"The US is a third world country when it comes to technology"

So a person said when I saw him being interviewed on TechTV a few months
ago. I would have to agree with him.

Last year I called a friend of mine who is Korean and lives there. Korea has
more cell phone users than POTS users

I dialed the number as I always do then I started hearing music being sung
by Lee Soo Young, a popular Korean singer. I thought something was wrong
with the connection so I hung up and dial again. Same thing. This time I
just kept on listening. After 15 seconds of music, the music stops and I
hear her voice saying hello.

Then on another friend in Korea...I call it and hear classical music.

Why can't US companies be doing this?

I know verizon is very aware that Korea Telecom wireless is doing that.
------
"That intellectual torpor maybe sufficient to earn a job at some disaster
prone part of the world like Chernobyl or NASA, but it won't cut the mustard
with me." - Professor Maximillian Arturo

---

› See More: "The US is a third world country when it comes to technology"

you mean you don't have that in the states?
We have it in canada too.

I used to do tech support for a call center for comcast internet. I was
amazed at how expensive it is in the states. In Canada it cost $20 a month
for a basic high speed connection. What is it in the states, $50, so like
$65 canadian...
its just crazy

"NerdRevenge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> So a person said when I saw him being interviewed on TechTV a few months
> ago. I would have to agree with him.
>
> Last year I called a friend of mine who is Korean and lives there. Korea
> has more cell phone users than POTS users
>
> I dialed the number as I always do then I started hearing music being sung
> by Lee Soo Young, a popular Korean singer. I thought something was wrong
> with the connection so I hung up and dial again. Same thing. This time I
> just kept on listening. After 15 seconds of music, the music stops and I
> hear her voice saying hello.
>
> Then on another friend in Korea...I call it and hear classical music.
>
> Why can't US companies be doing this?
>
> I know verizon is very aware that Korea Telecom wireless is doing that.
> ------
> "That intellectual torpor maybe sufficient to earn a job at some disaster
> prone part of the world like Chernobyl or NASA, but it won't cut the
> mustard with me." - Professor Maximillian Arturo
>
>

Per NerdRevenge:
>So a person said when I saw him being interviewed on TechTV a few months
>ago.

What the Germans in my family say when they come to visit us is basically:
"Interesting place, but not quite first world and noplace we'd want to be in for
too long...". Vacation time, infrastructure, wages, education levels,
healthcare, religion in politics, and on-and-on.

OTOH when we go over there, I tell them that Germany is such a great country
that we'd move there in a heartbeat except for one problem: too many
Germans...=)
--
PeteCresswell

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If your only gauge of how well a country is doing is whether they have
> user configurable ringback tone you sure don't have very high
> standards. And just for your information that service is already
> available from both T-Mobile and Verizon.
>
> Personally I think it's a crappy idea to force your callers to listen
> to your preference in music. I haven't encountered it yet for anyone
> that I call but I think I'd be tempted to just hang up rather than
> listen to someone else's choice of noise.

I have to agree. This feature is about as good a gauge of how advanced a
phone system is as whether or not you have your choice of interchangeable
faceplates and flashing neon antennas. There are probably about a dozen
better examples of the US being behind other countries in wireless
technology. The one that comes to my mind is where's the UMTS-2100?

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Donald Newcomb Wrote:
> "Joseph" [email protected] wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> If your only gauge of how well a country is doing is whether they
> have
> user configurable ringback tone you sure don't have very high
> standards. And just for your information that service is already
> available from both T-Mobile and Verizon.
>
> Personally I think it's a crappy idea to force your callers to listen
> to your preference in music. I haven't encountered it yet for anyone
> that I call but I think I'd be tempted to just hang up rather than
> listen to someone else's choice of noise.-
>
> I have to agree. This feature is about as good a gauge of how advanced
> a
> phone system is as whether or not you have your choice of
> interchangeable
> faceplates and flashing neon antennas. There are probably about a
> dozen
> better examples of the US being behind other countries in wireless
> technology. The one that comes to my mind is where's the UMTS-2100?
>
> --
> Donald Newcomb
> DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Having talked to one or two network technical help desks in the past,
it seems that the GSM networks aren't as advanced as they seem to make
out
(but they're getting there). Don't forget that GSM is quite new in the
States compared to Europe and Asia. CDMA, AMPS are more common.
Coverage is gradually improving, but of course someone has to invest in
the infrastructure.
Cheers
Kevbert.


