Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Congressman with business ties to Qualcomm pushes for CDMA in Iraq

By cce in Op-Ed
Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 11:27:28 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

When time comes for Iraq to rebuild, they'll need food, water, shelter, and ... patented American cell phone technology, of course!


A week ago, Congressman Darrell Issa (R.-Calif) introduced H.R. 1441, requiring that the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense use American CDMA technology instead of the "outdated French standard" GSM (which he called "Groupe Speciale Mobile") in "any such contract for the provision of commercial mobile wireless communication service."

Issa released an open letter to USAID on his website under the heading "Parlez-vous francais?" explaining why CDMA should be used:

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.

... Finally, we understand that there are already quickly deployable U.S. commercial proposals to commence immediately with the installation of U.S. CDMA technology in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs depend on the success of U.S.-developed wireless technologies like CDMA. If the U.S. government deploys U.S- developed CDMA in Iraq, then American companies will manufacture most of the necessary equipment here in the United States and benefit from the associated royalties.

In another press release on Issa's website:
"If U.S. taxpayers are going to be gifting billions of dollars in technology and infrastructure to the Iraqi people we ought to make sure, to the greatest extent possible, that those expenditures also benefit the American people and the American economy," Issa said. "If we build a system based on European technology the Europeans will receive the royalties, not U.S. patent holders. From an investment standpoint, that is a bad decision."

Rep. Issa received much media attention for these statements (Salon, CNet, ZDNet UK, Guardian, AP, The Register, Washington Post).

On Monday, the GSM Association issued a response to Rep. Issa's claims, pointing out that:

  • "GSM stands for `Global System for Mobile Communications' and its users can roam throughout the world on the same phone with the same number.
  • GSM is a worldwide standard accounting for 72 per cent of the digital wireless market today.
  • GSM is an `open standard', which means any manufacturer from any country can make GSM equipment on a `level playing field' - including North American companies such as Motorola, Lucent and Nortel. Global manufacturers supporting this open standard include Samsung, Panasonic, NEC, Toshiba, Nokia, Ericsson, Mitsubishi, Siemens and many more.
  • GSM is already deployed in every country in the Arab World - CDMA is not deployed in any.
  • GSM was installed in Afghanistan post-war by an American company (TSI of New York) after a full tender process."

CDMA is a wireless technology patented by Qualcomm, Inc. CDMA has better spectral efficiency and allows for higher data rates than GSM, but has not yet been widely adopted and offers little international roaming capabilities. As has been well-reported, Qualcomm is based in San Diego, and is covered by Rep. Issa's congressional district. Qualcomm is also one of Issa's top campaign contributors.

But one link that has not been mentioned in any of the media reports (a K5 exclusive!) is the one between the company Issa founded, Directed Electronics, Inc. and Qualcomm, Inc. Before winning his seat in the House in 2000, Issa was for 14 years founder and CEO of Directed, an "industry-leading manufacturer of automobile security systems." In 2000, while campaigning for the Congressional seat, the car alarm tycoon sold 80 percent of Directed to private investment firm Trivest, Inc. A new CEO took over when Issa won, but Issa stayed on at Directed as a "valued member" of the Board of Directors. Issa's 2001 financial disclosure lists his position at Directed.

It's not surprising that Issa knows so much about CDMA, given his company's recent business dealings with Wingcast, LLC. Wingcast is a San Diego-based joint venture created by Qualcomm and Ford Motors to develop automobile telematics. In January 2002, Directed announced it would be working with Wingcast to co-develop a GPS-enabled vehicle locator using ... you guessed it, Qualcomm's CDMA technology.

Exploiting wartime anti-European sentiment for the benefit of a large company in your Congressional district may raise eyebrows, but proposing legislation that directly benefits your closest business partners, as Issa seems to have done here, is inappropriate and unethical.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o ZDNet
o H.R. 1441
o US Agency for International Development
o Department of Defense
o CDMA
o GSM
o website
o Parlez-vou s francais?
o press release
o Salon
o CNet
o ZDNet UK
o Guardian
o AP
o The Register
o Washington Post
o GSM Association
o issued
o response
o Qualcomm, Inc.
o campaign contributors
o Directed Electronics, Inc.
o sold 80 percent
o Trivest, Inc.
o stayed on
o 2001 financial disclosure
o Wingcast, LLC
o announced
o GPS-enable d vehicle locator
o CDMA technology
o Also by cce


Display: Sort:
Congressman with business ties to Qualcomm pushes for CDMA in Iraq | 245 comments (229 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
CDMA may be better tech for Iraq... (3.88 / 9) (#2)
by goonie on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:59:45 AM EST

As well as making better use of the spectrum, CDMA doesn't suffer from the 32 kilometre limit problem that GSM does. I get the distinct impression that there's a lot of near-empty space in Iraq. A lot more of that space could practically be covered by CDMA than GSM.

However, any decision should be made on the basis of what's best for Iraq, not what's best for US companies.

Roaming (4.83 / 6) (#10)
by enterfornone on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:30:34 AM EST

I think roaming would be fairly important in Iraq. I'm sure many of the people who would be using mobile phones there would be regularly crossing the borders, and if GSM is already the standard in the rest of the middle east it makes sense for Iraq to use it too.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
yeah but (4.00 / 1) (#74)
by vivelame on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:33:51 PM EST

you know, as the 52 state of USKA, it would be more sensible to use the same technology. I heard UK was moving to CDMA too, 'cause roaming in Europe wasn't really interesting: giving their money to Qualcomm is better, we wouldn't want a royalty-free open standard to take over the world, now, would we?

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0) (#129)
by seanic on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:15:52 PM EST

Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all have some GSM coverage where Kuwait and Turkey have almost complete coverage.  Additionally, there's also GSM coverage in the US and UK, imagine that.  I wouldn't worry too much, if things go the way they usually do a comprimise will be struck to put Iraqi cellular in a frequency range which is incompatible with anyone else.  1.3 Ghz anyone?

--
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is, however, alleviated by their lack of consistency" -- Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]
Fallacious argument (4.55 / 9) (#34)
by alisdair on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:25:41 PM EST

GSM is not inherently limited to a 32km cell radius.  Several timeslots can be allocated by the base station to each call, thereby linearly increasing the maximum cell radius (if handsets support this).

Also, 32km is an inaccurate figure. The real cell radius is limited by the access burst time, which is 252us. From basic physics, the maximum theoretical total (there-and-back) distance for the signal to travel is d=s*t=3.0e8*2.52e-4=75.6km. This gives a theoretical radius of around 38km.

However, the timing advance parameter, which determines how much in advance of its timeslot a handset begins transmission, is a stepped value in the range 0--63. Each step represents 550m, giving a total maximum of 63*550=34.7km.

Furthermore (really!), GSM400 supports extended timing advance, which allows a maximum value of 219, giving a real maximum range of 120km.

[ Parent ]

That is up to a legitimate Iraqi gov. to decide. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:19:42 PM EST



Might is right

[ Parent ]
Give them GSM like nearly everybody else (none / 0) (#182)
by DodgyGeezer on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 09:46:02 AM EST

My digital signal strength is pathetic here in downtown Toronto.  Drive a few kms out of the city and the analogue signal dries up too.  A couple of summers ago in the middle of the Scottish highlands ("near-empty space" that's also mountainous), my English friend was still happily chatting away with a good digital signal.  CDMA might be technologically superior, but if it's not implemented properly, it makes no difference, or could be worse.  My vote goes for GSM: it's standard and the Iraqis will have more choice of where they buy it from, which means better prices for them.

[ Parent ]
Hmm (3.00 / 5) (#3)
by strlen on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:05:58 AM EST

Wasn't there news about Darrel Isa being an Arab, and a target of a supposed JDL attack? In any case, if someone thinks that GSM, which is a major pain to use in Sillicon Valley, is going to be of any use in Iraqi desert, they're majorly delusional. While it's true, in Europe and Asia GSM works better as there's less limits on power of cell phones, GSM is simply useless outside of a large urban area with level topology and lack of especially tall buildings.

US is the one who's going to be building the Iraqi cell infrastructure, and hence it's their responsibility to use technology which is going to be st suited for it. If Europeans want to come in and setup their own GSM cell towers they're more than welcome, but if my tax money is going to be spent on building a cell phone system for Iraq, they better use a technology more suited for Iraq.

I've had a CDMA cell phone for a long time, and reception was never an issue (I've got a TDMA phone now, due to an employer related promition with AT&T wireless.. I've thought of going GSM, but none of my friend who own a GSM phone have any reception inside my house.. as in "no reception" mesage displayed on the screen; while both my CDMA and TDMA phones have had full reception).


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.

Yeesh (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by Kruador on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:19:24 AM EST

Two points:
  • The effectiveness of any mobile phone system in a particular area is directly related to the transmission power of the phone and of the base station, and the sensitivity of the receive circuit in both;
  • Your friends probably can't get good GSM coverage at your house because there isn't a base station nearby, or some feature of geography or architecture is causing wave cancellation.
As regards the latter point, in my office I (using the O2 network) get 'max' signal strength, but some of my colleagues (using Vodafone) have practically zero coverage and keep getting dropped calls. We're in a semi-rural area (north-east Berkshire).

The problems you mention in Silicon Valley are most likely due to an insufficient concentration of base stations. Phone coverage on all networks in London (GSM900 for O2, Vodafone, GSM 1900 for Orange, T-Mobile) is good almost everywhere. The networks, not being required to cover 100% of the land area, concentrate on trying to cover 95%+ of the population.

I'd ask the question: why are we so concerned about spending tax money on setting up a cellular network when there are higher priority tasks and needs (for example, food, medicine, water)?

--
Kruador


[ Parent ]

Hmm (4.00 / 1) (#54)
by strlen on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:22:12 PM EST

I'd ask the question: why are we so concerned about spending tax money on setting up a cellular network when there are higher priority tasks and needs (for example, food, medicine, water)?


