WAP Push by major carriers?

[dominic]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.data (More info?)

Hi there,

Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
etc) supports WAP Push?

For those that support WAP Push, do they support cross-carrier WAP
Push?

Thanks
Dom

 

[GOPI]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.data (More info?)

John S. <sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree> asserted:
>tam.dominic@gmail.com (Dominic) wrote in message news:<86330324.0410181035.70ecf8a6@posting.google.com>...
> > Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
> > etc) supports WAP Push?
>
> Nextel isn't a carrier.

The God of Englightenment speaks, and we must all believe him.

Perhaps there's some anal-retentive definition of "carrier" which
disqualifies Nextel; is there a chance you can share your definition
with us? By every normal definition of the word "carrier", Nextel is a
carrier.

Instead of snippy posts to Usenet, why not file a complaint with the
SEC? Nextel always refers to themselves as a carrier. Everybody else
seems to think they're a carrier. If you truly know why they're not,
you should share this secret Gnostic wisdom with the rest of us
instead of merely asserting it without comment.

 

[MarkF]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.data (More info?)

bb+graffiti.spam.gopigopi@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote in message news:<d68e0c86.0410191953.10f0706a@posting.google.com>...
> John S. <sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree> asserted:
> >tam.dominic@gmail.com (Dominic) wrote in message news:<86330324.0410181035.70ecf8a6@posting.google.com>...
> > > Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
> > > etc) supports WAP Push?
> >
> > Nextel isn't a carrier.
>
> The God of Englightenment speaks, and we must all believe him.
>
> Perhaps there's some anal-retentive definition of "carrier" which
> disqualifies Nextel; is there a chance you can share your definition
> with us? By every normal definition of the word "carrier", Nextel is a
> carrier.
>
> Instead of snippy posts to Usenet, why not file a complaint with the
> SEC? Nextel always refers to themselves as a carrier. Everybody else
> seems to think they're a carrier. If you truly know why they're not,
> you should share this secret Gnostic wisdom with the rest of us
> instead of merely asserting it without comment.

I have to agree with John that NEXTEL isn't considered a "cellular
carrier". They are licensed as an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
(ESMR) under Part 90 FCC R&R's which regulate two-way radio users.
They don't have to follow the same cellular regulations as the rest
and if they really wanted to could of blew off the FCC on E911 Phase 2
requirements. Of course they eventually "want" to be a cellular
carrier by requesting the band swap to get the 1.9 GHz spectrum so
they did the right thing by putting GPS in their phones. Also once
they deploy 1.9 GHz technology they will have to conform to Part 24
FCC R&R's and John and I can then call NEXTEL a "carrier"
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/broadbandpcs/

Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Nextel is kind of like a carrier that only has helicopters and marines,
but no jets. hihi


MarkF wrote:
> bb+graffiti.spam.gopigopi@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote in message news:<d68e0c86.0410191953.10f0706a@posting.google.com>...
>
>>John S. <sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree> asserted:
>>
>>>tam.dominic@gmail.com (Dominic) wrote in message news:<86330324.0410181035.70ecf8a6@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
>>>>etc) supports WAP Push?
>>>
>>>Nextel isn't a carrier.
>>
>>The God of Englightenment speaks, and we must all believe him.
>>
>>Perhaps there's some anal-retentive definition of "carrier" which
>>disqualifies Nextel; is there a chance you can share your definition
>>with us? By every normal definition of the word "carrier", Nextel is a
>>carrier.
>>
>>Instead of snippy posts to Usenet, why not file a complaint with the
>>SEC? Nextel always refers to themselves as a carrier. Everybody else
>>seems to think they're a carrier. If you truly know why they're not,
>>you should share this secret Gnostic wisdom with the rest of us
>>instead of merely asserting it without comment.
>
>
> I have to agree with John that NEXTEL isn't considered a "cellular
> carrier". They are licensed as an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
> (ESMR) under Part 90 FCC R&R's which regulate two-way radio users.
> They don't have to follow the same cellular regulations as the rest
> and if they really wanted to could of blew off the FCC on E911 Phase 2
> requirements. Of course they eventually "want" to be a cellular
> carrier by requesting the band swap to get the 1.9 GHz spectrum so
> they did the right thing by putting GPS in their phones. Also once
> they deploy 1.9 GHz technology they will have to conform to Part 24
> FCC R&R's and John and I can then call NEXTEL a "carrier"
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/broadbandpcs/
>
> Mark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.data (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <35b1619d.0410201542.16731ba1@posting.google.com> on 20 Oct 2004 16:42:37
-0700, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:

