyone to believe or disbelieve anything that
> anyone
> writes.
>
> That's how it REALLY works in Usenet.

Whoosh!

"Marts" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:g0eol3t1dotsgpbn77b5ipu505r1vt6776@martz_57.com...
> Michael wrote...
>
>> There are some facts on NWAT about the number of bases, and number of sq
>> km
>> of coverage, seems like Telstra has put a lot of effort in.
>
> I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What is
> being

Good. However those are the only metrics that count

> questioned though, is the overall performance against that of CDMA. A lot
> of
> people have reported shortcomings in the NextG service. It is then up to
> Telstra

And just as many reported shortcomings with CDMA, AMPS, Telstra GSM, Optus
GSM, etc.

You cant please everyone

> to address these problems, if indeed, they do need addressing. If they
> don't,
> then it's down to two things. One, that Telstra isn't interested in
> providing
> the same coverage in all areas as what CDMA offered, or two, that the
> customers'

Yep. If your new network covers 2.0m sq km and your CDMA covers 1.6m sq km,
you might well not go after the extra odd 1 sq km here and there, because
you are already 400 000 sq km in front

> phones aren't up to the task. But then, that could come back to Telstra
> given
> that it sells the phones for the service and that there is no customer
> support
> when it comes to choosing a phone other than what features it has and what
> the
> customer can afford to buy.

???

You can feel free to call the manufacturers of each phone yourself

> Looks like they are addressing it in part, with the release of this new NG
> phone
> that has an external antenna and which is "ruggedised' for farmers or
> outdoor
> workers, and which will work with an external antenna equiped car kit to
> boost
> range and which should work anywhere that a NG signal can be propagated.

No, an external antenna does not guarantee "it should work anywhere that a
NG signal can be propogated"
>
>
>
> --
> First things first, but neccesarily in that order

"Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> said:
>
>>Some terminal ****wit that is actually so stupid that its about
>>the last fool in the country to use 1 way satellite, claiming to be
>>Craig Welch <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
>>bull**** and lie its way out of its predicament and fooled
>>absolutely no one at all, as always.
>
> So, Rod, you can't even answer a simple question about my use of
> 1-way satellite!
>
> Craig Welch =+ 1
> Rod Speed =-1

yer!

>>> MNP wasn't even around when One Tel went arse-over. There was some
>>> development work being done on it, and that code was rushed into
>>> production on MICA to allow the One Tel customers to use the Telstra
>>> network.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Here we go - Some ****wit who wasn't even there telling me what I worked
> on........

What action blocks did you update?

>> No "code" was required for OneTel on MICA
>
> Wrong.

Right

>> - simply the addition of some IMSI ranges to a couple of tables, etc.
>
> And CoolGen/Cobol code to validate the new ranges, plus a bunch of changes
> to stored procedures within the database. - THAT is code, stupid.

> Here's a hint for you, ****wit. Track down the Solve docket for that
> particular change and have a look at the list of approvers. One of the
> names on that list is mine.

What action blocks? Remember them off the top of your head ? ;-)

>
> --
> Kwyj.
>

Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> You watch. Corse even Telstra wont actually be stupid enough to try stopping people from MNPing their CDMA number
>>>> once the
>>>> CDMA system is turned off, you stupid dunny cleaning ****wit child.

>>> To create an MNP event, the service must be active.

>> Irrelevant to the law on that, you stupid dunny cleaning ****wit child.

> You made the claim, you get to prove it.

It will be proven when the cdma system is turned off, you watch.

> Which law?

The law that provides MNP, you flagrantly dishonest dunny cleaning ****wit child.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:23:26 Michael may have written:
> > I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What
> > is being
>
> Good. However those are the only metrics that count

The government, who are the ones who get to decide if CDMA can be
switched off, may disagree with your opinion on what metrics do or don't
count.

"the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or better than
the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in place
as at 1 June 2007" (http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3)

Does the government agree with you that "equivalent" means "raw number
of sqaura km coverred" or does it think that "equivalent" means
"everywhere I can get a CDMA signal I can get a NextG signal with
similar hardware and conditions".

Looking at the fact that the test wether Telstra meet the condition is
"drive along a long predetermined route, make sure the NextG coverage
meets the CDMA coverage" (paraphrased, obviously), I'd say the
government thinks "equivalent" means the latter.

"A conclusion can then be reached on whether the measured coverage of
the CDMA system coincides with Telstra's mapped coverage of that
system." (http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_100965)

However, given Telstra _know_ the route being tested, you'd presume
they've made pretty darn sure the footprint provided by CDMA has been
met by NextG.

> Yep. If your new network covers 2.0m sq km and your CDMA covers 1.6m
> sq km, you might well not go after the extra odd 1 sq km here and
> there, because you are already 400 000 sq km in front

The government, who get to decide if CDMA can be switched off, might
disagree there. Time will tell.

> You can feel free to call the manufacturers of each phone yourself

You might also argue that Telstra, as the retailer of the equipment, is
selling goods unfit for their intended purpose. They appear to be
rectifying this situation with the Blue Tick scheme.

PD

--
Paul Day

Some terminal ****wit that is actually so stupid that its about
the last fool in the country to use 1 way satellite, claiming to be
Craig Welch <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bull**** and lie its way out of its predicament and fooled
absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that it got the bums rush, completely out of town.

"Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:23:26 Michael may have written:
>> > I don't think that anyone is really, seriously disputing this. What
>> > is being
>>
>> Good. However those are the only metrics that count
>
> The government, who are the ones who get to decide if CDMA can be
> switched off, may disagree with your opinion on what metrics do or don't
> count.

yep

> "the Alternative Network provides coverage equivalent to or better than
> the coverage provided by the licensee's CDMA network that was in place
> as at 1 June 2007"
> (http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...25735900159FE3)
>
> Does the government agree with you that "equivalent" means "raw number
> of sqaura km coverred" or does it think that "equivalent" means

you'd have to ask them

>> You can feel free to call the manufacturers of each phone yourself
>
> You might also argue that Telstra, as the retailer of the equipment, is
> selling goods unfit for their intended purpose. They appear to be

Nope

> rectifying this situation with the Blue Tick scheme.
>
> PD
>
> --
> Paul Day

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:38:32 Michael may have written:
> > Does the government agree with you that "equivalent" means "raw
> > number of sqaura km coverred" or does it think that "equivalent"
> > means
>
> you'd have to ask them

It was a rhetorical question which has already been answerred. You
conveniently decided _not_ to reproduce the part of my post that quotes
the ACMA will be testing like-for-like coverage, not raw sq. km.

Not the first time you've done that now, is it?

PD

--
Paul Day