Slashdot Mirror
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."
I think for the benefit of the Iraq people it would be best to either, us the existing standard and what the surrounding countries use. But if they want some of the benefits of the CSMA as they say in the article, they should at lest do a dual implantation of it. Why? Well so the Iraq people can chose what standard they want, the one they don't go for will by default die away, I am sure they probably will not go for CDMA since it would not be useful outside for the boarders of Iraq. Can CDMA and GSM phones exist in the same area? That is the big question that could stand in the way of my idea. But this is all thinking and we should be consternating more on the war that is going on now then rebuilding, yes we also have to look at humanitarian aid now, but that is still different from rebuilding.
Before they're hatched. Can I be on the occupied Iraq new currency designing committee? More importantly, will occupied Iraq choose Direct TV or Dish Network as its standard?
I can tell this esteemed Rep. has his priorities straight.
If this is going to be US funded I thinks it's okay to favor US companies even though I personally like/use GSM. If the money will be loaned to Iraq and later recouped via oil sales, etc. then GSM should be used. It's not like Sony-Ericsson is a French company!
I really hope this lays to rest any argument about the US going there to "save the civilians from Saddam's evil."
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...
My life in the land of the rising sun.
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.
There's already that sort of aid on the way, and Bush wants another 8 billion or so to be spent on that in the first 6 months. That's not counting other private group charities. They have to look at all these different issues as part of rebuilding. It's like saying we shouldn't bother fighting the common cold until we've got cancer taken care of.
I've had a CDMA phone for over two years now, and love it to death! There are a number of benefits, including longer range, lower amounts of microwaves hitting your skull, and so on.
:-)
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?
I am artificially intelligent.
Generally speaking, it would probably make the most sense to allow something resembling competition. Barring that, I would vote for GSM. It has nothing to do with which is a better standard. The point is, the middle east is a relatively small region. Cell-phone interoperability would be a huge boon -- so it would be great if the whole region used one standard. Iraq is about the size of a mid-sized state. Imagine if you couldn't use your New York cell phone in Connecticut because of standards problems.
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
I THINK NOT.
This is just another example of politics being influenced by corporate desires and lobbying.
-davidu
# Hack the planet, it's important.
I would feel much better if the US made the commitment to not have any economic interest in Iraq. There should be no US based company getting contracts for oil. Same goes for cell phone standards. KEEP YOUR GREEDY LITTLE HANDS OFF OF IRAQ! We are going to war with Iraq for the freedom of the people, not the plunder. Right?
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.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
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?
Here in New Zealand we have both networks. I do development of communications products using both systems. As I see it, for the end users, CDMA really only has an advantage if you need faster data. The other 99% of the users would be better off with GSM. CDMA proponents will give plenty of sound technical reasons why CDMA is better and they are right but from a practical point of view GSM wins almost every time. Some of the reasons for GSM are:
1. Don't have pay the Qualcomm fees so the pones are cheaper.
2. Sim cards allow the user to choose where and when to get their phone from instead of having to get permission to change from their telco.
3. There is generally a larger range of phones (see 2.), although some GSM telcos control network access, ours doesn't. The local CDMA phones are just plain ugly !
4. Roaming is better, my phone works in almost any country including the US, and you can count the number of countries a CDMA user can roam to with one hand.
On a political note I have to say this isn't a good look for country claiming to be there to help the local, not themself...
No one ever died from a cold, but a cure for the common cold would be far more lucrative than a cure for cancer by the sheer fact that people get colds more often than they get cancer. But if you're actually interested in saving people's lives, we really should pursue the cure for cancer instead of the cure for the common cold. In the same vein, I think making sure people get food and water is a hell of a lot more important than determining what their cel phone standard is going to be.
In summary, I don't think dead people or people dying of starvation and thirst really need cel phones. And I don't think people with terminal cancer will feel all that much better even if you manage to stop their nose from running.
Anyone else notice that Halliburton (formerly helmed by Dick Cheney) got a nice contract to put out the oil wells that have been set on fire? Another coincidence?
Yes, bombs are going off all over Iraq now. BUT that is where the similarity to 9/11 ends.
On 9/11, there were no bombs, just commercial jets used as missiles. The invasion of Iraq and the attacks on 9/11 are not similar at all, even from the civilian perspective.