I am not, but if there's legislation in place to establish the cellular phone infastructure, it may as well setup a decent phone network. The problem, with the base stations, is that it won't be possible to establish a large number of them in the middle of the desert.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
The value of mobile services (none / 0) (#142)
by opensorcerer on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 08:24:00 PM EST

As my father learned while on missionary work in Honduras, knowing when, where, and how to deliver food, water, and medical supplies is just as important, and sometimes more, than scrounging up the resources to make them available.

When you run into, say, a village that isn't on anyone's map but still has significant humanitarian issues that need to be solved NOW, being able to dial out and communicate that fact is pretty handy.

Steve Arlo: There aren't evil guys and innocent guys. It's just... It's just... It's just a bunch of guys.
[ Parent ]

Sorry ? (2.66 / 3) (#14)
by Simon Kinahan on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 08:18:11 AM EST

I've used a GSM phone up mountains, in the middle of nowhere. I've even used one in some pretty remote places in the US. I think your understanding about topology must be wrong.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
topography not that bad (4.50 / 2) (#18)
by khallow on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 09:29:22 AM EST

Wasn't there news about Darrel Isa being an Arab, and a target of a supposed JDL attack? In any case, if someone thinks that GSM, which is a major pain to use in Sillicon Valley, is going to be of any use in Iraqi desert, they're majorly delusional. While it's true, in Europe and Asia GSM works better as there's less limits on power of cell phones, GSM is simply useless outside of a large urban area with level topology and lack of especially tall buildings.

That pretty describes the population centers of Iraq. I figure more than a third of Iraq's population lives in its three main cities. As far as Silicon Valley goes, that should be one of the best places in the world for GSM due in part to the very same things you mention above and the fact that it has a huge concentration of tech people. Maybe things have changed in the two years or so, and maybe the CDMA phones are really better, but when I was out there, I could get better reception with a phone card than I could with cell phones. Didn't do the math, but I think it was cheaper too. My suspicion is that the US messed up its implementation of cellular phones, but maybe it's something else like a land of earthquake resistant buildings?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Just for the record (none / 0) (#68)
by raygundan on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:23:42 PM EST

I am staying out of this argument over who gets to make money from the iraqis, but I would like to point out that on my recent trip to san francisco, my two cell phones worked as follows:
  1. -yr-old Motorola Timeport on Sprint, useable signal everywhere we went.
  2. -month-old GSM T-Mobile Sidekick, no signal in San Jose, no signal on highway to beach except for a two-mile stretch near the beach, intermittent (but mostly not available) signal in downtown SF, no signal on highway through silicon valley.  It basically didn't work while I was there at all, usually getting signal just long enough to get 2/3 of the way through the GPRS handshake process before dropping again.
Both work fine back in Indiana, where it's really, really, really flat.  That said, I love my sidekick.  I think that it's probably T-Mobile's lousy deployment in san francisco that's the problem, rather than GSM itself-- but this may be why the original poster perceives there to be a problem with GSM.

[ Parent ]
autoformat (none / 0) (#69)
by raygundan on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:25:32 PM EST

Wow, never seen the autoformatter do that before. Sorry about the "numbered list" effect in the middle of my post.

[ Parent ]
your tax money (none / 0) (#72)
by vivelame on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:30:15 PM EST

is going to be spent on rebuilding infrastructure YOUR tax money was used to destroy.

If this is morel, i'll ask my governement to destroy one of our neighbor's cell-phone infrastructure so we can pour money to our own cell-phone makers, because those bastards had the nerves to choose someone else...

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Sadly misinfomred (none / 0) (#164)
by hughk on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 02:18:44 AM EST

First, GSM is a TDMA type protocol. Do not confuse modulation with the system. The main point about the system is the simplicity of roaming.

I have used GSM between Hurghada and Cairo in Egypt. It does work in deserts. Not everywhere, but it does work. Conveniently there is a microwave relay network linking the cities, which also is ideal for base stations. As for mountains, the number of idiots trying to telephone and ski at the same time is a testement to GSM working well in such areas.

It will be Iraqi money that is used to build Iraq, so why not leave the choce up to them. Personally, I would go for GSM equipment with an upgrade path to 3G, but in the end, it is their choice, not a European one and certainly not US, which has one of the worst developed cellular markets in the western world.

[ Parent ]

do neither (3.28 / 7) (#4)
by caridon20 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:06:21 AM EST

I think that iraq should go directly att a 3g system that is compatible (spelling?) with both GSM and CDMA. skipp a generation and you dont have to uppgrade in 3-5 years. /C
Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
3G (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Kruador on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:36:41 AM EST

Firstly, '3G' is not itself a standard. The term means 'third generation' - the first being analogue signals, the second digital voice networks such as CDMA and GSM. The standard being used in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe, I believe) is UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System).

'Compatibility' with the 2G standards is essentially achieved by two things:

  • The phone hardware has to be able to transmit and receive calls using the old standard, so it would need the GSM and CDMA hardware, plus all the tuner and amplifier circuits, in order to do this;
  • The network provider needs to be able to roam calls seamlessly between UMTS and GSM and/or CDMA base stations as the user moves through coverage areas.
IIRC, coverage areas for UMTS are much smaller due to the higher frequency of the carrier wave. I could be wrong about that.

Your proposal essentially requires the network provider to install at least three times as much hardware, if the intention is to provide equal coverage for GSM, CDMA and UMTS users. If the US 3G standard (W-CDMA?) is also to be supported, that's a fourth set of hardware.

3G hardware is massively more expensive than 2G hardware, both for phones and base stations. For example, O2 in the UK are currently offering a Nokia 3310 at £69.99 on a pay-as-you-go deal. 3, the only UK company currently offering a UMTS service [www.three.co.uk], has the Motorola A830, their cheapest handset, at £249 on a contract. These handsets aren't comparable - the A830 is a camera phone with a colour screen, while the Nokia 3310 is practically the most basic phone available.

Frankly, any form of telecoms would be acceptable in Iraq right now, since the US-led coalition has bombed most of the telephone exchanges.

Waiting 3-5 years would probably reduce the purchase cost of 3G equipment considerably - if it takes off at all.

--
Kruador


[ Parent ]

Another sickening example (4.00 / 7) (#9)
by werner on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:26:52 AM EST

of US firms buying US politicians. How can anyone but a managing director of a large corporation have faith in such a system?

wrong (4.00 / 5) (#23)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:25:50 AM EST

Issa represents San Diego in Congress. In case, you weren't aware, San Diego is a technological hub and you'll find that Qualcomm is based there, as well as other tech companies such as HP (my employer), Sony, Nokia, and many many others.

CDMA won't benefit Qualcomm alone, and San Diego will enjoy the benefits if this goes through. This isn't a case of a man with ties to Qualcomm, but a case of a man with ties to his constituency. Tell me again how it's a bad thing for him to represent his voters?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
His Voters? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by gauntlet on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:24:31 PM EST

There was a leap in logic there, sorry.

The city of San Diego, Qualcomm, HP, Sony, Nokia... none of these vote.

I'm not saying that it won't benefit his voters in some way (likely increased tax revenue for the smaller jurisdictions), but please remember that companies don't vote, and there's a reason for that.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

Voters... (none / 0) (#39)
by buysse on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:35:02 PM EST

Yes, but the employees of Qualcomm and residents of San Diego *do*. The stockholders vote as well. I do agree with you that it [corporate ownership of govt] has gone too far, but the leap is at least somewhat valid.


WAR IS PEACE | FREEDOM IS SLAVERY | IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
[ Parent ]

Not sure if it will help the votors much (none / 0) (#49)
by squigly on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:14:44 PM EST

Yes, but the employees of Qualcomm and residents of San Diego do.

Unfortunately this isn't going to create jobs.  Qualcomm will make money licencing the patents.  Now, if Qualcomm get some contracts, it will certainly help, but it seems that the main benefit is from licencing patents.  


[ Parent ]

Oh yes it will (none / 0) (#50)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:16:59 PM EST

They're a manufacturing company. Most of the cellphones that you buy with Sprint labelled on it are made here in America's finest city.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
They make cellphones in Edmonton? (none / 0) (#62)
by Hektor on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:54:00 PM EST



[ Parent ]
the chip inside (none / 0) (#64)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:03:57 PM EST

I should have been more clear on that.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
huh? (none / 0) (#66)
by joshsisk on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:13:58 PM EST

Here in DC, most of the Sprint phones they sell at stores are Samsung (or "Kyocera", who I've never heard of).
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
another San Diego Company (none / 0) (#73)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:32:50 PM EST

That was formed after buying up Qualcomm's CDMA handset division. You can read more here.

In fact, this article sort of makes this article sort of moot. Qualcomm no longer owns CDMA. That's a different constituent, but I'm sure the tin foil hats among us will find a connection.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
posted too soon (none / 0) (#75)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:34:29 PM EST

actually QCom still owns CDMA, Kyocera just buys the chips from them.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
LG and Sanyo (none / 0) (#240)
by baron samedi on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 04:00:02 PM EST

Most of Sprint's phones are made in Japan. I have a Sprint phone made by Sanyo, yeah, the CDMA part is made by QCOM, but the box the phone came in clearly said "Made in Japan". Most of Sprint's phones are Japanese...
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
Hi! I vote. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:13:22 PM EST

And yes, I do want the company that I work for to be fairly represented. CDMA is a good technology. Why can't he represent it, especially if it's good for the people in his district? Or is it because it is good for the people in his district that he can't support it? What kind of perverse democracy is that?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
You're taking me wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by gauntlet on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:49:58 PM EST

I'm not saying he can't defend their interests. I'm asking you to SHOW that he's defending their interests.

Does the company purchase from suppliers in the constituency? Will they raise salaries of employed constituents? Create jobs that will go to constituents? If the company is more profitable, does any increased revenue go to the constituency?

There are lots of ways you could be right. I just don't have any evidence for any of them. It seems equally likely that no jobs will be created, no salaries will be increased, no money will be put into the local economy, and by virtue of tax shelters, no one will see any money except the shareholders and the executives.

