"Record £14.9bn loss at Vodafone"
John Navas
firm - after writing down the value of assets.
It incurred one-off costs of more than Ł23.5bn after revaluing its
German business Mannesmann, which it bought in 2000 for Ł112bn
($183bn at the time).
The firm said it would also cut 400 jobs as part of a move to reduce
costs.
Excluding one-off costs, Vodafone made a Ł8.8bn profit and it said
its overall performance had exceeded expectations, after adding 21
million new customers.
...
However, Vodafone gave a vote of confidence to its US joint venture
business Verizon Wireless, which some analysts want it to sell.
Verizon Wireless's market share grew to 25% in the US, as it added
more than three million new customers, while Vodafone's share of
profit from the business rose by more than 21%.
Isaiah Beard
> Vodafone made a £14.9bn ($27.9bn) loss last year - a record for a UK
BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
SMS
> John Navas wrote:
>
> BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
> now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
Verizon wants to buy it, but Vodafone has repeatedly refused to sell
out. Maybe they're holding out for an unreasonably high price.
I don't think it's bad (or good) news for anyone other than Vodafone.
Vodafone was part of the 3G license buying frenzy of a few years ago,
and the revenue to support the outrageous amounts that they paid for the
licenses never materialized.
SMS
> I don't think it's bad (or good) news for anyone other than Vodafone.
> Vodafone was part of the 3G license buying frenzy of a few years ago,
> and the revenue to support the outrageous amounts that they paid for the
> licenses never materialized.
John Navas
<sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote in
<127v49u...@corp.supernews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Vodafone made a £14.9bn ($27.9bn) loss last year - a record for a UK
>> firm - after writing down the value of assets.
>
>BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
>now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
Hardly.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>>
>>BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
>>now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
>
> Hardly.
>
There you go with your one word grunts. Please explain yourself.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
John Navas
<vel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<9uadnYlGetL5hhrZ...@giganews.com>:
>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> Vodafone made a ?14.9bn ($27.9bn) loss last year - a record for a UK
>>>> firm - after writing down the value of assets.
>>>
>>>BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
>>>now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
>>
>> Hardly.
>
>There you go with your one word grunts. Please explain yourself.
It has no bearing on either GSM users or Verizon wireless users.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:31:00 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <vel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <9uadnYlGetL5hhrZ...@giganews.com>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> Vodafone made a ?14.9bn ($27.9bn) loss last year - a record for a UK
>>>>> firm - after writing down the value of assets.
>>>>
>>>>BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
>>>>now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
>>>
>>> Hardly.
>>
>>There you go with your one word grunts. Please explain yourself.
>
> It has no bearing on either GSM users or Verizon wireless users.
>
Not directly, but the implication is that Vodofone in Europe, which is all GSM
has been suffering and that the only cash cow has been the US Verizon
Wireless, which stands to be divested to raise cash for the ailing Vodafone.
You might even surmise that the more complete ownership of Verizon Wireless by
Verizon might further improve things for Verizon Wireless in the USA and thus
relatively speaking, put GSM carriers further behind [compared to whatever
improved]. At least, that is how I read his statement. In short, I think it
loosely affects GSM and certainly affect Verizon wireless users.
John Navas
<vel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<AYKdnRwluO7cvRrZ...@giganews.com>:
>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:31:00 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
>> <vel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <9uadnYlGetL5hhrZ...@giganews.com>:
>>
>>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> Vodafone made a ?14.9bn ($27.9bn) loss last year - a record for a UK
>>>>>> firm - after writing down the value of assets.
>>>>>
>>>>>BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
>>>>>now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly.
>>>
>>>There you go with your one word grunts. Please explain yourself.
>>
>> It has no bearing on either GSM users or Verizon wireless users.
>
>Not directly, but the implication is that Vodofone in Europe, which is all GSM
>has been suffering and that the only cash cow has been the US Verizon
>Wireless, which stands to be divested to raise cash for the ailing Vodafone.
You're reading way too much into that. Vodafone mainly suffered from
costly acquisitions and having overpaid for 3G spectrum, but that was
just a one-time thing -- it was otherwise profitable, not "ailing."
(Read more carefully.) It might sell Verizon, but then again it might
not, since it may be more valuable to keep. I think the latter is more
likely.
>You might even surmise that the more complete ownership of Verizon Wireless by
>Verizon might further improve things for Verizon Wireless in the USA
I see no basis for that surmise.
>and thus
>relatively speaking, put GSM carriers further behind [compared to whatever
>improved].
GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>At least, that is how I read his statement. In short, I think it
>loosely affects GSM and certainly affect Verizon wireless users.
Why am I not surprised.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>>You might even surmise that the more complete ownership of Verizon Wireless by
>>Verizon might further improve things for Verizon Wireless in the USA
>
> I see no basis for that surmise.
>
Sure there is. If profits from the US based Verizon Wireless go towards
supporting other Vodophone assets [or indeed, just into the coffers], then it
is profits which are not available to Verizon Wireless for improvement.
The assumption is that Verizon would invest those profits into the improved
quality of the company should they get hold of the Vodophone shares.
>>and thus
>>relatively speaking, put GSM carriers further behind [compared to whatever
>>improved].
>
> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
I am aware of that. I was talking relatively with improvement. If Verizon
improves in a particular area that GSM is behind (let's say coverage), then
relatively, GSM is further behind Verizon then they used to be. (GSM being in
context with the OP's comment about being bad for GSM users). In contrast, if
Verizon is behind GSM in some area (say voice quality), and then they invest
and improve it, then it can be said that GSM is losing the lead or that
Verizon is gaining on GSM (again using GSM in context of the OPs comment). My
point is that increased positive investment [with ROI] would be a positive
thing for Verizon and therefor a relatively negative thing for GSM [being the
competitor].
Again, the OP wrote only one line that you have singled out ... but it seems
clear to me what that means and I am just illiterating it for you.
>
>>At least, that is how I read his statement. In short, I think it
>>loosely affects GSM and certainly affect Verizon wireless users.
>
> Why am I not surprised.
