Slashdot Log In
CDMA vs. GSM in Post-war Iraq
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:45 PM
from the nothing-like-a-free-market dept.
from the nothing-like-a-free-market dept.
An anonymous reader submits: "Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is pressing congress to favor CDMA over GSM for mobile phone service in U.S.-funded reconstruction plans. One reason for pushing this is that a CDMA system would benefit American companies, such as California-based Qualcomm, while GSM would favor European companies. Currently, GSM is the most widely used mobile standard in surrounding countries."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Talk about counting chickens (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell this esteemed Rep. has his priorities straight.
Re:Talk about counting chickens (Score:5, Funny)
Too late, the Bush Dinar has already been designed. [bizarsite.nl]
Parent
After all, the US might lose (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many ways the US can lose this. For example:
-
Iraq succeeds in cutting the supply line to the spearhead approaching Baghdad, they run out of fuel and ammo, and surrender or die in place. That's a classic.
-
US troops get bogged down, the war drags on with high body counts, and US public opinion demands a pullout.
-
Other Arab countries join with Iraq, either militarily or in the form of an oil embargo.
-
Iraq really does have weapons of mass destruction and uses them.
-
North Korea makes their move on S. Korea and US troops have to be pulled out and moved to that theater.
None of these scenarios are likely, but it's quite possible for the Administration to bungle its way into one or more of them. Quite a few US war plans have failed in this war. "Decapitation" didn't work, "Shock and Awe" didn't work, "Blitz to Baghdad" didn't work, and "Basra Revolt" didn't work. That's just the first week. Not a good record.Historically, when an initial attack is far less successful than anticipated but isn't a total failure, the result is a long, bloody campaign. In a long campaign, the scenarios above become more likely.
Yet a Congressman is worrying about the cell phone industry in postwar Iraq. That's sick.
Parent
Re:Talk about counting chickens (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the US has made so much fuss about bringing "democracy" to Iraq shouldn't it be the Iraqis who make decisions on how to rebuild their infrastructure?
Of course left to their own devices they'd probably pick a system used by most of the planet. Rather than be stuck with something US specific. That's just from a practical position.
Parent
Re:Talk about counting chickens (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The US is amoral (note to the clueless: this is different from 'immoral') . So is pretty much every other country out there. Our actions are decided not by "right" and "wrong" but by our interests. In the '70s, the US fought a war against a country when their people chose a government the US did not agree with. Throughout the late 20th century, the US propped up oppressive dictatorships because it benifeted them. US sanctions on Iraq have not only resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis (not counting the 75,000 that died as a result of the Gulf War) but made Saddam into a hero in many Arab circles. Were any of these actions "right?" Hell no. Were they good for the US? Certainly.
2) Money is not a big issue for the US. We have tons of it, and if we need more, we can always make the deficit a little larger. What he don't have is a stable energy supply, something which Iraq does. And anyone who says oil isn't the issue here is flat out misinformed. Even several ministers within Great Britain agree that a stable energy supply is the #1 reason for a way. Look at it this way: Iraq is a country with only about 25 million people. The US plans to spend over a hundred billion dollars on it. In comparison, the total population of the developing countries is in the billions. To relieve the entire developing world of their foreign debt would cost only $65 billion (much less if you don't count Indonesia). Developing countries suffer heavily under the interest payments due to foreign debt. In some countries, up to 25% of the budget could be freed up with debt relief. Now, what makes more sense: taking a country of 25 million people, that already has well-established infrastructure, blowing everything up, and rebuilding it at a cost of over a hundred billion dollars, or allowing a much larger number of countries to get their budget on track by relieving their debt? If "right" and "wrong" were our only concerns, we would certainly be doing the latter.
3) The whole "democracy for everyone!" idea is bunk. What makes you think that a system of government that works well for a rich, industrialized nation will work equally well for a decentralized nomad country (Afghanistan) and a very conservative religious society (Iran). Take Iran as a test case. The current government was put into place by a revolution of the people. That's the government they chose. If given the option, right now, they'd choose it again. Is it "right" to remake their country in our own image?
