Re: Verizon Bluetooth Phone(s) Coming in January?

> Actually, TDMA is an old technology.

CDMA is too. :-)

> It's sound quality is noticably lesser than CDMA

It's all in the codec man, it's all in the codec.
The bit stream is the same, it's just the encoding.
Newer codecs can be put in the TDMA system to.
The older codec (original D AMPS) had to be set to
full rate to sound decent.
That is why half rate coding never got very far at first.
Now the half rate codec has good sound quality and network
capacity can be doubled if they put new half rate
capable phones in the system.

>(Verizon's) and network capacity is many times smaller than
> CDMA.

The far grater capacity is only achievable in laboratory conditions.
In the real world, the coverage becomes horrible from cell shrinking
when the system is loaded up near max capacity.
In real world conditions, half rate TDMA has more capacity than CDMA.

>CDMA (code division multiple access) is the superior technology in
> wireless for these and many more reasons.

That, I will disagree on.

>That's why our own government has
> changed it's wireless technology from TDMA to CDMA.

?????
When did the government ever standardize on a emissions system?????
They mainly use CDMA on transmissions they don't want tracked,
and ones that they don't want jammed.
That is the only benefits of CDMA.
It looks like noise when you don't know the bandwidth, chipping sequence,
integration method, and center frequency.
But the only benefit that CDMA has, is lost in the cellular system.
You know all of those, so why not use a system more suited for the
application.

> I am absolutely positive that Verizon does not pump lies into the
public
> to keep customers.

We will agree to disagree on that. :-)

> Now that LNP is in effect, Verizon is taking in new
> customers hand over fist.

And I am waiting for all the new "verizon sucks" web pages
that will come in the future

> Sprint and Cingular are losing them like mad.

Sprint, yes.
Cingular, no.

> For every 3 that Verizon loses, it gains 20, thanks to LNP. Verizon does
> not need to make lies up about Blue Tooth technology to keep customers.

Every customer that leaves is a little less money.
They will avoid it if they can.
And not working on something that
people are complaining about is bad PR.

> I
> personally haven't heard either way how that will go, but believe me, if
> they were going to do it, it would be proprietery information, and if
anyone
> let the word out, they would be canned in the blink of an eye.

You just couldn't imagine them conveniently letting out little hints to the
public, could you?
MY...... it would have to be the first time in history wouldn't it? :-P

> Finally, Verizon is the only company in the wireless industry making
> money.

Where did you hear that from????
What is all that green stuff Nextel is making?? grass???? :-)

>All others are losing millions-billions per year.

The only one that is running up debt right now is AT&T.
The only reason they are is from spending money to upgrade their equipment.
If they would stop, or slow down their upgrade schedule, then they
could go back into the profit range right now.
I personally think that AT&T going to 3G is a bad mistake.
I don't know if they will survive their little plan.
They should just stop at edge, and do a casualty count, then
get network straightened out and back on track.

>Verizon profits billions per year.

100's of millions to 1billion, not billions.
Total income is around 4 to 5 billion a quarter.
Total profit was around 400milion a quarter.
Total profit for a year is about a billion to 1.2 billion.

>Do you really think that they couldn't implement it if
> they wanted to?

They wanted a solution they didn't have to self manage.
Qualcomm provides the chipset for the handset and
the technology for the base stations.
No one else has anything to say about it.
It's proprietary.
So it is something that verizon can just forget about.
All verizon can do is brag about new 1X tech when
qualcom ships it, but they really don't have much to say about it's design.

Other companies are looking for a more hands on approach.
Open standards allow the companies that use it. to have more
of a say so about is't actual operation and implementation.
But it requires the company to actually understand and manage
the technologies that it is using, otherwise the company will not
be able to implement it properly.

>Do you really think they are scrambling around trying to
> keep up with failing companies who cannot even provide sufficent coverage
> throughout the country?