>
About what? That it affects Verizon Wireless? Or that it loosely affects
"GSM"? Or that somebody is not agreeing with you [entirely]?
John Navas
<vel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<RM-dnek1f42QtRrZ...@giganews.com>:
>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>You might even surmise that the more complete ownership of Verizon Wireless by
>>>Verizon might further improve things for Verizon Wireless in the USA
>>
>> I see no basis for that surmise.
>
>Sure there is.
You think there is, based on a different perspective. Fair enough, but
that's perspective, not fact.
>If profits from the US based Verizon Wireless go towards
>supporting other Vodophone assets [or indeed, just into the coffers], then it
>is profits which are not available to Verizon Wireless for improvement.
>The assumption is that Verizon would invest those profits into the improved
>quality of the company should they get hold of the Vodophone shares.
On the contrary -- whoever provides the capital (whether Vodafone or
Verizon stockholders) is still interested in the return on that
investment. There is no magic.(c) Much less free money.
>>>and thus
>>>relatively speaking, put GSM carriers further behind [compared to whatever
>>>improved].
>>
>> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>
>I am aware of that. I was talking relatively with improvement. If Verizon
>improves in a particular area that GSM is behind (let's say coverage), then
>relatively, GSM is further behind Verizon then they used to be. (GSM being in
>context with the OP's comment about being bad for GSM users). In contrast, if
>Verizon is behind GSM in some area (say voice quality), and then they invest
>and improve it, then it can be said that GSM is losing the lead or that
>Verizon is gaining on GSM (again using GSM in context of the OPs comment). My
>point is that increased positive investment [with ROI] would be a positive
>thing for Verizon and therefor a relatively negative thing for GSM [being the
>competitor].
On the contrary -- it's just a competitive factor. Cingular is in at
least as good a position as Verizon with respect to capital.
>Again, the OP wrote only one line that you have singled out ... but it seems
>clear to me what that means and I am just illiterating it for you.
Once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>>>At least, that is how I read his statement. In short, I think it
>>>loosely affects GSM and certainly affect Verizon wireless users.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised.
>
>About what? ...
The spin. As I wrote, this has no bearing on either GSM users or
Verizon wireless users. It was a one-time cleaning of the books at an
otherwise profitable company.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Verizon stockholders) is still interested in the return on that
> investment. There is no magic.(c) Much less free money.
>
It is common practice for parent companies to use the profits of one of its
subsideraries to fund the development of another ... or to enrich its
executives. I am not saying that is the case with Vodophone, but I do not
know that it is not the case either.
> On the contrary -- it's just a competitive factor. Cingular is in at
> least as good a position as Verizon with respect to capital.
>
Cingular has a much higher attrition rate I believe. I believe Cingular's
growth is much less than that of Verizon. I believe also that T-Mobile is the
growth champion these days.
>>Again, the OP wrote only one line that you have singled out ... but it seems
>>clear to me what that means and I am just illiterating it for you.
>
> Once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
Be that as it may. You indicate the OP posted a line of text that had no
meaning at all. I believe I see some meaning there. I don't know why
somebody would post anything without some intent.
>>>>At least, that is how I read his statement. In short, I think it
>>>>loosely affects GSM and certainly affect Verizon wireless users.
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised.
>>
>>About what? ...
>
> The spin. As I wrote, this has no bearing on either GSM users or
> Verizon wireless users. It was a one-time cleaning of the books at an
> otherwise profitable company.
>
I am referring to the OPs interpretation based upon his one line comment and
not the actual financial report. For one, I actually agree that is most
likely the case. I am just defending the OP for his statement as it could be
the case.
Scott
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:sp5e82plcpuu83hoo...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:14:38 -0400, Isaiah Beard
> <sacre...@sacredpoet.com> wrote in
> <127v49u...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> firm - after writing down the value of assets.
>>
>>BAD news for GSM users. GREAT news for Verizon wireless users. Maybe
>>now Vodafone will be more inclined to sell its stake of VZW to Verizon.
>
> Hardly.
>
Rubbish- only an uneducated simpleton would argue that.
Oh- sorry, John- forgot it was you talking. Now it makes sense.
Scott
> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>
Only until the next round of quarterly reports, and then they fall to #2.
And by the end of the year, they will be #3. GSM will represent the
smallest of the four major US carriers. How does that equate to "ahead"?
But thanks for posting in direct opposition to your own claims that who is
#1 is unimportant. I guess its only unimportant until all of your other
idiotic claims and opinions are exposed as third grade urban legend.
Scott
>
> On the contrary -- it's just a competitive factor. Cingular is in at
> least as good a position as Verizon with respect to capital.
Interesting- there is absolutely no proof to indicate this. Verizon is in a
much better cash and asset position than Cingular.
>
>>Again, the OP wrote only one line that you have singled out ... but it
>>seems
>>clear to me what that means and I am just illiterating it for you.
>
> Once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Translation- John got caught again.
>
>>>>At least, that is how I read his statement. In short, I think it
>>>>loosely affects GSM and certainly affect Verizon wireless users.
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised.
>>
>>About what? ...
>
> The spin. As I wrote, this has no bearing on either GSM users or
> Verizon wireless users. It was a one-time cleaning of the books at an
> otherwise profitable company.
>
Says you and only you.
John Navas
<vYmdnQ94tJlVtxfZ...@adelphia.com>:
It is unimportant, but facts are nonetheless facts, and your speculation
is nonetheless speculation. ;)
John Navas
<xqudnVGRS_KzthfZ...@adelphia.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:ilhe82psb5hf2qkgj...@4ax.com...
>
>> On the contrary -- it's just a competitive factor. Cingular is in at
>> least as good a position as Verizon with respect to capital.
>
>Interesting- there is absolutely no proof to indicate this. Verizon is in a
>much better cash and asset position than Cingular.
Times have changed and are still changing. The combination of (the new)
at&t (formerly SBC and AT&T) and BellSouth results in financial
resources quite comparable to Verizon Communications, and a market cap
(measure of ability to raise capital) that's considerably higher:
at&t: $104B
BellSouth: 63B
TOTAL: $167B
Verizon: $92B
Scott
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:13:21 -0600, "Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote in
> <vYmdnQ94tJlVtxfZ...@adelphia.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:gm8e82d1saavq0fqk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>>
>>Only until the next round of quarterly reports, and then they fall to #2.