All this has no bearing on whether the war is necessary. I have my own opinions about that, but I won't try to convince you of them. But the truth of the matter is that the US is going to war to protect its own interests. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, one can make a strong arguement that the purpose of a government (much like a lawyer) is not to necessarly do what's morally right, but what's in the best interest of its people. It also doesn't mean that democracy is wrong. I'm very fond of the idea myself. I strongly believe that the ultimate direction of all governments should be towards democracy, and the international community should pressure all governments in that direction. But I also realize that history works at a scale much larger than the 4-year term of a President, and further, I believe that prostelyzing our system of government is against our fundemental values.
A parting thought: In the 10 minutes it took me to write this post, 240 children died of hunger. What did you do about it? What did I do about it? Everytime anyone starts to get to full of themselves, or too proud of their accomplishments, think about that. Realize that while our country may very well be the greatest in the world, that's not saying much, and it's nothing to be proud of. Humility is a part of every religion. There is a fundemental reason for this...
Parent
Re:Talk about counting chickens (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement itself implies that it's wrong (ahem) to say that something is right or wrong. Then you proceed with a long-winded rant on what's right and wrong. I think this is what they call in psychology "cognitive dissonance."
Parent
Re:Talk about counting chickens (Score:4, Insightful)
> wrong with that.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. The US is being completely thrashed in the propaganda war, not just in the Arab and Muslim countries (not the same thing of course) where they obviously have an uphill battle from the get-go, but in the rest of the world as well. The Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Perle/Wolfowitz regieme are really playing into the hands of the extremists who have been trying to depict this as a neo-colonial war of aggression and conquest - a 'crusade' (and Bush actually USED that word! What a schmuck!) In the last couple of days in the UK media there have been hints that the US wants to *run the country* after the war (which will no doubt be over by Christmas...) I cannot imagine anything they could do, short of rounding up and executing Muslims, more calculated to inculcate suspicion and hatred of the USA and by extension the UK, Australia, and, as far as the Al Qaeda types are concerned, all infidels.
This is shaping up to be the worst foreign policy blunder by the USA since... well, I can't remember a bigger screw-up. It's a disaster. And there's nothing to do but press on with the war.
Parent
Re:Talk about counting chickens (Score:4, Insightful)
Those interests include protecting its people and providing a safe, free environment for them to live and work in. (emphisis added)
With the NY Times publishing a blacklist and the old "if you don't like it, get out" line making a come back, I'm waiting for the free environment to make an appearance here. If we can't protect freedom here, we don't have a chance to export it.
It has been argued before that that's exctly what we're doing (the US). No UN resolution gives us the authority to determine the compliance of Iraq. We went to war under the UN banner, and passed a cease fire resolution in the UN. None of this puts us into control. You can say it's self defence, but that's a different story.
But, I support the President and the rest of the coalition, which have more knowledge and information about the true happenings within the government and organizations that I do...
Since the shit hit the fan, it's good that you're behind them. It's worth noting that France, Germany, and Russia have world class intelligence services as well. They didn't seem to think Iraq was a big enough threat to override their national interests.
That has never been proven. It has never been shown to be a probability. They have no means of delivery to our territories except via terrorist; and why would a terrorist go to a heavily watched country like Iraq. Iraq has been secular for the whole history of the Baath party. Why not go to Pakistan for nuclear material? Why not N. Korea? CB weaponry? Why not go to the domestic sources that supposedly manufactured it in US labs? It would seem that Iraq is the least of our problems.
You're entitled to your opinion, and this is mine.
I'm glad to read this. It seems the least common view in America today. Keep up your support. Keep your eyes open.
Parent
Re:Talk about counting chickens (Score:4, Informative)
Percentage of budget of US foreign aid: 1.0% (dead last among western nations).
