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."

My thoughts

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.

Re:Yay

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...

CDMA rocks!

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? :-)

Re:CDMA rocks!

With the US "rebuilding the iraqi infrastructure", and effectively stating monopoly rights or the entire country despite their claims, this is another example of unilateral american thinking. I am sorry to be biased about you guys, but time after time you as a people prove me right.

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.

Re:My thoughts

Seriously, GSM phones are the local standard, and any attempt by the Americans to impose CSMA is nothing short than continued imperialism.

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.

Re:My thoughts

And only 8 billion of that 75 is tagged for reconstruction. Of the 8, 6 billion is already tagged for US companies. As I count it the US is spending 67 BILLION dollars beating someone up and then handing him 2 billion for compensation.

Bush needs a war to be re-elected.

Re:My thoughts

The U.S. is going to spend upwards of $75 Billion dollars on the war alone, with who knows how many more Billions rebuilding Iraq, and when all is said and done we probably won't even get a thank you card. Even if half of the aid was in loans it would still be a good deal. This is especially true considering that the loans are likely to be given at ridiculously low rates. Loans at below market rates is still basically free money.

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.

Re:My thoughts

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.

Re:My thoughts

Just forget for a moment that cell phones are probably the last thing on the Iraqi peoples minds for the next little while.

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.

Who's war is this?

Wait, who's war is this? Isn't this a liberation? Then why should we force some fscked up standard upon them? Let them decide. Besides, the British are doing their part as well, and they use GSM. Why shouldn't anyone else have a say in it?

</RANT>

Re:My thoughts

> Can CDMA and GSM phones exist in the same area?

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?

Talk about counting chickens

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.

Re:Talk about counting chickens

"Can I be on the occupied Iraq new currency designing committee?"

Too late, the Bush Dinar has already been designed. [bizarsite.nl]

Re:Talk about counting chickens

If I here this "right/wrong" bullshit anymore I'm going to scream. I can understand people who say this war is necessary: but right?

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...

Re:Talk about counting chickens

You start off by saying "If I here this "right/wrong" bullshit anymore I'm going to scream."

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."

Re:Talk about counting chickens

> US is going to war to protect its own interests. There is nothing
> 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.

Re:Talk about counting chickens

IANAIL (I am not an international lawyer), but I couldn't pass these:

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. ...the government of Iraq has effectively ignored the spirit of the UN resolutions and inspections over the last several years (12)

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. ...to take action to stop the acts of that government which will soon threaten the safety and freedom we enjoy in this country.

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.