Re: Cell Info Not Updating on a NextG phone

[Ext User(Michael)]

"Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> John Henderson wrote...
>
>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet.
>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G
>> (plain old GSM) cell.
>
> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG.

No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion
that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas

> Not looking good for Telstra's claim about NextG being more widespread
> than its GSM or any other telco's networks, for that matter.

It looks fine. You could have been camped onto that 2G cell for 5 seconds
for all you know


> Trouble is, when I'm travelling the phone's tucked away in the pocket, so
> I can't easily see what the coverage is doing and when I was in this area
> whether or not the 3G symbol was active on the phone.

So your point is irrelevant
>
>

[Ext User(Kwyjibo)]

"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> John Henderson wrote...
>>
>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet.
>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G
>>> (plain old GSM) cell.
>>
>> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG.
>
> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas.

Lie.

--
Kwyj.

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:37:48 Michael may have written:
> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion
> that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas

'fraid they did Michael. We've had this discussion previously in here
and I pasted a whole bunch of quotes from Telstra management saying it
would cover every square km that CDMA did. A couple of them were from
Senate Estimate Committee meetings. Are you accusing Telstra management
of lying to Parliament? ;)

PD

--
Paul Day

[Ext User(Michael)]

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> John Henderson wrote...
>>>
>>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet.
>>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G
>>>> (plain old GSM) cell.
>>>
>>> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG.
>>
>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas.
>
> Lie.

Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will
always be covered by NextG"

Supply same artifact for CDMA over GSM, and GSM over AMPS
>
> --
> Kwyj.
>

[Ext User(Michael)]

"Paul Day" <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote in message
news:1210484729.552128@colossus.enigma.id.au...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:37:48 Michael may have written:
>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion
>> that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas
>
> 'fraid they did Michael. We've had this discussion previously in here
> and I pasted a whole bunch of quotes from Telstra management saying it
> would cover every square km that CDMA did. A couple of them were from
> Senate Estimate Committee meetings. Are you accusing Telstra management
> of lying to Parliament? ;)

You still havent supplied any quotes.

Saying "NextG will cover the same AMOUNT of area (or more)" does not state
"NextG will cover the exact same places, people and objects, as CDMA"
>
> PD
>
> --
> Paul Day

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
> Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote
>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote
>>>> John Henderson wrote...

>>>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet.
>>>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G
>>>>> (plain old GSM) cell.

>>>> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG.

>>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas.

Yes Telstra did.

>> Lie.

> Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will always be covered by NextG"

Have a look at what Telstra said to the Senate, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child.

> Supply same artifact for CDMA over GSM, and GSM over AMPS

He never said anything about those, you stupid pig ignorant dunny cleaning fuckwit child.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
> Paul Day <pauls@enigma.id.au> wrote
>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas. In the same fashion that CDMA didnt cover all GSM areas

>> 'fraid they did Michael. We've had this discussion previously in here
>> and I pasted a whole bunch of quotes from Telstra management saying it would cover every square km that CDMA did. A
>> couple of them were from Senate Estimate Committee meetings. Are you accusing Telstra management of lying to
>> Parliament? ;)

> You still havent supplied any quotes.

That was done when it was discussed previously.

> Saying "NextG will cover the same AMOUNT of area (or more)" does not
> state "NextG will cover the exact same places, people and objects, as CDMA"

Pity about what telstra actually said to the Senate.

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:53:23 Michael may have written:
> >> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas.
> >
> > Lie.
>
> Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will
> always be covered by NextG"

Proof already supplied. You choose to ignore it.

PD

--
Paul Day

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:17 Michael may have written:
> > 'fraid they did Michael. We've had this discussion previously in here
> > and I pasted a whole bunch of quotes from Telstra management saying it
> > would cover every square km that CDMA did. A couple of them were from
> > Senate Estimate Committee meetings. Are you accusing Telstra management
> > of lying to Parliament? ;)
>
> You still havent supplied any quotes.

Sure did. Read your archives. Not my fault if you choose to put your
hands over your ears, shut your eyes tight and sing loudly.

> Saying "NextG will cover the same AMOUNT of area (or more)" does not state
> "NextG will cover the exact same places, people and objects, as CDMA"

'fraid that's not what was said.

