> 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?
>
It's been replaced to provide more and better services.

> 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.

Total and utter CRAP!
The NextG network uses all new hardware. The only CDMA stuff re-used
is the frequency range, and transmission links.

> 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.

See above

>
> > 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?

CDMA has been upgraded to the end of it's life. There is no way
forward from here.

>
> > 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

More of the same old equipment.

> - addition of Short Message Service
> - addition of better voice codecs (GSM-8PSK-AMR and EVRC)
> - addition of packet data (GPRS and 1xRTT)

CDMA could do this when it was installed. It was ahead of it's time
when it went in, but it's at the end of the road. There is nowhere to
go from here for CDMA.

> - 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?

See above.

>
> PD
>
> --
> Paul Day

Good Luck.