> Palm Phones Face Serious Backup Failureshttp://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/24/palm.online.sync.fails....
> "Owners of Palm's newer phones have encountered a flaw in its online
> backup system that has wiped out contacts and calendars. A portion of
> users note that backups sent to Palm's Profile cloud service from a
> Pre (and now Pixi) are being corrupted and blank out any synchronized
> data when the phone has to be reset or restored. Those without a local
> backup, such as through an app like Missing Sync, have no choice but
> to recreate the data from scratch.
> Palm is working on a fix and claims the issue touches only a "small
> number" of users, but also believes the issue only affects those
> migrating between phones where users at PreCentral and elsewhere have
> reported it occurring with their existing devices.
> The failure is the second for online backup to affect the phone
> business in recent memory and follows Microsoft's widespread Sidekick
> outage, which nearly lost data for those using the T-Mobile messaging
> phone. Palm's loss is less severe as the phone has solutions for
> offline sync and can tap into services whose backups are independent
> of Palm. Apple's MobileMe service, in comparison, is intended only as
> an optional feature for the iPhone and won't necessarily trigger major
> data loss in the event of an outage."

> The last time that I was in Korea was about one year ago, and powering
> up my iPhone 3G with an Orange (France) SIM, a TMN (Portugal Telecom)
> SIM and a Telstra (Australia) SIM failed to connect to any network. I
> ended up having to use a public telephone (gack!) as I was only
> transiting and it made no sense to rent a local phone for one day.
> Automatic GSM roaming did not work in 2008, that I am sure of.

> It seems that my phone should be able to roam this time, though. My
> chain of thought.

> http://gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_kr.shtml
> 3GSM coverage maps of Korea, by both KT and SKT, marked LIVE

> http://gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/roa_krkt.shtml
> roaming partners for KT, includes all 3 of the above SIMs, marked LIVE

> http://www.kt.com/eng/index.jsp                                 Click
> on the "SHOW GLOBAL ROAMING" area for more info, especially #3, says
> that "own number + own phone" roaming is now on.

> Has Korea finally crumbled and joined the 3GSM world? Is CDMA becoming
> the Betamax of cellular tech? Yes and no. My thinking is thus: Korea
> is also the home of WiMax (WiBro locally) and they will happily dump
> CDMA (a Qualcomm technology) in order to migrate to WiMax, while
> throwing in 3GSM for world compatibility. IMHO Korea originally chose
> CDMA on its technical merits as well as a form of non-tariff
> protectionism, as the number of handset makers was much smaller back
> then. ALL foreign handset makers COMBINED still account for only about
> 5% of handsets sold in the country.

> Regardless, the acid test is a field experiment. More news on this in
> 3 weeks time.

> On Nov 25, 1:48 pm, M Driftmeyer <tyri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > WRONG. The Country is not a CDMA only Nation. The two largest Telcos
> > are GSM.

> > On Nov 23, 12:54 pm, nolavabo <nolav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/11/23/cheaper.than.american.plans/

> > > However, nobody seems to have understood the much larger implications
> > > behind this. I have read quite a few stories on this, and none of the
> > > mention the broader implications.

> > > Korea is a CDMA only country. Therefore, a CDMA capable iPhone must
> > > already exist and is currently being manufactured. You can see some
> > > more specs of the Korean iPhone here (in Korean)

> > >http://phonestore.show.co.kr/handler/N2

> > > The key is that they refer to a USIM, not a SIM or a CSIM. USIMs are
> > > most commonly used in what are called "world" phones, or ones capable
> > > of using both CDMA and GSM networks.

> > > We still need to wait for confirmation of this, but if so it's very
> > > big news. Consider the timing. Apple launches a CDMA phone exactly 6
> > > months before the exclusive contract with AT&T expires? This sets
> > > Apple up perfectly to play Verizon and AT&T off each other in upcoming
> > > talks, and squeeze the best possible terms out of the American
> > > carriers.

> > > Let's not forget that China Mobile (not China Unicom who already sells
> > > the iPhone) is trying to shift all of their handsets to TD-SCDMA.
> > > Right now, "world" phones do not handle TD-SCDMA, CDMA and GSM, but
> > > how hard could it be to add that one extra variation?