And I will argue that verizon doesn't provide
sufficient coverage throughout the country.
And I don't see that many failing companies.
The only one I really see in a bind is AT&T wireless.
I still hope that cingular buys them out. :-)
If they try to go 3G, cingular just may get a good
deal on them when they are ripe for buy out.

> Verizon sets the standards in this industry.

How can you set a standard, when you have nothing that
can be considered a standard.
ALL the stuff they use is proprietary.
(a.k.a Not fit for the "standard" label.

> I'm not trying to start an argument here,

No argument, I am just stating my opinion. :-)

>but you are clearly mistaken
> about Verizon's position on this matter.

I know their position perfectly well, that is why I disagree with
their practices as of late.
They are taking the road that I dislike.
They make Microsoft look like white nights.
Microsoft is far more open with their operating system than
verizon/qualcomm is with their network and applications.

The wide use of a proprietary communications technologie
is something I can not support.

Especially the fact that it forces other companies to sell themselves
to qualcomm if they want the capability to interoperate with verizon.

I personally hope that the emerging OPEN standards will run
qualcomm's proprietary system into the ground! :-)

Nah, probably a big wig at VZW bought his daughter an Acura and she
pestered him for a Bluetooth phone for her spunky new car.


--
Thomas M. Goethe

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gToAb.403295$0v4.19973391@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Any truth to this rumor?
> >
> > http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/showth...threadid=66412
> >
> > "FYI... A co-worker has a relative that works for verizon wireless
> > corporate...they contend that they will indeed have a bluetooth phone
> available
> > by Jan."
>
> Oww..... my.... now that one is ripe. :-)
> Two possibilities.
>
> Lest see.... The boss told a subordinate that
> they wished they could get a blue tooth phone.
>
> The subordinate told their fellow employ that
> that management wanted a blue tooth phone.
>
> The fellow employee told their relative that verizon
> was working on getting a blue tooth phone.
>
> The co-worker/relative told the poster that verizon
> was getting a blue tooth phone.
> (Add believable/unbelievable date any time you want.)
>
> Option two.
>
> Verizon is trying to pull a Qualcomm again.
> That way, they can keep their customers from switching,
> by enticing them with promises of things to come.
>
> Like the battle between TDMA and CDMA.
> Qualcomm was running dead last, but they stole
> the market by promising something that they didn't have.
> Even today, they still don't admit that their figures for CDMA
> is liberal, if not down right lies.
>
> TDMA was at the right place, at the right time.
> It would of become a nation wide standard if
> qualcomm had kept their A$$ out of it.
> And we wouldn't have this digital divide we have today.
>
> Verizon learns from the best of them.
> The promise their PTT phones at an unreasonable time.
> Motorola knows how long it takes to build a phone.
> But verizon was pushing the date to try and steal the market.
> They caught a 100,000 unlucky people in there trap,
> but the service seems to have a moderate problem.
> It seems to have a "small" delay. :-)
>
> Now verizon is getting flack from people
> wanting blue tooth phones.
> And people are switching because of it.
> So, they pull a Qualcomm to try and
> keep their customers happy.
> If you can't keep them happy with products,
> you pacify them with lies.
>
> Pick your choice! :-)
>
>

A Friend wrote:
> Actually, TDMA is an old technology. It's sound quality is noticably
> lesser than CDMA (Verizon's)

You are right, TDMA is an older technology. Sound quality: I find
exactly the opposite -- CDMA seems to sound "far away", espeically 1x.
GSM/TDMA seem to have the best sound quality, aside from an AMPS
connection with strong signal.

> and network capacity is many times smaller than CDMA.

True. There is a reason that Cingular and AT&T WS are upgrading to GSM.
It is estimated that more than 70% of mobile users worldwide are using
the GSM standard.

> CDMA (code division multiple access) is the superior technology in
> wireless for these and many more reasons.

It's not a single technology. Nextel's iDEN and GSM are both TDMA based
technologies, that is, technologies based on Time slots, but the IS-136
(TDMA that Cingular and AT&T use) is not compatible with iDEN or GSM,
nor are any of those three compatible at all.