Percentage of that dedicated to military aid to allies: ~50%
Percentage of total aid that comes directly back to US companies: ~70%
Percentage of people polled that think we spend too much on foreign aid: 75%
Average response to the question, "how much should we spend on foreign aid?": 8.4%
Parent
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on people, war hasn't even finished, and all they can think about is US cellphone company's benefits? what about FOOD, WATER, MEDICINE?
sheesh...
Re:hah! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Uhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Bull... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not quite that simple.
Most of the money that's spent on the war is actually spent paying US companies for products and services (those cruise missiles were actually bought from someone) + salaries for servicemen.
That money is thus transfered from the US government to other sectors of the US economy.
From the point of view of the global US economy, most of the money spent on the war stays in the US.
Now, if we assume that after the reconstruction the entities that will benefict the most from the new status quo in Iraq will be US oil companies, then what this war ammounts to is:
- Having the US government spend taxpayer's money in the Defense industry to subsidize the US oil industry.
-------------
Please note that i'm only touching the economical side here. There's the whole human side (lives lost in both sides, the future of the surviving Iraqui people); political side (Bush's approval rates); and geopolitical side (will the rest of the world still trust the US?).
Parent
This is a joke right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously folks, in percentage of population, the US Military has already killed more Iraqi civilians than 9/11 killed Americans. Let's not worry about what cell phones the Iraqis will use after we win, and worry instead about whether or not it's possible for us to win.
Peace. As salaam alaikum.
Re:This is a joke right? (Score:5, Informative)
The obvious response to this is: so what? Percentage of the population? That's a pretty meaningless metric.
However, it's worth noting that you're actually correct... or may be, depending on how the numbers turn out.
September 11 killed about 3,000 Americans, out of a population of about 280 million. (All figures are rounded, of course, because I'm just too lazy to look them up for an argument as ridiculous as this one.) That's 0.0011%.
The Iraqi government claims that about 350 civilians have died during the war. Of course, they claim to have destroyed dozens of our tanks, too, so we know their claims are far from perfect. But let's go with the Iraqi number, just for kicks. There are about 25 million people in Iraq. That comes to 0.0014%. So by those numbers, you're right.
However, we only have confirmation of about 25 civilian deaths in Iraq. That's going to be too low, obviously, because we don't have confirmation of every single civilian death, but just to put a bracket around the numbers, that comes to exactly 0.0001%.
So whether or not there have been more Iraqi civilians killed as a percentage of total population than were killed on 9/11 remains to be seen; the percentages could be quite close, or they could be off by a factor of 10, depending on how the final math turns out.
But this is all just an exercise in arithmetic. It means nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so we're not there to exercise vengance. And if we were, we would still have a long way to go, because Iraq would still be 2,650 civilians short of the mark.
Let's not worry about what cell phones the Iraqis will use after we win, and worry instead about whether or not it's possible for us to win.
Nobody has the slightest doubt that we'll win. This has been, by some interpretations, the most successful military campaign in history, and that includes the ratio of civilians killed per ton of ordinance employed. In other words, this has been the most benign war in history so far, and yet we're still virtually unopposed. Our biggest concern right now, apart from avoiding civilian casualties, is harassment from irregulars behind our front lines. The biggest campaign of resistance the Iraqi forces can mount against us right now qualifies as a nuisance, and not even a significant nuisance.
There's no question that we're going to win.
Parent
Re:This is a joke right? (Score:5, Interesting)
How come? I mean, so far things have been going something like this:
Iraq: We shot down an Apache gunship!