>>And by the end of the year, they will be #3. GSM will represent the
>>smallest of the four major US carriers. How does that equate to "ahead"?
>>
>>But thanks for posting in direct opposition to your own claims that who is
>>#1 is unimportant. I guess its only unimportant until all of your other
>>idiotic claims and opinions are exposed as third grade urban legend.
>
> It is unimportant,
Then why mention it?
> but facts are nonetheless facts, and your speculation
> is nonetheless speculation. ;)
>
And based in fact, unlike most of your uneducated speculation, which
typically constitutes well over 75% of your posts.
I'll stick by my "speculation"- the fact that you could find no better
counter to it shows some level of agreement with it.
Scott
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:15:02 -0600, "Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote in
> <xqudnVGRS_KzthfZ...@adelphia.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:ilhe82psb5hf2qkgj...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On the contrary -- it's just a competitive factor. Cingular is in at
>>> least as good a position as Verizon with respect to capital.
>>
>>Interesting- there is absolutely no proof to indicate this. Verizon is in
>>a
>>much better cash and asset position than Cingular.
>
> Times have changed and are still changing. The combination of (the new)
> at&t (formerly SBC and AT&T) and BellSouth results in financial
> resources quite comparable to Verizon Communications, and a market cap
> (measure of ability to raise capital) that's considerably higher:
>
> at&t: $104B
> BellSouth: 63B
> TOTAL: $167B
>
> Verizon: $92B
>
And assuming that the new ATT does not divest itself of any assets would be
the only way that would occur. In fact, many redundent assets will be sold,
leading to a much smaller market cap. In addition, the level of debt
leveraged against that cap is MUCH HIGHER for the new ATT than it is for
either Verizon or Sprint. Free cash flow will not be proportional to the
competition- we already see this in practice. And market cap is not a
measure of success, but simply the result of trading activity. Enron and
Worldcom both boasted incredible cap- we see how accurate it was in those
cases.
SMS
> Not directly, but the implication is that Vodofone in Europe, which is all GSM
> has been suffering and that the only cash cow has been the US Verizon
> Wireless, which stands to be divested to raise cash for the ailing Vodafone.
The losses are the result of the over-bidding for 3G licenses during the
boom. It really has nothing to do with GSM or CDMA, since the data
services are all CDMA anyway.
SMS
>> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>
> I am aware of that.
Typical Navas, to use logic that since the largest GSM carrier has
slighty more subscribers than the largest CDMA carrier, that this means
that GSM is "ahead."
GSM is not "ahead" in the U.S., which has far more CDMA subscribers than
GSM. Let's look at the six largest carriers:
GSM
---
Cingular 55.8
T-Mobile 22.7
CDMA
----
Verizon 53.0
Sprint 51.0 (about 31 million CDMA and 20 million IDEN)
Alltel 10.8 (some are GSM, but are being transitioned to CDMA)
U.S. Cellular 5.3 (9/30/05)
SMS
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:gm8e82d1saavq0fqk...@4ax.com...
>
>> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>>
>
> Only until the next round of quarterly reports, and then they fall to #2.
Unlikely to occur next quarter, as Cingular and Verizon have about equal
net additions.
Look for Sprint to start making gains, as they have some very attractive
rate plans now, especially with nights starting at 7:00 p.m.. I can't
use them where I live, because the coverage is terrible, but in many
areas they are a good choice.
SMS
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>>> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>>
>> I am aware of that.
>
> Typical Navas, to use logic that since the largest GSM carrier has
> slighty more subscribers than the largest CDMA carrier, that this means
> that GSM is "ahead."
>
> GSM is not "ahead" in the U.S., which has far more CDMA subscribers than
> GSM. Let's look at the six largest carriers:
>
> GSM
> ---
> Cingular 55.8
I forgot, Cingular still has about 5 million TDMA customers. So in fact,
Verizon has more CDMA customers than Cingular has GSM customers.
While it may be nice to have bragging rights one way or the other, the
reality is that 53 million versus 56 million is an insignificant
difference. But I did at least want to correct the misconception that
GSM is ahead of CDMA in the U.S.. No matter how you slice it, CDMA is
far ahead.
Scott
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:448db2bb$0$65508$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:gm8e82d1saavq0fqk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> GSM is actually ahead -- Cingular is the #1 carrier.
>>>
>>
>> Only until the next round of quarterly reports, and then they fall to #2.
>
> Unlikely to occur next quarter, as Cingular and Verizon have about equal
> net additions.
True, but remember that the ground was nearly even at the end of 1Q (100,000
difference, IIRC). It won't take much for VZW to take the lead.
>
> Look for Sprint to start making gains, as they have some very attractive
> rate plans now, especially with nights starting at 7:00 p.m.. I can't use
> them where I live, because the coverage is terrible, but in many areas
> they are a good choice.
Again true, and with the consolidation of billing systems to start in the
next few months, some billing efficiencies should be realized to allow for a
number of convenient billing options (both platforms, one bill) and some
serious costreductions. I'm still waiting for the announcement of a single
billing platform from Cingular- further proof of their inability to
effectively manage the business.
John Navas
wrote in <448d9528$0$96989$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> Not directly, but the implication is that Vodofone in Europe, which is all GSM
>> has been suffering and that the only cash cow has been the US Verizon
>> Wireless, which stands to be divested to raise cash for the ailing Vodafone.
>
>The losses are the result of the over-bidding for 3G licenses during the
>boom.
Actually mostly the result of a very expensive acquisition.
>It really has nothing to do with GSM or CDMA, since the data
>services are all CDMA anyway.
UMTS is WCDMA, considerably different from what's commonly called CDMA.
John Navas
wrote in <448db778$0$65434$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
Nope.
John Navas
<vel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<ZYidncm7aumXuhXZ...@giganews.com>:
>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary -- whoever provides the capital (whether Vodafone or
>> Verizon stockholders) is still interested in the return on that
>> investment. There is no magic.(c) Much less free money.