> That's why our own government has
> changed it's wireless technology from TDMA to CDMA.

In which country do you live?

> I am absolutely positive that Verizon does not pump lies into the public
> to keep customers.

Probably not a corporate practise, but I'm pretty sure Verizon
representatives lie to customers on a regular basis. Is not Verizon
Communications (formerly Bell Atlantic) known for lying to customers?

> Now that LNP is in effect, Verizon is taking in new
> customers hand over fist.

How many customer has Verizon Wireless gained since 24 November? I know
of many areas where people are switching *AWAY* from Verizon Wireless.

> Sprint and Cingular are losing them like mad.

How many customers did Sprint and Cingular have on 23 November? How
many do they have today? What was the net loss?

> For every 3 that Verizon loses, it gains 20, thanks to LNP.

Is this an official company number? Which press release did it appear in?

> Verizon does
> not need to make lies up about Blue Tooth technology to keep customers.

Again, it won't be a corporate practise, but I know that VZW salesmen lie.


> I
> personally haven't heard either way how that will go, but believe me, if
> they were going to do it, it would be proprietery information, and if anyone
> let the word out, they would be canned in the blink of an eye.

No comment there.

> Finally, Verizon is the only company in the wireless industry making
> money.

You should probably alert the FTC that Nextel is guilty of fraud.
According to SEC filings for the fiscal years of 2002, Nextel had a
profit. Not only that, Nextel is also helping Nextel Partners and
Extend America extend their own networks, thereby joining the "Nextel
National Network". It seems they'd rather have better coverage and help
out smaller companies ally with it.

> All others are losing millions-billions per year.

Have you verified these numbers with SEC filings? You have to remember,
that some wireless companies are not actually corporations, such as
Cingular is a division of BellSouth and SBC Communications. Verizon
Wireless is a division of Verizon Communications and Vodafone. Sprint
PCS was a division of Sprint, then was a spin-off, but is now going to
be consolidated again with Sprint. In Canada, Rogers Wireless and AT&T
Wireless Canada merged, thereby becoming Rogers AT&T. However, Rogers,
the dominant partner in the venture, which has increased its stake in
teh venture, currently plans to drop "AT&T" from its branding, thereby
becoming "Rogers".


> Verizon profits
> billions per year.

Do you mean Verizon Communications, Inc. or Verizon Wireless division?
Of course, Verizon Communications still flourishes with its landline
monopoly over millions of Americans. How much did Verizon Communicaions
profit for the fiscal year of 2002? How much did Verizon Wireless
profit (loss) for the fiscal year of 2002? How is the accounting of
capital expenditures accounted for? Are capital expenditures noted
primarily as expenses, or are they accounted for primarily as tangible
assets, which will depreciate over time? Remember, financials can be
"toyed" with to reflect what you want them to. If you want to avoid
taxes because you are building out your network, you may choose an
accounting method that reflects that. No two wireless companies can be
completely compared unless they use 100% the same accounting methods.

> Do you really think that they couldn't implement it if
> they wanted to? Do you really think they are scrambling around trying to
> keep up with failing companies who cannot even provide sufficent coverage
> throughout the country?

So, Verizon is the "only" company to provide sufficient coverage
througout the country? If so, why do they choose to "ignore" home
coverage to millions of Americans

> Verizon sets the standards in this industry.

Really. Is it not true that a majority of the world uses GSM? And in
many foreign markets that use CDMA, UMTS (wCDMA or W-CDMA, also known as
Wideband CDMA) is the standard. UMTS is *NOT* compatible with CDMA 2000
that Verizon Wireless uses.

> I'm not trying to start an argument here, but you are clearly mistaken
> about Verizon's position on this matter.

Remember, Verizon Wireless varies throughout the country. Verizon's
coverage in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Orgeon, and Nevada
is very poor, falling under Sprint PCS, AT&T Wireless Services, and
Western Wireless.

I will be sitting by my computer waiting for the numbers of those
financials. After you post them, I will verify them with SEC filings to
assure accuracy in the matter.



