So you can guarantee that all of Nokia's smartphones are not used in a smartphone type situation? If you can you are lying as I use my in that way, and so do a lot of other people.
But then again, the iPhone is in the same situation, yes you have a number of people using the mobile web on it, but like in all situations that will be a small amount making up the most usage.
Apples App store downloads are an example of the fact the uptake isn't as high as people make out.
However, American do use smartphones as real smartphones --- because it's all about the enterprise users.
The cell phone world is full of garbage statistics. What you will find is that American statistics are much better than the rest of the world because the vast majority of users are postpaid, 1/2 the market doesn't even have over-counting issues because CDMA users don't even have SIM cards on their phones.
However, American do use smartphones as real smartphones --- because it's all about the enterprise users.
So, is everyone in America an enterprise user, or is it only enterprise users that use smartphones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
The cell phone world is full of garbage statistics. What you will find is that American statistics are much better than the rest of the world because the vast majority of users are postpaid, 1/2 the market doesn't even have over-counting issues because CDMA users don't even have SIM cards on their phones.
There is no way to fake American numbers --- most of the subscribers are postpaid and CDMA represents over 50% of the US market (and they don't even have SIM cards).
There is no way to fake American numbers --- most of the subscribers are postpaid and CDMA represents over 50% of the US market (and they don't even have SIM cards).
So there is no CDMA prepay market in the US? And half of the users are on GSM, so according to you, I can't trust half of the US stats?
Thanks for that, it's pretty interesting but I ain't convinced yet.
I remember too much over the years about siting of tv and radio masts and emissions tests of mobile phone towers placed next to schools etc etc. I just don't buy it.
Take a look at this article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and see if you find it convincing. It's an editorial comment from 2001 on the giant epidemiological study (reported in the same issue) that laid this question to rest, as far as cancer scientists are concerned. But once someone tells an anecdote on TV, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence ever stops the media from rehashing the story.
So there is no CDMA prepay market in the US? And half of the users are on GSM, so according to you, I can't trust half of the US stats?
Of course there is a CDMA prepay market in the US --- just not that much.
Verizon has 89 million subscribers, 81 million are postpaid subscribers (91% of their subscribers are postpaid). AT&T (the GSM carrier) has 81.6 million subscribers. 63.4 million are postpaid (78% of their subscribers are postpaid).
American stats are much more accurate than the rest of the world because they have a very large postpaid subscriber base --- both on CDMA and GSM carriers.
If you look at the rest of the world, most carriers have 50% prepaid customer base.
Take a look at this article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and see if you find it convincing. It's an editorial comment from 2001 on the giant epidemiological study (reported in the same issue) that laid this question to rest, as far as cancer scientists are concerned. But once someone tells an anecdote on TV, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence ever stops the media from rehashing the story.
Cool, very interesting regarding the science, but it is an old study stopping at 1995, before 3G, before ubiquitous wifi networks and it covers only 13 years. The Telegraph article I mentioned points out that "cancerous tumours can take decades to develop".
TV broadcasting towers have to be turned off before people can work on them, right? That means there is an unsafe amount, and aren't we carving up the old tv spectrum for broadband and mobiles?
Science is great, but even scientists will admit that the words 'unforseen' and 'effects' sometimes go together. I'll take the word of the scientist in the article I mentioned who said in his and other more recent studies:
"Dr Siegal Sadetzki, a member of the 13-country Interphone team who conducted the Israeli study, added: “Most studies including ours show we do see something happening in what we call long-term users."
Of course there is a CDMA prepay market in the US --- just not that much.
Verizon has 89 million subscribers, 81 million are postpaid subscribers (91% of their subscribers are postpaid). AT&T (the GSM carrier) has 81.6 million subscribers. 63.4 million are postpaid (78% of their subscribers are postpaid).
American stats are much more accurate than the rest of the world because they have a very large postpaid subscriber base --- both on CDMA and GSM carriers.
If you look at the rest of the world, most carriers have 50% prepaid customer base.