9/11 was a secret attack inflicted by a rogue group mainly to cause maximum deaths of civilians. (I'm not including the Pentagon attack because that was a valid military target)
Our invasion of Iraq is a pre-planned, well-announced attack on the regime running Iraq (and its figurehead, Saddam) by national military forces against military targets. The coalition forces are not purposely targetting civilians, however, as war is ugly, collateral deaths are inevitable. I truly believe the coalition forces are doing everything possible to avoid killing civilians. The Iraqi regime has gone out of their way to put its own citizens in harms way by embedding SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) in residential neighborhoods, even hiding a tank inside a hospital (which is against the internationally accepted rules of warfare; the Geneva Convention, which Iraq is a signatory to).
The Iraqi are also launching a moderately successful political game based on complete lies. Seems thats the regular mode of business for them. How about those chemical weapons they said they don't have but have warned us they will use if we try to take over Baghdad? Or the Iraqi POWs telling debriefers that their superiors told them to fight hard because the Americans would inject poison in their veins if they were caught.
So simply comparing numbers based on population size has no merit unless you also look at the overall situational factors, including history.
- mobster1975!
Well, of course a US congressman would choose something other than GSM...to benefit US companies and their regime that contols them...or is it vice-versa? Why do you think the we invaded Iraq to begin with? It was not to liberate anything, but to serve a select few in the US hierarchy. Go murder a bunch of folks we have no business telling what and how to live their lives, do this based on fear and misinformation, lie to the US public, and then have the regime here in the US sell stuff to the new regime in Iraq that is not like anything used in surrounding countries, geesh...it makes total sense huh? Of course...all for the benfit of the Bushies and their crew, and those ignorant US citizens that buy into it all. What fools...and what crap. I just figure that by the time the US gets through there will not be any civilians left to use phones anyway.
> I'd like to be able to use the phone I have now and just get subscription or roaming
Keep hoping, because CDMA networks are not set up for GMS-style portable accounts, and they don't use SIM cards. Yes, CDMA2000 has some more features (though it's NOT broadband, even though they like calling it 3G it's really only 2.5G like GPRS), but it bloody well should, considering how much newer it is. You can do a lot more signal processing in cheap silicon nowadays than back when GSM was designed in the 80s, and CDMA does require a lot more horsepower. If GSM were being designed today, it would most likely end up very similar to CDMA. What is fascinating is how well GSM has really kept up. They were years ahead of CDMA with GPRS and packet-based billing.
The most important thing though is that GSM has become a global standard, a truly world-wide cell phone system. Your argument reminds me of the Token Ring vs. Ethernet wars, which in many respects are very similar to the CDMA vs. GSM "war" (it's no war really, since Qualcomm's CDMA hasn't got a prayer outside the US). Token Ring might have been superior at the time, but it was Ethernet that everyone was buying. A network's or cell phone's usefulness is directly proportional to the number of machines or people it connects you to. In that respect GSM is king and nothing will change that for a long time.
No, we're not getting food into Iraq because the priority for this war is the Oil.
Yes, that's right. It's all about oil. We want the oil, must have the oil. Got to have the oil.
Let me ask you a question, though. This war, including the postwar reconstruction, is probably going to cost us around 200 billion dollars, and that doesn't count the cost of the munitions we're using. We've used over a billion and a half dollars' worth of cruise missiles alone so far, and the war's only a week old. Two hundred billion dollars plus would have bought us practically all the Iraqi oil we could have hauled off. Why didn't we just buy it, and save everybody a lot of time, money, and trouble?
Why didn't the Coalition PLAN for the mines?
We did. That's why we thought to bring mine detection equipment-- not to mention a platoon of highly motivated bottlenose dolphins and sea lions-- to the party.
Second, Kuwait is right next door. Why can't we just land in Kuwait and deliver the food that way.
We are. Read the article.
I write in my journal
Actually, they're taking a VERY clear stance- the war is wrong. Europeans have repeatedly made it clear that they don't really hate Americans, they hate the Bush administration..
Meanwhile, Americans are too stupid to figure out the subtle distinctions between, say:
-supporting "the troops" versus being against the war.
-national security policy of preemption, versus "its about the oil!"
-a dictator who MIGHT have some weapons of mass destruction, versus a legitimate threat to US national security
Please help metamoderate.
So because Germany had a bad tyrant ruler, and did some bad things, which they've been trying to atone for since (and the people that actually did these things are mostly dead as well), the whole of Europe is doesn't deserve respect?
Does that include your hero Dubya's pal Blair?
That's it america... keep alienating your allies. You don't need anyone. The universe revolves around you.