US: Nope, we haven't lost any helicopters
Iraq: Well, here is a video-clip of that downed Apache
US: Uhhhhh, yeah we did lose a helicopter
Iraq: Our forces are still fighting in Umm Qasr
US: Nope, Umm Qasr is secure
Journalists: From what I saw, there's still fierce fighting going on there
US: OK, OK. We are still fighting in Umm Qasr
To me it seems that the Coalition denies or plays down any casualties or problems they face, untill they are proven to be wrong one way or the other. So when Iraq says they have destroyed dozen Abrams (we do know for sure that US has lost several tanks) and US denies it, I wouldn't take the word of US as gospel (I wouldn't take the word of Iraq as gospel either).
Parent
Re:This is a joke right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not talking about the people who starved during sanctions, as I'm aware that Saddam didn't spend all his oil for food money, and he stole as much of it as he could. I'm referring only to people who were killed by the current invasion.
Next time you're watching the bombs explode on CNN, remember how you felt on 9/11, and realize that the same thing is happening in Iraq, right now.
Parent
War Body Count < Pre-War Body Count (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:This is a joke right? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/88244_sean2
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/ira
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.s
Defend your viewpoint, ass!
Parent
public good (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Financial benefits for US companies
or
2. The ability for US citizens to use their cell phones internationally and foriegn visitors to use their cell phones here.
Would the financial impact to US companies be short term? Would they benefit more from visitors paying for international roaming charges if they took the hit now?
Is Congressman Issa trying to improve the local economy of his constituents or does he believe this is the best course of action for the country?
Honestly, I have no idea.
this was my much better submission... (Score:5, Informative)
According to an article [theregister.co.uk] in The Register, Congressman Darrell Issa (R, CA) [house.gov] is pushing hard for CDMA to be the cell network of choice for Iraq. Why? Because GSM(Groupe Speciale Mobile) is French, and he claims that the only source of GSM equipment would be French/German companies(except for, say, Lucent [lucent.com], Motorola [motorola.com], and Nortel [nortelnetworks.com])...and we all know how popular the French are [cleveland.com]. Putting aside concerns about winning the war first and having your priorities in order(such as getting food there, before worrying about aide workers having Enhanced 911), Issa claims(incorrectly [google.com]) that only CDMA offers GPS integration for E911. I'm sure the large campaign contribution by Qualcomm to Issa [opensecrets.org] has absolutely nothing to do with the bill [loc.gov]. Talk about people who need to be introduced to a cluebat [userfriendly.org].
Competition or GSM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Competition or GSM (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Which is why we need to liberate Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria next, and help them standardise on CDMA.
Btw, what are they using in Afghanistan now?
Parent
CDMA Bias by Issa (Score:5, Insightful)
I THINK NOT.
This is just another example of politics being influenced by corporate desires and lobbying.
-davidu
Greedy Fingers (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
The more damage US military does to Iraq's infrastructure, the more money will US corporations make on rebuilding. US government is planning to use Iraqi oil to pay for this enterprise.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, but thats incorrect. The quote below with source proves it....
"Cheney divested himself of all interest in Halliburton, the largest U.S. oilfield services company, after the 2000 election." CNN Money [cnn.com]
Hope that helps clear things up
JOhn
Parent
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
What neither quote makes clear is that Cheney didn't think that maintaining stock options was a conflict of interest - he said words to this effect in public. It was only after a relatively large hoohaw in the press that he finally acquiesced. It is doubtful that he has changed his mind, divestiture was purely a face-saving political move. Given that, you can be pretty sure he (or rather his accountants) will have worked every angle and loophole to indirectly keep him "on the payroll" with Haliburton and who knows how many other companies.
For another example of this kind of mindset, look at Richard Perle who, after a couple of weeks of denial-tactics finally became too much of a liability, just like the stock options, to keep around. This guy, former Bush Sr top-dog and until today a Bush Jr top-dog too, was given $700K to convince the DoD that it would be ok for Global Crossing to self off to the Chinese. Why? Because his official top-dog title was "Chairman of the Defense Policy Board," an advisory panel to the Pentagon - making close to, if not the civilian with the most influence over the DoD. Not to mention the even larger issue of his ties to arab-owned corporations. Conflict of interest? Not in any dictionary of his.
