🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net>,
	"Zeldus" <no@email.com> writes:

> [snip]
> I remember Australia moved to CDMA because of
> problems of coverage in remote places with GSM (impossible to build a
> correct network with so little size GSM cells). Now they have CDMA, they get
> much better coverage in remote places...
> 

CDMA does perform better when the cells have to be far apart, but
the Australians also had a situation where they needed to upgrade
a whole load of 800 Mhz AMPS spectrum to something with a future.
Today, CDMA is probably the most viable option for doing this.
There isn't any GSM at 800 Mhz (yet) so if you have 800 Mhz bandwidth
on your hands, you have to pick D-AMPS, CDMA or iDEN.

> So, why Canada, (similar to Australia for size/population) is doing the
> opposite ??
> 

Canada has AMPS, D-AMPS, CDMA and iDEN networks running - as well
as a GSM one.  My feeling is that GSM is the way to go, but many
dissagree.  It is still possible CDMA could take over - but not
likely.

Eventually 3G will come out and we'll all be on a (non-Qualcom)
CDMA air interface anyway.

============================================================
Gardner Buchanan                         <gbuchana@home.com>
Ottawa, ON             FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.