So before we question whether or not he should be able to defend the interests of the voters (or perhaps the better question is whether or not a conflict of interest exists), let's ask how CDMA in Iraq is in the interests of the voters.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

fair enough (none / 0) (#65)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:08:50 PM EST

although I'd add "let's ask what technology is best for the Iraq and the US". It may seem self-serving, but we're liberating Iraq out of a self-serving interest, too.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
well... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by joshsisk on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:15:51 PM EST

The fact that he misrepresented facts about GSM when he is obviously an tech-savvy guy, coupled with the fact that he has connections to companies that are involved with CDMA is a bit questionable.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
We are talking about Iraqi resources. (5.00 / 2) (#137)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:33:59 PM EST

It is higly immoral that US politicians and companies are deciding the minutest detail about the future of Iraq before the war is even won and most damingly before there is a legitimate Iraqi goverment in place.

If the US is not a conquering power, it is making a damn lousy job not to look like one.

Might is right

[ Parent ]

well... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by Danse on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:53:06 PM EST

It may well benefit his constituents, but the fact that he has business ties to these companies and stands to personally gain from this makes it look pretty slimy.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
There certainly is (none / 0) (#225)
by werner on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 08:27:23 AM EST

some benefit for his constituents. There also seems to be a lot of personal benefit. Issa spreads FUD about European technology to make his own paymasters look good.

Maybe Issa is doing it for the good of his constituents, maybe not. That doesn't change the fact that he appears to be another hired politician, a la Hollings, running around doing his corporate sponsors bidding.

Corporations cannot vote, but they can do something much better - "buy" a politician with donations. If that fails, they can throw millions at professional lobbyists.

My understanding of all the intricacies of the US political system is far from complete, but it appears to all intents and purposes to be entirely driven by money. Money will buy you representation from a hired senator or heavy-duty lobbying. Who doesn't have money, is at a very real disadvantage.

Whether it reflects the reality of the situation accurately or not, many US politicians seem no more than the paid lapdogs of large corporations.

[ Parent ]

The BBC is reporting (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by jubal3 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 09:31:25 AM EST

that Motorola has the Cellular phone contract in post war Iraq "sewed up even before the contracts have been let" as of 1430 GMT 3 Apr, 03.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
link? (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by alejos1 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 09:46:30 AM EST

or at least say when it was aired, please.

[ Parent ]
It was aired at the time (4.00 / 1) (#42)
by jubal3 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:45:51 PM EST

mentioned in the post.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]
Microwave radiation (3.00 / 3) (#21)
by RaveWar on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:06:53 AM EST

With specially dense coverage for those people who missed out on their depleted uranium cancerdusting
We don't need freedom. We don't need love.
We want Superpower, Ultraviolence.
From a technical viewpoint (3.50 / 8) (#25)
by BushidoCoder on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:56:42 AM EST

... all conflict of interests aside, CDMA is a better choice for Iraq. GSM has long been praised for its ability to easily integrate non-voice data capabilities, but CDMA has superior range and voice quality, and is not heavily effected by turbulent weather. There has been some research which suggests that sandstorms without thunderclaps only dimish CDMA's range by marginal amounts. The efficiencies of CDMA over GSM in these areas aren't drastic, but enough to build a solid technical argument around.

Of course, CDMA also sports a much more powerful encryption scheme, and I suspect the NSA will have something to say about that. If the NSA doesn't say anything about it, that's enough evidence for me to assume that Echelon can break CDMA encryption with no time delay.

\bc

go fuck yourself (1.57 / 14) (#26)
by turmeric on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 11:35:13 AM EST

since fucking when did you have the right to decide what was appropriate for 20 million people who arent even in your own country? everyone that thinks like you is going to cause WWIII

[ Parent ]
Chill dude (none / 0) (#57)
by InsaneGeek on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:34:14 PM EST

When did anybody really have the vote to use CMDA or GSM. A couple of companies chose for the rest of the world what they would use, unless I missed the day that uber important vote was on. So point your pent up, inappropriate, foul language at the couple of companies who decided what was appropriate for the 6 billion people in the world.

[ Parent ]
at least they were OUR rich bastards (none / 0) (#190)
by turmeric on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 12:19:30 PM EST

i mean the iraqis dont even get a fucking chance to whine about it being rich fuckers from their own country!

[ Parent ]
Finally! (none / 0) (#104)
by BushidoCoder on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:07:59 PM EST

A year of being a regular on K5, and finally turmeric turns his eye towards me briefly. I finally belong.

\bc

[ Parent ]

Ah yes, that's probably true. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Hektor on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:58:44 PM EST

And from a biological viewpoint driving in the left side of the road is smarter, as most humans swerve to the left, when they get startled, thus just driving off the road and not into oncomming traffic.

Unfortunately driving in the opposite side of the road compared to every single country close by, including 95% of all foreign visitors is not all that smart.

The same goes for cellphone standards. CDMA may be better, but everyone else uses GSM. And office programs. Everyone else uses MS Office, so whatever your company uses, it had damn well better be compatible with MS Office.

[ Parent ]

And... (none / 0) (#85)
by skyknight on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:37:16 PM EST

"Driving" on the left side of the road is smarter if you're on horseback and carrying a sword, because most people are right-handed and thus this allows them to have their sword between them and the person coming at them, affording them the ability to parry should the need arise. Admittedly this issue does not arise nearly so often now that we have these new fangled horseless carriages, but it certainly was a good argument for driving on the left-hand side of the road back in the good old days...

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Maybe not so clear cut (none / 0) (#181)
by DodgyGeezer on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 09:38:00 AM EST

If you're a knight (English kuh-niggut type) with a lance, you'd want to be on the other side. Perhaps.

[ Parent ]
Nah... (none / 0) (#184)
by skyknight on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 10:44:46 AM EST

A lance is a shock weapon for charges, extremely unweildy for day to day use, and often broken after skewering a single opponent. A sword is the melee weapon of choice, and is much more likely to be found by the side of a mounted man than is a 12ft lance when he is casually sauntering down a town road.

So, to summarize... Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries! Now, be gone, or I shall be forced to taunt you a second time!



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
The way it already is versus the way it can be (none / 0) (#109)
by BushidoCoder on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:15:52 PM EST

Alas, if only the early automobile pioneers had known of this research before the streets of America were laid out and road systems designed for driving on the right.

However, just because its not worth it to modify an existing system at great costs to implement the proper technical solution doesn't mean that its not worth it to implement the best technical solution when you're starting at ground zero. GSM compatibility means diddly to the people of Iraq, because I doubt many of them will be travelling to Europe and expecting to have local calling plans set up. I have no idea what systems are implemented in the other Arabian nations. If they were all GSM, that's a solid argument in favor of GSM. If they're not, CDMA still seems the superior solution.

\bc

[ Parent ]

Who said anything about Europe? (none / 0) (#110)
by Hektor on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:20:14 PM EST

And did you even bother to read the article?

"GSM is already deployed in every country in the Arab World - CDMA is not deployed in any."

It's in one of the bulleted lists in the text.

If they were using something completely different then yes, CDMA would have an advantage, but then my examples would fall short, and I do try to make somewhat effective arguments :-)

[ Parent ]

My bad (none / 0) (#117)
by BushidoCoder on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:43:57 PM EST

Read it earlier this morning, posted my comment, sat at the auto repair shop while 500 bucks of transmission changes were bein' done to my car, came back, replied to a reply. The article did say that, I'd just forgotten about it.

I'm skeptical about one part of that, though. I used to work for a wireless software/hardware company, and we primarily worked with CDMA gear. I've never been to Kuwait or Israel, but I know we shipped alot of modified CDMA antennas to those two places. Granted, Iraqi's probably don't have "cellphone compatibility with jewish friends" at the top of their list of wants at the moment. Maybe those two countries are just setting up a dual network.

\bc

[ Parent ]

Hmm ... it does make sense though (none / 0) (#167)
by Hektor on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 03:01:39 AM EST

Think about it. How many americans visit or are stationed in Kuwait and Israel? How many of them do you think bring their own cell phone?

Having CDMA in those two countries makes a lot of sense.

Then think Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia.

Just how many americans visit or are stationed in those countries? My guess is "a lot less" than the other two countries.

[ Parent ]

That is up to a legit Iraqi gov. to decide. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:22:19 PM EST



Might is right

[ Parent ]
Forget it (none / 0) (#237)
by svampa on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 03:34:48 PM EST

the first question is why a third world country, after a war, where people will be famine and there are not hospiltals, celular phone is a priority.

Celular phone will be useful for USA staff and 0.001% of people. The rest need food, water, hospitals, water, schools etc. They should think in celular phone in a couple years and it should be an private invest, not from the public budget

Iraqi people cries when thinks that the money they need so much is going to.... pay cellular phones for rich people

But it's not Iraqi poeple who decide, but the the sellers.



[ Parent ]
sounds like my diary (1.75 / 4) (#28)
by Burning Straw Man on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 11:48:26 AM EST

Where I've been ranting about the whole This war is really about oil and US companies getting the Spoils of War topics.
--
your straw man is on fire...
that may be... (1.50 / 2) (#30)
by yunfat on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:06:33 PM EST

</devils advocate>

That may be, but who is better than US companies to rebuild Iraq? Lets face it, we now run Iraq, and US companies are going to reap the benefits. Ideological convictions aside, if you want whats best for the Iraqi people, you mind as well get on board. Lets give the Iraqi people jobs, steady income that doesnt involve torture, and yellow qualcomm jumpsuits.... whats wrong with that?
-- If you see a fork in the road, take it. -Yogi Berra
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0) (#96)
by kableh on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:33:41 PM EST

Lets face it, we now run Iraq
You don't watch the news much, do you?

[ Parent ]
Rebuilding (none / 0) (#215)
by PurpleBob on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 02:36:46 AM EST

Weren't we supposed to do that in Afghanistan first?