>
>It is common practice for parent companies to use the profits of one of its
>subsideraries to fund the development of another ... or to enrich its
>executives. I am not saying that is the case with Vodophone, but I do not
>know that it is not the case either.
Actually not in many (most?) cases -- that's why they are commonly
called "profit centers," and why rate of return is measured separately.
>> On the contrary -- it's just a competitive factor. Cingular is in at
>> least as good a position as Verizon with respect to capital.
>
>Cingular has a much higher attrition rate I believe. I believe Cingular's
>growth is much less than that of Verizon.
Actually pretty close in terms of net adds.
>I believe also that T-Mobile is the
>growth champion these days.
It's of course easier to grow faster when you're much smaller and
willing to buy market share with deep discount pricing.
>>>Again, the OP wrote only one line that you have singled out ... but it seems
>>>clear to me what that means and I am just illiterating it for you.
>>
>> Once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
>Be that as it may. You indicate the OP posted a line of text that had no
>meaning at all. I believe I see some meaning there. I don't know why
>somebody would post anything without some intent.
I agree that there was intent -- I just think that intent was the result
of a misunderstanding (as I explain below).
>>>>>At least, that is how I read his statement. In short, I think it
>>>>>loosely affects GSM and certainly affect Verizon wireless users.
>>>>
>>>> Why am I not surprised.
>>>
>>>About what? ...
>>
>> The spin. As I wrote, this has no bearing on either GSM users or
>> Verizon wireless users. It was a one-time cleaning of the books at an
>> otherwise profitable company.
>
>I am referring to the OPs interpretation based upon his one line comment and
>not the actual financial report. For one, I actually agree that is most
>likely the case. I am just defending the OP for his statement as it could be
>the case.
Fair enough, but I personally see no real logic in the statement given
the facts. I think the OP was assuming Vodafone is desperate, and it's
not.
Scott
>>
>>While it may be nice to have bragging rights one way or the other, the
>>reality is that 53 million versus 56 million is an insignificant
>>difference. But I did at least want to correct the misconception that
>>GSM is ahead of CDMA in the U.S.. No matter how you slice it, CDMA is
>>far ahead.
>
> Nope.
>
Care to enlighten us? The FACTS are in direct contradiction to your
uneducated and baseless opinion..........again.
SMS
Don't you ever wonder _why_ he does this? It's not like there's any
debate about the number of users of each technology, nor does it really
matter that CDMA has more users. What's the upside in Navas lying so
much? I just don't get it.
John Navas
wrote in <448f6351$0$96930$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
You're the one doing the lying, but at least I get it -- you're still
pissed at Cingular over the poor reception at your wife's workplace. :)
The simple fact is that GSM is now the leading cellular technology in
the USA. That of course pisses you off even more.
Scott
> The simple fact is that GSM is now the leading cellular technology in
> the USA. >
And yet you have no proof to back up this most obvious lie. There are far
more CDMA users than GSM users in the US. So how does it lead? By having
the most uneducated Usenet posters as customers?
> That of course pisses you off even more.
You flatter yourself way too much.
RNess
Let's just say he's probably just grossly mis-informed.
John, here's something new.... post some facts. Verifiable
facts. From a reputable source. Back what you say up.
If you think GSM leads, just prove it.
Cut the conjecture...
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:2eou82tbbsjbh34pt...@4ax.com...
John Navas
<ric...@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<PpadnWPu16Rc7xLZ...@giganews.com>:
>John, here's something new.... post some facts. Verifiable
>facts. From a reputable source. Back what you say up.
I actually do that frequently.
>If you think GSM leads, just prove it.
Been there; done that.
If you've missed it, then "Google is your friend."
>Cut the conjecture...
No conjecture here. GSM has been the fastest growing cellular
technology in the USA for years, and the largest USA carrier is now GSM.
RNess
Industry rags and yes..., even used Internet search.
That's why I asked YOU to prove it. You are real good
with the short NON-answers.
For once just try backing up the BS.
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:5nvu82lfrq0h02u1a...@4ax.com...
IMHO IIRC
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:21:52 -0700, "RNess"
> <ric...@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <PpadnWPu16Rc7xLZ...@giganews.com>:
>
>> John, here's something new.... post some facts. Verifiable
>> facts. From a reputable source. Back what you say up.
>
> I actually do that frequently.
>
>> If you think GSM leads, just prove it.
>
> Been there; done that.
> If you've missed it, then "Google is your friend."
>
>> Cut the conjecture...
>
> No conjecture here. GSM has been the fastest growing cellular
> technology in the USA for years, and the largest USA carrier is now GSM.
I agree the largest GSM carrier has slighty more subscribers than the
largest CDMA carrier, that this does not mean that GSM is "ahead."
Look at the six largest carriers:
_______________________________
GSM
-------------
Cingular 55.8
T-Mobile 22.7
TOTAL USERS = 78.5
__________________________
CDMA
----------
Verizon 53.0
Sprint 51.0 (about 31 million CDMA and 20 million IDEN)
Alltel 10.8 (some are GSM, but are being transitioned to CDMA)
U.S. Cellular 5.3 (9/30/05)
TOTAL USERS = 100.1
John Navas
wrote in <TgMjg.137343$k%3.15368@dukeread12>:
>In news:5nvu82lfrq0h02u1a...@4ax.com,
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> typed:
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:21:52 -0700, "RNess"
>> <ric...@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>> <PpadnWPu16Rc7xLZ...@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> John, here's something new.... post some facts. Verifiable
>>> facts. From a reputable source. Back what you say up.
>>
>> I actually do that frequently.
>>
>>> If you think GSM leads, just prove it.
>>
>> Been there; done that.
>> If you've missed it, then "Google is your friend."
>>
>>> Cut the conjecture...
>>
>> No conjecture here. GSM has been the fastest growing cellular
>> technology in the USA for years, and the largest USA carrier is now GSM.
>
>I agree the largest GSM carrier has slighty more subscribers than the
>largest CDMA carrier, that this does not mean that GSM is "ahead."