--
"The Greatest Nation in the World" can't even feed it's poor.
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
GSM is an aging standard. Code division multiplexing is the way of the future, and the engineers know this. It offers better reception, better capacity, and makes for a much better 3G infrastructure with mixed high-speed data/voice traffic.
China is rolling out a WCDMA network, folks. Qualcomm isn't necessarily the flagbearer for the technology or the platform; it's no longer a US-only phenomenon.
GSM will be phased out over the next decade, cohabitating with WCDMA, as peoples' handsets are replaced by shiny new models with ridiculous multimedia features they won't use for years. Check the market for dual-band WCDMA/GSM mobile phones and notice how many of the major manufacturers are producing them.
Regretably, none of that matters to our friend, Mr. Issa. He and his backers are interested solely in making a quick buck. It's obvious to me that Iraq would be better served by allowing a privatized Iraq Telecom corporation to arise from the ashes of the old state-run telecom. Iraq Telecom should make its own decision about what kind of cellular technology to deploy, perhaps with the help of a US bank loan. That would be a minor boon for the US and a blissful telecommunications future for Iraq.
But, honestly...what'd you expect, from a politician?
Zeig heil??? Fucking moron.
If the French hadn't helpt out your puny revolution, US would still be a British colony. Which, thinking of it, would have been just as well, anyway.
A nation of misfits, rejected from the civilized countries now trying to rule the world.
But never mind, your society is going straight to hell anyway.
Reasons?
Segregation.
Ignorance.
Megalomania.
Crime rates.
Social security.
Inability to handle international affairs.
I could add a few more, but that ends the lesson for today.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
The fact that people are such twits to actually think a damn blow job is a big deal while the patriot act is just swell demonstrates the perverse sense of morality my fellow Americans have. I take that back. They're scared little blood thirsty fascist sheep.
Go ahead, call me a traitor. From traitors, that is a complement. Good thing the constitution transcends the toilet paper this administration thinks it is. There's going to be hell to pay when the brainwashing wears off. I think that shall be soon since there are already cries for Blair's head. When American death toll in this very *avoidable* war exceeds 1000, Bush may join blair at the Hague trial.
GSM? WHICH GSM? Africa, US or European frequency?
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.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Have there ever been a post on Slashdot that say anything negative of the US that hasn't set you off into another raving rant in less than five minutes after it was posted?
;-)
I'm not perfect. I've probably let one or two slip through.
I write in my journal
God, what a perfect representation of what is important to the bush administration. I thought Slashdot may actually avoid this type of propaganda called "reporting."
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."
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
Ah, yes, there's the funny thing. "We're not in it for the oil, see, because this war is costing so much, the profit that will be made from Iraqi oil is very small compared to not going to war and just buying the oil". But you have to consider that the government is paying for the war. The government gets his money through taxes, big corps, small corps, inviduals, they all pay the taxes. Government money is taxpayers money. It's not like Bush is spending for the war from his pocket. It's not his money.
So, the whole American people is paying for this war. Who will benefit? To an extent, the whole american people, from a revitalised economy. Whether that'll balance the cost of the war we shall see. But a few corporations will get a FUCKLOAD of money from this. They'll have invested a part of their taxes - which they would have paid anyway - and some money in politics and will get loads and loads of money. Their balance is on the plus side. A lot. Mucho money they're getting,and the best part is that THEY reap in the benefits, but the whole population financed the whole thing.
And really, Bush is only there for a few years. Taxpayer's money isn't his money. But - is Bush by any chance into the Oil business? Yes? And tell me, is there a chance that with all that oil money that will be moving around after Iraq has been conquered, is there a chance some of that money *might* find its way into his pockets? There IS?!? Well, shit, there I was thinking he was doing it all cuz he's such a nice guy, y'know.
Of course, it's not just Bush. There are lots of people who will benefit from this war - and probably not just on the Republican side. What do you think, that the White House is full of people who have the American people's best interest at heart? Shit man, you're dreaming. It takes a lot of money to get into the White House. And the people who have enough money to play politician usually didn't come into all this money by giving it away - they invested, they invest all the time, and politics is just another investment.
Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
We're not nearly done killing people, and we're already planning ways to fuck them by pushing inferior wireless standards on them.
Not only that, Iraqis will be forced to get their Internet access from either AOL or MSN, depending on which gets me better karma for this post.
"Have you ever read the USA-PATRIOT act? Be honest, now. Have you ever read it, or have you just read a couple of op-eds about it and formed an opinion based on them?"
