Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
676 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 77055 5-Jul-2007 17:03

freitasm: As a customer I just can't stand their inability to deliver the network coverage to where it matters - and to actually keep it working within acceptable parameters.

Sorry if the subject touches the sensitivity of people working in interested parties.



I can copy your post where you said to another people: you have another choice, Telecom
So it's true, if you can't stand their inability, choose Telecom. If you are unsatisfied, choose Telecom.




I is a kollege stoodent. Bee nice.

676 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 77056 5-Jul-2007 17:04

bcourtney:
freitasm: As a customer I just can't stand their inability to deliver the network coverage to where it matters - and to actually keep it working within acceptable parameters.

Sorry if the subject touches the sensitivity of people working in interested parties.



I agree here. I live in Hataitai (Wellington for outsiders), on Hataitai Road (main road in one of the bigger and most populated suburbs in the middle of the city) and I can't get 3G coverage on my phone. I stuggle to get more than about 3 bars of standard coverage for that matter. More often than not in recent weeks/months i get NO service at all for hours at a time.

It's not handset specific either as we have three different phones on 3 different accounts and all experience network coverage issues.

Surely when I live a mere 4 minute drive from the centre of the nations capital I should be able to get at least full voice coverage as close to 100% of the time as possible and I would have thought 3G coverage too.



Choose Telecom then. Simple




I is a kollege stoodent. Bee nice.

BDFL - Memuneh
61522 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12242

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 77057 5-Jul-2007 17:05
Send private message

I have a Telecom account and I use the one that is better suited to my requirements when the need arise.

Some people though can not have two accounts. Think of the poor souls. Both providers have problems and the only way to fix these is by pointing out where things are wrong.

Back on topic please.







676 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 77058 5-Jul-2007 17:13

freitasm:

I have a Telecom account and I use the one that is better suited to my requirements when the need arise.

Some people though can not have two accounts. Think of the poor souls. Both providers have problems and the only way to fix these is by pointing out where things are wrong.

Back on topic please.





Actually you didnt answer my first question, therefore you didnt point out anything where things are wrong.




I is a kollege stoodent. Bee nice.

BDFL - Memuneh
61522 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12242

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 77059 5-Jul-2007 17:16
Send private message

Aloha:
freitasm: 2100 MHz... Haven't they learnt from Vodafone's problems with this frequency?

Having said that, talking to some industry insiders, I believe Telecom might even pull one on this, and deploy it in a better fashion - seriously, no offense please, but I trust the Telecom engineers on mobile stuff.



Exactly what was Vodafone's problem with the 2100 frequency?


Poor in building penetration due to the characteristics of the 2100 MHz when compared with lower ones is one thing that springs to mind.







676 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 77063 5-Jul-2007 17:37

freitasm:

Poor in building penetration due to the characteristics of the 2100 MHz when compared with lower ones is one thing that springs to mind.



Then I see no problem here, you are telling me that the sky is blue.
Less in-building penetration as a basic characteristic of the higher frequencies is an obvious fact. It can be compensated for by creating indoor coverage using indoor antennas. Unfortunately VF didn't have the "money of the Sultan of Brunei" to put base stations into every building and when they started the 3G rollout in 2004 only 2100MHz was dedicated for WCDMA.
Plus nobody had any commercially available WCDMA equipment working on lower frequencies at that time.  \

And if anything else springs to mind just bring it up.




I is a kollege stoodent. Bee nice.

BDFL - Memuneh
61522 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12242

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 77066 5-Jul-2007 17:44
Send private message

Aloha:
freitasm:

Poor in building penetration due to the characteristics of the 2100 MHz when compared with lower ones is one thing that springs to mind.



Then I see no problem here, you are telling me that the sky is blue.
Less in-building penetration as a basic characteristic of the higher frequencies is an obvious fact. It can be compensated for by creating indoor coverage using indoor antennas. Unfortunately VF didn't have the "money of the Sultan of Brunei" to put base stations into every building and when they started the 3G rollout in 2004 only 2100MHz was dedicated for WCDMA.
Plus nobody had any commercially available WCDMA equipment working on lower frequencies at that time.  


And hence my comment (reproduced below) alluding to the fact that Telecom made a decision to go with 2100 MHz, even though they know from science (as you pointed out) and by experience (from Vodafone's previous roll out) that it would be better to go for lower frequencies (if they are available it's another question):


2100 MHz... Haven't they learnt from Vodafone's problems with this frequency?


You see? I am not saying it's the fault of Vodafone New Zealand, or Nokia, or whoever helped them deploy their WCDMA network. I am saying that it's a known limitation of the technology and Telecom should know better when deciding what to use.









Juha
1318 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 77067 5-Jul-2007 17:46
Send private message

Aloha: Plus nobody had any commercially available WCDMA equipment working on lower frequencies at that time.



I'm curious about something here: why wasn't WCDMA deployed in lower frequency bands before? Does it work better in higher frequencies?




836 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 77079 5-Jul-2007 18:31
Send private message

My guess is 2100mhz had unutilized or easily available spectrum for many network operators?