>bb+graffiti.spam.gopigopi@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote in message news:<d68e0c86.0410191953.10f0706a@posting.google.com>...
>> John S. <sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree> asserted:
>> >tam.dominic@gmail.com (Dominic) wrote in message news:<86330324.0410181035.70ecf8a6@posting.google.com>...
>> > > Which of the major carriers (Sprint, Verizon, Cingular, Nextel, AT&T,
>> > > etc) supports WAP Push?
>> >
>> > Nextel isn't a carrier.
>>
>> The God of Englightenment speaks, and we must all believe him.
>>
>> Perhaps there's some anal-retentive definition of "carrier" which
>> disqualifies Nextel; is there a chance you can share your definition
>> with us? By every normal definition of the word "carrier", Nextel is a
>> carrier.
>>
>> Instead of snippy posts to Usenet, why not file a complaint with the
>> SEC? Nextel always refers to themselves as a carrier. Everybody else
>> seems to think they're a carrier. If you truly know why they're not,
>> you should share this secret Gnostic wisdom with the rest of us
>> instead of merely asserting it without comment.
>
>I have to agree with John that NEXTEL isn't considered a "cellular
>carrier". They are licensed as an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
>(ESMR) under Part 90 FCC R&R's which regulate two-way radio users.
>They don't have to follow the same cellular regulations as the rest
>and if they really wanted to could of blew off the FCC on E911 Phase 2
>requirements. Of course they eventually "want" to be a cellular
>carrier by requesting the band swap to get the 1.9 GHz spectrum so
>they did the right thing by putting GPS in their phones. Also once
>they deploy 1.9 GHz technology they will have to conform to Part 24
>FCC R&R's and John and I can then call NEXTEL a "carrier"
>http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/broadbandpcs/


http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-911-detail.pl?id=23
http://www.fcc.gov/911/basic/reports/carrier-transition/Nextel.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/2001/nrwl0127.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/da011187.pdf
are just a few of the many FCC documents that refer to NEXTEL as a "carrier";
e.g., (from that last link)

4. In an effort to continue the ongoing evaluation of the state of
readiness of E911 technologies pursuant to the E911 Fourth Memorandum
Opinion and Order and in order to evaluate Nextel’s waiver request,
we direct Nextel, A WIRELESS CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE E911 PHASE II
RULES, to provide further information regarding Nextel’s ability to
meet Phase II requirements. Nextel is directed to provide the
information as requested in the following questions and correspond
its answers to the numbers relating to each question:
[emphasis added]

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[MarkF]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.data (More info?)

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<OyQdd.311$_3.6128@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-911-detail.pl?id=23
> http://www.fcc.gov/911/basic/reports/carrier-transition/Nextel.pdf
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/2001/nrwl0127.pdf
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/da011187.pdf
> are just a few of the many FCC documents that refer to NEXTEL as a "carrier";
> e.g., (from that last link)
>
> 4. In an effort to continue the ongoing evaluation of the state of
> readiness of E911 technologies pursuant to the E911 Fourth Memorandum
> Opinion and Order and in order to evaluate Nextel?s waiver request,
> we direct Nextel, A WIRELESS CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE E911 PHASE II
> RULES, to provide further information regarding Nextel?s ability to
> meet Phase II requirements. Nextel is directed to provide the
> information as requested in the following questions and correspond
> its answers to the numbers relating to each question:
> [emphasis added]


Oh I totally agree John that the FCC is so mixed up as to what to do
with NEXTEL on a lot of matters. As they fall under Part 90
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/47cfr90_03.html
they don't have a single requirement for E911.
The Part 22 carriers have it spelled out in black and white...
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/47cfr22.921.htm

Go figure! The FCC quite often won't even follow its own rules or
they make them up as they go along. Once the NPSPAC/806 swap is
completed you can be sure that NEXTEL petitions the FCC to re-classify
the 821-823/866-869 spectrum as a new cellular block so they don't
have to keep site licensing as a Part 90 licensee. That will save
them a ton of money on coordination/licensing costs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.data (More info?)

Sprint can answer your questions.
I do have a question and another comment: Is a mut a dog? Is a dog a
mut? Obviously 2 questions and now that makes 2 comments. So when I go
fishing if I don't hold my mouth right then I dont catch fish.
MarkF wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:<OyQdd.311$_3.6128@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > http://wireless.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/wtb-911-detail.pl?id=23
> > http://www.fcc.gov/911/basic/reports/carrier-transition/Nextel.pdf
> > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/2001/nrwl0127.pdf
> > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/da011187.pdf
> > are just a few of the many FCC documents that refer to NEXTEL as a
"carrier";
> > e.g., (from that last link)
> >
> > 4. In an effort to continue the ongoing evaluation of the state
of
> > readiness of E911 technologies pursuant to the E911 Fourth
Memorandum
> > Opinion and Order and in order to evaluate Nextel?s waiver
request,
> > we direct Nextel, A WIRELESS CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE E911 PHASE
II
> > RULES, to provide further information regarding Nextel?s ability
to
> > meet Phase II requirements. Nextel is directed to provide the
> > information as requested in the following questions and
correspond
> > its answers to the numbers relating to each question:
> > [emphasis added]
>
>
> Oh I totally agree John that the FCC is so mixed up as to what to do
> with NEXTEL on a lot of matters. As they fall under Part 90
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/47cfr90_03.html
> they don't have a single requirement for E911.
> The Part 22 carriers have it spelled out in black and white...
>
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/47cfr22.921.htm
>
> Go figure! The FCC quite often won't even follow its own rules or
> they make them up as they go along. Once the NPSPAC/806 swap is
> completed you can be sure that NEXTEL petitions the FCC to
re-classify
> the 821-823/866-869 spectrum as a new cellular block so they don't
> have to keep site licensing as a Part 90 licensee. That will save
> them a ton of money on coordination/licensing costs.