🚀 go-pugleaf

It was Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:08:54 +0200, and "Zeldus"
  <no@email.com> wrote in alt.cellular:
| For larger countries with less people/customers, GSM
| is not the most adequat cell system because of it's
| cell size limitation (35 kms or 70 kms with special
| configuration).

I would not consider that a limit.  I remember getting AMPS
service from a tower 70km away back in 1991.  The nearest
tower to home at the time.  Nothing to call home about.

The 35km (21mi) spacing is about right for a maximum on
AMPS/CDMA.  Most rural sites are closer than that.  The
original layout from the late 80's had rural cells at an
about 25km (15mi) spacing.  SPACING not cell size.  The
cell only had to reach just over 12km (7.5mi) in the
direction of the next cell.  Current spacings for AMPS/
CDMA are 8km (5mi) or less in rural situations.

| 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...

I would be suprised if Australia is pushing to 70km (45mi).
Perhaps by using extremely tall towers in reasonably flat
terrain.  I certainly wouldn't want to rely on a tower that
far away, but then any service is better than no service.
(Perhaps with GSM/TDMA distant phones were not making their
 time slots.  CDMA doesn't have that problem.)

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

Chalk it up to personal preference.  There is always someone
in a board room who has bought in on a particular technology
and cannot be persuaded to look at anything else.

I also question what you mean by "Canada".  Are you saying
that the Canadian Government is requiring GSM and forbidding
others or that a particular carrier has chosen GSM?

JL