4 19 8,00.html
As a matter of fact, I've had a good look at the patriot act. Couldn't make heads nor tails of it. But I trust the Electonic Frontier Foundation's analysis of it.
"For what? We don't try people for war crimes just because we don't like them, you know. (Well, the people who wrote the Rome Treaty would disagree with this statement, but that's neither here nor there.)"
For violating international law. Nothing in UN resolution 1441 specifies that a massive attack and invasion is authorized. Speaking of reading things. Why don't you read the UN charter? Now that's something I am able to understand. US is a member of the United Nations. When the world said NO to war, Bush should have listened. Now he's going to take the fall like Blair. For getting the US into Vietnam II, hell yes Bush will be fessed up for a Hague trial. And if you weren't suckled onto the teet of mainstream news outlets, you'd realize the world is overwhelmingly against this war. Even Britain's people. I'm not joking when I say they're thinking about trying Blair like a war criminal. Here's the link:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,463
There already is a GSM network in Iraq - KurdTel. CDMA would be utterly insane; GSM is the world standard; in use on every contient and nearly every country. CDMA is only in a handful of countries, and you cannot travel with a CDMA phone.
Let me ask you a question, though. This war, including the postwar reconstruction, is probably going to cost us around 200 billion dollars, and that doesn't count the cost of the munitions we're using. We've used over a billion and a half dollars' worth of cruise missiles alone so far, and the war's only a week old. Two hundred billion dollars plus would have bought us practically all the Iraqi oil we could have hauled off. Why didn't we just buy it, and save everybody a lot of time, money, and trouble?
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?).
What's best for Iraq? or What's best for Bush's friends?
USA is not the only ones "paying" for this and yet there are no open tenders, even within the USA economy, stuff is going directly to the republican cronies of GW Bush.
Eg Cheney's company Halliburton has the oil well capping project already, nobody else got a look in.
Surely if the USA people are paying for this (which I dispute that they are the only contributors), then shouldn't they be getting the best value for money available - which usually means some form of tender process, even if evaluation is fast tracked. This stuff shouldn't be automatically awarded to Bush's mates.
So what the hell happened to the "best interests of Afghanistan" after they were "liberated"?
USA global domination manifesto These people want to stop anyone anywhere from acting against their interest. So the only interests allowed will be their own. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Presently the rest of us who are not "against the USA" will be paying tribute taxes just to be left alone.
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
Hmm, well, that's about $700 per capita per American, so it adds up to a couple of months of energy supply. Iraq has, what 15 % of the world's proven oil reserves? (I heard it was second only to Saudi.) Just because $200 Bn is a big number doesn't prove it is a bigger number than the value of the oil reserves. Which it clearly isn't.
If you want more evidence, consder that the charming optimists running this fiasco are claiming that everything after the first $75 billion are going to be paid for by the oil. Let's not dwell on the fact that the first $75 billion comes out of the US taxpayer's pocket, into Hughes', Raytheon's, etc. The point is that Rumsfeld just said that the intention is to sell as much of the oil as needed to pay for the reconstruction.
Let me repeat this for emphasis. The publicly stated plan is that once Iraq is invaded and successfully captured, er, liberated, its oil is to be extracted and sold with the profits used to pay for large-scale industrial projects that, apparently, US firms will be contracting for almost exclusively.
Essentially, this is like if you owned, say, a grocery, and you bonked a rich guy on the head with a baseball bat, rendered him incompetent, obtained legal guardianship of him, and used that guardianship to spend his entire wealth on your grocery's surplus cabbage. Oh yeah, while you're at it he might as well pay for the baseball bat too.
The administration is probably capable of convincing itself, and through its tame press convincing much of the public, that this amounts to a clever way to fund a genuinely benign act of liberation.
There sure are a lot of convenient side effects if it all goes according to plan, though. These side effects which notably don't apply to North Korea, another place with a cruel dictator, an actual, verified ongoing WMD program, and violations of treaties. So if the difference isn't oil, what high moral principle do you suppose is at work?
mt
Now I can get a phone that will work both in the States AND in Iraq! I just can't wait!
No thanks, I'll just stick to my world-wide GSM phone.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
Will the US force Iraq to switch to the imperial system? Because, ya know, the metric system was invented by the French.
Batlock...
... people are dying in Iraq. Soldiers and Civilians. The latter die of hunger, precision bombs lack of water, stray bullets and other such things.