> On Nov 23, 12:54 pm, nolavabo <nolav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/11/23/cheaper.than.american.plans/

> > However, nobody seems to have understood the much larger implications
> > behind this. I have read quite a few stories on this, and none of the
> > mention the broader implications.

> > Korea is a CDMA only country. Therefore, a CDMA capable iPhone must
> > already exist and is currently being manufactured. You can see some
> > more specs of the Korean iPhone here (in Korean)

> >http://phonestore.show.co.kr/handler/N2

> > The key is that they refer to a USIM, not a SIM or a CSIM. USIMs are
> > most commonly used in what are called "world" phones, or ones capable
> > of using both CDMA and GSM networks.

> > We still need to wait for confirmation of this, but if so it's very
> > big news. Consider the timing. Apple launches a CDMA phone exactly 6
> > months before the exclusive contract with AT&T expires? This sets
> > Apple up perfectly to play Verizon and AT&T off each other in upcoming
> > talks, and squeeze the best possible terms out of the American
> > carriers.

> > Let's not forget that China Mobile (not China Unicom who already sells
> > the iPhone) is trying to shift all of their handsets to TD-SCDMA.
> > Right now, "world" phones do not handle TD-SCDMA, CDMA and GSM, but
> > how hard could it be to add that one extra variation?

> However, nobody seems to have understood the much larger implications
> behind this. I have read quite a few stories on this, and none of the
> mention the broader implications.

> Korea is a CDMA only country. Therefore, a CDMA capable iPhone must
> already exist and is currently being manufactured. You can see some
> more specs of the Korean iPhone here (in Korean)

> http://phonestore.show.co.kr/handler/N2

> The key is that they refer to a USIM, not a SIM or a CSIM. USIMs are
> most commonly used in what are called "world" phones, or ones capable
> of using both CDMA and GSM networks.

> We still need to wait for confirmation of this, but if so it's very
> big news. Consider the timing. Apple launches a CDMA phone exactly 6
> months before the exclusive contract with AT&T expires? This sets
> Apple up perfectly to play Verizon and AT&T off each other in upcoming
> talks, and squeeze the best possible terms out of the American
> carriers.

> Let's not forget that China Mobile (not China Unicom who already sells
> the iPhone) is trying to shift all of their handsets to TD-SCDMA.
> Right now, "world" phones do not handle TD-SCDMA, CDMA and GSM, but
> how hard could it be to add that one extra variation?

> Novav, great posts. I always enjoy your work, since you take the time
> to learn things that I don't have time to learn. Keep up the good
> work!

> I was only heard through word of mouth that Verizon was only more
> reliable because of the standard they were using. But I guess it's
> just the lack of towers huh?

> Hopefully, Verizon either makes carries a comparable phone, or gets
> the IPhone, so the I can leave AT&T once again, and hopefully never
> come back next time.

> Droid is getting close, but it just doesn't have the polished-off feel
> yet. Just needs a little more work and it just might surpass the
> IPhone in most areas (it already has the IPhone beat on coverage,
> battery-life, open-source, GPS navigation, and the photo/video
> capabilities).

> On Nov 24, 4:24 pm, JPW <johnpwatk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > More cells definitely sound good.
> > I understand it's a real problem in certain areas, particularly
> > Manhattan. Here in Chicago I don't hear much complaining about dropped
> > calls but some folks weren't satisfied with their data speed until
> > recently. Not long ago there wasn't a shred of 3G coverage in Denver.
> > iPhones all defaulted to EDGE(don't know how they managed to sell
> > expensive iPhone contracts there!)http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=data
> > Notice they make the color for EDGE and 3G a *very* similar shade of
> > blue to sort of cover up for their poor coverage outside of major
> > metro areas. Progress is slow. Of course the US has considerably lower
> > population density than Europe.

> > On Nov 24, 5:22 pm, nolavabo <nolav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > JPW, agree definitely. However, the solution still boils down to more
> > > towers.

> > > 3G is new to the US, but has been widespread in Europe(and parts of
> > > Asia) since 2002 and became the majority of the market in 2005.
> > > However, the cost of 3G licences was exorbitant. The telcos have
> > > desperately tried to leverage the technology into new revenue streams:
> > > they've tried streaming TV, streaming music, videoconferencing, music
> > > downloads, VOD etc etc etc. All of these implied data loads on the
> > > networks, and they were built from the outset with that kind of load
> > > in mind. None of them ever became a significant revenue source.

