[LINK] Bush tests Telstra over Next G

[David Boxall]

This strikes close to home: I live in a rural (though not very remote) 
area and own an LG 550.  The 550 was pushed quite heavily in rural areas 
in the early months of NextG.  I've found that, sometimes - in places 
where CDMA worked fine, voice quality is useless though the display 
indicates a usable signal.

If there's now a phone available that meets Telstra's promise, then 
anyone who was sold one that doesn't (like the 550) should be offered an 
exchange.

>From <http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2008/01/06/1199554485304.html>
. . .
ON HIS property near Walgett, Angus Church used to get decent reception 
from his hand-held CDMA phone.

But Telstra is determined to switch off the CDMA network on January 28 
and to replace it with Next G. For Mr Church, the transition has not 
been happy.

The LG 550 phone Telstra sold the farmer when he switched to Next G 
works only when plugged into a cumbersome and expensive car kit with 
large vehicle-mounted antenna. And as soon as he steps away from his 
truck, it's useless.

"Unless you have got a car kit you don't get anything with Next G," Mr 
Church said. "They say it's the same, if not better [than CDMA]. That's 
a complete lie."

Telstra advertised that the Next G network was "everywhere you need it", 
but in the bush - where farmers rely on mobiles for safety and commerce 
- a host of customers say nothing could be further from the truth.

. . .
At Peak Hill, the farmer and bushfire brigade group captain Peter Cannon 
switched to Next G and got an LG 550. He was out in the paddock recently 
when there was a haystack fire and could not be reached on his mobile, 
as he previously could with CDMA.

"If we can't make phone calls, how is Telstra going to make any money?" 
Mr Cannon said. "[Next G] is just not equivalent to CDMA."

Near Wentworth, Ian Murdoch believes the G in Next G stands for 
"generally doesn't work". The farmer was also sold an LG 550 because 
"that was supposedly the best one for here".

Despite flat terrain and being close to Mildura and several phone 
towers, Mr Murdoch said his mobile coverage had fallen from 90 per cent 
with CDMA to less than 50 per cent with Next G.

Telstra says Next G covers 25 per cent more area and boasts 75 per cent 
more transmission sites. It started Next G in October 2006 and 
encouraged country people on CDMA to swap. In July it introduced the 
"blue tick" system that identified phones suitable for marginal 
reception areas, such as the LG 550. But in August, the farm research 
body Kondinin Group said its testing showed that it was only with the 
addition of an external antenna that the Next G handsets then available 
could match the reception of CDMA handsets. It was only in November that 
Telstra introduced the top-line Country Phone, the first Next G mobile 
to boast the same small pull-out antenna some CDMA phones have to 
greatly improve reception in marginal areas.

. . .
The National Farmers Federation told Telstra last month the switch-off 
should be delayed because the equipment needed by farmers to properly 
use Next G, such as the Country Phone, had only just become available.

Jock Laurie, the president of the NSW Farmers Association, has been 
travelling with a CDMA phone and Next G handsets monitoring service and 
"it's really a mixed bag" - some areas had better Next G reception, some 
better CDMA. He stressed Telstra was working hard to get things right 
and "there's a lot of examples where they have fixed problems".

But Alan Brown, the vice-president of the association, wrote in this 
week's edition of the rural newspaper The Land that "Telstra has lost 
the confidence of customers who believed the blue tick campaign and have 
since been greatly disappointed".

Tony Windsor, the independent MP for New England, spent time with 
Telstra testing CDMA and Next G phones.

"The signal from the towers was roughly equivalent, but the capacity of 
the handsets to pick up the signal was far from equivalent," he said.

"Telstra has sold equipment that's not fit for purpose."

. . .