PD

--
Paul Day

[Ext User(Kwyjibo)]

"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n%2Wj.527$IK1.16@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> John Henderson wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet.
>>>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G
>>>>> (plain old GSM) cell.
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG.
>>>
>>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas.
>>
>> Lie.
>
> Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you
> will always be covered by NextG"

From the Telstra marketing brochure:
"to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA"

If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by NextG
now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit.

>
> Supply same artifact for CDMA over GSM, and GSM over AMPS

How about you jam a pineapple up your arse - spikey end first.

--
Kwyj.

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17:50 Kwyjibo may have written:
> > Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you
> > will always be covered by NextG"
>
> From the Telstra marketing brochure:
> "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA"

Michael argues that Telstra's use of the word "same" merely means "The
same _number_ of square km coverred (but not neccesarily in the same
_location_ as those coverred by CDMA.)"

However, numerous other sources (including Telstra answering to a couple
of Senate Estimates Committee hearings) clarify it as what every sane
person assumes the words "same" and "equivalent" to mean when talking
about a mobile phone service. I've pasted some quotes from Telstra in
here a couple of times now but Michael chooses to ignore them.

PD

--
Paul Day

[Ext User(Snapper)]

Paul Day wrote...

> Michael argues that Telstra's use of the word "same" merely means "The
> same _number_ of square km coverred (but not neccesarily in the same
> _location_ as those coverred by CDMA.)"

My understanding is, and Michael, if I remember correctly, posted that here in
the past, was that where there was a CDMA tower, a NextG cell would be
commissioned. And that Telstra would be building MORE NG towers than what there
were CDMA ones.

So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then either they aren't
replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG cells don't have the same range as
what CDMA did.

[Ext User(Snapper)]

Michael wrote...

> > If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by
> > NextG now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit.
>
> It sure is the same

How do you figure that?

Or is Telstra's definition of "same" different to what the rest of us use?

[Ext User(John Henderson)]

Snapper wrote:

> My understanding is, and Michael, if I remember correctly,
> posted that here in the past, was that where there was a CDMA
> tower, a NextG cell would be commissioned. And that Telstra
> would be building MORE NG towers than what there were CDMA
> ones.
>
> So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then
> either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG
> cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did.

And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to
scratch.

John

[Ext User(Paul Day)]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:28:08 John Henderson may have written:
> > My understanding is, and Michael, if I remember correctly,
> > posted that here in the past, was that where there was a CDMA
> > tower, a NextG cell would be commissioned. And that Telstra
> > would be building MORE NG towers than what there were CDMA
> > ones.
> >
> > So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then
> > either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG
> > cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did.
>
> And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to
> scratch.

Which was exactly the ACA's finding.

They found that on their little road trip, the coverage footprint itself
was (almost) equivalent. Considering their path of travel was known to
Telstra well in advance of the NextG test, you'd hope they put a lot of
effort into making sure every square inch had equivalent coverage.

However, their finding was that the handsets weren't up to scratch,
hence an "equivalent" service was not being provided, hence they weren't
meeting their new license condition, hence they had to delay the CDMA
closure.

And because their test was only along a known route, it's understandable
that Telstra perhaps didn't put the same effort into ensuring coverage
equivalence in every other NextG cell across the country which explains
why some people with acceptable NextG handsets find CDMA provided a
better coverage footprint in their local area.

And I notice Michael has suddenly gone silent in this thread since I
dragged out the archives showing Telstra committed to providing an
equivlant coverage footprint and that everybody other than him
understands "service equivalence" to mean the same footprint and handset
quality, not just the same raw number of sq km coverred.

PD

--
Paul Day

[Ext User(Snapper)]

John Henderson wrote...

> > So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then
> > either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG
> > cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did.
>
> And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to
> scratch.

Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless. Why bother with phones
that won't work within the normal range of the towers? ie. demand that the phone
providers provide phones that meet a minimum specification which includes
reception levels?

Isn't the whole point of NextG to provide coverage in areas where other networks
won't reach, hence why they went with 850Mhz network rather than simply
extending the existing higher frequency GSM/3G network out into the stix?