> "N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:gToAb.403295$0v4.19973391@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>>Any truth to this rumor?
>>>
>>>http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/showth...threadid=66412
>>>
>>>"FYI... A co-worker has a relative that works for verizon wireless
>>>corporate...they contend that they will indeed have a bluetooth phone
>>
>>available
>>
>>>by Jan."
>>
>>Oww..... my.... now that one is ripe. :-)
>>Two possibilities.
>>
>>Lest see.... The boss told a subordinate that
>>they wished they could get a blue tooth phone.
>>
>>The subordinate told their fellow employ that
>>that management wanted a blue tooth phone.
>>
>>The fellow employee told their relative that verizon
>>was working on getting a blue tooth phone.
>>
>>The co-worker/relative told the poster that verizon
>>was getting a blue tooth phone.
>>(Add believable/unbelievable date any time you want.)
>>
>>Option two.
>>
>>Verizon is trying to pull a Qualcomm again.
>>That way, they can keep their customers from switching,
>>by enticing them with promises of things to come.
>>
>>Like the battle between TDMA and CDMA.
>>Qualcomm was running dead last, but they stole
>>the market by promising something that they didn't have.
>>Even today, they still don't admit that their figures for CDMA
>>is liberal, if not down right lies.
>>
>>TDMA was at the right place, at the right time.
>>It would of become a nation wide standard if
>>qualcomm had kept their A$$ out of it.
>>And we wouldn't have this digital divide we have today.
>>
>>Verizon learns from the best of them.
>>The promise their PTT phones at an unreasonable time.
>>Motorola knows how long it takes to build a phone.
>>But verizon was pushing the date to try and steal the market.
>>They caught a 100,000 unlucky people in there trap,
>>but the service seems to have a moderate problem.
>>It seems to have a "small" delay. :-)
>>
>>Now verizon is getting flack from people
>>wanting blue tooth phones.
>>And people are switching because of it.
>>So, they pull a Qualcomm to try and
>>keep their customers happy.
>>If you can't keep them happy with products,
>>you pacify them with lies.
>>
>>Pick your choice! :-)

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:59:31 -0600, Aboutdakota
<aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>A Friend wrote:

>> and network capacity is many times smaller than CDMA.

>True. There is a reason that Cingular and AT&T WS are upgrading to GSM.
> It is estimated that more than 70% of mobile users worldwide are using
>the GSM standard.

But GSM on TDMA generally has the same network capacity as TDMA
without GSM.

I have to be honest with you... I don't care that much. The info stated
was simply info that I have picked up over the years. I don't have any
1-source of information. I do know for a fact that Verizon will not put
lies into the public. I know people who work there and there is a high
standard of integrity in the company. I have heard stories of people being
fired for simply letting the word out that there is a new phone to be
launched that hasn't been released yet. If anyone let out info on LNP prior
to Nov 24 '03, they would have been terminated. The idea that there is some
guy in the company, like the CEO, who would even bother wasting energy on
creating lies about their plans for the future, rather than actually
implementing them, is completely rediculous! I mean, what medium will they
rely on to get out their lies? It wouldn't be in a press release. So I
guess the CEO tells his son's buddies to start some lies about Verizon and
bluetooth in hopes that it gets around the country so that they can keep up
with the dazzling technology that Sprint is rolling out... like that great
network "built from the ground up". Or to keep up with companies that need
to redefine what a "Peak minute" is in order to compete with Verizon. I
just don't see the lies happening... I'm sorry.
The stats on Verizon winning the LNP war are for the northeast. I do
realize that Sprint only sucks in 99% of the country and rules in 1%. I
apologize for not making that distinction. Also, Cingular only sucks in 60%
of the country and is great in 40%. The truth still stands that Verizon
still covers more places than either. That is why Verizon was excited about
LNP and the other companies were trying to stall it. Verizon was also the
first to be ready for it. This info is actually from a wireless magazine
that I read. I do remember the source of that info.
I didn't know that Nextel was profiting. I did a trusty google search
and found that you are indeed correct. I think they really have the market
cornered with Direct Connect. Verizon's Push to Talk is just not the same.
Honestly, I don't see much of an advantage of it in the first place, but
Nextel does do it better. As for the coverage, Nextel's feature should be
called Direct Disconnect. Verizon should maybe be called Push to Wait.