> > > The next leg was to market 3G cellular modems, usually USB plug ins.
> > > They would then charge a monthly access fee. Tethering was never
> > > widely pushed as it was too "casual". Reflecting this, casual data
> > > rates for phones were outrageously high, while the cellular modems
> > > were reasonably priced. Business users adopted them widely, and
> > > companies footed the bill. While I lived in Munich in 2006, there was
> > > a huge push to sell 3G modems as a replacement for home DSL
> > > connections. The mobility was great, but the bandwidth and data limits
> > > didn't cut it for most people. It, too, never penetrated the mass
> > > market. However, the amount of data being pushed over 3G was
> > > considerable.

> > > Then Apple came along with the iPhone. While most people talk about
> > > the hardware, few people talk about the nuclear explosion that Apple
> > > unleashed on the telcos. Apple REQUIRED the telcos to bundle
> > > unlimited, or at least very cheaply priced, data plans with the
> > > iPhone. Before the iPhone, Orange France did not provide a SINGLE
> > > monthly plan that bundled unlimited data use, despite selling hundreds
> > > of 3G models with various flavours of web access. Sure, you could
> > > activate internet access for $10/month, but the data limits were
> > > unrealistic. Fast forward to today, and EVERY smart phone from EVERY
> > > French carrier is available with at least one monthly plan that
> > > bundles unlimited data. Tethering has changed as a business model,
> > > too, but that's another discussion.

> > > Now, on to your point. The European carriers had largely finished
> > > rolling out their 3G networks (in cities) years ago and were actively
> > > pushing products that used a lot of data. AT&T, however, had not even
> > > finished rolling out its 3G network when the iPhone happened along.
> > > Thus the first iPhone was EDGE, and while successful in the US, was
> > > not that well received in Europe as it was deemed to be "too slow" on
> > > the web. Read that again. Too slow implies that they already had a
> > > notion of how fast data should be over 3G, and therefore were already
> > > using it. When the 3G iPhone appeared, Europe embraced it, and the
> > > cell networks managed to cope well enough.

> > > AT&T is running very hard just to stay even with the iPhone. It is
> > > hardly surprising, then, that their network quality is lacking.

> > > On Nov 24, 11:33 pm, JPW <johnpwatk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > While your observations on the relative merits of the systems may well
> > > > be true, I think the unexpected heavy demand is deffinitely playing a
> > > > role. My guess is that in the US, where iPhones are taking up 1/2 of
> > > > all smart phone data traffic while only being around 17% or the
> > > > market, the network that has the iPhone on it is always going to be
> > > > struggling under the unprecedented demand they they exert.
> > > > (Haven't seen an analysis though.)

> > > > On Nov 24, 4:21 pm, nolavabo <nolav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I've realised during the course of this thread that my knowledge has
> > > > > become outdated, so I've spent quite a few hours reading since then to
> > > > > catch up. I hope that I am as knowledgeable now as I thought I was
> > > > > before. Technology moves fast!

> > > > > While CDMA had inherent superiorities over TDMA systems (orig GSM,
> > > > > GPRS and EDGE) in dealing with physical obstacles (hills, long
> > > > > distances, forests), 3GSM (3G GSM, aka UMTS) uses WCDMA for its "air"
> > > > > component and thus the advantages have become essentially zero.
> > > > > Australia's Telstra is a good carrier to study. They were the dominant
> > > > > national telco who had to transition from analog to digital. The
> > > > > cities went all GSM (digital). A few years later, they replaced the
> > > > > analog cell networks used in the vast, sparsely populated rural areas
> > > > > with CDMA as it was superior to TDMA in those conditions. In order to
> > > > > create a complete network, they also added CDMA to the cities. Once
> > > > > 3GSM became price competitive, and entrenched in the cities, they shut
> > > > > down the entire CDMA network and replaced it with 3GSM.

> > > > . . .  etc.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Yes, I'm quite sure I want to inject the military's healthcare system
> into the conversation. While there may be a few horror stories here
> and there, by and large the military's health system is exceptional.
> Not only do they treat the President of the United States of America,
> they treat the VP, 535 congressmen, and 100 US senators.

> A short list of whom would include the following:

> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who warned that "a
> government takeover of health care" would "take away the care that
> people already have [and] are perfectly satisfied with." In its place,
> the senator said, would be "a system in which care and treatment will
> be either delayed or denied."