This crony capitalism mindset is endemic in the current administration and as far as I am concerned is 100x more of a moral defect than boffing an intern or two, or even ten. Because instead of just screwing a few people, it screws most of the country for the benefit of just a few people. These guys (and democrats too, but they at least know enough to be embarrassed about it) have taken the term, "spoils system" to a whole new level.
Parent
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
In sparsely pop'd Oz CDMA goes a longer -distance- (Score:4, Informative)
If you leave the last big town, to go bush
in Australia, you might as well leave your
GSM handset behind, in favor of a CDMA unit.
Cheaper than sta.phones, the CDMA had greater
range (over flat terrain) & about the same
air-time costs as GSM, here...
So, that's the terrain of Iraq like, then?
GSM vs CDMA on technical issues (Score:5, Interesting)
GSM not as universal as most think.
CDMA is head and shoulders above - look at where the highspeed wireless is going - CDMA, not GSM. Plus CDMA is more efficient in its bandwidth usage than GSM. Remember GSM is still TDMA at its roots. So CDMA has better spectral efficiency.
Example: GSM provides 8 slots in a channel 200 kHz wide, while IS-136 provides 3 slots in a channel only 30 kHz wide. GSM therefore consumes 25 kHz per user, while IS-136 consumes only 10 kHz per user.
Plus you should take into account the terrain and desnity - Iraq probably is not all that population dense outside of Baghdad and Basra. CDMA really comes into its element when you are out in the countryside with few sites covering large expanses of land. Under these conditions CDMA provides extremely stable audio with few frame errors to mess things up. This is because Channel Pollution is almost non-existent in these situations. Under similar conditions TDMA suffers too readily from interference and it will often blank the audio. Many people who use CDMA systems in sparsely populated areas have given this technology extremely high marks.
Nex you should look at GPRS versus CDMA2000/1xRTT, and the costs to upgrade from these technologies to genuine 3G communications. Without going into the specifics, CDMA holds a slight advantage here as well.
So despite the obvious political motivations behind this decision, technologically speaking, it s actually a good decision to favor CDMA.
Re:GSM vs CDMA on technical issues (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very universal. Changing frequency doesn't mean having to change chipset design, infrastructure, etc.
CDMA is head and shoulders above - look at where the highspeed wireless is going - CDMA, not GSM.
They have different roots. GSM was specifically designed for voice data.
Plus CDMA is more efficient in its bandwidth usage than GSM. Remember GSM is still TDMA at its roots. So CDMA has better spectral efficiency.
TDMA vs CDMA was examined in depth in deciding the GSM standard. The committee decided that the TDMA system was superior (easier to build more accurate and reliable base stations was one of the factors IIRC).
Plus you should take into account the terrain and desnity - Iraq probably is not all that population dense outside of Baghdad and Basra. CDMA really comes into its element when you are out in the countryside with few sites covering large expanses of land. Under these conditions CDMA provides extremely stable audio with few frame errors to mess things up. This is because Channel Pollution is almost non-existent in these situations. Under similar conditions TDMA suffers too readily from interference and it will often blank the audio. Many people who use CDMA systems in sparsely populated areas have given this technology extremely high marks.
GSM is a compromise, which allows it to work well under both conditions. It had to satisfy all the members of ETSI, including Switzerland (sparse, all mountains) and Holland (totally flat, with large cities).
So despite the obvious political motivations behind this decision, technologically speaking, it s actually a good decision to favor CDMA.
It's not, because you restrict the technology (handsets, base stations, etc) to a couple of US companies. With GSM you can invite tenders from every company in the world, with an already mature market providing a lot of CHOICE for both handsets and infrastructure.
Phillip.