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Snapper <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote
> John Henderson wrote

>>> So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA,
>>> then either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the
>>> new NG cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did.

>> And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to scratch.

> Then it tends to make the whole exercise a tad pointless.

Nope.

> Why bother with phones that won't work within the normal range of the towers?

Because not everyone wants to use the phone in a car kit.

> ie. demand that the phone providers provide phones that meet
> a minimum specification which includes reception levels?

Pity that not everyone wants to use the phone in a carkit.

> Isn't the whole point of NextG to provide coverage
> in areas where other networks won't reach,

Nope. Its about a hell of a lot more than just that,
particularly when the cdma system already did that.

> hence why they went with 850Mhz network

They used that because they had purchased that spectrum space for the cdma system.

> rather than simply extending the existing higher frequency GSM/3G network out into the stix?

Pity about the digital cliff that GSM has.

No surprise that this fool has to bludge off a union.

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 00:00:37 -0500, Paul Day wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:34:58 Michael may have written:
>> We are not currently discussing it previously, we are discussing it now.
>
> Of course we're not currently discussing it previously. That doesn't
> even make sense.
>
> However, you ignored it previously and will no doubt ignore it now as
> well.
>
>> And given you cant supply any quotes, just proves that it was never stated
>> at all
>
> You lie - again. May as well start with the Hansard entry.
>
> And this time, unlike last time, don't ignore the most important quoted
> words: "their coverage footprint will remain."
>
> Hansard for ECITA 46, 13th Feb. 2006:
>
> Senator Coonan. "We know what consumers want here: they want to be able
> to continue to have a good coverage and to be able to have at least as
> good a service as they get with CDMA. We know what consumers want. This
> is a very technical inquiry group that we have convened here to make
> sure that these issues can be sorted out in the long-term interests of
> consumers."
>
> Senator CONROY. "As it stands we are basically being told by Telstra,
> 'Trust us; we'll deliver what we.re telling you,' even though it
> actually has not been done anywhere else in the world."
>
> Senator Coonan. "I do not think Telstra is saying, 'Trust us'. What
> Telstra is saying is, 'We will work with you, the department, and we
> will work with you, the regulator, to make sure that service standards
> are at least equivalent to CDMA and to make sure that the services to
> consumers are not interrupted.'"
>
> Mr Jennings. "I will address two aspects of that. First, the network.
> Because they would largely be using CDMA now, their coverage footprint
> will remain. That is a given."
>
> (Mr Max Jennings, General Manager, Wireless Access Services, Telstra)

Is there anything else? If not, I'd say he simply fucked up.

Funnily enough, the "very technical inquiry group" (consisting of Senators
Coonan and Conroy) didn't think to challenge that assertion of Jennings.

But in any case, after reviewing the transcript, Telstra really should
have written to the committee and clarified the statement.

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:53:23 +0000, Michael wrote:

>
> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
> news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> John Henderson wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet.
>>>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G
>>>>> (plain old GSM) cell.
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG.
>>>
>>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas.
>>
>> Lie.
>
> Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you will
> always be covered by NextG"

See Paul Day's quote of Max Jennings' remarks made Feb 13, 2006.

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17:50 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:n%2Wj.527$IK1.16@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
>> news:KLSdnYtQYpQCrLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@westnet.com. au...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gM8Vj.9070$ko5.3356@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Snapper" <snapper1@y7mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:482282b3$0$31239$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>>> John Henderson wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>> UMTS (3G) cells don't broadcast cell name (area info) data yet.
>>>>>> Any you see come from times when the phone's camped on a 2G
>>>>>> (plain old GSM) cell.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's interesting. GSM coverage where there is no NextG.
>>>>
>>>> No one said that NextG covered all CDMA or GSM areas.
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> Please post proof where anyone advised "if you are covered by CDMA, you
>> will always be covered by NextG"
>
> From the Telstra marketing brochure:
> "to guarantee that consumers have the same or better coverage than CDMA"
>
> If I was covered by CDMA prior to the switch off but aren't covered by NextG
> now, it's clearly not "the same" coverage, is it fuckwit.

It could, arguably, be "better" coverage though. It's very subjective.
Which is the reason, of course, why no-one should rely on marketing
brochures.