"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:QfzAb.161268$Ec1.6268615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Actually, TDMA is an old technology.
>
> CDMA is too. :-)
>
> > It's sound quality is noticably lesser than CDMA
>
> It's all in the codec man, it's all in the codec.
> The bit stream is the same, it's just the encoding.
> Newer codecs can be put in the TDMA system to.
> The older codec (original D AMPS) had to be set to
> full rate to sound decent.
> That is why half rate coding never got very far at first.
> Now the half rate codec has good sound quality and network
> capacity can be doubled if they put new half rate
> capable phones in the system.
>
> >(Verizon's) and network capacity is many times smaller than
> > CDMA.
>
> The far grater capacity is only achievable in laboratory conditions.
> In the real world, the coverage becomes horrible from cell shrinking
> when the system is loaded up near max capacity.
> In real world conditions, half rate TDMA has more capacity than CDMA.
>
> >CDMA (code division multiple access) is the superior technology in
> > wireless for these and many more reasons.
>
> That, I will disagree on.
>
> >That's why our own government has
> > changed it's wireless technology from TDMA to CDMA.
>
> ?????
> When did the government ever standardize on a emissions system?????
> They mainly use CDMA on transmissions they don't want tracked,
> and ones that they don't want jammed.
> That is the only benefits of CDMA.
> It looks like noise when you don't know the bandwidth, chipping sequence,
> integration method, and center frequency.
> But the only benefit that CDMA has, is lost in the cellular system.
> You know all of those, so why not use a system more suited for the
> application.
>
> > I am absolutely positive that Verizon does not pump lies into the
> public
> > to keep customers.
>
> We will agree to disagree on that. :-)
>
> > Now that LNP is in effect, Verizon is taking in new
> > customers hand over fist.
>
> And I am waiting for all the new "verizon sucks" web pages
> that will come in the future
>
> > Sprint and Cingular are losing them like mad.
>
> Sprint, yes.
> Cingular, no.
>
> > For every 3 that Verizon loses, it gains 20, thanks to LNP. Verizon
does
> > not need to make lies up about Blue Tooth technology to keep customers.
>
> Every customer that leaves is a little less money.
> They will avoid it if they can.
> And not working on something that
> people are complaining about is bad PR.
>
> > I
> > personally haven't heard either way how that will go, but believe me, if
> > they were going to do it, it would be proprietery information, and if
> anyone
> > let the word out, they would be canned in the blink of an eye.
>
> You just couldn't imagine them conveniently letting out little hints to
the
> public, could you?
> MY...... it would have to be the first time in history wouldn't it? :-P
>
> > Finally, Verizon is the only company in the wireless industry making
> > money.
>
> Where did you hear that from????
> What is all that green stuff Nextel is making?? grass???? :-)
>
> >All others are losing millions-billions per year.
>
> The only one that is running up debt right now is AT&T.
> The only reason they are is from spending money to upgrade their
equipment.
> If they would stop, or slow down their upgrade schedule, then they
> could go back into the profit range right now.
> I personally think that AT&T going to 3G is a bad mistake.
> I don't know if they will survive their little plan.
> They should just stop at edge, and do a casualty count, then
> get network straightened out and back on track.
>
> >Verizon profits billions per year.
>
> 100's of millions to 1billion, not billions.
> Total income is around 4 to 5 billion a quarter.
> Total profit was around 400milion a quarter.
> Total profit for a year is about a billion to 1.2 billion.
>
> >Do you really think that they couldn't implement it if
> > they wanted to?
>
> They wanted a solution they didn't have to self manage.
> Qualcomm provides the chipset for the handset and
> the technology for the base stations.
> No one else has anything to say about it.
> It's proprietary.
> So it is something that verizon can just forget about.
> All verizon can do is brag about new 1X tech when
> qualcom ships it, but they really don't have much to say about it's
design.
>
> Other companies are looking for a more hands on approach.
> Open standards allow the companies that use it. to have more
> of a say so about is't actual operation and implementation.
> But it requires the company to actually understand and manage
> the technologies that it is using, otherwise the company will not
> be able to implement it properly.
>
> >Do you really think they are scrambling around trying to
> > keep up with failing companies who cannot even provide sufficent
coverage
> > throughout the country?
>
> And I will argue that verizon doesn't provide
> sufficient coverage throughout the country.
> And I don't see that many failing companies.
> The only one I really see in a bind is AT&T wireless.
> I still hope that cingular buys them out. :-)
> If they try to go 3G, cingular just may get a good
> deal on them when they are ripe for buy out.
>
> > Verizon sets the standards in this industry.
>
> How can you set a standard, when you have nothing that
> can be considered a standard.
> ALL the stuff they use is proprietary.
> (a.k.a Not fit for the "standard" label.
>
> > I'm not trying to start an argument here,
>
> No argument, I am just stating my opinion. :-)
>
> >but you are clearly mistaken
> > about Verizon's position on this matter.
>
> I know their position perfectly well, that is why I disagree with
> their practices as of late.
> They are taking the road that I dislike.
> They make Microsoft look like white nights.
> Microsoft is far more open with their operating system than
> verizon/qualcomm is with their network and applications.
>
> The wide use of a proprietary communications technologie
> is something I can not support.
>
> Especially the fact that it forces other companies to sell themselves
> to qualcomm if they want the capability to interoperate with verizon.
>
> I personally hope that the emerging OPEN standards will run
> qualcomm's proprietary system into the ground! :-)
>
>
>