--
Kevbert

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:11:49 -0500, Donald Newcomb wrote:

>
> "Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> If your only gauge of how well a country is doing is whether they have
>> user configurable ringback tone you sure don't have very high
>> standards. And just for your information that service is already
>> available from both T-Mobile and Verizon.
>>
>> Personally I think it's a crappy idea to force your callers to listen
>> to your preference in music. I haven't encountered it yet for anyone
>> that I call but I think I'd be tempted to just hang up rather than
>> listen to someone else's choice of noise.
>
> I have to agree. This feature is about as good a gauge of how advanced a
> phone system is as whether or not you have your choice of interchangeable
> faceplates and flashing neon antennas. There are probably about a dozen
> better examples of the US being behind other countries in wireless
> technology. The one that comes to my mind is where's the UMTS-2100?
UMTS-2100 is not used here. I have been using UMTS-1900 for months now
and it works very nicely. The 1900 version does not in any way shape or
form, perform less than the 2100 version. Just different spectrums and
markets. This is the only service from any Cellular network I have ever
used that is underhyped and over delivers what they tell you you can
expect. By years end, I'll be using UMTS-HSDPA which requires nothing but
software upgrade on the network side but the new chip for the user side
just came out from Qualcomm and Europe with 2100 mhz and US with 1900
will both be out shortly. Theoretically, lower frequencies penetrate
walls more easily but 200mhz would NOT make any perceptible difference.
The frequency chosen in each region has everything to do with
interference prevention. I'm getting a consistent 360kbs and more
throughput without lulls like I did with past CDMA experiences. 384 kbs
is the limit of the chip we now use. The devices coming out in the next
few months will push that up to 3+ mbs and in the next few years, we'll
be getting 14mbs. You talk as though UMTS has been in wide use in other
places when it has not. Whether Europe, Asia and the US, it all relies on
one or two chipmakers to make it available to the consumer. From someone
who actually HAS lived in other regions of the world and who deals with
aircraft electronics (Avionics), I can assure you that no other place is
the technological Valhalla some would lead us to believe. Besides,
something as over priced and over used as cellphone service, can hardly
be used to gauge such a bold assertion.

Dave

"David W Studeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> UMTS-2100 is not used here. I have been using UMTS-1900 for months now
> and it works very nicely. The 1900 version does not in any way shape or
> form, perform less than the 2100 version. Just different spectrums and
> markets.

The problem goes way deeper than you let on. In order to implement
WDCMA-1900 Cingular had to gobble up, with great breast thumping over their
"need", almost half the combined cellular and broadband PSC spectrum. In
other words, in the US only one carrier will have enough licensed spectrum
to allow them to implement WCDMA-1900, and that's Cingular. No one else will
be able to play, unless we go back to a cellular duopoly.

This is the only service from any Cellular network I have ever
> used that is underhyped and over delivers what they tell you you can
> expect. By years end, I'll be using UMTS-HSDPA which requires nothing but
> software upgrade on the network side but the new chip for the user side
> just came out from Qualcomm and Europe with 2100 mhz and US with 1900
> will both be out shortly. Theoretically, lower frequencies penetrate
> walls more easily but 200mhz would NOT make any perceptible difference.
> The frequency chosen in each region has everything to do with
> interference prevention.

In North America it has to do with poor planning and a lack of desire to be
compatible with the rest of the world. One might have been able to explain
away the issue of 850 vs 900 MHz cellular, but the SNAFU that lead to 1900
MHz PCS allocations that in turn screwed up the 2100 MHz UMTS band boggles
the mind. It would have been far better to allocate around DOD's satellite
usage until such time as new satellites were launched.