So do you know for a fact, or do all pre-pay customers around the world have multiple SIM cards? If they do (which they don't all have them), they would either expire after a set time of non use, or it they are using them they are a valid statistic
So do you know for a fact, or do all pre-pay customers around the world have multiple SIM cards? If they do (which they don't all have them), they would either expire after a set time of non use, or it they are using them they are a valid statistic
Not all, but you can look at the numbers of some country?s subscriber base verse the country?s population to see the subscriber base exceeds the population, which includes every person, including babies, who typically aren?t using cell phones. The subs also include travelers to the country. It makes it very difficult to tell. The best you can do is run some stats and make some educated guesses.
Not all, but you can look at the numbers of some country?s subscriber base verse the country?s population to see the subscriber base exceeds the population, which includes every person, including babies, who typically aren?t using cell phones. The subs also include travelers to the country. It makes it very difficult to tell. The best you can do is run some stats and make some educated guesses.
There are some very valid reasons why some places will have over 100% usage, such as a business device + personal, or some fixed device (like alarm, or machine etc), these all use multiple connections, and would be counted (and the same situation exists for CDMA as well)
Take a look at this article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and see if you find it convincing. It's an editorial comment from 2001 on the giant epidemiological study (reported in the same issue) that laid this question to rest, as far as cancer scientists are concerned. But once someone tells an anecdote on TV, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence ever stops the media from rehashing the story.
Sorry I can't agree. These studies have a limited view to the problem.
I'll try to get some physics easy to understand although it's not easy to find really proved data.
Radio transmission is lossy. The loss is somehow dependent on the distance. (It's a pretty complex math). With more radio stations you can reduce the loss and by that reduce the emission. In order to reduce unnecessary emission the radio stations and your phone vary the signal strength "on demand" except the higher prioritized broadcast "handshake".
Sounds crazy but the radiation intensity that effects you when you do a call or transmit data (up to 90 % transmutation loss before the call is dropped) in a rural zone is much higher compared to the intensity you'll be exposed when you are near by a radio station in a region with good network coverage.
While the relationship between those effects are so complex a classic study taking randomly chosen persons can't be valid. The only valid question is if a constant, long term emission can harm You.
I think one of the worst cases is VIOP over the mobile network because your phone is near by your head and it raises it's signal strength to a maximum to get clear speech. I hope that the legal requirements for maximum emission are well thought, but I would not account to a long term study that investigates this.
So emission is highly depended on your usage and it's somehow proportional (also no equation) to the amount of transferred data.
A study from 2001 looking at the past can't be valid for today when the amount of transferred data is 10 or 100 or 1000 fold.
Biological systems have a nice survival strategy. They can compensate blights and recover from injury until a certain limit is reached.
I see no necessity to explore this limit in this case while the mobile transfer of an GB costs multifold the price of a wired transfer.
Therefore I was thinking (loudly) about a monthly refund for the people who decide to e.g. watch a video stream after returning home instead if streaming it by the mobile network as a better way compared to controlling and cutting bandwidth (by the carriers).
Using our resources cautiously will avoid hitting limits and is saving energy and money.
Hope my english is sufficient to clarify my points.
So do you know for a fact, or do all pre-pay customers around the world have multiple SIM cards? If they do (which they don't all have them), they would either expire after a set time of non use, or it they are using them they are a valid statistic
You just have to refill your prepaid account once every 3 months, or once every 6 months, or even once every 12 months --- just to keep your mobile telephone number.
This is a very old business week article talking about at least 15% overcounting in European mobile penetration rate because of double counting of sim cards.
You over play your prepay vs postpay argument. Sure postpay is more lucrative than prepay. But you make it sound like prepay people pay with confederate money (worthless money). At the end of the day a paying customer is a paying customer. Any business would rather have more paying customers than less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Of course there is a CDMA prepay market in the US --- just not that much.