Al Klein wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:59:31 -0600, Aboutdakota
> <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>
>>A Friend wrote:
>
>
>>>and network capacity is many times smaller than CDMA.
>>
>
>>True. There is a reason that Cingular and AT&T WS are upgrading to GSM.
>> It is estimated that more than 70% of mobile users worldwide are using
>>the GSM standard.
>
>
> But GSM on TDMA generally has the same network capacity as TDMA
> without GSM.

Isn't GSM more efficient than TDMA? I mean, why did Europe not just use
TDMA if the capacity is exactly the same? It would have been easier to
modify software for TDMA infrastructure than it would be to create a new
standard for infrastructure.

==AD

> The stats on Verizon winning the LNP war are for the northeast. I do
> realize that Sprint only sucks in 99% of the country and rules in 1%. I
> apologize for not making that distinction. Also, Cingular only sucks in 60%
> of the country and is great in 40%. The truth still stands that Verizon
> still covers more places than either. That is why Verizon was excited about
> LNP and the other companies were trying to stall it.

Actually, for a long time, Verizon Wireless was the lead plaintiff
AGAINST WLNP. They pumped millions and millions of dollars into the
effort against it. Only after it was predicted that Verizon was going
to be a winner (Primarily in California and the Northeast) did they
decide to embrace it and become the "knight in shining armour".

==AD

Aboutdakota <aboutdakota@hot-mail.com> wrote in message news:<3FD4A0D6.5020203@hot-mail.com>...
> Isn't GSM more efficient than TDMA? I mean, why did Europe not just use
> TDMA if the capacity is exactly the same? It would have been easier to
> modify software for TDMA infrastructure than it would be to create a new
> standard for infrastructure.

GSM was first. Europe decided to standardize on 900MHz for cellular in
1982. The first techinical working group was created in 1986, the GSM
specs were frozen in 1990, and the first network was deployed in 1991.

http://www.gsmworld.com/about/history/index.shtml

"TDMA" - actually, the IS54 specification, which used TDMA signalling
- was standardized in 1991 and was first deployed in 1992. I haven't
found something that clearly states when they started designing it,
but it seems fairly clear that the Europeans were first here.