Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CDMA vs. GSM in Post-war Iraq

Posted by timothy on 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."

1 of 1,002 comments (clear)

  1. CDMA for the hard of hearing! by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 2, Troll
    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!