WM - These studies are based on assumptions regarding capacity. If you look at simply establishing coverage, GSM is cheaper. Development costs were amortised years ago. Of course, capacity is a trade-off when considering GSM vs CDMA, but is Capacity really an issue for the Chinese? Europe is doing pretty well without CDMA.
First, it isn;t clear here what you are arguing: GSM operators have already paid for their infrastructure? or In extremely low user density areas GSM is more cost effective then CDMA?
If the former, I disagree. Do you really think that in 10 years GSM will not have had to install 10 times the infrastructure that they currently have? And that this cell splitting will be substantially more expensive than just buying CDMA now, with its higher capacity, and easier topology problems (although I don't want to imply that the topology problems are non-existant). It all depends on your time horizon. If the time horizon is short enough we would have never made to jump from analog to digital of any form, but that is hardly a realistic analysis.
If the latter, then I agree, as long as we are talking areas where there is an expected need for fewer than ~100 erlangs per several hundred square miles. But how common is that, even in China? Is anybody going to let these really low density areas determine what kind of equipment they install? I doubt it, and if they do, they deserve what they get in ROI. And, no, Australia is not a counter example.
Network planning has to be much more precise with CDMA, as Australian Operators are finding out at the moment.
First, what does this mean? Site locating? Frequency planning? Cell tuning for handoff, ...? Second, almost regardless of what it means, I disagree. CDMA 'network planning' is in all cases, including those above, either substantially the same or easier than GSM. And in addition, I have heard of no 'network planning' problems coming out of Australia. The only problems appear to be one of switchover. People who used to have coverage in some rural areas now do not and vis versa. This causes public relations problems, but would occur in any switchover of any kind. If you have other information, please enlighten.
Clark |
