Conroy's decision: CDMA not closing in January

[Ext User(budgie)]

"Senator Conroy says the newer network is not up to scratch due to existing
problems with phone handsets.

He says many customers are being given new phones that do not provide equal
coverage."

and

"Telstra now plans to close the CDMA network at the end of April."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/18/2141810.htm

[Ext User(who where)]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:09:53 +0800, budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote:

(snip)

>"Telstra now plans to close the CDMA network at the end of April."
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/18/2141810.htm

<conspiracy_mode>
more time to turn down the CDMA system so the NextG has a chance of favourable
comparison?
</conspiracy_mode>

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> "Senator Conroy says the newer network is not up to
> scratch due to existing problems with phone handsets.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that that fool has never ever had a fucking clue.

> He says many customers are being given new phones that do not provide equal coverage."

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that that fool has never ever had a fucking clue.

> and

> "Telstra now plans to close the CDMA network at the end of April."

And their plans are completely irrelevant. What matters is what the govt will allow.

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/18/2141810.htm

[Ext User(Spokes)]

On Jan 18, 7:53*pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> budgie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > "Senator Conroy says the newer network is not up to
> > scratch due to existing problems with phone handsets.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that that fool has never everhad a fucking clue.
>
> > He says many customers are being given new phones that do not provide equal coverage."
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that that fool has never everhad a fucking clue.
>
> > and
> > "Telstra now plans to close the CDMA network at the end of April."
>
> And their plans are completely irrelevant. What matters is what the govt will allow.
>
>
>
> >http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/18/2141810.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Congratulations Rod. You were right about the closing date issue and I
was wrong.

Telstra has to seriously think about the quality of NG handsets on a
big scale, and the effectiveness and range of its NG network..
The "blue" tick system for handsets has limitations and should not
have been implemented.
There's no point in selling handsets which are suited for either rural
or city locales.
All handsets available for sale must be equally as good to use
everywhere the network has coverage.

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:52:12 Spokes may have written:
> There's no point in selling handsets which are suited for either rural
> or city locales.
> All handsets available for sale must be equally as good to use
> everywhere the network has coverage.

What, just like they have been for CDMA and GSM? ;)

PD

--
Paul Day
http://www.enigma.id.au/

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:09:53 budgie may have written:
> "Senator Conroy says the newer network is not up to scratch due to existing
> problems with phone handsets.
>
> He says many customers are being given new phones that do not provide equal
> coverage."

But Michael said all they're comparing was raw number of square km
covered. And Michael never lies...

PD

--
Paul Day

[Ext User(Spokes)]

On Jan 18, 10:07*pm, Paul Day <pa...@enigma.id.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:52:12 Spokes may have written:
>
> > There's no point in selling handsets which are suited for either rural
> > or city locales.
> > All handsets available for sale must be equally as good to use
> > everywhere the network has coverage.
>
> What, just like they have been for CDMA and GSM? ;)
>
> PD

Telstra never used a sales strategy like the blue tick system for GSM
and CDMA.
Sure, handsets differed in performance with various GSM and CDMA
handsets, but problems are much worse on the whole, with NG handsets.
telstra either has to boost power output for the towers, get involved
with better handsets, build more more towers, or all of the above.
They have until the end of april to get their act together.
I reckon the problems with next g became all the more obvious for
pollies and their staffers during the election campaign, when they had
trouble using the handsets in areas where cdma was working fine
before.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Spokes <spokesman123@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> budgie <m...@privacy.net> wrote

>>> "Senator Conroy says the newer network is not up to
>>> scratch due to existing problems with phone handsets.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>> that that fool has never ever had a fucking clue.

>>> He says many customers are being given new
>>> phones that do not provide equal coverage."

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>> that that fool has never ever had a fucking clue.

>>> and "Telstra now plans to close the CDMA network at the end of April."

>> And their plans are completely irrelevant. What matters is what the govt will allow.

>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/18/2141810.htm

> Congratulations Rod. You were right about the closing date issue and I was wrong.

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Dont make a mess of the carpet.