Parent
Re:GSM vs CDMA on technical issues (Score:4, Interesting)
Tell that to my 3 year old tri-band phone . Almost wherever I go (including most larger US cities) the first thing I do when I step of the plane is turn on my cellphone. And most of the time it'll pick up a provider that I can roam with immediately. It's so much more convenient than being without a cellphone or having to resort to renting one at ridiculous rates.
Whatever technological advantages you might think of, there are a couple of huge advantages with GSM: There's a much larger production volume for GSM handsets (face it, Europe tend to get the newest handsets before the US, and we have a much wider selection), and with a decent handset you'd be able to use it in practically any country in the world (including other countries in the region).
Considering the deployment of GSM it is clear that GSM is good enough, and that technical considerations therefore should be a secondary issue for most people considering building out a network - cost and convenience for the users should be much more important as that is what will drive sales.
That said, I think the important part of this is the idea that the idead that the US should have any say whatsoever over what Iraq does when "liberated" is disgusting. The US lost all legitimacy when it violated the UN charter and attacked a sovereign nation, and any hope for the US in getting any sort of credibility back will be lost if there's even the slightest little hint of US colonialism after the war.
Parent
An Insult to The Fighting, The Dead and Dying (Score:5, Insightful)
Women and children are being killed. Our friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters are killing them/being killed, and what is the US media reporting? What do we hear about?
Who makes the bucks from war.
Never mind that has already taken a heavy toll on any US legitimacy (the founding principles of the nation itself are threatened to be as illegitimate as its current "president"). Never mind that it's at a cost of billions in tax dollars (that our children, and their children will be paying for). Never mind that it will cost thousands of lives before it is finished (and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives as the ranks of Al Qaeda grow). Never mind that it's barely even begun!
Have you no decency? If you want to report on Iraq, report on something legitimate. Report on what's happening rather than the propaganda puff-pieces.
Report on the 28 year old plumber who drowned after being ordered to cross a canal in full battle dress. Or the 20 year old lifeguard who drowned trying to save him.
Report on the seven year old girl lying in a pool of her own blood, her intestines laying beside her.
Report on the fact that the people of Iraq don't want to be "liberated." And that our friends and families will be the ones to pay the highest price of all because of the dreadful mismanagement and miscalculation of the bush administration.
Fuck rebuilding. Fuck Saddam. There's an unjust war being wrought upon the innocent civilians of Iraq, as well as the innocent soldiers of the United States. This is not their war, this is the war of a few greedy people who don't even legitimately hold the positions they currently abuse.
The bush administration has shown time and again that it has no care for legitimacy, or truth. From the moment the first Florida recount started, they have shown that they care only for protecting their own interests. They have never had the interests of the US in mind. They have never cared about those men and women who are suffering and dying right now.
With a smug smile they say, "We will liberate you from your God, your money, and your dignity."
Re:An Insult to The Fighting, The Dead and Dying (Score:4, Informative)
And everybody knows it was an accident. But okay, let's have it your way. Oh no, blood and gore! Let's end the war! Would ending the war end the suffering? Saddam would like us to pack up and go home so he could resume power and get back to the tyrant's regular business of inflicting suffering of a brutal and excruciating nature on his subjects; this kind of suffering as opposed to the comparatively few, inadvertent casualties due to the war.
Having no war in Iraq allows persecution. Having this just war is causing suffering for a time, but will end most of the suffering in the long run.
Horrible suffering like what you mentioned is imposed affliction du jour in Saddam's regime. Its torture methods include: [state.gov]
Report on the fact that the people of Iraq don't want to be "liberated."
Nine in 10 Iraqis welcome US invasion [asia1.com.sg]
With a smug smile they say, "We will liberate you from your God, your money, and your dignity."
"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave. [guardian.co.uk]" - liberated Iraqi
Listen to the experience of a former human shield in Iraq [telegraph.co.uk]:
Parent
Right now ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So here comes a US senator whose only concern is what mobile phone system one should install when it's all over. Quite frankly, this is so cynical. Not only against the iraq people but also against US soldiers. As a soldier, I'd really like to get the message: 'Go soldier, risk your life, so we can open up some market for mobile phones.'
