Sorry to go off topic but just wanted to reply to that:
Technically CDMA cell site covers a wider area than a GSM cell site. However, with the advent of WCDMA (3G) & HSPA+ networks, it won't be long before 3G cell sites have better coverage than CDMA.
Also, 3G, HSPA+, LTE networks are far more effecient in handling enormous voice & data traffic (due to greater capacity) that they have more customers worldwide than CDMA customers, which makes them more preferred even when roaming internationally.
Well the main reason for better coverage of CDMA is the lower band frequency that is used by the operators here (450/800 MHz band) while GSM operators(old) using 900 MHz band are having better coverage than newer operators using 1800 MHz band for 2G. Regarding 3G/HSPA+ at the moment it is using the 2100 MHz band which is also not good for longer coverage. It requires nearly 2-3 times more no. of BTS to provide same level of coverage of 2G. And this evident from the fact that either operators are installing BTSes at newer sites or they are putting more no. of devices on the current 2G only BTSes. Though there is no denying in the fact that these 3G sites have much higher voice/data capacity, so no comparison of that to 2G.
The same applies to LTE also, if operators want to maintain those theoretical speed of 80-100 Mbps that they need to have BTS over every 1-2 miles of distance, but if they just want coverage then yes it will cover better distance then current 3G networks. In the end what matters is the spectrum that is used for the transmission as the long distance is possible over lower band spectrum (800 MHz or lower) with lesser no. of cell sites. In these lower bands these newer techs LTE/Wimax both could do anything around 25-35 kms. with single site in theory.
Technically CDMA cell site covers a wider area than a GSM cell site. However, with the advent of WCDMA (3G) & HSPA+ networks, it won't be long before 3G cell sites have better coverage than CDMA.
Also, 3G, HSPA+, LTE networks are far more effecient in handling enormous voice & data traffic (due to greater capacity) that they have more customers worldwide than CDMA customers, which makes them more preferred even when roaming internationally.
Well the main reason for better coverage of CDMA is the lower band frequency that is used by the operators here (450/800 MHz band) while GSM operators(old) using 900 MHz band are having better coverage than newer operators using 1800 MHz band for 2G. Regarding 3G/HSPA+ at the moment it is using the 2100 MHz band which is also not good for longer coverage. It requires nearly 2-3 times more no. of BTS to provide same level of coverage of 2G. And this evident from the fact that either operators are installing BTSes at newer sites or they are putting more no. of devices on the current 2G only BTSes. Though there is no denying in the fact that these 3G sites have much higher voice/data capacity, so no comparison of that to 2G.
The same applies to LTE also, if operators want to maintain those theoretical speed of 80-100 Mbps that they need to have BTS over every 1-2 miles of distance, but if they just want coverage then yes it will cover better distance then current 3G networks. In the end what matters is the spectrum that is used for the transmission as the long distance is possible over lower band spectrum (800 MHz or lower) with lesser no. of cell sites. In these lower bands these newer techs LTE/Wimax both could do anything around 25-35 kms. with single site in theory.
