| John Navas 2006-05-23, 5:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <29WdnWNauPDPXPDZRVn-sw@giganews.com> on Fri, 19 May 2006 08:00:02 -0500,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>Reading your comments below ... you are clearly the real Thomas and I am an
>imposter ... I do not hold the doubt and cynacism so close to my heart.
You hold the ad hominems instead.
>You have aggressively post editted my quote and removed all references to the
>fact that I am talking about Verizon here. Verizon is doing QC work with
>those mobile vans. The data has its marketting uses obviously, and they are
>using it. They do not hide the fact that they are the company gathering the
>information. As an informed consumer, I am surprised you take such a negative
>opinion of it.
That's a joke -- right?
>
>It is their own QC data ... there is no point in doing QC work if you don't do
>it objectively.
That's another joke -- right?
>
>Cynic. Cynic ... cynic!
Realist.
>The only way to overlap TDMA/GSM zones are to put them on different bands.
>CDMA does not have to worry about it. The interference caused by overlapping
>GSM/TDMA is absolute, so deployment is much more problematic.
Not true. Learn more about antenna design.
>
>I understand perfectly why breathing occurs. ...
Not if you think it's "like IP packets".
>
>Actually, it is the difference. The "packet" of data sent in CDMA is smaller
>than that in GSM, thus, one can approach the theoretical limit more closely.
Nope.
I'm not going to waste any more time here on a pointless and meaningless CDMA
is better than GSM flame war. So knock yourself out, and have the last word.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|