[ Parent ]
So? (3.00 / 6) (#31)
by Verve on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:07:32 PM EST

As has been well-reported, Qualcomm is based in San Diego, and is covered by Rep. Issa's congressional district.

A congressman trying to do good for his constituents?  Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

Sickening!

Re: So? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by twickham on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:18:37 PM EST

Hmmm. Well I dont think this is really about the american government being bad or anything. Rather it sounds rather, well arrogent doesnt it for the american congress to be deciding whats best for Iraqi mobile communications means.

I mean Im reasonably certain that, despite being bombed a lot, Iraq is still quite capable of making its own decisions for its telecommunications need(Im assuming that we are talking about some post Saddam establish govt of whatever kind). Most govts do this thru the usual process of putting the job out to tender and then choose the best proposed solution that meets the criteria for a good price.

I mean whats next ? Is the US government going to mandate that there be a a McDonalds, a Walmart and a TGI Fridays within two block walking distance everywhere in Iraqi cities ?

Even that said. Why are these decisions being made now, bit premature isnt it ? The US/UK/OZ forces havent actually *taken* the country yet :) Im sure once the Iraqi people are "liberated" theyll have more pressing concerns. Like they dont have a government. Where are they going to get water and food. Little stuff like that.

[ Parent ]
Re: Re: So? (none / 0) (#40)
by Verve on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:36:15 PM EST

Hmmm. Well I dont think this is really about the american government being bad or anything. Rather it sounds rather, well arrogent doesnt it for the american congress to be deciding whats best for Iraqi mobile communications means.

I agree everything you said there, (your whole comment, not just the quoted text).  The whole spin of the article was trying to nail the Congressmen for having "dirty" connections with the private industry.  (see conclusion paragraph)

I liked your comment better than the submitted story.

[ Parent ]

The dirty bit... (none / 0) (#52)
by ShadowNode on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:20:22 PM EST

Seemed to be that he had a personal stake in the company, not just that he was trying to bring pork to his district.

[ Parent ]
Re: The dirty bit... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by twickham on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:35:14 PM EST

I know what your saying. But really I dont think thats that bad. I mean OK the guy has an interest in prompting CDMA because his electorate have an interest. Well thats what his job is really isnt it ?

Even if the guy has direct finacial gain to be made from spreading CDMA I still dont really have a problem with it that much. If someone is prepared to invest money in a technolgy and then promot it politically I dont see that big of a prblem(tho I think you have to be a little careful when money is concerned). Any more than I have a problem with a polly who is a member of Amesty International and promots this organisation politically. Its their right as an individual who was duly and fairly voted into office.

In this case I just have a problem with this whole jumping the gun before the actual problem is solved. And in doing so probably just creating problems for people who, quite frankly, have more than enough problems as it is.

[ Parent ]
Not quite.. (4.50 / 2) (#78)
by gatekeep on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:43:55 PM EST

"A congressman trying to do good for his constituents?  Isn't that what they're supposed to do?"

The one problem with this is that Qualcomm is not one of his constituents.  Unless we've given voting powers to corporations recently, the company had no say in his election.  Now, it's possible that a fair number of Qualcomm's employee's and/or shareholders are in his district, and you could argue that his proposal is good for them, but clearly Qualcomm as an entity is not part of his constituency.

[ Parent ]

Isn't this pretty clear? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by jmzero on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:33:06 PM EST

I think it's pretty clear what was meant here.  Bringing business to a business in your area isn't exactly a far fetched way of serving your constituents.

That said, I think this proposal is dumb.  GSM seems to be the reasonable choice - I think there's already lots of people there with GSM phones.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Conflict of interests. (4.50 / 2) (#139)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:42:29 PM EST

If he was doing so out of the goodness of his heart, yeah, great.

Having received campaign contributions from the comapny mentioned, it looks immoral and who knows if it is even legal (although it seems in US politics it is alright).

And not only that, politicians and companies in the US are circling like vultures before the dead body is actually dead.

It is terribly insulting to begin to reconstruct Iraq without the involvement of a legitimate Iraqi goverment.

Might is right

[ Parent ]

Well I hope Bush's troops are making damn... (4.50 / 4) (#36)
by the on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:27:37 PM EST

...sure they're annihilating every last trace of manufacturing equipment they can find in Iraq. I'd hate to think that the Iraqis might unfairly compete with American companies during the reconstruction. And anyway, if they had equipment they could make weapons of mass destruction so we really need to ensure there is absolutely no manufacturing base left.

I think we also ought to take out places that have medical supplies too. Right now Iraq probably needs those badly and there are plenty of companies in the US who are finding they can't charge enough to make the profits they want back home. It's not like the Iraqis can't afford to pay because we can sell them more efficient equipment for pumping oil to pay us back.

Yes, this is one sweet deal!

--
The Definite Article

The next stage... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by twickham on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:36:47 PM EST

Well of course this business model is all well and good. Have the US government blow up a country to create new business for the corperations back home. Makes a lot more sense than a lot of the dot coms in my humble opinion.

However in the spirit of our age shouldnt we consider that govt generally does things less efficently than the private sector ? I mean surely we should consider outsourcing the USAF/Navy/Army/Marines/Coast Guard. I mean thing of the marketing/advertising power of the "Sony Marines" marching into Iran being covered by the new model "McTank II"(painted a bright red and yellow of course)

[ Parent ]
Britain has certainly considered it (none / 0) (#43)
by the on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:48:55 PM EST

For example here.

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
Snafu (none / 0) (#53)
by Lyssander Agarwaen on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:21:55 PM EST

Your link is mangled


--
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
[ Parent ]
I'll try again (none / 0) (#55)
by the on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:24:19 PM EST

Here. Tested this time.

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
What a great idea! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by cevans7 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:54:13 PM EST

If the military was turned corporate, it could then finally become profitable! I mean, after interest on the debt (about 45% of the tax revenue) most of the remaining money (55% or so?) of it is spent on the military. If we could make this a profit center by charging for interventions... oh, that'd be great. For example, if US Fruit Company wanted to put down a public uprising in Honduras they could just be up-front about it, pay us a few million and we'd go in and squash any threats to their dominance. Instead we have to do this covert operation stuff to hide it from the American public, and US Fruit gets off without paying a dime. I'm sure the US Public would understand if they were going to benefit financially...

[ Parent ]
Come on.. (4.00 / 1) (#187)
by Wah on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 11:40:39 AM EST

and US Fruit gets off without paying a dime.

Do you have any idea how much lobbying costs these days?
--
YAR
[
Parent ]

Strategic targets (none / 0) (#199)
by Merc on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 03:40:37 PM EST

You know, I've wondered all along what these strategic targets all over Iraq are. Sure, some are presidential palaces, some are bunkers, but what about the rest? Blowing up all the GSM cell phone towers can be seen as attacking C3 targets, but it also makes it easier to switch the country over to CDMA later.



[ Parent ]
Oh I get it (3.00 / 5) (#37)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:32:10 PM EST

so now that the liberation portion did not pan out the way all the anti-bushpeople wanted it to (there is dancing in the streets) tehy now attack the reconstruction.....keep it up becasue we need something to talk about, no matter how petty.

lets not forget that most of the coalition uses a diffrent mobile technology than the US. and what if the reconstruction placed BOTH technologies in there?

Attack reconstruction? Why should anybody do so. (none / 0) (#135)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:29:10 PM EST

Surely it is perfectly legitimate and beyond any scrutiny or reproach  that people with conflicts of interest use their position as elected representatives of the US people to benefit companies to which they had (or have) commercial connections.

Silly me, sometimes my stupidity amazes me.

If that was happening in a third world country everybody would be screaming corruption (and rightly so).

If it happens in the US we find apologists that would not recognize a conflict of interests even if their life depended on doing so.


Might is right

[ Parent ]

guess what...... (none / 0) (#151)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:16:56 PM EST

if it were france or germany or russia or china tehy would be doing the same damn thing, infact EVERY NATION inthe worl would do the same damn thing.

if it was a UN action, the SC members would decided what companies in the perminant 5 will get to do what.

you bitching about this is like a person
bitching about tiping a service clerk or bitching about how every one else drives like a moron or how people are so selfish....it is how the world works.

[ Parent ]

troll. n/t (none / 0) (#154)
by avery on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:32:06 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Quickly erecting a CDMA network is good (2.55 / 9) (#38)
by gte910h on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 12:34:17 PM EST

  1. Its coverage/interference patterns fit the coutry better. (CDMA works over longer ranges in the country, and pentetrates just as well in the city as GSM).
  2. Yes, its helps american companies. Because Europe refused to pay for and help along this war, so the American Taxpayer and Investor had to take the hit to the Federal Budget and Stock Market respectively. I think we should take all the choice contracts to counteract these hits we took.
  3. Cells phones are cheap communication. Communication helps all aid efforts.
The bad thing is that it doesn't match with the surrounding countries infrastructure. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Iraq should be a very different country than the rest of the Middle East if the US takes this where it says it was going to. Limiting mobility to within the country may be beneficial to its stability.

I'd be really interested to see a five year exclusive contract for CDMA...then open the field for whomever can compete. That would intice the telecoms to build HUGE infrastructure quickly for the country (as they want to lock everyone).

Response to your three points (4.57 / 7) (#45)
by twickham on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:04:43 PM EST

1. This isnt your or the US congresses decision to make. It is the Iraqi peoples decision thru whatever governtmental system replaces the current one.

2. The UK is in Europe. I think the current body count is around 22. Although this is irrelavent. The US chose to this course of action. You were fully aware it would cost a lot of money.

3. Surely aid efforts will be coordinated by the military. Call me insane but Im pretty sure they dont use cell phones for their communications infrastructure. Its probably something else, ya think ? Why can they not make use of this for aid purposes.