That depends on your point of view.
IMHO IIRC
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:29:52 -0500, "IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
> wrote in <TgMjg.137343$k%3.15368@dukeread12>:
>
>> In news:5nvu82lfrq0h02u1a...@4ax.com,
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:21:52 -0700, "RNess"
>>> <ric...@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>>> <PpadnWPu16Rc7xLZ...@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> John, here's something new.... post some facts. Verifiable
>>>> facts. From a reputable source. Back what you say up.
>>>
>>> I actually do that frequently.
>>>
>>>> If you think GSM leads, just prove it.
>>>
>>> Been there; done that.
>>> If you've missed it, then "Google is your friend."
>>>
>>>> Cut the conjecture...
>>>
>>> No conjecture here. GSM has been the fastest growing cellular
>>> technology in the USA for years, and the largest USA carrier is now GSM.
>>
>> I agree the largest GSM carrier has slighty more subscribers than the
>> largest CDMA carrier, that this does not mean that GSM is "ahead."
>
> That depends on your point of view.
Why did you leave out the numbers?
I did not know there was more than one way to look at the total user
numbers.
RNess
That is where you seem to error - time and time again.
It relies on the numbers - period. And some simple addition.
I am assuming you can add, right?
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:7e4v825u0gghhnuuh...@4ax.com...
SMS
> I did not know there was more than one way to look at the total user
> numbers.
you never heard of the new Navas math?
> GSM
> -------------
> Cingular 55.8
> T-Mobile 22.7
>
> TOTAL USERS = 78.5
- about 5 million TDMA users on Cingular=73 million.
> __________________________
>
> CDMA
> ----------
> Verizon 53.0
> Sprint 51.0 (about 31 million CDMA and 20 million IDEN)
> Alltel 10.8 (some are GSM, but are being transitioned to CDMA)
> U.S. Cellular 5.3 (9/30/05)
>
> TOTAL USERS = 100.1
- about 20 million IDEN users on Sprint-about 2 million GSM users on
Alltel=78 million
In any case, Navas has backed down from his earlier claim. He now simply
claims that GSM was the fastest growing technology, which was true when
Cingular and AT&T were converting their TDMA network to GSM, but now
that almost everyone is converted, the numbers of CDMA and GSM additions
are about equal (Sprint doesn't break out iDEN versus CDMA additions, so
there is no way to know the exact numbers, but assuming 80%/20%, CDMA
and GSM each grew by 2.8 million net additions (for the top five carriers)).
He continues with the bizarre notion that since the largest carrier is
mainly GSM, that this somehow proves something, but it's unclear what it
proves, especially since this carrier has less GSM customers than the
second largest customer has CDMA customers.
Again, I don't think anyone understands what the upside is in him lying
so much. No one would think any worse of him if he gracefully admitted
his mistakes. I'm sure that he has something to contribute to Usenet
beyond shilling for Cingular.
John Navas
wrote in <448ff7cd$0$96992$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>In any case, Navas has backed down from his earlier claim.
In fact I've been quite consistent.
>He now simply
>claims that GSM was the fastest growing technology,
I'm actually still stating that GSM is now the leading cellular
technology in the USA.
>which was true when
>Cingular and AT&T were converting their TDMA network to GSM, but now
>that almost everyone is converted, the numbers of CDMA and GSM additions
>are about equal (Sprint doesn't break out iDEN versus CDMA additions, so
>there is no way to know the exact numbers, but assuming 80%/20%, CDMA
>and GSM each grew by 2.8 million net additions (for the top five carriers)).
When growth of Cingular and T-Mobile are combined with continuing
migration of remaining D-AMPS ("TDMA") users to GSM, and compared to
growth of Verizon plus the CDMA part of growth at Sprint, GSM probably
continues to be the fastest growing technology.
>He continues with the bizarre notion that since the largest carrier is
>mainly GSM, that this somehow proves something,
It simply proves that GSM has now taken over as the technology of the
largest carrier in the USA. When combined with the growth story, that
makes GSM the leading cellular technology in the USA.
Of course you hate that, so you're now trying to poo-poo it, whereas not
so long ago you were trumpeting that the largest carrier was CDMA.
Funny how your tune has changed. ;)
>but it's unclear what it
>proves, especially since this carrier has less GSM customers than the
>second largest customer has CDMA customers.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
>Again, I don't think anyone understands what the upside is in him lying
>so much. No one would think any worse of him if he gracefully admitted
>his mistakes. I'm sure that he has something to contribute to Usenet
>beyond shilling for Cingular.
Neither lying nor shilling. Just stating the facts, and rebutting your
fabrications. Have a nice day.
SMS
> That's my point John - it doesn't rely on someone's "point of view".
> That is where you seem to error - time and time again.
When someone loses an argument, they often resort to "depends on your
point of view," or "we'll have to agree to disagree."
SMS
> "Lying' is such a strong term.
> Let's just say he's probably just grossly mis-informed.
Highly unlikely. He often posts incorrect statements that directly
contradict correct information that he himself posted in the past. Did
he suddenly become uninformed, or is he simply making stuff up again.
The numbers regarding CDMA and GSM penetration are freely available for
anyone to see, so now you see him backpedaling and changing his
statements. Suddenly it's "the largest carrier is GSM' and 'GSM was the
fastest growing technology.'
Even these statements are technically not true; Cingular is the largest
carrier, but has fewer GSM subscribers than the second largest carrier
has CDMA subscribers (if you believe Cingular's public statements
regarding the number of subscribers still on their TDMA network)., and
GSM was the fastest growing only when AT&T and Cingular were in the
midst of the conversion from TDMA to GSM.
> John, here's something new.... post some facts. Verifiable
> facts. From a reputable source. Back what you say up.
The funny thing is that he used to often post facts. I don't know what's
gotten into him lately with these bizarre posts that everyone knows are
false. It's very strange.
John Navas
wrote in <4490421d$0$97000$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>RNess wrote:
>> "Lying' is such a strong term.
>> Let's just say he's probably just grossly mis-informed.