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
DI Robert Lichtenberger effad@gmx.at
All this talk about electronical gadgets... millions of people in Iraq suffer every damn day because there is no water or too less water or only dirty water and not enough food.
And the US of A can only talk about cellphones. I don't know but then you really are out of touch with reality. Give the iraqi people food and water and let them rebuild basic infrastructure first. This will cost a few years. After that the debates about the unnecessary gadgets can begin.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Furthermore, given that the US and UK invaded a sovereign country, they should foot the bill for the reconstruction, but (here's the kicker) they should be forced to use Iraqi contractors! Why should contractors in the foreign invaders' economy get to benefit?
Ultimately, this looks like it's going to be another "liberated on our terms" deal where the only people who really benefit are first world countries...
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!
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.
Home Page
In other news, industrialists announce plans to build factories in post war Iraq. These are expected to produce goods for internal use only, and are expected to include NTSC Tv's, Betamax VCRs and the Ford Edsel, renamed the Liberator.
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Open http://www.gsmcoverage.co.uk/coverage.html and click on Iraq
Core points:
1. There already is a limited GSM network in Iraq, KurdTel 900
2. The Iraqi government has ordered a GSM network to be installed, but UN sanctions have delayed it
3. gsmcoverage.co.uk has this article on the subject:
Plans to deploy a CDMA network in Iraq (28-Mar-03)
The California, USA, Congressman Darrell Issa has initiated a campaign to promote CDMA as the technology of choice for any future mobile phone network in Iraq. He has written to U.S. Agency for International Development demanding that the American CDMA system be used in preference to a system that he considers inherently European, and specifically French.
His letter harks back to the older, and long abandoned name for GSM - Groupe Speciale Mobile, presumably for its French language overtones, as opposed to Global System for Mobile Communications, its anglophile name today. He says that if "European" GSM technology is deployed in Iraq, much of the equipment used to build the cell phone system would be manufactured in France, Germany, and elsewhere in western and northern Europe. Furthermore, royalties paid on the technology would flow to French and European sources, not U.S. patent holders.
He seems to be under the impression therefore that Motorola has no interest in bidding for a GSM infrastructure contract - nor would Lucent, or Canada's Nortel Networks. This may well concern the shareholders of those companies who would be expecting them to bid for any available contracts.
He also says that CDMA phones incorporate GPS location technology, which may be a surprise to the vast majority of cell phone owners who will be hunting through their handset manuals looking for this function. His legitimate concern is that relief workers could be kidnapped or attacked, and a location aware handset would then enable them to be found. However, inserting GPS into a cell phone is nothing to do with whether it is GSM or CDMA - but down to the handset manufacturer simply implementing a location based solution. Also, GPS is not the only solution for locating a cell phone, network based solutions exist that can be deployed on both technology platforms. The fact that a GPS handset will be able to give its location anywhere in Iraq is pointless if the phone is out of cellular coverage though.
Of course, the greatest irony could be that a CDMA network is deployed - and Nokia wins the bulk of the handset sales contracts. Ironic, as Nokia, one of the "northern Europe" companies that Issa wants to block from working in Iraq makes CDMA handsets, but uses its own proprietary chipsets and doesn't pay royalties to Qualcomm.
It may be worth noting that Congressman Issa represents San Diego, hometown of Qualcomm who owns the CDMA technology used in cell phones. Also, in January, the US government's, National Communications System (NCS) awarded a priority connection contract, ensuring phone service would be unaffected by network congestion to T-Mobile, a GSM network.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
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.
A latent existence
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...
They made a wasteland and called it peace.
Tacitus, Roman historian. - 1st century AD
If the French hadn't helpt out your puny revolution, US would still be a British colony.
Dude, that was two hundred years ago. Get over it.
The liberation of Old Europe was two generations ago and we *are* currently getting over it thanks to the current US administration.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
and now im getting sick of you.
didnt you read the post ? i already made my point by noting that if the US congressmen were really thinking about iraqi peoples future they would have chosen GSM over CDMA, but instead they take their decisions based on profit.
so yes, the american government (or 1/3 of it as you naively put it) is in for the money.
look, if you cant see that the actions of your government through history have nothing to do with "liberation" and everything to do with profiting then you must be really blind.
or really patriotic (orwellian style).
i come from south america and ive seen lots of this things happening. and i know from experience what im talking about. whenever the US government gets into "helping out" some south american country it means fucking the people there and getting away with as much as they can in their wallets
of course its not like they get into that countries national reserve and start filling their pockets... its more like setting up a friendly "representative democracy" - or if that fails, a "moderately repressive regime" - and tell them to start signing out contracts for US corporations to start exploiting its oil, gold, silver, etc. etc.
and that of course with very low to none at all taxes.
here is a list if you care to see of _some_ of the things US government has done "in the name of freedom".
yeah, in the name of their freedom to profit
They made a wasteland and called it peace.