And it is a bad thing it doesnt match the surrounding countries infrastructure. The surrounding countries are the Iraqis neighbours. You want to restrict Iraqis to their own country ? When did this happen ? Is Iraq to become a Middle Eastern gulag or something. Why do you want Iraq to be a "very different country". For goodness sake. THese are people we are talking about. They arent some kind of aliens. They actually probably have friends and relatives in these other countries.

I find this whole attitude of your puzzling. If you really wanted to work toward a peaceful middle east wouldnt it make more sense to encourage countries in the region to get on with each other. Building economic and cultyural relationships only strenghens the cause for peace in a region(look at europe) and make it less on an incentive to blow the crap out of each other.

[ Parent ]
From my understanding... (none / 0) (#77)
by wiremind on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:37:58 PM EST

If Iraq is different from all the countries around it america will have more control.

Or at least, at first glance, that is how it appears.
Kyle


[ Parent ]

Aid workers (none / 0) (#94)
by squigly on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:28:32 PM EST


Surely aid efforts will be coordinated by the military. Call me insane but Im pretty sure they dont use cell phones for their communications infrastructure. Its probably something else, ya think ? Why can they not make use of this for aid purposes.

I'd have thought so too.  However, aid workers seem to like a good cellular communications network.  I think the military have rather low capacity due to inefficient use of network resources.  Mobile phones are designed to handle a lot of simultaneous communications.

[ Parent ]

then buy aid workers new phones... (none / 0) (#158)
by bluemonkie24 on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 12:49:16 AM EST

After all....they will need to feed the workers and they will need other supplies....cell phones runing on the limited GSM sized phone system already there.

Putting in a technology for a phone system thats uncompatable with their neighbours in the region would be like every state in the US having a differnt way of running cell phones...Canada and the US use the same technology, Bussinessmen like it...it helps trade....

[ Parent ]

3 points part 3 (none / 0) (#241)
by gte910h on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 05:32:37 PM EST

1. This isnt your or the US congresses decision to make. It is the Iraqi peoples decision thru whatever governtmental system replaces the current one.

Communication needs to be set up before any reasonable timeframe in which a working  democracy can be set up in Iraq. We apparently are going to have some japan-esque post WWII scenario but not so much scenario if the UN doesn't pony up mucho dinero for the reconstruction effort. I think a cell phone network in place while performing this transition from a warlike national mindset to a more peaceful, business minded one will take awhile. Note, I'm not advocating a monopoly, I'm advocating TDMA while we're maintaining the peace and installing a network out of our coffers.

2. The UK is in Europe. I think the current body count is around 22. Although this is irrelavent. The US chose to this course of action. You were fully aware it would cost a lot of money.

Yup. And they really don't make that much in the way of cellphone technologies compared to the US or the rest of Europe. And we're fully aware after spending the money, that we can put in a cell phone network, and that we'll probably choose one according to several criteria. If we think regional interop is less important than say distance or the fact it will benefit the people paying for it, we will choose the network accordingly.

3. Surely aid efforts will be coordinated by the military. Call me insane but Im pretty sure they dont use cell phones for their communications infrastructure. Its probably something else, ya think ? Why can they not make use of this for aid purposes.

Military infrastructure is costly, and often requires classified personel to operate (being there is cryptographic algorithms at work in much of the comm gear). That would cost more money. Building a cell phone network would benefit the economy, leave a lasting network, and not preclude future networks the future iraqi democracy can choose to set up. Its cheaper to build a cell network.

And it is a bad thing it doesnt match the surrounding countries infrastructure. The surrounding countries are the Iraqis neighbours. You want to restrict Iraqis to their own country ? When did this happen ? Is Iraq to become a Middle Eastern gulag or something. Why do you want Iraq to be a "very different country". For goodness sake. These are people we are talking about. They arent some kind of aliens. They actually probably have friends and relatives in these other countries

We'd like Iraq to be a democracy with a respect for the rule of law and individual freedoms... a little different from what you'll see in the OTHER states in the region. And TDMA is competition as well for the outdated GSM protocol that IS used someplaces in the region.

I don't really care what else is put up by other organizations later (be it France, the UN, People for the Ethical Treatmeant of Animals, The Future Yet Non-Existant Government of Iraq). I think the USA should pay to install TDMA. I don't think we should put laws up to prevent, say GSM, smokesignals, or telegraphs, but WHILE WE'RE PAYING we should put up what has the most benefits from all parties (Iraqs and Ours).

And the fact that TDMA is technically superior, esp. with reguards to rural distances is IMPORTANT for the aid effort. People could DIE because they are in that last mile that GSM can't reach. People won't die because the have to borrow a phone going to their 3rd cousin's house in Iran.

[ Parent ]

Whoops... (none / 0) (#242)
by gte910h on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 05:38:02 PM EST

replace TDMA with CDMA in this comment....

[ Parent ]
But good for who ? (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by mickwd on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:53:44 PM EST

".....the American Taxpayer and Investor had to take the hit....."

Bad choice of phrase, from someone almost certainly sitting in a comfy chair thousands of miles from where a great number of people (mainly military, but some also civilian) are "taking a hit" of a much more serious nature.

The words "had to" in that quote can also be argued about, but I suspect that's something that's been argued enough already.

[ Parent ]

Excellent! (3.80 / 5) (#46)
by it certainly is on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:10:02 PM EST

It's obvious: CDMA can't survive in the open marketplace. If so, it would have beaten out GSM by now. So, it can only be implemented where the CDMA vendor has complete and utter humiliating control over the country being shackled with it.

Perhaps Iraq could demonstrate their discontent by throwing boxes of CDMA handsets into the harbour. Then the democracy-loving Americans could shoot them.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

Two words (4.75 / 4) (#51)
by jabber on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:20:07 PM EST

Halli-burton.

I'd hereby like to remind all concerned that this (US) is, in fact, a Capitalist country.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

I assume you've seen this... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by jmzero on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:11:12 PM EST

Halliburton off list for rebuilding Iraq
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Brown & Root (5.00 / 6) (#132)
by baron samedi on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:21:59 PM EST

Halliburton is off the list, but Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is. So what's the difference?
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
And furthermore... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by BlckKnght on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 04:02:46 AM EST

...it's expected that whichever company wins the contract will subcontract parts of it to many of it's competitors. That's common practice for big government contractors who have big budgets and short deadlines. They "spread the wealth."

-- 
Error: .signature: No such file or directory


[ Parent ]
Parsons + (none / 0) (#224)
by baron samedi on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 06:24:58 AM EST

An update... K,B&R is a subcontractor for Parsons, which is in the running. Cheney makes out big, no matter what.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
SCANDAL! Oh wait...it's just hack journalism (2.70 / 10) (#56)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:25:06 PM EST

Exploiting wartime anti-European sentiment for the benefit of a large company in your Congressional district may raise eyebrows, but proposing legislation that directly benefits your closest business partners, as Issa seems to have done here, is inappropriate and unethical.
BWA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA! That's rich, "exploiting wartime anti-European sentiment"...there's no exploiting to it m'boy. Americans, by and large, want to disengage from commerce with those European nations who don't want to disengage from their commerce with Iraq. Germany and France apparently didn't bank on this kind of backlash when they sought to protect their billion dollar investments in the genocidal regime of Saddam Hussein. So, they took the risk, and lost. My heart truly bleeds...not.

As for your 'smoking gun', it's weak...weak as hell. A company that Issa founded, but then sold his majority share in so as to avoid Conflicts of Interest when he ran for congress, is working with another company that is a spinoff of a joint venture between two other companies, one of which licenses CDMA technology, and builds cellular phones. So, it's "this guy who has a friend who has a buddy who works with this dude", at this point.

But, oh no, the scandelousness (this is starting to sound like the "Ashleys") gets even more comical, because Qualcomm has offices in Beijing, Germany, and Korea, all three of whom opposed the war. Their cell phones are produced in Japan and their CDMA broadcast equipment is produced in Germany.

So, lets see if we've got this conspiracy fully mapped out. This guy has some friends who are talking to a buddy who works with this dude, and that dude is inventing a car alarm that uses a cell phone to dial up the dude and send him GPS coordinates of where the alarm (and the car it's in). The chips are going to be made in Japan, and the broadcast towers are going to be made in Germany, and this is PROOF POSITIVE that the guy is trying to profit from the war in Iraq, where right now everyone is having these alarms installed in their cars.

Somebody help me here...
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
disengage? (none / 0) (#71)
by millman on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:29:34 PM EST

<I>Americans, by and large, want to disengage from commerce with those European nations who don't want to disengage from their commerce with Iraq.</I>

Umm, maybe radical right wing isolationists favor this approach.  Unless you're ready for a sharp dropoff in your standard of living, however, I wouldn't support it if I were you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.
[ Parent ]

8 Billion from France? We Can Do Without That (none / 0) (#87)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:51:43 PM EST

I think you overestimate our level of commerce, and you drastically overestimate who will have the sharpest decline in standards of living. We do $8 billion in trade with France. Blink, and you'll miss that. We can make that up with one good business deal with an Asian or South American firm. Hell, we'll make $8 bn back from commerce with Iraq alone in a few years. Meanwhile, France depends on American consumerism to support many of their industries.

Most people who have a clue about these things agree that Frances growing America bashing is not wise with respect to the balance of trade.

Germany, on the other hand...well...I'm not sure if I could live without some of their products, but then Germany is a bit more reasonable than the French have been.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
If... (none / 0) (#99)
by throbgristle on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:39:47 PM EST

It means we won't have to put up with Microsoft, Palladium, DRM and the blue screen of death any more I'm all for it.

[ Parent ]
wrong (4.00 / 2) (#102)
by millman on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:52:45 PM EST

*sigh* I shouldn't argue with trolls but here I go.

8 billion is incorrect. We imported $30 billion in 2001, and exported $20 billion.

Source

The loss of that trade is not my main fear, however, it's the withdrawl of foreign investment. Here is the best example I've seen recently:

It's no secret that Americans consume far more than they produce, running enormous deficits in overseas trade. Financing that habit for imported goods requires a steady inflow of money from overseas.

