Conference auss::oz

    re .0
    
    The first question is digital or analogue. While considerations are
    different for different people, I would suggest in general that you
    should go for a digital mobile.
    
    I can't comment on individual call plans but obviously it helps if you
    have some idea of your usage pattern.
    
    Statement of Conflict of Interest: I work directly in support of Optus.

    
    It will probably be digital. I guess I'm looking for someone to say
    "yeah, the xxx plan from yyy is good" or "don't do zzzz coz blah blah".
    
    stuart

Stu,

My 5 cents worth,

Assuming that a mobile phone is used to make phone calls and not seen as a 
fashion accessory .... 
The only reason to go digital is the phasing out of analog in the next 2.5 
years or so. The analog coverage is still better than digital, and if the 
signal is weak you still can talk analog but not digital. Simply by driving on  
Concord Road accross the Ryde bridge and up the hill ,, digital drops out on a 
number of spots, where analog does not. So far, the 'better technology' 
(digital) has not impressed me.     

cheers, 

 

re .3
    
>The only reason to go digital
    
    There are some features that are simply not available with analogue
    technology and noone is going to put them in. Not only is the analogue
    network being phased out but there is only one and hence no competitive
    advantage to be gained from it. Optus merely retails Telecom's analogue
    network. Vodaphone chose not even to get into analogue.
    
    One could reasonably surmise that price pressures (on service charges, not
    acquisition) are going to be more favourable for the consumer on
    digital as compared with analogue.
    
    Other reasons depend on whether you are concerned about eaves-dropping
    and whether you want to be able to use your mobile phone while overseas.

Hi,

I am yet to be convinced that the digtal mobile net, from all the present 
providers, is superior to the analog system. 
What is the better digital technique ?? Better for the user I mean.
Range ?  Analog has a wider range (distance from radio tranmitter).
Clarity of speach ? It is claimed that the digital technique is better. This 
may be the case, but if you drive in a car or stand on a busy street, the 
difference will not be noticable.       
Eavesdropping ... If it can be encoded, then it can be decoded as well.      

cheers, 

    Stuart,
    
    "yeah, the xxx plan from yyy is good" or "don't do zzzz coz blah blah".
    
    Hope this helps ... ;>)

    Regards,
    Keith

    re: .4
    
    Digital mobile - bleah!!
    
    1. The coverage is some way behind the analog network, and is likely
    to be for some time, especially out of the major cities.
    
    2. So much for 'competition'. With 3 mobile carriers, we now have
    almost 3 times the number of base stations (costs a lot more to
    build than one network). I have a crummy old zero-features analog
    mobile (on a $10/month plan) - almost all incoming calls. When I last
    looked at digitals, the best of the plans cost about twice this.
    Combined with the poor coverage, I can't call this 'improved service'
    from any angle.
    
    3. The modulation scheme used by digital mobile is about optimal for
    interfering with any other electical equipment. Sure, all this other
    equipment can be re-designed to be more GSM-resistant (except for the
    neurones in your head :-), but it shouldn't have to be.
    
    4. The major technical justification for GSM (more users in theory
    for the same radio bandwidth) appears to be not the case in real life.
    
    There are some advantages in small heavily populated regions (such as
    most of Europe), for 'security' of communications (whatever that
    means - the telcos still can monitor communications), and for
    international roaming, but I'm not sure they outweigh the disadvantages
    here (range from base stations, poor speech quality, interference)
    
    IMO, We have been forced to adopt a defacto substandard, in the names of
    competition and compatability - The real reason why the analog system
    is being phased out is that Vodaphone didn't want the competition
    at the price the Governement was charging them for the licence.
    
    
    David (one of 1.? million analog mobile users)
    

re .5
    
>Eavesdropping ... If it can be encoded, then it can be decoded as well.
    
    While this is theoretically true, it is like arguing that you won't
    lock your car because someone can still break into it - and you may
    underestimate the difficulty of breaking the latest techniques in
    secure communications.

re .-1
    
    Yes, some employees of the telcos could eavesdrop. Whether it is worth
    their risk to do so is debatable. But it is your choice as to whether you
    want anybody to be able to eavesdrop or just a select few (who would be
    more readily detected if they did so).
    
    I bet (ex-)Princess Di and Andrew Peacock wished they had been using
    digital mobiles.
    
    
    On a lighter note, it is very easy to eavesdrop on any kind of mobile
    phone since people invariably speak loudly in public places when using them.
                   

Hi,

re .8

The 'latest technique' is secure from eavesdropping as far as you will not
by chance listening to another conversation, as sometimes happens in the analog  
world, but thats about as far as it gets. The 'services' will still be 
listening as they done for a long time.  
I don't believe all that marketing hype like better technology, competition, 
better service access plans to suit your need and so on.  Remember the 'Green 
Slip'..., competition, better service ..... we now pay around $ 300 to $400
compared to around $100 before the market forces where able to determine the 
costs. Banking .... same story. The so called better service and unbrideld
free market allows us now to pay more, for what we already had at a lower 
price. A fair number of 'better services' ,tarrif restructuring ect are an 
attempt to take more money out of our pockets. And the digital mobile nets are 
no exeption. 

One more. I compared my water bill to the same billing period two years ago, 
and guess what. We use 50% less water, but we pay only 2 dollars less than two 
years ago. Silly me, expecting to pay less. I did not take the water tarrif 
restructuring into account that was advertised like 'use more, pay more - use 
less pay less'.    

I challenge anyone to show me the benefits of the digital mobile net over the 
analog mobile net.        
 
Cheers, 


 
     

    re .6
    
    Keith,
    
    It's certainly good to see living in the US hasn't had any lasting
    effects on you :-)
    
    Thanks for the advice.
    
    Stuart "no hang ups about phones" Zorbas