🚀 go-pugleaf

Zeldus <no@email.com> wrote in message news:CABFD5B1F2CD777D.CD5FDE1048A474DD.CCD35D6B55884796@lp.airnews.net...

> I know the situation is different in Europe than in America or Australia...
> GSM is a European standard originaly built in 1991 for the European market
> and for European customers / countries... Western Europe is pretty smaller
> than USA + Canada whith much more population, so GSM is more adapted
> here (cell size are smaller because of much more customers in a given area).

> 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).

Yes, its got its downsides. Got some advantages
too, most obviously with the use of sims.

> I remember Australia moved to CDMA

It didnt. It ADDED CDMA to GSM so we have
both now. GSM wont be replaced by CDMA.

> because of problems of coverage in remote places with GSM

Not 'remote places', just places with lower population
densitys. Particularly outside major towns.

Its often forgotten that Australia is one of the most urbanised
countrys on earth, the bulk of the population is concentrated
in such a way that GSM does that bulk of the population fine.

> (impossible to build a correct network with so little size GSM cells).

Not impossible, just impractical.

> Now they have CDMA, they get much better coverage in remote places...

See above on 'remote places'

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

You've mangled that as badly as you have your
comments about whats happened in Australia.