> That was July 2009. In February 2003, McConnell actually went to one
> of those government-run institutions (where treatment is, apparently,
> "either delayed or denied" ) for a procedure of his own. The Kentucky
> Republican traveled to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda,
> Maryland, to have an elective coronary artery bypass surgery after it
> had been revealed that he had arterial blockages.

> Also known as Bethesda Naval Hospital, the National Naval Medical
> Center is the premier branch of the United States Navy's system of
> medical centers -- as in, the government runs it. Indeed, members of
> Congress pay an annual fee for the privilege of getting treatment at
> Bethesda Naval Hospital or, for that matter, Walter Reed Army Medical
> Center. It is, as longtime Democrat Martin Frost wrote for Politico,
> "like belonging to an HMO." Only, in these cases, the surgery is
> conducted at a public facility.

> None of this has stopped some of the same officials who have taken
> advantage of this congressional perk from railing against the
> intrusiveness and inefficiencies of a health care system with greater
> government involvement

> Senator John McCain, (R-Ariz.) for instance, recently applauded the
> town hall protesters who were, in his words, revolting "against a
> government-run health system." That was August 2009. In May of 2000,
> McCain had surgery at the Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove a
> potentially lethal melanoma from his left temple.

> Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), meanwhile, has warned of the rationing of
> care, expensive costs, and reduced quality that would come under a
> government-run health care plan. In April 2003, however, he traveled
> to Bethesda Naval Hospital to undergo hip replacement surgery in an
> attempt to alleviate degenerative arthritis in his left hip.

> Senator George Voinovich, (R-Ohio), has declared that a "bureaucratic
> Washington-run government plan is not the answer" to the nation's
> health care needs. In June 2003, the Ohio Republican (who is retiring
> from the Senate in 2010) went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to have a
> pacemaker installed.

> The best example of this double standard, however, may be Rep. Roy
> Blunt, (R-Mo.) who compared government-run health care to an elephant,
> stomping on and killing off the mice of the private insurance
> industry.

> Blunt has had two procedures done at Bethesda Naval Hospital. The
> first came in July 2002, when he underwent surgery to remove his left
> kidney. The second came a year later, when he underwent prostate
> surgery after being diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer.

> NOW GOTWAKE, any of the GOPers could have put their money where their
> mouths are and opted for treatment through a private insurer at a
> private hospital, but when their lives were on the line (in some
> cases) they got their asses to a military hospital, didn't they?

> With regard to the argument of "I don't trust the government" to run
> healthcare. This is a rather tired GOP talking point used whenever the
> right-wing pretty much has nothing else to stand on. Moreover, they're
> hypocrites about it.

> Observe:

> The GOP "trusts" government to spend $4 trillion dollars to make-over
> the middle east as a shinning new democracy.
> The GOP "trusts" government to only torture the bad guys.
> The GOP "trusts" government listen in on our phone calls without
> warrants.
> The GOP "trusts" government to monitor which library books we check
> out.
> The GOP "trusts" government to tell us who we can and cannot marry.
> The GOP "trusts" government (until very recently) to tell us which
> positions we can f**k our wives in.

> The GOP "trusts" government whenever it suits their argument and
> doesn't whenever it doesn't. In fact, in many cases they are outright
> outraged if you don't trust government and call you "UnAmerican" for
> not doing so.

> Remember when we are supposed to trust George Bush on Iraq because
> "He's the president and I'm sure he knows some things we don't."?

> The GOP is basically a bunch of unprincipled hypocrites that will say
> anything at anytime to win.
> Meanwhile, the Democrats are a bunch of spineless p**sies.
> Pick your poison.

> On Nov 24, 5:07 am, GotWake <gotwa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Are you sure that you want to bring the VA health care system into the
> > debate?  I'll have to find the links, but it was too long ago that I
> > saw an article on several VA hospitals shutting down their cancer
> > programs due to unusually high death rates.  It's probably not the
> > best example to use for your argument.

> > I think that the biggest problem that some of us have with a
> > government run health care system is it is a government run system.  I
> > have yet to see a successful program of any kind that is government
> > run.  I just do not trust them to get it right.

> > On Nov 22, 11:39 pm, Morning <morningem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Turkey,

> > > You know the military that you support "110%" has 110% government-run
> > > healthcare, right? I mean, you know that, don't you?

