On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:28:08 John Henderson may have written:
> > My understanding is, and Michael, if I remember correctly,
> > posted that here in the past, was that where there was a CDMA
> > tower, a NextG cell would be commissioned. And that Telstra
> > would be building MORE NG towers than what there were CDMA
> > ones.
> >
> > So, if you're not getting NextG where once you got CDMA, then
> > either they aren't replacing CDMA with NG, or that the new NG
> > cells don't have the same range as what CDMA did.
>
> And that lack of range could be because the phones aren't up to
> scratch.

Which was exactly the ACA's finding.

They found that on their little road trip, the coverage footprint itself
was (almost) equivalent. Considering their path of travel was known to
Telstra well in advance of the NextG test, you'd hope they put a lot of
effort into making sure every square inch had equivalent coverage.

However, their finding was that the handsets weren't up to scratch,
hence an "equivalent" service was not being provided, hence they weren't
meeting their new license condition, hence they had to delay the CDMA
closure.

And because their test was only along a known route, it's understandable
that Telstra perhaps didn't put the same effort into ensuring coverage
equivalence in every other NextG cell across the country which explains
why some people with acceptable NextG handsets find CDMA provided a
better coverage footprint in their local area.

And I notice Michael has suddenly gone silent in this thread since I
dragged out the archives showing Telstra committed to providing an
equivlant coverage footprint and that everybody other than him
understands "service equivalence" to mean the same footprint and handset
quality, not just the same raw number of sq km coverred.

PD

--
Paul Day