>
>Highly unlikely. He often posts incorrect statements that directly
>contradict correct information that he himself posted in the past. Did
>he suddenly become uninformed, or is he simply making stuff up again.
Actually not, which is why you're posting any citation. ;)
>The numbers regarding CDMA and GSM penetration are freely available for
>anyone to see, so now you see him backpedaling and changing his
>statements. Suddenly it's "the largest carrier is GSM' and 'GSM was the
>fastest growing technology.'
That's what I've actually been saying all along, which is why GSM is now
the leading cellular technology in the USA.
>Even these statements are technically not true; Cingular is the largest
>carrier, but has fewer GSM subscribers than the second largest carrier
>has CDMA subscribers (if you believe Cingular's public statements
>regarding the number of subscribers still on their TDMA network).,
No such data exists -- that's just your claim.
>and
>GSM was the fastest growing only when AT&T and Cingular were in the
>midst of the conversion from TDMA to GSM.
Probably still is.
>> John, here's something new.... post some facts. Verifiable
>> facts. From a reputable source. Back what you say up.
>
>The funny thing is that he used to often post facts.
Still do.
>I don't know what's
>gotten into him lately with these bizarre posts that everyone knows are
>false. It's very strange.
Only when you're in denial.
Scott
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:49:36 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote in <448ff7cd$0$96992$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>In any case, Navas has backed down from his earlier claim.
>
> In fact I've been quite consistent.
>
>>He now simply
>>claims that GSM was the fastest growing technology,
>
> I'm actually still stating that GSM is now the leading cellular
> technology in the USA.
And you are actually still worng- the numbers don't lie.
>
>>which was true when
>>Cingular and AT&T were converting their TDMA network to GSM, but now
>>that almost everyone is converted, the numbers of CDMA and GSM additions
>>are about equal (Sprint doesn't break out iDEN versus CDMA additions, so
>>there is no way to know the exact numbers, but assuming 80%/20%, CDMA
>>and GSM each grew by 2.8 million net additions (for the top five
>>carriers)).
>
> When growth of Cingular and T-Mobile are combined with continuing
> migration of remaining D-AMPS ("TDMA") users to GSM, and compared to
> growth of Verizon plus the CDMA part of growth at Sprint, GSM probably
> continues to be the fastest growing technology.
Wrong again, although the "probably" used throughout that statement denotes
specualtion and not fact, you twit.
>
>>He continues with the bizarre notion that since the largest carrier is
>>mainly GSM, that this somehow proves something,
>
> It simply proves that GSM has now taken over as the technology of the
> largest carrier in the USA.
Only through merger and only for another month or two at best.
> When combined with the growth story, that
> makes GSM the leading cellular technology in the USA.
What growth story? You mean the fairy tale you are trying to tell here?
>
> Of course you hate that, so you're now trying to poo-poo it, whereas not
> so long ago you were trumpeting that the largest carrier was CDMA.
> Funny how your tune has changed. ;)
>
>>but it's unclear what it
>>proves, especially since this carrier has less GSM customers than the
>>second largest customer has CDMA customers.
>
> Assumes facts not in evidence.
Facts very much in evidence- look at the last quarterly reports for both
companies. The numbers are clearly spelled out there- Verizon has more CDMA
customers than Cingular has GSM customers (based on Cingular's own numbers).
>
>>Again, I don't think anyone understands what the upside is in him lying
>>so much. No one would think any worse of him if he gracefully admitted
>>his mistakes. I'm sure that he has something to contribute to Usenet
>>beyond shilling for Cingular.
>
> Neither lying nor shilling. Just stating the facts, and rebutting your
> fabrications. Have a nice day.
No facts- only baseless speculation, unless you claim to be smarter and
better informed than your beloved Cingular about their own business affairs.
Only a pompous simpleton would do something like that.
Scott
> RNess wrote:
>> "Lying' is such a strong term.
>> Let's just say he's probably just grossly mis-informed.
>
> Highly unlikely. He often posts incorrect statements that directly
> contradict correct information that he himself posted in the past. Did he
> suddenly become uninformed, or is he simply making stuff up again.
Ooh.......ooh.......ooh........ I know the answer to that. It would
actually be both.
SMS
I don't believe that it's both. He is not uninformed, he is just upset
that the facts don't support his agenda, so he goes out and makes up his
own.
It's gotten much worse since he became so bitter about what's happened
with Cingular and GSM. In his mind, GSM was supposed to take over the
U.S., but it didn't work out that way. GSM has less subscribers, slower
data rates, poorer coverage, poorer customer satisfaction, and the
carriers that went the GSM route are doing poorer financially.
If you read the analysts reports of why Verizon is doing so well in
terms of margins, and Cingular is doing so poorly, the choice of
technology has a lot to do with it, because of the capital costs of GSM
are much higher. It would seem to be counter-intuitive, since GSM
equipment costs less per tower, but that's not looking at the big
picture, in the U.S.. It's costing the GSM carriers a lot more to
implement high speed data, and taking them a lot longer (look at how far
behind the GSM carriers are in terms of the number of areas covered by
HSDPA versus the CDMA carriers coverage by EV-DO). You need more towers,
especially in rural areas, with GSM (even Navas used to admit the
distance limit of 35km, but now, in a bizarre twist, he's suddenly
talking about dual-time slot GSM which AFAIK is not in use anywhere in
the U.S.). GSM was ideal for a densely populated Europe, with few vast
open spaces, but is less than ideal for the U.S. demography and geography.
He's also very upset about being proven wrong about what came down at
Radio Shack, which was doing so well with Verizon, and is doing so
poorly with Cingular. As the Radio Shacks CFO stated during their
earnings call on April 20th, "First, and most importantly, sales of
wireless units in the core RadioShack chain were down significantly
versus a year ago. In particular, sales of Cingular postpaid units were
well below levels attained with our prior supplier in Q1 of 2005."
He's also distraught over all of the surveys that show Cingular doing so
poorly. You've seen the incredible fabrications and rationalizations
he's created regarding the Consumer Reports and J.D. Powers surveys.