If some European politician made any such proposal or in fact any attempt to "secure a market" at this point in time he'd be thrown out of office.
That is what makes people turn away from the US. The lack of tactfullness. Double standards (Yes, we respect the Geneva Convention - whenever it is useful to us). Turning one or two blind eyes (Who gave Saddam weapons of mass destruction when he was the bulwark against Iran?). The will to break international law whenever it serves the purpose.
The rest of the world may be afraid of the US. But there is no respect.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich. I can't see any difference between them."
Sir Peter Ustinov, UNICEF
"most widely used" (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you love half-truths when you see 'em? GSM is not only the most widely used standard "in surrounding countries", it's the most widely used standard, period.
GSM: 330 million world wide users
CDMA: 67 million world wide users
But, it seems more important to purchase national patriotic technology than good technology. (That must be why Americans still use Windows. After all, Linux originates in Europe and must so be inferior, by definition. ;)
Let's buy steel from US companies, even if it's more expensive because they neglected to modernize their factories (in Europe, just about everything was rebuilt after WW2 - and the debts for foreign help, also from the US, have long since been paid. It was a very painful process, but it paid off). And because foreign steel is now cheaper and better, phone George to introduce some nice import taxes.
Forget that the white "paint" which is used for most national buildings (eg. white house) is made in Germany. Forget that most of the cars that run the US are produced in Germany or by German companies. (BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, anyone?). Forget that under the hood of most cars made in the US you see European labels like Bosch, Siemens, Philips, etc.
While you're at it, ban not only french fries, french toast, and french kissing, but also french red wine (which might be considered a merciful fate for the wine, considering that Americans mix it with Coke!). And all that just for the fact that - understandably - most of Europe has a problem with war, for any reason whatsoever. It's even in the German constitution: Germany is not allowed to participate in non-defensive warfare. The constitution which was written by the US after WW2.
I'm waiting for the USA to ban Hamburgers, which originate from Hamburg (the 'ham' story is a myth!), Franfurters, Schnitzel, Mortadella, etc.
I remember a quote from a demonstrant in the US: "If we had invested the money now spent in war in proper education soon enough, the war wouldn't even have started."
Right.
GSM is not French (Score:5, Insightful)
GSM may be an an abbreviation for French words, but GSM is a global standard originally designed by a group of European companies and organisations. Loads of countries were involved, not just France.
This argument that French products shouldn't be used is racist. I know Americans like their country, but this is racism and xenephobia on a huge scale. Shame on you all.
Finally, who gave the USA permission to build this stuff? Privatising the services in Iraq doesn't benefit them, and definately isn't democracy - it's THEFT. The services and infrastructure belongs to Iraq and after they have a democratic elected government the choice of how to run public services belongs to them.
Please note that I am not against Americans in any way, but your government really pisses me off.
CDMA rocks! (Score:5, Interesting)
GSM phones can exist in the same area as CDMA, I know this for a fact because all my friends have GSM...
What will probably happen is that the standard competitive environment will emerge anyway -- company A puts up GSM towers, company B puts up CDMA towers, and both try to convince the public that their system is better. Some people buy one system, some buy the other, based on what's important to that individual. This is, in my opinion, a much better system than relying on one technology -- and it's a system that will emerge without any form of legislation. Why can't political leaders just keep their noses out of it?
Parent
Re:CDMA rocks! (Score:4, Insightful)
1. As for GSM vs. CDMA, no self respecting idiot would bring a CDMA phone to Europe, so only self serving people would choose CDMA over GSM.
2. GSM may or may not be a better channel today, but GSM is the upgrade path to GPRS and UMTS, not CDMA.
3. Having America as the monopoly, will other providers enter the country, and who soon after the reconstruction? In a fair playing field CDMA would die out very fast in Iraq. Having the US dictate a (wrong, selfserving) decision for CDMA would cause nobody but downturned American companies grief.