And Europe accounted for more than 80 percent -- about $1 trillion -- of the direct investment from overseas between 1997 and 2001, according to a recent study by Jay Bryson, an economist at Wachovia Securities.

"The Achilles heel of the U.S. economy is its dependence on foreign capital...which may be the only way that Europe can keep American unilateralism in check," Bryson said.

Taken from here.

If we push our luck too far, this money could start disappearing. We're not as independantly powerful as most people think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In a world full of thieves, the only crime is getting caught.
[ Parent ]

All that would be wonderful... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:38:40 PM EST

.... if there were no campaign contributions in the picture.

Conflict of interests. SOme people simply don't get it.

And if the US has the minimum modicum of respect for Iraq, a legitimate Iraqi goverment should be the only one allowed to make this kind of decisions (and for this reason, any decent politician should not be messing with what is the right of a future sovereing goverment).

Might is right

[ Parent ]

exploiting sentiment, my "smoking gun" (none / 0) (#156)
by cce on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 11:06:27 PM EST

I believe Issa is exploiting anti-European sentiment because of his use of intentionally misleading phrases intended to make GSM seem more "Franco-German" than it actually is.  Nationalist phrases such as "outdated French standard" and "parlez-vous francais?" only muddle the issue.

I'll concede that my "smoking gun" wouldn't the front page of the Washington Post, but I still find it troubling.  These kinds of links constitute what I see as a breach of ethics for a Congressman.  Issa still serves on the Board of Directors and owns a substantial share of Directed, which is a close business partner with Qualcomm.  Directed's current VP of Marketing just came over from Wingcast (Qualcomm venture), indicating the two companies are quite close.  To propose legislation specifically benefitting a single company (that happens to be a business partner of yours) is unethical in my view -- pork-barrelling with a wartime twist.

[ Parent ]

You need help? (none / 0) (#161)
by rmn on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:43:53 AM EST

Somebody help me here...

I would, but I'm not a qualified psychiatrist.

RMN
~~~

[ Parent ]

sigh (2.00 / 1) (#214)
by PurpleBob on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 02:33:11 AM EST

Today I read a truly coherent pro-war argument. It wasn't jingoistic, it wasn't proud of the fact that people were dying, but it calmly explained some reasons for war. It was rather eye-opening, and made me stop to think about my anti-war position, though without changing it in the end.

Then I get to K5, where the warhawks begin an argument with

BWA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA!

Sigh.

[ Parent ]

europe won't support the us, so why is this odd? (1.90 / 11) (#58)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:41:11 PM EST

europe has made it perfectly clear it doesn't share it's interests with the us

if europe won't support the us, don't expect the us to support europe

expect divergent paths between europe and america in the future

this is only example #1

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

No-one is saying... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by synaesthesia on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:14:42 PM EST

...that the US should support Europe.

We're saying that it should support Iraq. That's what this war is about, right?!


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

i agree (none / 0) (#97)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:34:07 PM EST

what the hell does that to do with cell phone standards? ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
This: (none / 0) (#106)
by synaesthesia on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:11:17 PM EST

That the mobile phone infrastructure that should be installed should be the one which benefits the Iraq the most. Rather than that which benefits the US the most. It may be that they turn out to be the same; all the better. But the US congressman appears to be making arguments on the basis of Qualcomm patents. Two things to note: there are many other US companies which stand to profit from GSM (they're just not business partners of the congressman in question); and the rest of the Middle East (and much of the rest of the world) uses GSM.

That, and the fact that your original comment, which is after all what I was replying to, appeared to be saying that we shouldn't "expect the us to support europe".

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

oh jesus christ (none / 0) (#112)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:30:23 PM EST

the iraqi people will benefit from cell phones, period.

who cares what the standard is.

some us company will benefit from it being a us standard?

oh my gosh! neocolonialism! lol ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yo.. (none / 0) (#152)
by avery on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:24:00 PM EST

They gots them sum cell phones. And they run GSM.

[ Parent ]
Europe would have supported the US (5.00 / 3) (#93)
by BridgeHugger on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:15:07 PM EST

"Europe" was willing to talk about the differences between them and the US.  Unfortunately, they were not willing to blindly follow the US's lead.  This seemed to upset the US, who clearly don't believe tyhat other nations could possibly have a valid opinion.  France and Germany were opposed, because their nationals were concerned that the US was using war as an excuse for its own commercial interests.  This seems to be the case.  

This is not about the US supporting Europe.  It is about imposing a less useful technology on Iraq solely for the benefit of friends of a US politician.  

I can't believe people are stupid enough to swallow the bullshit excuse about ot being a "French standard".  This is a lie.  Read the article.  GSM is an international standard, and is supported by many American companies.  

[ Parent ]

2 wrong assumptions (1.00 / 2) (#98)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:36:22 PM EST

  1. that europe doesn't have an agenda of it's own
  2. that europe not supporting the us is somehow the issue
the issue is that europe abandoned it's friend. this is bad for both friends, don't you think?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Correct me then (none / 0) (#105)
by BridgeHugger on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:11:07 PM EST

/   1.  that europe doesn't have an agenda of it's own/

What was Europe's agenda then?  There were a lot of coutries opposed to war, and this opposition was with the support of most of their populations.

/   2.  that europe not supporting the us is somehow the issue

Well, you said "if europe won't support the us, don't expect the us to support europe".  So it sounds like Europe not supporting the US is the issue.  

/the issue is that europe abandoned it's friend. this is bad for both friends, don't you think?

It would have made them a bad friend if they hadn't advised the US if the error of its ways.  A good friend will try to stop friends from doing something wrong.  A good friend will not simply ignore this advice and fall out over a petty disagreement.  The US expected their allies to follow them blindly.  Why?  Why should they?  France has its own opinions, and the US ignored them.

And you are still missing the point.  You are a mug falling into the patriotism trap set be Darrell Issa.  GSM is not a French Standard.  It is an international standard, the implementation of which would benefit Iraq.  We don't care about upsetting french interests in Iraq.

[ Parent ]

good lord (1.00 / 2) (#108)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:15:10 PM EST

tempest in a teapot

who cares about cellular standards, i mean really, who really gives a shit.

What was Europe's agenda then?

and then

France has its own opinions,

if you have a question for me, then ask it, otherwise don't answer your own questions in the same post

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#111)
by BridgeHugger on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:30:00 PM EST

who cares about cellular standards, i mean really, who really gives a shit.

Erm...  Have you actually read the article?  The title says "Congressman with business ties to Qualcomm pushes for CDMA in Iraq".

So, in answer to your question, Congressman Darrell Issa cares about cellular standards.  

if you have a question for me, then ask it, otherwise don't answer your own questions in the same post

So, do you mean to say the Europe's "agenda" is that France feels that war is a bad idea, and listening to its population is a good idea.  Sorry.  I thought you were suggesting that the French agenda was something a little more insidious.  What about the rest of Europe?  Did you know that France is part of Europe.  Great Britain is another part.  They have a few others as well - These are called Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Finland and Sweden.  Please tell me what the agenda is of each of these countries.  

[ Parent ]

snore... zzz... (none / 0) (#114)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:31:56 PM EST

the iraqi people will benefit from cell phones, period.

who cares what the standard is.

some us company will benefit from it being a us standard?

oh my gosh! neocolonialism! lol ;-P

as for your france diatribe:

ivory coast

enough said


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Seems to me... (none / 0) (#119)
by Cougaris on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:54:29 PM EST

..that you are missing the point.

The standard is important. GSm will allow them to roam around with their cellphone. CDMA will not. And frankly, I don't see a massive influx of iraqis to the US any time soon. So, an american politician is promoting his own interests above those of his constituents. That should set off alot of alarm bells.

Comparisson: Diego Garcia, Guatanamo Bay.

Nuff said.



[ Parent ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1.00 / 2) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:59:46 PM EST

this is you:

"minor standards quibble

unrelated subject, unrelated subject

enough said."

seriously, understand this: if this is the biggest stick you guys have to wield against big ol' bad imperialistic america, you guys and your various half digested ideologies are royally screwed. adjust to reality. or fade into obsolescence. your choice.

mountain

molehill

understand the difference?

;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well, well, well! (none / 0) (#128)
by synaesthesia on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:54:56 PM EST

Paranoia has descended into megalomania already (to the peal of manic laughter, no less).

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
Funny... (none / 0) (#174)
by Cougaris on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 05:13:53 AM EST

...how you make your own ideology seem far superior to every one elses - do I detect a hint of arrogant presumption, probably unintended?. Also, perhaps if you actually read my post, you will see the connection I am making. The last part is a counter to your "enogh said" comment.

Perhaps you would like me to rephrase it for you?

The above are questions, and not personal attacks.



[ Parent ]
I shouldn't feed trolls (none / 0) (#165)
by CaptainZapp on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 02:40:31 AM EST

who cares what the standard is

See, that's the reason why the US mobile communications industry is about 5 years behind Europe and 7 years behind Japan.

In addition that's the reason why your fellow countrymen walk around with huge, ugly, plastic monsters of cell phones, which are bound to a specific carrier, have rotten coverage and no useful services to speak of.

You know, widely available quality of service at reasonable prices and without being screwed left, right and center as a customer is the whole fucking point of standards.

There's no need to thank me

[ Parent ]

Liberating?? (none / 0) (#166)
by cavemankiwi on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 02:42:20 AM EST

I thought the objective of the war was to liberate Iraq and destroy the WMD. Doesn't sound like they are that "free" if the US forces which standard they use.

[ Parent ]
Who cares about those grapes? (none / 0) (#116)
by synaesthesia on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:40:54 PM EST

I mean really, who really gives a shit. They were probably sour anyway.

Qualcomm, Motorola, Lucent, Issa, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, to name a few.

Also, you seem to be confusing opinion (belief) with agenda (course of action). And you haven't answered the straight question that BridgeHugger did ask you: Why did the US expect their allies to follow them blindly?

FWIW, I do think that France probably has its own agenda with respect to business interests. So does Britain. Which is exactly why none of them talk about it openly: because it shouldn't form part of the moral argument for going to war.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

what is the difference... (none / 0) (#118)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:49:42 PM EST

between supporting a friend? and following them blindly?

mostly ego problems

it's just a matter of how you phrase it and your own self-esteem

of which, ego problems, france definitely suffers from

lol ;-P

2nd rate power acting like a 1st rate power... therby sealing its fate on its slow march to becoming a 3rd rate power

goodbye france

goodbye germany

hello japan

hello philippines

thank you, true friends of the us

you tell me what makes sense for france...

ignoring it's old friends to the north, south, and the west (uk, spain, us)

and who does it embrace?

germany

all i can say is enjoy the saurkraut ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'll bite... (none / 0) (#121)
by synaesthesia on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:08:04 PM EST

what is the difference...

between supporting a friend? and following them blindly?

mostly ego problems

Interesting you should say that. Some of us think morality comes into it.

Substitute 'master' for 'friend' into what you wrote above, and the nature of the relationship is revealed. Or... how come America wasn't supporting its friend France?

One rule for the US, and one rule for us.

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

Europe and US relations for dummies (none / 0) (#219)
by Endaemon on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 09:47:27 AM EST

Read and learn: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml

[ Parent ]
Right, no fight, no share spoils (none / 0) (#238)
by svampa on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 03:39:50 PM EST

Isn't that what you mean?



[ Parent ]
I have no problem with this (1.31 / 16) (#61)
by popolo ungavunga on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 01:53:51 PM EST

Seeing as Europe doesn't support the USA's crusade agaist Iraqi terrorist Saddam Hussain, I don't see why the USA should support inferior european cell phone technology. Maybe the french will regret going against American intrests now!

Either (3.75 / 4) (#86)
by holdfast on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:41:10 PM EST

Either what you just said was a troll or your problem is that much of what you just said does not indicate good thigs about you

1. It is not just Europe that does not support it. The human race does not support these illegal actions. Do you want to ban DNA there too?

2. It is not a crusade. The crusades were one bunch of religious extremists fighting against another. Iraq is not tied very hard to any religion. That's why Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists have fought it for so long.

3. "Terrorist" is a vague word. A common use of it is someone who takes violent action against a recognised government in ways that endanger or kill cilvilians and affect non military targets.Pretty much what your & my countries are doing at present...

4. That cell phone technology is not just European, it is made in the USA too. But I suppose the US contains a large number of people against the war too so that may justify it. It is also made in most other countries in the developed world and the standard is not owned by any of them.

5. If the technology was inferior, it would not be in use in much more of the world than what this senator is trying to dump on Iraq.

6.It was not just the french that tried to prevent or at least delay this war. Very few countries governments enthusiastically joined in. Even fewer countries populations agreed with it.

7. If the French had succeeded in postponing this war until it was legal, maybe a lot more people would have joined in and there would be less dad US service personell. It sounds like they were acting in your interests!


"Holy war is an oxymoron."
Lazarus Long
[ Parent ]
Force them use NTSC, too... (4.23 / 17) (#70)
by rmn on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:26:20 PM EST

There is a reason why European standards are used in many places outside of Europe while US standards are normally confined to the USA: European standards are better.

They are not better because Europeans have some sort of gift, they're better simply because they're newer, and when they are created, they address the limitations of the (older) american standards. This means the US tends to have access to technology before Europe, but Europe tends to have better technology in the long run (because it learned from the US's mistakes). No-one would go through the pain of creating a new standard if it wasn't better than the existing (older) one.

With technology that can't be easily upgraded, the newest standard is usually "the right choice" for people who haven't invested heavily in the old one. Unless, of course, the new standard is much more expensive (as is the case with "3G" networks).

A very good example of this is PAL vs. NTSC (the TV standard). PAL was created specifically to address NTSC's limitations, and is superior in pretty much every aspect (the only advantage of NTSC is that it uses 29.97 frames per second, while PAL uses "only" 25, but that is mainly a consequence of the different AC frequencies used by 120- and 240-volt countries - 60 and 50 Hz).

Ultimately, this is a false issue, since Motorola (an american company) is one of the biggest manufacturers of GSM phones and Lucent (also american) is one of - if not the - biggest manufacturer of GSM chips. Personally, I think Issa's attitude is motivated either by personal interest (i.e., he or some of his friends have money invested in CDMA companies) or pure xenophobia (it was invented outside the USA, so we are against it). Also, if I'm not mistaken, CDMA phones can be easily located via GPS, so this could be in the interest of the US's defence department.

I think this is only the beginning of Iraq's "liberation". Next, I suspect we'll hear about plans to replace the markets bombed during the war with McDonald's.

RMN
~~~