Where as the number of operators which had alternate lower spectrum available for immediate or reasonably easy deployment was of a lesser number.


Stab in the dark but that would be an obvious reason in my books.

6337 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 310

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 77081 5-Jul-2007 19:30
Send private message

I think the pretty obvious one is as Juha has mentioned, the provider would not want to compromise their knitting, the 850/900MHz service is the core of their income based on voice and SMS provision. So to provide a 3G service to the side without compromising that cashflow is a no brainer regardless of what known limitations may come with the 2.1GHz allocation.

Cyril

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 77084 5-Jul-2007 20:38
Send private message

Simple - 2100MHz equaled £33b in spectrum fees in Europe. Deploy it in 900Mhz no extra fees. It was all about the money. Suddenly crap coverage and in building penetration makes 900MHz for 3G WCDMA a viable alternative.  The 3G frenzy, what a sorry mistake that all was.

676 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 77086 5-Jul-2007 21:13

freitasm:
You see? I am not saying it's the fault of Vodafone New Zealand, or Nokia, or whoever helped them deploy their WCDMA network. I am saying that it's a known limitation of the technology and Telecom should know better when deciding what to use.


No I dont see. What you are saying now is totally against your previous post here in the same thread:

freitasm:
By now I would have thought that NOKIA and IBM are forbidden words within Vodafone New Zealand. Signing up with Nokia for 900 MHz is a big surprise.



So now what's the problem with Vodafone? Was it the usage of 2100MHz or Nokia? You decide.




I is a kollege stoodent. Bee nice.

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 77087 5-Jul-2007 21:20
Send private message

If I may reply - it is a combination of things really, but mainly 2100MHz with its known limitations, lack of sufficient back haul and not enough money spent on the coverage infill.




Twitter - GaryRo
Jama Jam

676 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

  Reply # 77088 5-Jul-2007 21:26

freitasm:

And hence my comment (reproduced below) alluding to the fact that Telecom made a decision to go with 2100 MHz, even though they know from science (as you pointed out) and by experience (from Vodafone's previous roll out) that it would be better to go for lower frequencies (if they are available it's another question)


You didnt get my point. The weakness of 2100 is well known in the industry (amongst the operators and vendors) and it's easy to fix it: you have to deploy more indoor sites. Unfortunately it takes time, operators are creating their outdoor coverage first then comes the focus on the in-building solutions. Vodafone is finishing its 2100 deployment sooner or later and they will fix the holes in the indoor coverage. You guys just want everything in no time! They have yearly budget, they have yearly plans,  soon they will reach their goal and you will have your coverage inside. If something is not going as YOU want then it's easy to blame the technology or the vendor without knowing the real reasons of the problems. Ridiculous.

And Telecom chose the 2100 because at the moment the most advanced UMTS technology is based on this frequency. The 900 and 850 capable equipments are in that stage when many operators are only trialing them.




I is a kollege stoodent. Bee nice.

646 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 4


  Reply # 77108 6-Jul-2007 08:50
Send private message

Aloha:
freitasm:

And hence my comment (reproduced below) alluding to the fact that Telecom made a decision to go with 2100 MHz, even though they know from science (as you pointed out) and by experience (from Vodafone's previous roll out) that it would be better to go for lower frequencies (if they are available it's another question)


You didnt get my point. The weakness of 2100 is well known in the industry (amongst the operators and vendors) and it's easy to fix it: you have to deploy more indoor sites. Unfortunately it takes time, operators are creating their outdoor coverage first then comes the focus on the in-building solutions. Vodafone is finishing their 2100 deployment sooner or later and they will fix the holes in the indoor coverage. You guys just want everything in no time! They have yearly budget, they have yearly plans,  soon they will reach their goal and you will have your coverage inside. If something is not going as YOU want then it's easy to blame the technology or the vendor without knowing the real reasons of the problems. Ridiculous.

And Telecom chose the 2100 because at the moment the most advanced UMTS technology is based on this frequency. The 900 and 850 capable equipments are in their first phase when many operators are only trialing them.


And from all accounts it's not going as well as the promoters would like. 900mhz is un proven and 850mhz is proving to provide head aches for operators and few vendors will run with that. At least 2100mhz is proven and the faults are known. To me this is a win for CDMA promoters knowing how well there networks work at 1900/850/800/450 etc etc.

I think this is a good reason why TNZ are not rolling out 850mhz WCDMA and are restricting WCDMA to metros and deploying 850mhz GSM/EDGE to provide decent connectivity in the rural areas from handsets. EVDO Rev A is proven for mobile broadband in NZ and maybe just may be TNZ will complete the roll out and either put EVDO Rev o in all the left over sites or complete all the remaining 30% of sites with Rev A... Then again thats wish full thinking!!





www.ultimatebroadband.co.nz 
Delivering better broadband services

UFB fibre, Rural fibre on EA networks, RBI wireless, Ruralnet & Ultra wireless, wireless networks


1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.