Verizon has 89 million subscribers, 81 million are postpaid subscribers (91% of their subscribers are postpaid). AT&T (the GSM carrier) has 81.6 million subscribers. 63.4 million are postpaid (78% of their subscribers are postpaid).
If you look at the rest of the world, most carriers have 50% prepaid customer base.
You over play your prepay vs postpay argument. Sure postpay is more lucrative than prepay. But you make it sound like prepay people pay with confederate money (worthless money). At the end of the day a paying customer is a paying customer. Any business would rather have more paying customers than less.
I never said any of that --- I said that you can't fudge American statistics because it's 80-90% postpaid.
You just have to refill your prepaid account once every 3 months, or once every 6 months, or even once every 12 months --- just to keep your mobile telephone number.
This is a very old business week article talking about at least 15% overcounting in European mobile penetration rate because of double counting of sim cards.
The same time limits exist for a lot of GSM providers as well, so if people are topping up their multiple sims, then they are active and should be counted.
And that article is just guessing, they can't be sure what the actual rates are, the only way to be sure is the carriers to list their actual connections, so as I have said, if people are topping their prepay sims up, then they are active.
The same time limits exist for a lot of GSM providers as well, so if people are topping up their multiple sims, then they are active and should be counted.
And that article is just guessing, they can't be sure what the actual rates are, the only way to be sure is the carriers to list their actual connections, so as I have said, if people are topping their prepay sims up, then they are active.
Sure on paper they are "active" accounts, but who are we kidding?
Do you think that Softbank really is winning on monthly net subscribers additions in Japan because they sell the iphone? No, it was an accounting change.
The other 2 Japanese carriers use a standard 3 months to count whether you are active or not. Softbank made an accounting change to include subscribers as "active" by increasing the length to 12 months.
Can you please explain what you mean, because from your message you are saying that the original iPhone was lauched with the latest N97 firmware, which doesn't make much sense.
Comments
So you can guarantee that all of Nokia's smartphones are not used in a smartphone type situation? If you can you are lying as I use my in that way, and so do a lot of other people.
But then again, the iPhone is in the same situation, yes you have a number of people using the mobile web on it, but like in all situations that will be a small amount making up the most usage.
Apples App store downloads are an example of the fact the uptake isn't as high as people make out.
However, American do use smartphones as real smartphones --- because it's all about the enterprise users.
The cell phone world is full of garbage statistics. What you will find is that American statistics are much better than the rest of the world because the vast majority of users are postpaid, 1/2 the market doesn't even have over-counting issues because CDMA users don't even have SIM cards on their phones.
However, American do use smartphones as real smartphones --- because it's all about the enterprise users.
So, is everyone in America an enterprise user, or is it only enterprise users that use smartphones?
The cell phone world is full of garbage statistics. What you will find is that American statistics are much better than the rest of the world because the vast majority of users are postpaid, 1/2 the market doesn't even have over-counting issues because CDMA users don't even have SIM cards on their phones.
So you keep going on about
There is no way to fake American numbers --- most of the subscribers are postpaid and CDMA represents over 50% of the US market (and they don't even have SIM cards).
So there is no CDMA prepay market in the US? And half of the users are on GSM, so according to you, I can't trust half of the US stats?
I have never signed a contract for any of my Nokia Smartphones, they are smartphones.
isn't that because you work for them?
isn't that because you work for them?
No, I don't work for Nokia, never have
Thanks for that, it's pretty interesting but I ain't convinced yet.
I remember too much over the years about siting of tv and radio masts and emissions tests of mobile phone towers placed next to schools etc etc. I just don't buy it.
Take a look at this article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and see if you find it convincing. It's an editorial comment from 2001 on the giant epidemiological study (reported in the same issue) that laid this question to rest, as far as cancer scientists are concerned. But once someone tells an anecdote on TV, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence ever stops the media from rehashing the story.
So there is no CDMA prepay market in the US? And half of the users are on GSM, so according to you, I can't trust half of the US stats?
Of course there is a CDMA prepay market in the US --- just not that much.