> Telstra has to seriously think about the quality of NG handsets on a big scale,

Bet thats not really that relevant.

> and the effectiveness and range of its NG network..

Or the stupidity of its claim that the NextG network would be as good or better than the cdma system.

> The "blue" tick system for handsets has limitations and should not have been implemented.

Dunno, you can certainly make a case for making it clear which handsets
do better in marginal situations so those in those can concentrate on those.

> There's no point in selling handsets which are suited for either rural or city locales.

Wrong. Telstra is pushing NextG to business as well as to rural users.

> All handsets available for sale must be equally as
> good to use everywhere the network has coverage.

That isnt even true of the GSM system.

Telstra shouldnt be allowed to turn the cdma system off and should be forced to
make a full refund to anyone who has been conned into changing to NextG and
who wants to return to the cdma system as no cost to that fucked over end user.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Spokes <spokesman123@hotmail.com> wrote
> Paul Day <pa...@enigma.id.au> wrote
>> Spokes <spokesman123@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> There's no point in selling handsets which are suited for either
>>> rural or city locales. All handsets available for sale must be
>>> equally as good to use everywhere the network has coverage.

>> What, just like they have been for CDMA and GSM? ;)

> Telstra never used a sales strategy like the blue tick system for GSM and CDMA.

Yes, but they were never stupid enough to make that claim with the GSM system either.

> Sure, handsets differed in performance with various GSM and CDMA handsets,

So your previous is just plain silly.

> but problems are much worse on the whole, with NG handsets.

Thats because there is a digital cliff with GSM.

> telstra either has to boost power output for the towers, get involved
> with better handsets, build more more towers, or all of the above.

Or be forced to leave the cdma system running forever.

> They have until the end of april to get their act together.

And there aint a hope in hell of that ever happening, whatever they do.

> I reckon the problems with next g became all the more obvious for
> pollies and their staffers during the election campaign, when they had
> trouble using the handsets in areas where cdma was working fine before.

I bet fuck all of them actually have NextG or cdma handsets.

The real reason for the shit fight is the cdma users who could see that the
election was their best bet to put the bomb under testra that it so richly deserves.

If Conroy actually has any balls at all, he'll be telling telstra that it isnt allowed to
turn the cdma system off because it never told the bulk of those that it sold cdma
systems to that telstra was going to ditch it within the life of what they were sold.

[Ext User(Snapper)]

budgie wrote...

> "Telstra now plans to close the CDMA network at the end of April."

Dunno if it is Telstra that has planned this closure date...

In any case, who was saying on here that Telstra would close CDMA down on the
28th Jan, no ifs or buts???

Should we google groups it? Name and shame them, perhaps?

:-)

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Snapper <snapper_won@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> budgie wrote

>> "Telstra now plans to close the CDMA network at the end of April."

> Dunno if it is Telstra that has planned this closure date...

Nope, thats the govts date, not telstras.

> In any case, who was saying on here that Telstra would
> close CDMA down on the 28th Jan, no ifs or buts???

Just the stupid telstra shills.

> Should we google groups it? Name and shame them, perhaps?

> :-)

Be more fun to burn them at the stake.

[Ext User(Michael)]

"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1200654614.249785@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:09:53 budgie may have written:
>> "Senator Conroy says the newer network is not up to scratch due to
>> existing
>> problems with phone handsets.
>>
>> He says many customers are being given new phones that do not provide
>> equal
>> coverage."
>
> But Michael said all they're comparing was raw number of square km
> covered. And Michael never lies...

Now that the ACMA report is out, you can see exactly what they compared.

Which was the amount of time a phone had coverage on a drive. Which is
exactly what was stated, measuring geographical coverage
>
> PD
>
> --
> Paul Day

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:32:04 Michael may have written:
> > But Michael said all they're comparing was raw number of square km
> > covered. And Michael never lies...
>
> Now that the ACMA report is out, you can see exactly what they compared.
>
> Which was the amount of time a phone had coverage on a drive. Which is
> exactly what was stated, measuring geographical coverage

Heh, keep on diggin'. ;)

PD

--
Paul Day