Telstra confident Next G coverage adequate

Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:03:10 Rod Speed may have written:
>>>> we don't have AMPS either, for a reason
>>>
>>> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put that
>>> in the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning
>>> ****wit child.
>>
>> Would be long gone by now though. Only place you find it in in North
>> America is cells in sparsely populated areas where it's not been
>> worth spending a dime on upgrading to CDMA. Considering Telstra
>> spent money expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the footprint of AMPS, I'd
>> say they'd have got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only network by now.
>
> He's right

Nope.

---

› See More: Telstra confident Next G coverage adequate

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Paul Day <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>>> we don't have AMPS either, for a reason
>>>
>>>>> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put
>>>>> that in the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig ignorant dunny
>>>>> cleaning ****wit child.
>>>
>>>> Would be long gone by now though.
>>>
>>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that
>>> claim.
>>>> Only place you find it in in North America is cells in sparsely
>>>> populated areas where it's not been worth spending a dime on
>>>> upgrading to CDMA.
>>>
>>> We have those in spades.
>>>
>>>> Considering Telstra spent money expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the
>>>> footprint of
>>>> AMPS, I'd say they'd have got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only
>>>> network by now.
>>>
>>> Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?
>>
>> Because they are hopelessly behind in mobile technology when compared
>> to Europe and the rest of the world

Which country, for a long time, had a GSM 1900 network which was only found
in Canada as well, well before quad band phones were a reality?

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Paul Day <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>>> we don't have AMPS either, for a reason

>>>>>> Because some ****wit shinybum was actually stupid enough to put that in the Vodafone contract, you stupid pig
>>>>>> ignorant dunny cleaning ****wit child.

>>>>> Would be long gone by now though.

>>>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

>>>>> Only place you find it in in North America is cells in sparsely populated areas where it's not been worth spending
>>>>> a dime on upgrading to CDMA.

>>>> We have those in spades.

>>>>> Considering Telstra spent money expanding CDMA well _beyond_ the footprint of
>>>>> AMPS, I'd say they'd have got rid of it all to run a CDMA-only network by now.

>>>> Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?

>>> Because they are hopelessly behind in mobile technology when compared to Europe and the rest of the world

> Which country, for a long time, had a GSM 1900 network which was only
> found in Canada as well, well before quad band phones were a reality?

Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim of your.

Michael wrote...

> > Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?
>
> Because they are hopelessly behind in mobile technology when compared to
> Europe and the rest of the world

What would be the reason for this? Given the market and the US population's
eager acceptance of things technological you'd have to wonder why. Is it a low
adoption rate, perhaps? If so, I'd guess this would be because mobile phone
users in the US are raped something shocking insofar as call costs go. They pay
for airtime as well as for the cost of the call. So, the caller and the callee
both get slugged for the one call.

Snapper <[email protected]> wrote
> Michael wrote

>>> Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?

>> Because they are hopelessly behind in mobile technology
>> when compared to Europe and the rest of the world

Not a ****ing clue, as always. So stupid it didnt even notice where cdma came from.

> What would be the reason for this?

The fragmentation of the US mobile market is the main reason for what actually happened.

> Given the market and the US population's eager acceptance
> of things technological you'd have to wonder why.

Its basically due to the fragmentation of the US market.

They didnt start with a single national mobile network like so many other countrys did.

> Is it a low adoption rate, perhaps?

Nope, the adoption rate is quite decent and many have given
up on their landlines now because they dont need them anymore.

> If so, I'd guess this would be because mobile phone users in
> the US are raped something shocking insofar as call costs go.

Thats just plain wrong. They actually get included minutes and we dont on the whole.

> They pay for airtime as well as for the cost of the call.

No they dont for most of the calls they make.

> So, the caller and the callee both get slugged for the one call.

Its much more complicated than that in practice.

One thing you dont see much there is zero fee plans where you only pay a reasonable
charge for the calls actually made, but then that isnt very common at all here either.

"Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Michael wrote...
>
>> > Why would it have gone quicker than it did in the US ?
>>
>> Because they are hopelessly behind in mobile technology when compared to
>> Europe and the rest of the world
>
> What would be the reason for this? Given the market and the US
> population's
> eager acceptance of things technological you'd have to wonder why. Is it a
> low
> adoption rate, perhaps? If so, I'd guess this would be because mobile
> phone

because they were stupid enough to use the 900mhz band for other uses
instead of GSM

> users in the US are raped something shocking insofar as call costs go.
> They pay
> for airtime as well as for the cost of the call. So, the caller and the
> callee
> both get slugged for the one call.

They dont both get slugged.

but that stupid rule explains why their system is ****ed, from a user
perspective
>

>> If so, I'd guess this would be because mobile phone users in
>> the US are raped something shocking insofar as call costs go.
>
> Thats just plain wrong. They actually get included minutes and we dont on
> the whole.

You are a complete dick, Rod.

"$20 included calls @ $1 per minute", guess what, dick, that equals 20
minutes.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> If so, I'd guess this would be because mobile phone users in
>>> the US are raped something shocking insofar as call costs go.

>> Thats just plain wrong. They actually get included minutes and we dont on the whole.

> You are a complete dick, Rod.

You are a stupid dunny cleaning lying ****wit child, Mikey.

> "$20 included calls @ $1 per minute", guess what, dick, that equals 20 minutes.

That isnt what we get ON THE WHOLE, you stupid dunny cleaning lying ****wit child.