Tacitus, Roman historian. - 1st century AD
Personally, I don't give a rats ass either way, it's fucking phones for Christ's sake. I say build whatever would be best for the Iraqi people, screw everything else, because it's the right thing to do. But assholes from both sides of the pond will lobby for what they personally want.
Furthermore, unilateral my ass! America + Great Britain + 40 other countries != unilateral. I could go on and criticize you Europeans as a whole, but I won't stoop down to your level.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
There's an implicit belief behind most of the anti-American, anti-war comments here that only pure motives are good - that if you have more than one motivation for an action, and some of those motivations are of economic benefit to you, then the entire action is tainted.
... and each year after that he had stayed in power. He has worked to acquire vicious weapons in the past, and has the wealth to buy nukes from elsewhere (impoverished North Korea, for example). If he were to plant a few of those nukes in US cities, then set off one as an example while, say, invading Saudi Arabia, would we be willing to sacrifice more cities to stop him? Or do you think he's too nice a guy to enter into such a scenario?
But consider what's at play here: 9/11 demonstrated that American cities are vulnerable to catastrophic attack by terrorists. At that point it was prudent to ask what nations are in the position of being (1) run by sociopaths with a record of mass killings which (2) have or can afford to acquire catastrophic weapons and (3) are in ideological or religious proximity to those with demonstrated terrorist abilities. The whole claim of the Bush administration is that it is legitimate self-defense to remove such threats to our cities.
Saddam is a sociopath who has killed many hundreds of thousands. It is extremely unlikely this war will kill more Iraqis than Saddam's own forces would have killed this year anyway
Given the overwhelming historical logic that requires that we act against him now - not in a couple of years after he's got things set up to his best advantage - is there something evil about our being concerned that in return for the vast cost of this action to us in lives and treasure that we receive some small economic opportunities afterwards? If the US finances a new phone system after the war, should we do it to French specs? This level of "purity" would be absurd, IMHO.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Don't know if this is in duplicate, but here's the full text of the GSMA's reply.
Nice read, I might add, especially the bit about an American company installing a GSM network in (US-bombed) Afghanistan.
More than mere navel gazing.
... that this Congressman is from San Diego, the home of Qualcomm. He is doing his job, fighting for his constituency, just like I'm sure the senators and represenatives from the home states and jurisdictions for Lucent and Motorola will be saying much the same things.
BTW: MOT and LU both make GSM equipment, so the argument that GSM = EU manufacturers is completely invalid. This congressman is just saying that because his constituent (Qualcomm) only makes CDMA stuff.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The only thing that will save the Americans here is the latest mobile phones are small enough to fit when the Iraqis give them back. Saddam Hussein is not a nice person, and cleaning out his political machine is a good idea. Replacing it with a worse one is not, because we will need to clean out the replacement, also. Governing any country in the Middle East ourselves is guaranteed disaster. Muslims do not take kindly or gently to infidels telling them how they will live and behave. We have opened a can of poisonous worms. These people do not and will not live by our rules, customs, or mores. Any attempt to force our system on them is doomed. The best we can hope for is modest reform and a government that is not openly hostile. So far, we have Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey as allies and examples. With friends like this, we do not need another enemy.
The sound of the vultures starting to circle a little lower...
If the US didn't care at all, I would imagine that they would bomb all of Iraq to utter destruction kill every citizen they saw and only secure the oil wells and create military compounds around them. That would be easiest, cheapest, and the greatest return on the investment.
Please rememeber this part of your post 1-2 years from now. In Afganistan, the U.S. installed government only controls the capital. The rest of the country has fallen in to civil war. Fortunately Iraq has a very lucrative black substance peppering its land, so we can expect a bit more stability there. But the same priorities.
This forcing of a cellular standard that the rest of the region doesn't use demonstrates our concern about the Iraqi people. What do you say about a government that forces an impovrished people to buy 2 cellphones if they want to travel outside of iraq so that U.S. companies can make more money?
Do me a favor and double it!