You're so totally wrong. (4.00 / 1) (#186)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 11:14:23 AM EST

First of all, CDMA is a much better and more modern standard.

Second of all, it is not "American". If it comes to that, it is much more a "Korean" than an "American" standard. (As in, "Samsung", you know?)


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

CDMA better? (none / 0) (#193)
by shinshin on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:31:37 PM EST

First of all, CDMA is a much better and more modern standard.
Do you have any links to back that up? Every analysis I've read says that GSM is by far the superior technology.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Look it up yourself. (none / 0) (#195)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:59:52 PM EST

CDMA is indeed the better and newer standard. Go educate yourself.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

RE: Look it up yourself (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by shinshin on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 12:15:23 AM EST

CDMA is indeed the better and newer standard. Go educate yourself.
I'll take that to mean: "no, I don't have any links to back up my sweeping generalizations".

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
No, that means... (4.50 / 2) (#217)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 03:10:41 AM EST

..."I'm not your personal secretatry".

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

no, that means (5.00 / 1) (#229)
by vivelame on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 08:49:24 AM EST

"i have nothing to back my claims, so i'm not going to spend 3 hours googling for a link which doesn't exist except in the mind of the not-invented-here USKAians."

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Uh, Sir Retard Sir, (none / 0) (#230)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 02:01:21 PM EST

Do me a favor and read the parallel branch of this discussion. All your questions are answered there.

Have a good day and good luck on your quest towards reading comprehension.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Depends what you mean by GSM (none / 0) (#212)
by rmn on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 12:55:12 AM EST

Neither CDMA nor TDMA are particularly new technologies (both are more than 50 years old). If you compare the most widespread incarnations of these two standards, CDMA is indeed slightly superior (and a lot more expensive). If you compare CDMA to the latest GSM standard, however (3GSM), then GSM is far superior.

To put things in kilobytes (and ignoring other issues such as coverage and station range), both CDMA and GSM normally use 9.6 Kb/s connections (both can use more, but these are the normal speeds). In practical terms, CDMA is usually about 20% faster than GSM (this also depends on the number of phones sharing a given station). 3GSM (the "3G" version of GSM) delivers between 144 Kb/s and 2 Mb/s.

But I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest that Iraq needs (or wants) a 3G mobile network (which, besides, would be incompatible with the countries around it, and thus eliminate the main advantage that "plain" GSM has for them).

RMN
~~~

[ Parent ]

Better? (3.50 / 2) (#197)
by rmn on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 02:38:45 PM EST

Define "better". When I go to London or Paris or Madrid or New York, my GSM phone works normally (in some countries I need to "activate" roaming, but in most it'll work automagically). Try to do the same with a CDMA phone, and you're up the proverbial creek without a paddle (even more so if you're using WLL). In my book, mobility is a very relevant issue in the choice of a mobile phone standard.

All the countries around Iraq have GSM networks. Are the USA planning to "liberate" them too, and replace their mobile networks with (Qualcomm-made) CDMA alternatives? Using CDMA in Iraq would be like making people drive on the left in Chicago. Yes, it can be done, but who benefits from it, apart for the companies making cars with steering wheels on the right side?

The same would go for replacing the TV standard in, say, New York, with PAL. Yes, it has better resolution and more stable colour, but does that really offset the compatibility problems it's going to create?

GSM cells do have a slightly shorter range, but GSM equipment is considerably cheaper (because there's more competition). When you take everything into consideration, a cheaper network that's compatible with all surrounding countries seems the best choice, even if it means that more transmitters need to be built to cover the same area.

Issa never even suggests that CDMA would be better for the Iraqis; he simply says that "we ought to make sure that those expenditures benefit the American people and the American economy".

Obviously, it should be up to the Iraqis to decide who runs their network, and it should be up to that company to choose the standard it wants to use. Even better: why not let several companies install their networks, and let the competition between them determine who survives? Isn't that "the american way"?

This is starting to turn into the Iraq invasion debate. Bush claimed it was about "weapons of mass destruction", and people who didn't really believe that but supported Bush anyway started looking for other, more "popular" excuses (terrorism, human rights, etc.). Issa's argument is quite clear: he wants the money to come into the US. At least he's honest enough to admit it.

RMN
~~~


[ Parent ]

You're missing the point. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 04:00:08 PM EST

The fact that GSM is a government-mandated standard in Europe doesn't mean that CDMA is "worse".

Besides, CDMA doesn't necessarily mean "Qualcomm" -- CDMA is standard in Korea, for example, and I really don't think that they are using Qualcomm over there. :)) Also, in Korea CDMA phones are much cheaper than GSM phones, so this is all a matter of context. :)

In purely technical terms, CDMA is better -- it has better reception, has lower power consumption, requires fewer base stations, has better security features, and emits less radiation when in use. (A simple experiment for you: put your GSM phone next to your monitor, then ask somebody to call you. Quite impressive. :))

But of course, "purely techinical" considerations mean absolutely nothing when compatibility is at stake.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

I don't think I am (4.00 / 3) (#208)
by rmn on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 11:04:11 PM EST

CDMA does mean Qualcomm. It's patented (Qualcomm originally developed it for the military, during WW2, then kept all the patents). The chips in Korea (or in Europe - Nokia makes CDMA phones too) may not be manufactured by Qualcomm, but they pay a license.