Verizon has 89 million subscribers, 81 million are postpaid subscribers (91% of their subscribers are postpaid). AT&T (the GSM carrier) has 81.6 million subscribers. 63.4 million are postpaid (78% of their subscribers are postpaid).
American stats are much more accurate than the rest of the world because they have a very large postpaid subscriber base --- both on CDMA and GSM carriers.
If you look at the rest of the world, most carriers have 50% prepaid customer base.
Take a look at this article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and see if you find it convincing. It's an editorial comment from 2001 on the giant epidemiological study (reported in the same issue) that laid this question to rest, as far as cancer scientists are concerned. But once someone tells an anecdote on TV, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence ever stops the media from rehashing the story.
Cool, very interesting regarding the science, but it is an old study stopping at 1995, before 3G, before ubiquitous wifi networks and it covers only 13 years. The Telegraph article I mentioned points out that "cancerous tumours can take decades to develop".
TV broadcasting towers have to be turned off before people can work on them, right? That means there is an unsafe amount, and aren't we carving up the old tv spectrum for broadband and mobiles?
Science is great, but even scientists will admit that the words 'unforseen' and 'effects' sometimes go together. I'll take the word of the scientist in the article I mentioned who said in his and other more recent studies:
"Dr Siegal Sadetzki, a member of the 13-country Interphone team who conducted the Israeli study, added: “Most studies including ours show we do see something happening in what we call long-term users."
I don't think they're talking anecdotally.
Of course there is a CDMA prepay market in the US --- just not that much.
Verizon has 89 million subscribers, 81 million are postpaid subscribers (91% of their subscribers are postpaid). AT&T (the GSM carrier) has 81.6 million subscribers. 63.4 million are postpaid (78% of their subscribers are postpaid).
American stats are much more accurate than the rest of the world because they have a very large postpaid subscriber base --- both on CDMA and GSM carriers.
If you look at the rest of the world, most carriers have 50% prepaid customer base.
So do you know for a fact, or do all pre-pay customers around the world have multiple SIM cards? If they do (which they don't all have them), they would either expire after a set time of non use, or it they are using them they are a valid statistic
So do you know for a fact, or do all pre-pay customers around the world have multiple SIM cards? If they do (which they don't all have them), they would either expire after a set time of non use, or it they are using them they are a valid statistic
Not all, but you can look at the numbers of some country?s subscriber base verse the country?s population to see the subscriber base exceeds the population, which includes every person, including babies, who typically aren?t using cell phones. The subs also include travelers to the country. It makes it very difficult to tell. The best you can do is run some stats and make some educated guesses.
Not all, but you can look at the numbers of some country?s subscriber base verse the country?s population to see the subscriber base exceeds the population, which includes every person, including babies, who typically aren?t using cell phones. The subs also include travelers to the country. It makes it very difficult to tell. The best you can do is run some stats and make some educated guesses.
There are some very valid reasons why some places will have over 100% usage, such as a business device + personal, or some fixed device (like alarm, or machine etc), these all use multiple connections, and would be counted (and the same situation exists for CDMA as well)
Take a look at this article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and see if you find it convincing. It's an editorial comment from 2001 on the giant epidemiological study (reported in the same issue) that laid this question to rest, as far as cancer scientists are concerned. But once someone tells an anecdote on TV, it seems that no amount of scientific evidence ever stops the media from rehashing the story.
Sorry I can't agree. These studies have a limited view to the problem.
I'll try to get some physics easy to understand although it's not easy to find really proved data.
Radio transmission is lossy. The loss is somehow dependent on the distance. (It's a pretty complex math). With more radio stations you can reduce the loss and by that reduce the emission. In order to reduce unnecessary emission the radio stations and your phone vary the signal strength "on demand" except the higher prioritized broadcast "handshake".
Sounds crazy but the radiation intensity that effects you when you do a call or transmit data (up to 90 % transmutation loss before the call is dropped) in a rural zone is much higher compared to the intensity you'll be exposed when you are near by a radio station in a region with good network coverage.
