CDMA vs. GSM in Post-war Iraq

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."

Comments

Re:Well, too bad for them

[austus]

You're insane. Nuff said.

CDMA for the hard of hearing!

[ZWithaPGGB]

Disclaimer, I live in San Diego, home of the Q (I don't work there, but I have friends who do), and Issa's district.

I think, for a "Green Field" install, CDMA is an automatic winner over GSM (and the Chinese agree).

1: CDMA is a superior technology for a number of reasons:

(a) It makes better use of spectrum = more bandwidth

(b) It takes less power = longer battery life

(c) It doesn't totally screw with hearing aids or anything else that picks up its dumb-ass pulses. After the pounding Iraq is taking, not messing with hearing aids will probably be a big issue. Nothing like a MOAB within a few clicks of you to make Mettalica seem GOOD for your hearing!

2: Since we are the ones who will be rebuilding Iraq, we should get to decide what we donate.

3: fsck the French (or En Francais: Allez vous faire foutre chez les Grecs, bande de Laches, faineants!), so we should choose a technology that they DON'T make, so they NEVER get a DIME from the country.

BTW: Issa is a Lebanese American. I've actually sat next to him on a plane. Bright guy. EE who started a car alarm company, which is how he got the $ to run for congress. Apparently he thought the perspective of people who actually understood the value of the freedom in this country and worked to build a company was needed in DC. Go figure!

Re:hah!

[sllim]

Biased?
Yeah obviously. You hate Americans, you hate George Bush and you hate the Iraqi people even more.
Good for you.

I on the other hand contain no bias. Only facts.
Go here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=58720&cid=5613 057

I am sure you will write something back like 'Lies all Lies!'.
I mean Saddam is a hero right?
He is a freedom fighter?

You are a tool.
I got some advice, if you don't like the truth, then just simply don't believe it.

Europe and US

[hackus]

I suspect, that after the War is over in Iraq, and the Iraqi people awaken from a long political sleep after being opressed by this dictatorship, they will not only choose a new government for themselves, but also new friends as well.

The last thing on a Iraqi persons mind right now is cell phones. Our troops are encountering thousands of people living in poverty for decades. I suspect all they want is food and water for thier families.

I think the chasm between France and the USA is not going to be repairable as long as Chirac is in power in France. Germany is probably fixable, but Russia as well as France actively supported this regime economically, and also under minded the final UN resolution for some sort of political resolution to this problem without war.

I think it would have been VERY probable, that if the UN security council was unaminous with a ultimatum, Sadaam probably would have either fled the country or complied immediately. Instead France would not hear of it, and threatened to veto such a move.

The whole situation is very sad, and the UN has lost its relevance to the American people to resolve/coordinate any sort of problem, except perhaps simple Humanitarian issues.

The anti France sentiment over here is unbelievable, at least in my state, even when I am playing games online. (People who don't fight immediately or Rush in Warcraft III are called "Frenchies" for example.)

I think when the military conflict is all over a serious reconsideration, both militarily, and economically is going to happen minimally over France's part in undermining UN support/fragmenting the security council and Russia's appearent selling of Missiles to the Iraqi guard troops that can (and have) taken out the American M1 Abrams tanks.

In my humble opinion, being against war, generally is a good idea. But, defending a war politically, AT ANY COST, such as what France, Germany and Russia has done is morally wrong, in this case.

The political impact this going to have throughout Europe is going to change not only the face of NATO, but may very well, bode unwell for France Germany or Russia if terrorists realize the US will not assist these countries if they come under a 911 type attack.

And for what?

A petty dictator that gases his own people, buildes enourmous palaces while his people eat dirt on the streets and have no political say in what happens in thier own lives.

I don't this it is worth the fracturing of NATO and trade which will be the fallout from this.

-Hack

Re:Europe and US

[hackus]

You are so wrong in so many aspects that it is difficult to believe.
1. The USA did do business with Iraq as did France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Russia. France and Russia might have done more than the USA but that does not mean much.

To which I reply:

I am not disputing the fact we do business with Iraq, some companies do. However, we are not willing to use those business interests in deciding issues such as biological and chemical weapons. That is the problem here. Countries which decide to use these weapons, MUST BE ELIMINATED.

