Theresa Gattung speaks out

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Theresa Gattung speaks out

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#58046 5-Mar-2010 09:47

OUCH! Read the comments.

MurrayC

79 posts

Master Geek

#304699 5-Mar-2010 10:40

Hmmmm no mention of costing Telecom half a billion dollars by sticking to CDMA...

old3eyes

8464 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#304846 5-Mar-2010 16:50

MurrayC: Hmmmm no mention of costing Telecom half a billion dollars by sticking to CDMA...

There's nothing wrong with CDMA.. It only became out of favor in NZ after telstra dropped it in Ozz. Gattung was one of the ones pushing for Alcatel to be the supplier of the new mobile network. At that stage it was to be GSM.

Regards,

Old3eyes

sbiddle

29215 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#304892 5-Mar-2010 19:58

MurrayC: Hmmmm no mention of costing Telecom half a billion dollars by sticking to CDMA...

How did sticking with CDMA cost them half a billion dollars? Over the long term moving from AMPS/DAMPS to CDMA and then building a WCDMA network from scratch rather than the AMPS/DAMPS -> GSM-> WCDMA probably saved Telecom half a billion.

SaltyNZ

5437 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#304914 5-Mar-2010 21:30

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.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

sbiddle

29215 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#304957 6-Mar-2010 07:44

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.

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.

SaltyNZ

5437 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#304963 6-Mar-2010 09:08

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.

All that network equipment apart from the BTSes would be organically upgraded to UMTS support and later, LTE. They would only need to turn off GSM when the number of people without 3G-capable phones dropped off to a tiny fraction of all subscribers. The number of 2G-only handsets out in the market in 2010 is a very large fraction of the total: you don't need to turn off 2G for quite a while yet. You guys often forget that - you might be always up on the latest and greatest HSPA+ uber-phones, but most people don't give a toss about data, or can't afford such a phone even if they want it. They just want to affordably make phone calls and send texts, and 2G is just fine for that.

Also you should consider that 850 was already under consideration for GSM because of the US, so that specturm was still an asset, and would have been completely usable by the time they were ready to switch off AMPS/DAMPS. Instead of a forced switch off leaving a significant fraction of the subscriber base out in the cold without a complete replacement of their hardware, and a whole network's worth of equipment to be migrated off and disposed of (for zero residual value) it could have been done gracefully as usage, and natural attrition of core and RAN hardware took care of it.

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.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

old3eyes

8464 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#304994 6-Mar-2010 12:45

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.

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

Regards,

Old3eyes

SaltyNZ

5437 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#305016 6-Mar-2010 14:16

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

Actually, I thought I was pretty clear in saying that 2G would stay on, because that's all that most people really need. Wasn't I? It's just that with GSM you *can* go to UMTS and beyond without throwing everything else out. With CDMA, you can't.

The technology used has nothing to do with whether you build a good network or not. Telstra had an excellent AMPS network.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

sbiddle

29215 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#305024 6-Mar-2010 15:13

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.

Telecom did not own any 900 spectrum in 1999 and did not have access to any. Vodafone and Telstra owned the two blocks that were available and the 3rd (TACS C) was still held by the Crown and had never been alloocated. You would have to conclude that Telecom would have at least made attempts to see the availability or to acquire that 900 spectrum at the time as a 900 GSM network would have made the most sence.

At that stage 850 GSM was being proposed but didn't go live until 2002 - quite possibly waiting for that standard to be ratified and rolling out a 850 GSM network rather than CDMA would have been the best move but hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time many people seemed to think both GSM and CDMA would both offer upgrade paths to 3G technology - that was obviously something that was nothing other than a slick sales pitch.

From memory the CDMA upgrade also only cost in the vicinity of $200 million (I'm sure somebody will know the exact figure), this was significant less than what any GSM upgrade would have cost as so much existing infrastructure was reused. Even today there are still a large number of XT sites that can still use the same 800MHz omni aerials that were deployed 20 years ago for the AMPS network!