These companies both use statistical methodologies that are extremely
reliable. The best he could come up with is that the reason that
Cingular did so poorly is that their remaining small number of TDMA
customers were skewing the results (if anything they were skewing the
results up, not down).
Sorry about turning this into a lengthy post, but I think it's important
for everyone to realize why he's doing what he's doing. His agenda is to
shill for Cingular. When the facts get in the way, he simply goes out
makes up his own reality.
Again, no one would think any worse of him if he admitted his mistakes,
apologized for his behavior, and changed his ways. Most Usenet readers
prefer fact-based posts on Usenet, backed up with references, not one
line, content-free responses that merely show that the poster has no
idea what he's talking about.
Personally, I'm carrier agnostic. I just post the facts about each
carrier. I've not hesitated to criticize the actions of any carrier,
when warranted.
John Navas
wrote in <44916966$0$96944$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>If you read the analysts reports of why Verizon is doing so well in
>terms of margins, and Cingular is doing so poorly, the choice of
>technology has a lot to do with it, because of the capital costs of GSM
>are much higher.
Simply not true.
>... You need more towers,
>especially in rural areas, with GSM (even Navas used to admit the
>distance limit of 35km, but now, in a bizarre twist, he's suddenly
>talking about dual-time slot GSM which AFAIK is not in use anywhere in
>the U.S.). ...
I have it on good authority that Extended Range GSM *is* in use in the
USA.
>He's also very upset about being proven wrong about what came down at
>Radio Shack, which was doing so well with Verizon, and is doing so
>poorly with Cingular....
Radio Shack actually dumped Verizon due to poor wireless sales in 2005,
and switched to Cingular as part of its overall turnaround strategy.
>He's also distraught over all of the surveys that show Cingular doing so
>poorly. ...
Surveys actually show little difference between carriers, a few
percentage points that are near or below the margin of error.
>Sorry about turning this into a lengthy post, but I think it's important
>for everyone to realize why he's doing what he's doing. His agenda is to
>shill for Cingular. When the facts get in the way, he simply goes out
>makes up his own reality.
>
>Personally, I'm carrier agnostic. I just post the facts about each
>carrier. I've not hesitated to criticize the actions of any carrier,
>when warranted.
In fact you're are the one with the well-documented agenda, constantly
flaming Cingular and GSM at every opportunity, and trying to discredit
me because I've documented your fabrications. Have a nice day.
DecaturTxCowboy
> I have it on good authority that Extended Range GSM *is* in use in the
> USA.
Oh...that is sooooo funny. I suppose that we can all start using "I have
it on good authority" to validate the rumors we hear.
How do you spell hypocrite?
SMS
I know that it's being used in China and in South Africa, but I've been
unable to find any instances of it being used in the U.S.. It may be in
use by small rural carriers, I don't know. Of course if Navas "has it on
good authority" that it's in use, then that pretty much proves that it
isn't in use.
In any case, even if it is in use somewhere in the U.S., it's certainly
not widely deployed.
John Navas
wrote in <4491fde3$0$96935$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> I have it on good authority that Extended Range GSM *is* in use in the
>>> USA.
>>
>> Oh...that is sooooo funny. I suppose that we can all start using "I have
>> it on good authority" to validate the rumors we hear.
>>
>> How do you spell hypocrite?
>
>I know that it's being used in China and in South Africa, but I've been
>unable to find any instances of it being used in the U.S.. It may be in
>use by small rural carriers, I don't know.
Indeed.
>Of course if Navas "has it on
>good authority" that it's in use, then that pretty much proves that it
>isn't in use.
>
>In any case, even if it is in use somewhere in the U.S., it's certainly
>not widely deployed.
Because you say so? No other proof? Why am I not surprised.
By comparison, the reason I'm pretty sure it's being used, at least in
coastal areas, is because I've been able to make GSM connections when
more than 35 km out to sea. (At the same time other people on the boat
with Verizon CDMA weren't able to connect at all.) I call that "good
authority." ;) And it only stands to reason that it would also be used
in rural areas, especially since it's so easy and cheap to do. I asked
an independent tower engineer, and he concurred.
RNess
by any means prove your ("good authority") bull shit. The exact opposite, in fact.
CDMA coverage is very tightly digitally controlled and it simply could mean that coverage
wasn't there by DESIGN, not because of some "extended range" GSM. The CDMA
system engineers may have put a chip value there limiting range because of a pilot
pollution issue, or MANY multiple other reasons. It is one of the advantages of CDMA.
By different chip values, a site's coverage can be made to do what is needed.
You are making assumptions based on pure conjecture, ZERO actual fact.
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:me5492hth6prtp48u...@4ax.com...
John Navas
(a) GSM coverage was there, beyond the range of standard GSM; and
(b) CDMA coverage simply wasn't there -- the actual reason is
speculative and irrelevant.
2. CDMA is no more "very tightly digitally controlled" than GSM.
3. Pilot pollution, like cell "breathing," is actually one of the
disadvantages of CDMA.
4. Pilot pollution is unlikely that far offshore; i.e., you need some
other excuse. ;)
5. Measurement of distance was by mapping GPS, accurate to within 15
meters.
6. Thus the actual facts are that:
(a) these GSM connections must have been Extended Range; and
(b) CDMA coverage simply wasn't available (for whatever reason).
So in fact it does mean just what I wrote.
-John
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:46:22 -0700, "RNess"
<ric...@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<dM2dnSjrhfsBqg_Z...@giganews.com>:
>You being able to make a GSM call and a CDMA phone not being able to doesn't
>by any means prove your ("good authority") bull shit. The exact opposite, in fact.
>
>CDMA coverage is very tightly digitally controlled and it simply could mean that coverage
>wasn't there by DESIGN, not because of some "extended range" GSM. The CDMA
>system engineers may have put a chip value there limiting range because of a pilot
>pollution issue, or MANY multiple other reasons. It is one of the advantages of CDMA.
>By different chip values, a site's coverage can be made to do what is needed.
>
>You are making assumptions based on pure conjecture, ZERO actual fact.
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:me5492hth6prtp48u...@4ax.com...
>> By comparison, the reason I'm pretty sure it's being used, at least in
RNess
CDMA is considerably more tightly controlled - by
the chip settings and by very tight power control, etc.
