Darrell,
I was trying to be funny, not insulting. I'm sorry. We don't communicate well, so this will be my last attempt.
>>Germany's, France's, Italy's, or England's total population
count hasn't changed dramatically over the past ten years, so I used "ten"
as a number only relative to this fact. They've been able to predict with
superb accuracy the population increase in the number of MOBILE users at
given times within any given population. GSM worked in this enviornment.
why are you starting with insults? doesn't 200 million GSM handsets next
year say anything to you? 40 million TDMA handsets? what is your point? Why
are you so hung up on seeing a CDMA picture for every situation?<<
Predicting subscriber growth in a less orderly non-european environment is much more difficult, especially when you factor in competing systems and maybe even competing technologies. AT&T wireless obviously had a difficult time predicting subscriber growth in N.Y.
I am not hung up on a CDMA picture for every situation. Where GSM or TDMA systems already exist I'm sure that staying with your current technology is the proper decision for now. In greenfield build-outs the decision must be based on transition to future generations. I'm sure we don't agree what the dominant 3G technology will be.
You have been asked a number of direct questions today, by a number of different posters, although I can't remember you answering one. Again please give me the source of your claim that a CDMA build-out cost twice as much as a TDMA build-out.
I'm done. Thanks for the fun.
Pete |
