![]() ![]() |
MurrayC: Hmmmm no mention of costing Telecom half a billion dollars by sticking to CDMA...
Regards,
Old3eyes
MurrayC: Hmmmm no mention of costing Telecom half a billion dollars by sticking to CDMA...
sbiddle:
How did sticking with CDMA cost them half a billion dollars?
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
SaltyNZ:sbiddle:
How did sticking with CDMA cost them half a billion dollars?
Because it doesn't take a forklift to upgrade from GSM to UMTS.
sbiddle:
But if Telecom had gone down the GSM route in ~1999 and rolled out 1800 GSM instead of CDMA they would have faced a ~$500 million bill to do this nationwide. One would of logically concluded that they would have then moved to 850 WCDMA by now also, an upgrade that would have probably cost a similar amount.
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
SaltyNZ:
In short, a GSM network rather than a CDMA network would have been much cheaper overall. The initial build cost would be roughly comparable, the investment would be generating money for a lot longer, and it arguably would have allowed them to retain a larger fraction of the customers in NZ, especially business users. In a previous life I averaged over $1500 AU per month on my mobile bill because I was always roaming. If I was based in NZ, would that business have gone to Telecom? No.
Regards,
Old3eyes
old3eyes:
If you think for one second that rolling out a GSM network rather than CDMA would result in either Telecom or Vodafone rolling out a good 3G networks as there is today?? I think not. It would be 2G and some 3G in the metro areas just like the GSM networks in the US.. T-Mobile and AT&T both which have bad 3G coverage
iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!
These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.
SaltyNZ:sbiddle:
But if Telecom had gone down the GSM route in ~1999 and rolled out 1800 GSM instead of CDMA they would have faced a ~$500 million bill to do this nationwide. One would of logically concluded that they would have then moved to 850 WCDMA by now also, an upgrade that would have probably cost a similar amount.
Firstly, they had some 900MHz band spectrum, so they would not need to roll out 1800 in the sparsely populated areas, and it therefore would not be as expensive as you seem to be suggesting. Secondly, even if they had, that network - like Vodafone's - would still be operating now and would be able to generate money for at least another 5 years from now; there is no UMTS 1800 in widespread use yet, although there is little doubt it's coming. You're also attempting to put 2010's radio coverage area into 1999: it was really NOT that good. In other words, 1999's "great coverage" network is a lot smaller than 2010's, and would be that much cheaper.
![]() ![]() |