While the relationship between those effects are so complex a classic study taking randomly chosen persons can't be valid. The only valid question is if a constant, long term emission can harm You.
I think one of the worst cases is VIOP over the mobile network because your phone is near by your head and it raises it's signal strength to a maximum to get clear speech. I hope that the legal requirements for maximum emission are well thought, but I would not account to a long term study that investigates this.
So emission is highly depended on your usage and it's somehow proportional (also no equation) to the amount of transferred data.
A study from 2001 looking at the past can't be valid for today when the amount of transferred data is 10 or 100 or 1000 fold.
Biological systems have a nice survival strategy. They can compensate blights and recover from injury until a certain limit is reached.
I see no necessity to explore this limit in this case while the mobile transfer of an GB costs multifold the price of a wired transfer.
Therefore I was thinking (loudly) about a monthly refund for the people who decide to e.g. watch a video stream after returning home instead if streaming it by the mobile network as a better way compared to controlling and cutting bandwidth (by the carriers).
Using our resources cautiously will avoid hitting limits and is saving energy and money.
Hope my english is sufficient to clarify my points.
So do you know for a fact, or do all pre-pay customers around the world have multiple SIM cards? If they do (which they don't all have them), they would either expire after a set time of non use, or it they are using them they are a valid statistic
You just have to refill your prepaid account once every 3 months, or once every 6 months, or even once every 12 months --- just to keep your mobile telephone number.
This is a very old business week article talking about at least 15% overcounting in European mobile penetration rate because of double counting of sim cards.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...3/b3776013.htm
Of course there is a CDMA prepay market in the US --- just not that much.
Verizon has 89 million subscribers, 81 million are postpaid subscribers (91% of their subscribers are postpaid). AT&T (the GSM carrier) has 81.6 million subscribers. 63.4 million are postpaid (78% of their subscribers are postpaid).
If you look at the rest of the world, most carriers have 50% prepaid customer base.
You over play your prepay vs postpay argument. Sure postpay is more lucrative than prepay. But you make it sound like prepay people pay with confederate money (worthless money). At the end of the day a paying customer is a paying customer. Any business would rather have more paying customers than less.
I never said any of that --- I said that you can't fudge American statistics because it's 80-90% postpaid.
You just have to refill your prepaid account once every 3 months, or once every 6 months, or even once every 12 months --- just to keep your mobile telephone number.
This is a very old business week article talking about at least 15% overcounting in European mobile penetration rate because of double counting of sim cards.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...3/b3776013.htm
The same time limits exist for a lot of GSM providers as well, so if people are topping up their multiple sims, then they are active and should be counted.
And that article is just guessing, they can't be sure what the actual rates are, the only way to be sure is the carriers to list their actual connections, so as I have said, if people are topping their prepay sims up, then they are active.
The same time limits exist for a lot of GSM providers as well, so if people are topping up their multiple sims, then they are active and should be counted.
And that article is just guessing, they can't be sure what the actual rates are, the only way to be sure is the carriers to list their actual connections, so as I have said, if people are topping their prepay sims up, then they are active.
Sure on paper they are "active" accounts, but who are we kidding?
Do you think that Softbank really is winning on monthly net subscribers additions in Japan because they sell the iphone? No, it was an accounting change.
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/arti...ticle_id=15737
The other 2 Japanese carriers use a standard 3 months to count whether you are active or not. Softbank made an accounting change to include subscribers as "active" by increasing the length to 12 months.
You can't trust any of their statistics.
http://europe.nokia.com/get-support-...are-update?n97
This must be a proud day for you.
I have never signed a contract for any of my Nokia Smartphones, they are smartphones.
Ooh look, your "advanced" Nokia smartphone has caught up with something the original iPhone was launched with over two years ago.
http://europe.nokia.com/get-support-...are-update?n97
This must be a proud day for you.
Can you please explain what you mean, because from your message you are saying that the original iPhone was lauched with the latest N97 firmware, which doesn't make much sense.