> > > If you support them soooo much, and hate gov't health care sooo much,
> > > why not do the right thing and demand that our troops receive private
> > > healthcare from companies like Cigna and Aetna?

> > > Put your money where your mouth is, demand gov't-run health care out
> > > of our military!

> > > 'Course millions of vets would then be denied for pre-existing
> > > conditions, have their polices cancelled as their care is too
> > > expensive, and never be able to afford the premiums on a soldier's
> > > salary, but hey, at least you won't look like a hypocrite!

> > > On Nov 22, 2:25 pm, WildTurkey <bruce.humb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Nope - I gladly pay taxes to keep us safe - support the military 110%

> > > > Your claiming the system is broke does not make it so - we have one of
> > > > the best health care systems in the world.  It can be made better -
> > > > but will only become better when we try and move to more of a
> > > > Singapore style system and away from one that is simply a legal way of
> > > > robbing from the haves so the have nots can get WORSE care then the
> > > > currently have available to them by simply walking into any emergency
> > > > room and getting care.

> > > > Getting rid of health savings accounts - which have been very
> > > > effective - is the first step towards socialized medicine - and yes
> > > > both the house and senate plans abolish HSAs.  I have yet to hear
> > > > anyone tell me why that is a good idea.

> > > > On Nov 22, 2:14 pm, moretroops <tab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > The government wont be "running" healthcare you ignorant teabagging
> > > > > b*tch.  In any event, the system is utterly broken right now.  As in,
> > > > > the present reality of fact-based verifiable events is broken beyond
> > > > > repair.  So, yes, I'd like us to attempt to fix it.  Let me guess -
> > > > > you oppose anything that requires taxes?  Deep man.

> > > > > On Nov 22, 2:03 pm, WildTurkey <bruce.humb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > I resent that - I oppose this tax and spend bill and have read the
> > > > > > latest version - have you?

> > > > > > Do you really want to have the government running health care - if you
> > > > > > do your are - well - uninformed...

> > > > > > On Nov 21, 11:42 pm, nasty midnighter <ssheyw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > You're an idiot.  The vote on the actual bill wont happen for awhile.
> > > > > > > This weekend was simply a vote to bring it to the floor.  But I'm not
> > > > > > > surprised.  Anyone who would come out against desperately needed
> > > > > > > health care reform is, well, uninformed.  It's who you are.

> > > > > > > On Nov 21, 11:25 pm, Stock Name <Hoffl...@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Since the so called Health care plan will probably pass, I say it will
> > > > > > > > be a disaster on Monday. Anybody disagree with me?- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> I think that the biggest problem that some of us have with a
> government run health care system is it is a government run system.  I
> have yet to see a successful program of any kind that is government
> run.  I just do not trust them to get it right.

> On Nov 22, 11:39 pm, Morning <morningem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Turkey,

> > You know the military that you support "110%" has 110% government-run
> > healthcare, right? I mean, you know that, don't you?

> > If you support them soooo much, and hate gov't health care sooo much,
> > why not do the right thing and demand that our troops receive private
> > healthcare from companies like Cigna and Aetna?

> > Put your money where your mouth is, demand gov't-run health care out
> > of our military!

> > 'Course millions of vets would then be denied for pre-existing
> > conditions, have their polices cancelled as their care is too
> > expensive, and never be able to afford the premiums on a soldier's
> > salary, but hey, at least you won't look like a hypocrite!

> > On Nov 22, 2:25 pm, WildTurkey <bruce.humb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Nope - I gladly pay taxes to keep us safe - support the military 110%

> > > Your claiming the system is broke does not make it so - we have one of
> > > the best health care systems in the world.  It can be made better -
> > > but will only become better when we try and move to more of a
> > > Singapore style system and away from one that is simply a legal way of
> > > robbing from the haves so the have nots can get WORSE care then the
> > > currently have available to them by simply walking into any emergency
> > > room and getting care.

> > > Getting rid of health savings accounts - which have been very
> > > effective - is the first step towards socialized medicine - and yes
> > > both the house and senate plans abolish HSAs.  I have yet to hear
> > > anyone tell me why that is a good idea.