>I'm getting a consistent 360kbs and more
> throughput without lulls like I did with past CDMA experiences. 384 kbs
> is the limit of the chip we now use. The devices coming out in the next
> few months will push that up to 3+ mbs and in the next few years, we'll
> be getting 14mbs. You talk as though UMTS has been in wide use in other
> places when it has not.

It's all over Japan. Almost every country in western Europe has at least two
UMTS operators. But we are not talking about access to WCDMA by customers of
one carrier. We are talking about having a UHF spectrum allocation system
that is totally hosed. Because of the hosed band plan, 3G services in the US
will be as screwed up as the cellular spectrum allocations in Japan. Every
carrier will end up with special phones unique to that carrier. Cingular
will have WCDMA-1900. Verizon will just use the 3G version of CDMA (lucky
them). T-Mobile will have to either adopt a US-unique form of WCDMA-2100
with the uplink somewhere around 1700 MHz or just use TD-CDMA where ever
they can find a few MHz. It's a nightmare. The FCC has painted us into a
corner that makes the US look to the rest of the world as being about as
smart as Robert Mugabi or any other tin-plate 3rd-world nut-case.

Whether Europe, Asia and the US, it all relies on
> one or two chipmakers to make it available to the consumer. From someone
> who actually HAS lived in other regions of the world and who deals with
> aircraft electronics (Avionics), I can assure you that no other place is
> the technological Valhalla some would lead us to believe. Besides,
> something as over priced and over used as cellphone service, can hardly
> be used to gauge such a bold assertion.

'Twas brillig and the slithy troves did gyre and gimble in the wabe..... I'm
not exactly which of us is making less sense here.
>
> Dave

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"NerdRevenge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...

> Why can't US companies be doing this?

If I call a freind and hear music before I hear them answer, I will first
off tell them how rude that is to use my airtime to play music that I might
not like and certainly wouldn't pay to hear. If it happened again, I would
probably lose a freind.

"John S." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"NerdRevenge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:%[email protected]...
>
>> Why can't US companies be doing this?
>
>If I call a freind and hear music before I hear them answer, I will first
>off tell them how rude that is to use my airtime to play music that I might
>not like and certainly wouldn't pay to hear. If it happened again, I would
>probably lose a freind.
>
>
But you don't mind hearing Ring Back tone which is also using your
airtime??

If you call my mother in law you hear a dog barking before she
answers.. Quite entertaining..

Mutlley wrote:
>
> "John S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"NerdRevenge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:%[email protected]...
> >
> >> Why can't US companies be doing this?
> >
> >If I call a freind and hear music before I hear them answer, I will first
> >off tell them how rude that is to use my airtime to play music that I might
> >not like and certainly wouldn't pay to hear. If it happened again, I would
> >probably lose a freind.
> >
> >
> But you don't mind hearing Ring Back tone which is also using your
> airtime??
>
> If you call my mother in law you hear a dog barking before she
> answers.. Quite entertaining..

Kinda makes you wonder who pressed the answering machine / voice mail
"record" button! <g>

Notan

Joseph wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:59:16 GMT, "John S."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"NerdRevenge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:%[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>Why can't US companies be doing this?
>>
>>If I call a freind and hear music before I hear them answer, I will first
>>off tell them how rude that is to use my airtime to play music that I might
>>not like and certainly wouldn't pay to hear. If it happened again, I would
>>probably lose a freind.
>
> Charging does not begin until they answer just like a regular ringback
> tone. If your carrier charges send-to-end you'll get billed just as
> you would for normal ringback tone i.e. you'll get charged from the
> time it starts ringing and also include the talk time.

The "ringing" you hear while waiting for your called party to answer is
just a "comfort" tone that gets generated for the caller's benefit, and
has nothing to do with what the called party hears (if anything). This
"ringback" stuff is just an alternate tone produced by the network while
waiting for the called party to answer. The call has not yet
"supervised" (completed), and if you hang up before they answer, it is
an incomplete call that you don't get billed for, just as for
conventional "ringing". It's not like an answering machine, where when
you hear the message, the call has already been completed.