Otherwise discussions like this will only be possible UNDER PAIN OF DEATH.

---

2. Only 3 out of 15 countries in the security council agreed to vote with the USA. Singleling out France is ridiculous.

To which I reply:

That is not true. There was complete support in private discussions about the final vote/resolution, at the end of February, discussing a timeline and benchmarks for Iraq to comply.

France, told everyone in the private session of the council that they would veto ANY RESOLUTION that had teeth in it. (i.e. an ultamatum.)

The US then decided to not even bother.

It is very possible, that if France would have voted for the resolution, to which all 13 security councils agreed to before it hit the floor of the UN, Sadaam Hussein, confronted with a united front from the UN, would have fled the country or complied.

Now we are at war either way. Frankly, I don't see the logic of Frances indecision because at least if they would have agreed to vote for the final resolution, there would have been a CHANCE we would not be at war right now.

--

3. think it would have been VERY probable, that if the UN security council was unaminous with a ultimatum, Sadaam probably would have either fled the country or complied immediately.
It is nice to be sure about things but completely stupid. There was no unanimity at the security council with or without France and there is not the start of the beginning of a hint that Saddam would have left or complied.

To which I reply:

That is true officially. Unofficially, these measures were discussed at length behind closed doors, which is typical before any resolution is passed to iron out a vote. See my message above.

The point is, the final resolution never made it passed France, and I am sorry if the truth hurts.

It is a matter of UN record, now, so it is pointless to argue about it.

--

4. What if the US troops are attacked by biological weapons that have been sold by the US to Iraq?

Many countries exchange and sell strains of Small Pox, including the US and most if not all member of the security council so your point is what?

There is nothing wrong per se, of selling small pox. What its intended uses are, is the problem.
Small Pox is used and studied all over the world in Biology.

Problem is not all governments use them as weapons. I think the point you are trying to make, is that we sold Iraq small pox with US knowingit would use them in a biological weapons program.

I would love to see proof of that.

--

5. But, defending a war politically, AT ANY COST, such as what France, Germany and Russia has done is morally wrong, in this case.
The French foreign minister said it many times: France is not a pacifist country. And Russia certainly isn't either.

To which my reply is:

France is not a pacificst country? Prove it!

My point with this comment is,

1) France split the Security council over the final vote over the Iraq.

2) France sent its ministers to Morocco, and all over the place offering money for votes against the US, Britain and New Europe, Italy, Spain, and former members of the Eastern block countries.

4) France has split NATO and destroyed an entire political arena for what gain?

To keep its oil interests and investments sound to support a petty dictator in the world that uses gas,

THIS IS RIDICULOUS

[LINM]

I've got to say that this is *ridiculous*. The US government is paying (using it's own money) to rebuild Iraq and should do whatever the hell they want. It's their money. If they want to build a huge "DISNEY WORLD IRAQ", more power to them.

The whole oil for money argument is bogus by the way. The bill for the war alone is heading way north of $100B for the parties involved. If every drop of oil went to defray the costs of the war (not to mention paying to rebuild the falling apart oil infrastructure first), it would take over two years to pay for the war. And, of course, the US and Britain are not going to divert the 100% of the oil fees for the next two years.

So if the US is going to provide free infrastructure for the Iraqi people, they should buy exactly whatever they want. If you want to bring in UN funds or your credit card then that would be a different story, but I don't see anyone mathcing the US and Britain's $150B free money for rebuilding.

Otherwise, please save this flame for yourself.

Why support a european standard over american?

[OrangeTide]

The surrounding countries use GSM because that's what europe sold them. If europe funded a reconstruction and built some cell towers you know they'd be GSM and that some european company would get paid to set the up and sell GSM components. If the US pays for reconstruction then of course you'll see a preference for american companies.

If you're wondering about the morality of making a profit off a "war victim". It probably isn't right, but it is normal in every war. Conflict creates [business] opportunity. Any country, no matter how self righteous it is bound to have some business minded individuals willing to make something good out of something bad for a profit.

ps- how did this site become an anti-american vs. anti-french / anti-german flame war? You honestly think anyone is just going to accept you bashing their country? You're ALL idiots.