> > > On Nov 22, 2:14 pm, moretroops <tab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > The government wont be "running" healthcare you ignorant teabagging
> > > > b*tch.  In any event, the system is utterly broken right now.  As in,
> > > > the present reality of fact-based verifiable events is broken beyond
> > > > repair.  So, yes, I'd like us to attempt to fix it.  Let me guess -
> > > > you oppose anything that requires taxes?  Deep man.

> > > > On Nov 22, 2:03 pm, WildTurkey <bruce.humb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I resent that - I oppose this tax and spend bill and have read the
> > > > > latest version - have you?

> > > > > Do you really want to have the government running health care - if you
> > > > > do your are - well - uninformed...

> > > > > On Nov 21, 11:42 pm, nasty midnighter <ssheyw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > You're an idiot.  The vote on the actual bill wont happen for awhile.
> > > > > > This weekend was simply a vote to bring it to the floor.  But I'm not
> > > > > > surprised.  Anyone who would come out against desperately needed
> > > > > > health care reform is, well, uninformed.  It's who you are.

> > > > > > On Nov 21, 11:25 pm, Stock Name <Hoffl...@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Since the so called Health care plan will probably pass, I say it will
> > > > > > > be a disaster on Monday. Anybody disagree with me?

> On Nov 24, 5:22 pm, nolavabo <nolav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > JPW, agree definitely. However, the solution still boils down to more
> > towers.

> > 3G is new to the US, but has been widespread in Europe(and parts of
> > Asia) since 2002 and became the majority of the market in 2005.
> > However, the cost of 3G licences was exorbitant. The telcos have
> > desperately tried to leverage the technology into new revenue streams:
> > they've tried streaming TV, streaming music, videoconferencing, music
> > downloads, VOD etc etc etc. All of these implied data loads on the
> > networks, and they were built from the outset with that kind of load
> > in mind. None of them ever became a significant revenue source.

> > The next leg was to market 3G cellular modems, usually USB plug ins.
> > They would then charge a monthly access fee. Tethering was never
> > widely pushed as it was too "casual". Reflecting this, casual data
> > rates for phones were outrageously high, while the cellular modems
> > were reasonably priced. Business users adopted them widely, and
> > companies footed the bill. While I lived in Munich in 2006, there was
> > a huge push to sell 3G modems as a replacement for home DSL
> > connections. The mobility was great, but the bandwidth and data limits
> > didn't cut it for most people. It, too, never penetrated the mass
> > market. However, the amount of data being pushed over 3G was
> > considerable.

> > Then Apple came along with the iPhone. While most people talk about
> > the hardware, few people talk about the nuclear explosion that Apple
> > unleashed on the telcos. Apple REQUIRED the telcos to bundle
> > unlimited, or at least very cheaply priced, data plans with the
> > iPhone. Before the iPhone, Orange France did not provide a SINGLE
> > monthly plan that bundled unlimited data use, despite selling hundreds
> > of 3G models with various flavours of web access. Sure, you could
> > activate internet access for $10/month, but the data limits were
> > unrealistic. Fast forward to today, and EVERY smart phone from EVERY
> > French carrier is available with at least one monthly plan that
> > bundles unlimited data. Tethering has changed as a business model,
> > too, but that's another discussion.

> > Now, on to your point. The European carriers had largely finished
> > rolling out their 3G networks (in cities) years ago and were actively
> > pushing products that used a lot of data. AT&T, however, had not even
> > finished rolling out its 3G network when the iPhone happened along.
> > Thus the first iPhone was EDGE, and while successful in the US, was
> > not that well received in Europe as it was deemed to be "too slow" on
> > the web. Read that again. Too slow implies that they already had a
> > notion of how fast data should be over 3G, and therefore were already
> > using it. When the 3G iPhone appeared, Europe embraced it, and the
> > cell networks managed to cope well enough.

> > AT&T is running very hard just to stay even with the iPhone. It is
> > hardly surprising, then, that their network quality is lacking.

> > On Nov 24, 11:33 pm, JPW <johnpwatk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > While your observations on the relative merits of the systems may well
> > > be true, I think the unexpected heavy demand is deffinitely playing a
> > > role. My guess is that in the US, where iPhones are taking up 1/2 of
> > > all smart phone data traffic while only being around 17% or the
> > > market, the network that has the iPhone on it is always going to be
> > > struggling under the unprecedented demand they they exert.
> > > (Haven't seen an analysis though.)