Parent
Re:My thoughts (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, of course. Most mobile networks in Australia are GSM but we also have CDMA because it's better in rural areas.
And yes, someone on a GSM phone can talk to someone on a CDMA phone and vice versa, just like someone on a mobile can talk to someone on a land line.
Seriously though, everything I've ever heard about American mobile phone networks seems really weird and backwards. I hear for example that the numbers are indistinguisable from land line numbers so the caller doesn't know they're calling a mobile and that consequently the recipient of the call pays for it. Elsewhere in the world the number is noticeably different and the caller pays. So I would personally be against the Americans setting up the mobile phone network in Iraq at all, whether it's GSM or CDMA! (On the other hand you guys are better at broadband so I'll let you take care of the cable roll out!) (Very magnanimous, I know!
But yes, it seems a little trivial when we're still at war and people are dying.
One question to ask would be: What was used in the reconstruction in Afghanistan?
Parent
Re:My thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, come off the high horse for just a minute and think rationally.
Here's a country with no effective mobile phone system. It needs a new one, and one's going to be put in place over the next few years. If you're a mobile phone company executive who is not slavering over this opportunity, you're not doing your job.
The Congressman's proposal is a perfectly valid one: here's an opportunity that has arisen (more accurately, that will arise) as a result of the war. Let's give American companies first swing at it.
Whether this proposal will ultimately be a good idea or not is up to the various House committees to decide.
Parent
Who's war is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:My thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
You said it so yourself, "autonomy is the keystone of responsible self-government." If I am paying for the system with my money, then I want a say in how that money is spent. If the Iraquis have a problem with that, then they can build their own cell phone infrastructure.
That would be fair if you did not break their existing phone system. What you are actually doing is - breaking their phone system and now you think you will be doing them a favor by fixing it.
I would not be surprised if it was me and you, but it's sad that people in high positions - CEOs and Ministers - should be so selfish and narrow minded.
Parent
Re:My thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the contrary. Mobile phones will be critically important for everyone from Red Cross workers to those distributing food aid to Doctors Without Borders to the firefighters who are already trying to cap the burning oil wells. Without this piece of infrastructure in place, the relief and reconstruction effort will be severely hampered.
Parent
Re:My thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush needs a war to be re-elected.
Parent
Re:My thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, when somebody kicks my ass, I'm ever so greatful when they throw me a fiver afterwards. And hey, if I only have to pay back six bucks by Friday, all the better! I actually feel GOOD about being bruised and battered!
Considering the vested interests of America's Big Oil El Presidente going after a country with such large oil reserves, once again 'accidentally' lobbing some of the most high-tech, modern, "smart" guided weaponry into markets et al. and terrorizing the very citizenry he claims to be helping, I don't think you should be patting yourselves on the back for your proposed rebuilding efforts.
Parent
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
and apparently you havent noticed the american government doesnt give a shit about iraqi people, their just in for the money.
because if they did give a shit, they would realize that GSM is better for them, because every other nation around them uses it!!!.
but no, they'll force them (because thats what the US government is used to do) to use CDMA in the interest of a couple of greedy corporations.
and btw, who the fuck is the US congress to decide which mobile phone service protocols is the iraqi people going to use ???
operation iraqi freedom indeed...
Parent
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Two points.
First, surely the primary goal is to pick products which benefit the people of Iraq? Otherwise what's the point of rebuilding the country?
Secondly, as the article from The Register [theregister.co.uk] points out, a lot of US companies (e.g. Lucent, Motorola) make GSM equipment. Why choose one US company over another? Is it the faux anti-French lunacy which is going around at the moment? Or, perhaps, the campaign contributions [thinkinglinks.info] from Qualcomm?
Hard to say.
Parent