TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."

At 24 Dec 2006 06:46:23 -0800 SMS wrote:

> It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the
leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users.
Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million
users in the U.S. alone.

Nokia is fed up with our whole system of carrier subsidies destroying the
perceived value of phones, and tired of the profit loss customizing
software and features for individual carriers. Add to that the Qualcomm
licensing fees and Nokia's happy to let an OEM handle that for the CDMA
market. There's still money to be made in OEM- lots of Companies do it.

Long term, Nokia and is trying to create a marketplace where desire for
the latest handsets leads to direct sales outside of the carrier. That's
a far more reachable goal with GSM than CDMA in the current market.

At 24 Dec 2006 11:59:16 -0500 Larry wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
> in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
> matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.

If you have a GSM phone that's true today.

If you don't, you've accepted that trade-off.

> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in
Europe.
> They have REPEATERS!

....and a fraction of the geography to cover!

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message news:U4zjh.11545$hI.4669@newssvr11.news.prodigy.ne t...
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns98A379F727E1Fnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
>> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe. They have REPEATERS!
>
> Which is only feasible because of the higher population density in Europe.
> But everything has trade-offs. If you don't mind living in cramped
> quarters, with the government interfering in every aspect of your
> life, by all means move to Europe.
>
> --
> John Richards (who lived in Europe for 13 years)


Along with the extreme difference in geographical area (and population density), there is another
BIG factor.

As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government involvement in all things
in most, if not all European countries. Certainly wireless is included. Down to and including the digital
protocol that was chosen. It most certainly was government influenced over there, (vs the market here).

Qualcom is American and god forbid using something from the USA (and paying the greedy yanks...)
Even though CDMA is a quite superior technology, Eurocentric protectionism prevailed.

Then there are the "repeaters" as Larry so often blabs about... Again a case of direct government
involvement - do you honestly think there were many - if any NIMBY roadblocks to site placement?

I doubt it...

Again, this is another cut & paste job by navas. His low IQ can't
comprehend the argumentative statement. The only way to justify his
idiotic statement is to cut and paste some paragraph out of the context.


In article <M-ednb7KYJymMBPYnZ2dnUVZ_tW3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness net" <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> Bingo!!!
>
> They are still wrangling over it legally. Nokia, refusing to play nice, tried
> to
> go it alone - and failed miserably. Now they are simply doing a cut and run,
> so to speak.
>
> Navas then falsely interpreting this as a decline in CDMA is complete horse
> crap.
>
> "Apology accepted"??? What an ass...!
>
>
>
> "Charles" <fort514@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:241220061055167563%fort514@mac.com...
> > In article <jpudnVfDYurOCRPYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@adelphia.com>, George
> > <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
> >> decided to give up trying.
> >
> > Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> > that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
> > phones sounds like sour grapes.
> >
> > --
> > Charles
>
>

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:24:30 -0500, Ness net wrote
(in article <KsCdncPPXLXw2RLYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com>) :

> As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government
> involvement in all things
> in most, if not all European countries. Certainly wireless is included. Down
> to and including the digital
> protocol that was chosen. It most certainly was government influenced over
> there, (vs the market here).
>
> Qualcom is American and god forbid using something from the USA (and paying
> the greedy yanks...)
> Even though CDMA is a quite superior technology, Eurocentric protectionism
> prevailed.

Not taking one side or the other here ... but I find it humorous that folks
who don't want "big government" involved are quick to allow a monopolistic
corporation to be involved in the same aspects of their lives. :-)

On Dec 24, 10:59 am, Larry <n...@home.com> wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in news:458e92bf$0$68997
> $742ec...@news.sonic.net:
Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball
digital
> schemes?

Our crazy, odd-ball digital scheme is so bad that it's being adopted
around the world and is still the
basis for W-CDMA. Remember, criticize cdma2000 and you're also
criticizing W-CDMA.

"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message news:0001HW.C1B56D8A00401637F0203648@news.giganews .com...
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:24:30 -0500, Ness net wrote
> (in article <KsCdncPPXLXw2RLYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com>) :
>
>> As you elude to above, there is considerably more DIRECT government
>> involvement in all things
>> in most, if not all European countries. Certainly wireless is included. Down
>> to and including the digital
>> protocol that was chosen. It most certainly was government influenced over
>> there, (vs the market here).
>>
>> Qualcom is American and god forbid using something from the USA (and paying
>> the greedy yanks...)
>> Even though CDMA is a quite superior technology, Eurocentric protectionism
>> prevailed.
>
> Not taking one side or the other here ... but I find it humorous that folks
> who don't want "big government" involved are quick to allow a monopolistic
> corporation to be involved in the same aspects of their lives. :-)

Not sure what you are getting at. There is plenty of competition in the
mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular,
Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> ...and a fraction of the geography to cover!

Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe.

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in news:f4Vjh.37257
$wc5.21813@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Not sure what you are getting at. There is plenty of competition in the
> mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular,
> Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others.
>
>

But, is that an illusion created for the consumers?

They're all members of the same "club", the CTIA (www.ctia.org)....
They all act, approximately, the same, arrogant, aloof, demanding...
They all play the same contract games with subsidies to prevent churning...

Are they REALLY competitors, or simply tentacles of the same octopus, like
oil companies are, bankers are, broadcasters are, cable companies are, many
other corporations are??

If I want to steal your customers, I offer them something really grand,
really cheap and, most of all, industry shaking. Cellphone companies never
do this. They all make lots of noise in overpriced advertising, but they
never, just like gas companies, get far afield of what their CTIA bretheren
are doing.....price fixing.

Yes, you can choose any CTIA member for your phone, just like you can
choose any Federal Reserve banker to hold your money.....

"Ness net" <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:8amdnV2GktJH4A3YnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@giganews.com :

> If one were to actually believe this craziness, one would most likely
> also believe that ANY company in business, trying to make a profit and
> maximize shareholder value is greedy and evil. That a company isn't
> entitled to make a profit on the BILLIONS of dollars it spends?
>
> This is simple capitalism vs communism.
>
> You a commie Larry?
>
>
>

You must have read someone else's post.....??

MANY companies in business trying to maximize profits conspire with their
competitors to fix prices high. That's what the anti-trust laws are
supposed to, but are unsuccessful on purpose, prevent. There's no
difference between the collusion in cellular phone companies and gasoline
companies or telephone companies. They form a CARTEL...go look it up as
you seem to have some kind of convenient amnesia...FIX PRICES HIGH...and
they all reap in the profits. This is not a NEW concept. It has been
going on since before Pharoah freed the Jews. Duhhh.....

All companies are entitled to make as many billions of dollars as the
MARKET will bear. Mine is no different.

Now, what's the communist bullshit you've rolled out to justify corporate
cartel behaviour? Can you define a communist? Do you know what it is,
or is this the spin bullshit to deflect the idea of cartel existence and
its effect on cellular (or cable) pricing? Anyone who questions the
cartel's existence is to be attacked as an "evil commie", is that it?

God you're so transparent.....You should have a radio talk show.

Communism, by the way, has nothing to do with corporate cartels and
corporate greed....