> > > On Nov 24, 4:21 pm, nolavabo <nolav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > I've realised during the course of this thread that my knowledge has
> > > > become outdated, so I've spent quite a few hours reading since then to
> > > > catch up. I hope that I am as knowledgeable now as I thought I was
> > > > before. Technology moves fast!

> > > > While CDMA had inherent superiorities over TDMA systems (orig GSM,
> > > > GPRS and EDGE) in dealing with physical obstacles (hills, long
> > > > distances, forests), 3GSM (3G GSM, aka UMTS) uses WCDMA for its "air"
> > > > component and thus the advantages have become essentially zero.
> > > > Australia's Telstra is a good carrier to study. They were the dominant
> > > > national telco who had to transition from analog to digital. The
> > > > cities went all GSM (digital). A few years later, they replaced the
> > > > analog cell networks used in the vast, sparsely populated rural areas
> > > > with CDMA as it was superior to TDMA in those conditions. In order to
> > > > create a complete network, they also added CDMA to the cities. Once
> > > > 3GSM became price competitive, and entrenched in the cities, they shut
> > > > down the entire CDMA network and replaced it with 3GSM.

> > > . . .  etc.

> On Nov 24, 3:28 am, camaro man <camaroma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Agreed--maybe even 180-170 for all we know. This market is inflated.
> > We have no economy, and a malevolent government. These market numbers
> > are full of air.

> > On Nov 23, 8:56 pm, Surfer <mm5...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Apple is a great buy long term, but if you are trading on short term
> > > basis, you should be thinking of selling it soon. It might make a run
> > > up for another $2, but it will pull back to low $190 range. When it
> > > does, that's the time to buy. At these level, this stock is overbought
> > > and it could pull back soon.

> > > On Nov 23, 9:12 am, Jeff Stafford <jefflstaff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Ha.  Yes.  By BuyHigh's philosophy (should it be sell high?) we
> > > > would've missed out on $4/share of gains today.

> > > > On Nov 23, 9:38 am, JBMoney <bessl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Yes wait and pay 220.

> > > > > On Nov 23, 8:00 am, buyhigh_selllow <meaculpa12...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Don't you just love the way these asshole money managers drive up the
> > > > > > price of AAPL from 200 to 202 before any of us can even begin to trade
> > > > > > until 8:00am- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> On Nov 23, 8:56 pm, Surfer <mm5...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Apple is a great buy long term, but if you are trading on short term
> > basis, you should be thinking of selling it soon. It might make a run
> > up for another $2, but it will pull back to low $190 range. When it
> > does, that's the time to buy. At these level, this stock is overbought
> > and it could pull back soon.

> > On Nov 23, 9:12 am, Jeff Stafford <jefflstaff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Ha.  Yes.  By BuyHigh's philosophy (should it be sell high?) we
> > > would've missed out on $4/share of gains today.

> > > On Nov 23, 9:38 am, JBMoney <bessl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Yes wait and pay 220.

> > > > On Nov 23, 8:00 am, buyhigh_selllow <meaculpa12...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Don't you just love the way these asshole money managers drive up the
> > > > > price of AAPL from 200 to 202 before any of us can even begin to trade
> > > > > until 8:00am- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> On Nov 23, 9:28 pm, camaro man <camaroma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Agreed--maybe even 180-170 for all we know. This market is inflated.
> > We have no economy, and a malevolent government. These market numbers
> > are full of air.

> > On Nov 23, 8:56 pm, Surfer <mm5...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Apple is a great buy long term, but if you are trading on short term
> > > basis, you should be thinking of selling it soon. It might make a run
> > > up for another $2, but it will pull back to low $190 range. When it
> > > does, that's the time to buy. At these level, this stock is overbought
> > > and it could pull back soon.

> > > On Nov 23, 9:12 am, Jeff Stafford <jefflstaff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Ha.  Yes.  By BuyHigh's philosophy (should it be sell high?) we
> > > > would've missed out on $4/share of gains today.

> > > > On Nov 23, 9:38 am, JBMoney <bessl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Yes wait and pay 220.

> > > > > On Nov 23, 8:00 am, buyhigh_selllow <meaculpa12...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Don't you just love the way these asshole money managers drive up the
> > > > > > price of AAPL from 200 to 202 before any of us can even begin to trade
> > > > > > until 8:00am- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -