On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:40:38 in aus.comms cornedbeef007-groups@yahoo.com.au may have written:
> > It's a bit of a ridiculous comment from Telstra, by their definition
> > the GSM network (15 years old) would be crumbling into dust
>
> Do you think the original GSM equipment is still there?

Yep, of course there would be. If it ain't broke, why fix it? If it can
be re-used as part of an upgrade, why ditch it? If it can be software
upgraded, why replace it?

Even the new NextG network relies on numerous chunks of hardware from
the CDMA network which won't be removed as part of CDMA's decommision.
In fact, that was one of the points Telstra harped on about when the
NextG plans were first announced - re-use of existing equipment from the
CDMA network.

> It's has been progressively replaced/updated since it was installed,
> and is still being replaced/upgraded today.

Sure, but doesn't the same apply to CDMA over the past 9 years?

> The CDMA equipment is/was still pretty much the same as was installed
> 10 years ago, and the upgrade path was a dead end.

So, lots of GSM hardware _was_ upgraded, but CDMA hardware _wasn't_
upgraded, even though they've both had similar developments over their
life?
- addition of better and denser metro coverage
- addition of Short Message Service
- addition of better voice codecs (GSM-8PSK-AMR and EVRC)
- addition of packet data (GPRS and 1xRTT)
- addition of high-speed packet data (EDGE and EV-DO)

So if CDMA didn't need _any_ hardware upgrades to acheive all that while
GSM needed plenty, does that means CDMA was the better choice for a
mobile network technology from an infrastructure perspective?

PD

--
Paul Day