Please do your homework - are YOU an RF engineer (I am)...
I see no "facts'...
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:kpf492hkaqclnrmo2...@4ax.com...
SMS
> 100% speculation - 0% fact
You have described his mode of operation in a nutshell.
Actually, what happened, if anything he wrote actually happened, was
that he was within range of someone operating a satellite linked GSM
picocell.
Of course this assumes that he isn't making the whole story up, which is
a very big assumption given his Usenet posting history.
"I have it on good authority..." and the authority is no authority at all.
ROTFLMAO! This belonged in the April 1st posting!
John Navas
wrote in <4492d0d2$0$96995$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>RNess wrote:
>Actually, what happened, if anything he wrote actually happened, was
>that he was within range of someone operating a satellite linked GSM
>picocell.
Out in the middle of the open ocean? Floating casinos? Network of
Cingular coverage barges? That's beyond funny!
DecaturTxCowboy
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:40:07 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4492d0d2$0$96995$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> RNess wrote:
>
>> Actually, what happened, if anything he wrote actually happened, was
>> that he was within range of someone operating a satellite linked GSM
>> picocell.
>
> Out in the middle of the open ocean? Floating casinos? Network of
> Cingular coverage barges? That's beyond funny!
GPS Cords' please.
SMS
Wouldn't really help. You never know if a ship with a satellite linked
picocell was in the area at the same time. In any case, the more likely
scenario is that he made the whole thing up, as part of his standard
shilling for Cingular and GSM. He's been caught doing this sort of thing
in the past.
John Navas
wrote in <aGDkg.148606$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:
37.647, -123.028
John Navas
wrote in <44930968$0$96971$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:40:07 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <4492d0d2$0$96995$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> RNess wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, what happened, if anything he wrote actually happened, was
>>>> that he was within range of someone operating a satellite linked GSM
>>>> picocell.
>>>
>>> Out in the middle of the open ocean? Floating casinos? Network of
>>> Cingular coverage barges? That's beyond funny!
>>
>> GPS Cords' please.
>
>Wouldn't really help. You never know if a ship with a satellite linked
>picocell was in the area at the same time.
That is of course ridiculous -- there aren't any such ships operating in
this area; they wouldn't have enough outside range; and it wouldn't be
the standard Cingular connection I'm getting. You clearly have no idea
what you're talking about.
>In any case, the more likely
>scenario is that he made the whole thing up, as part of his standard
>shilling for Cingular and GSM. He's been caught doing this sort of thing
>in the past.
Your standard response to painful truths. :)
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<0p2692h5b7ipigliq...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:31:18 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nos...@whutever.boo>
>wrote in <aGDkg.148606$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:40:07 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <4492d0d2$0$96995$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> RNess wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, what happened, if anything he wrote actually happened, was
>>>> that he was within range of someone operating a satellite linked GSM
>>>> picocell.
>>>
>>> Out in the middle of the open ocean? Floating casinos? Network of
>>> Cingular coverage barges? That's beyond funny!
>>
>>GPS Cords' please.
>
>37.647, -123.028
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
<http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=37.647,+-123.028&ie=UTF8&ll=37.646859,-123.027649&spn=1.09386,2.469177&om=1>
or <http://tinyurl.com/fo67d>.
See you out there? :)
IMHO IIRC
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:49:14 GMT, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> <0p2692h5b7ipigliq...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:31:18 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nos...@whutever.boo>
>> wrote in <aGDkg.148606$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:40:07 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>>> wrote in <4492d0d2$0$96995$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> RNess wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, what happened, if anything he wrote actually happened, was
>>>>> that he was within range of someone operating a satellite linked GSM
>>>>> picocell.
>>>>
>>>> Out in the middle of the open ocean? Floating casinos? Network of
>>>> Cingular coverage barges? That's beyond funny!
>>>
>>> GPS Cords' please.
>>
>> 37.647, -123.028
>
> Here, I'll make it easy for you:
> <http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=37.647,+-123.028&ie=UTF8&ll=37.646859,-123.027649&spn=1.09386,2.469177&om=1>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/fo67d>.
>
> See you out there?
When I measured the distance on your map and used the scale shown, it is
only approx 32 miles.
John Navas
wrote in <7CGkg.49004$ZW3.22563@dukeread04>:
>In news:n63692tikfbmpg7rd...@4ax.com,
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>> 37.647, -123.028
>>
>> Here, I'll make it easy for you:
>> <http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=37.647,+-123.028&ie=UTF8&ll=37.646859,-123.027649&spn=1.09386,2.469177&om=1>
>> or <http://tinyurl.com/fo67d>.
>>
>> See you out there?
>
>When I measured the distance on your map and used the scale shown, it is
>only approx 32 miles.
Versus the standard range GSM limit of 35 *km*, which is much less than
32 miles.
DecaturTxCowboy
> 37.647, -123.028
Back tracking that position to the coast line is just over 30 miles.
Still within usable TDMA frame differentiation limit, but past the 22
mile limit for reliable use.
You should have known that before you jumped to some conclusion that
isn't supported.
As for why Verizon's CDMA not reaching out that far?
Stop playing DUMB, you know perfectly well that it is past the typical
8-10 mile limit imposed by U.S carriers.
On the other hand....
Assuming there was a 200 ft. tower on the coast sitting on a 200 ft.
hill, the radio horizon would be 24 miles. Although 30 miles is
certainly possible with a very unusual tropo ducting event. Hardly a
reliable claim to good coverage.
John Navas
wrote in <L%Jkg.24930$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> 37.647, -123.028
>
>Back tracking that position to the coast line is just over 30 miles.
>Still within usable TDMA frame differentiation limit, but past the 22
>mile limit for reliable use.
Standard range GSM only works out to 32 *km*, or 21.75 miles, period.
So this must be Extended Range GSM.
>As for why Verizon's CDMA not reaching out that far?
>Stop playing DUMB, you know perfectly well that it is past the typical
>8-10 mile limit imposed by U.S carriers.
Say what? But so much for Steven's claims in any event. ;)