And I never said CDMA was, in itself, worse - it's newer, and, as I said, people don't normally go through the pain of creating a new standard unless it's (at least a bit) better than existing standards. Actually, that's not exactly true. Sometimes a new standard is created because the old standard is proprietary (ex., Beta and VHS), but here it's precisely the other way around (GSM / TDMA is open, CDMA is proprietary).

What makes CDMA clearly worse for Iraq are two things: first, it's more expensive, second, all the countries around Iraq use GSM, so Iraqis would only be able to "roam" to the USA. And while I expect some Iraqis would very much like to be on a plane to the USA right now, they would proably prefer to have a gun or a knife instead of a phone... O_o The only practical advantage would be the bigger coverage, but the difference isn't all that big, and doesn't offset the difference in cost (simply put up more TDMA stations).

GSM in Europe isn't so much "government-mandated" as it is government-regulated. You're probably free to install a CDMA network (as long as you get the necessay licenses and provide the mandatory free services such as emergency calls), but you probably won't have many clients, because all the surrounding countries use GSM. It has to be government-regulated (and, at a higher level, regulated by the EU telecoms comission) to ensure that the networks of the various countries are compatible, regardless of who is the operator.

CDMA suffers from less interference from base stations but from more interference from other phones. It is not particularly more secure (anyone with the ability to tap and decode TDMA will probably be able to tap and decode CDMA just as easily), and while it does give you lower noise for the same signal level, if you lower the signal level (so that it uses less power than TDMA), you will also lower the sound quality, so it's a tradeoff.

It is slightly better than TDMA, but not exactly revolutionary (to the end user, the difference is minimal, and the quality of the service depends mainly on the coverage). Some people (and some sites) compare current CDMA technology with 20-year-old TDMA. Things have evolved a bit since then. TDMA-based "3G" solutions that let you transmit high-speed data are currently being implemented in Europe (not very successfully - people simply don't want or need those services, they just want to make calls). Since it's a completely new network (that will require new base stations and new handsets), they could just as easily have gone with CDMA. The fact is, CDMA's advantages over current TDMA technology are not enough to offset the fact that CDMA is a proprietary format. Most of Asia also uses TDMA (although it's not always called GSM).

My current monitor (Eizo FlexScan T966) isn't the least bit disturbed by my GSM phone. My old monitor (Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 67TXV) did let out a high-pitched buzz just before calls arrived, but the image remained stable. I believe this interference is not caused directly by the phone's signal (otherwise you would also notice it when you make a call), but rather by a signal that the phone emits while it's ringing. This is the signal that stand-alone vibratory alarms pick up (these were quite common before phones had built-in vibrating batteries - people would keep the phone in their briefcase or jacket, with the sound turned off, and put the vibratory alarm in their shirt pocket, so they knew the phone was ringing without disturbing other people).

RMN
~~~


[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 0) (#211)
by rmn on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 12:40:51 AM EST

Actually, what I posted above is (partially) incorrect. Although broadband ("3G") TDMA solutions do exist (up to 1 Mbps, at least), the GSM Association decided to adopt WCDMA (a technology similar to CDMA but which is not owned by Qualcomm) for 3rd generation GSM (or 3GSM, as they call it). Qualcomm and Lucent are implementing a similar standard, called CDMA2000. WCDMA will be adopted by Europe, most of Asia (including Japan) and and most of South America, CDMA2000 will be adopted by the USA, and China is likely to adopt a third standard, called TC-UTRA.

The GSM web site has information about all these standards. I especially liked this bit:

High Mobility

144 kbps for rural outdoor mobile use. This data rate is available for environments in which the 3G user is traveling more than 120 kilometers per hour in outdoor environments. Let us hope that the 3G user is in a train and not driving along and trying to use their 3G terminal at such speeds.

Note that when stationary (or moving at less than 10 Km/h), 3GSM should be able to deliver 2Mb/s.

But, regardless of the underlying technology, it's unlikely this will take off anytime soon. Demand for broadband cell phones is quite small, and laptops / PDAs seem to be going down the Wi-Fi road, not 3GSM (or CDMA2000). The GSM association expects 3G will take off in 2004. I think they're being a bit optimistic.

RMN
~~~

[ Parent ]

You're right. (3.50 / 2) (#216)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 03:09:04 AM EST

I'm not arguing with you -- I'm just saying that, in purely techincal terms, CDMA is slightly better. That doesn't mean that Iraq should get saddled with a CDMA network, though.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

For better or for worse (3.00 / 1) (#220)
by rmn on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 10:04:52 AM EST

Roger. Just to clarify what I mean by "better", and why it's not exactly the same as "having superior specifications":

See my comparison above between x86 and IA-64. Most people will look at the specifications and conclude that IA-64 is "better", or at least has the potential to be better, "if only compilers improve, and programmers re-learn everything they know, etc.". However, some people (notably Linus Torvalds) have started to express the idea that perhaps what most people see as x86's "ugliness" (such as variable instruction length) are actually some of its strengths, and that as IA-64 evolves, it will probably end up adopting many of these "quirks" (and call them "optimisations").

Now, I'm not saying CDMA will evolve into something closer to (current, TDMA-based) GSM (quite the contrary, CDMA makes it easier to balance loads, and that makes it a better choice for very saturated networks, although it suffers a bit more from phone-to-phone interference). In fact, the latest version of GSM is based on an open technology similar to CDMA.

The fact that GSM needs more cells to cover the same area is not necessarily an advantage. It's only an "advantage" until you look at the price. What's the advantage in covering, say, twice the area per station, if it's three times more expensive per station?

It's like saying a 3.06 GHz P4 is "better" than a 2.8 GHz P4. It's 10% faster and 40% more expensive. So which one is "better" depends on the situation. If you are limited to a single CPU (or, in the case of mobile phones, to a single base station), and need all the power you can get, perhaps it's worth the extra cost. But if you're setting up a cluster (or, in the case of mobile phones, a network), then simply buying more 2.8 GHz P4s will give you the same overall computing power for a lower price (or more power for the same price). It might not be as elegant (takes up more space, makes more noise), but it's overall a better solution. In other words, in that situation, the (technically inferior) 2.8 GHz model is "better". As people like to say nowadays, it's all a matter of "TCO" (total cost of ownership).

(note: in fact, the Athlon MP gives you even more "bang for the buck", unless you need SSE2, but enough about CPUs.)

My point is that you cannot say something is "better" or "worse" (in a practical sense) based exclusively on its specifications on paper, especially if you're looking at the specifications of a single component, when the practical implementation will be a network. Clearly, as Europe and Japan have shown, GSM is able to handle very big loads with good quality (and most GSM operators provide internet access, fax, MMS, etc.).

RMN
~~~

[ Parent ]

Pal, NTSC and Japan (5.00 / 1) (#191)
by dachshund on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 12:24:52 PM EST

very good example of this is PAL vs. NTSC (the TV standard). PAL was created specifically to address NTSC's limitations, and is superior in pretty much every aspect

One exception to your "US standards used only in the US" contention is Japan, which uses NTSC. And Japan is, incidentally, one of the most advanced producers of televisions and television equipment in the world.

My experience with PAL and NTSC is that yes, PAL is theoretically a superior standard. But NTSC sets have been so refined-- particularly by the Japanese-- that they rival and in some cases exceed the quality of PAL sets.

[ Parent ]

I see you're an expert... (3.66 / 3) (#194)
by rmn on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:41:24 PM EST

Oh boy... PAL and NTSC are transmission standards. They have nothing to do with TV sets. Virtually all TV sets being produced today are compatible with both standards (there are no "NTSC models" and "PAL models", so your point about "refinement" makes no sense - they are exactly the same, the difference lies in the video signal, not in the equipment). You would know that if you had bothered to look at the specifications available on-line at the sites of the various manufacturers.

With most of the world using PAL, and buying from japanese firms, the japanese would have to be really stupid to spend time and money "refining" NTSC-only models. In fact, when 99% of the components inside a TV set are exactly the same for PAL and NTSC, they'd have to be really stupid to even make separate models, instead of simply using a multi-format tuner (which is what they do), and selling exactly the same model in both markets.

Japan uses NTSC for the same reason the US uses NTSC: it was the only standard available when it was adopted (actually it wasn't, but the others were even worse), and the investment made in the NTSC infrastructure made it very expensive to switch to PAL after PAL was invented. The rest of the world started late, and had a chance to choose between PAL and NTSC (and SéCAM, but SéCAM is basically a very complicated method to achieve what PAL does in a simple way). The vast majority chose PAL. Let me guess, they're all stupid?

If you've worked in professional video you know that NTSC is simply a nightmare (especially in analog formats, but even in new digital formats it still has lots of legacy problems). A couple of examples: partly due to some commercial issues between Sony and Panasonic, NTSC DV uses a colour sampling mode (4:1:1) that's different from DVD, which causes serious colour bleeding when you convert NTSC DV to DVD. PAL DV uses the same sampling as DVD (4:2:0), and transfers to DVD much better. If you want good DVD transfer in NTSC, you have to work in 4:2:2, which is only available in much more expensive formats, such as Beta or D1 (DV50 never really took off). Then there's the brilliant idea of having 29.97 frames per second. The way most systems deal with this is by using "drop-frame", meaning that some seconds have 30 frames, and some have 29. Depending on where you cut a clip, the "29-frame second" can land in different places. So some frames sometimes exist, and sometimes don't. Really practical. Then there's the transfer from film. PAL frames transfer directly, NTSC needs pulldown (a sort of irregular interlacing), to mask the conversion from 24 to 29.97 FPS. Which means you then need to do reverse-pulldown if you want to watch it on a non-interlaced display. And don't get me started on the analog issues such as the colour carrier or NTSC's complete inability to survive interference. There's a reason why people call it "Never Twice the Same Colour"...

Of course, most of this is hidden from the end user, and is only a problem to professionals, just as most of Windows' fluff code is hidden from the end user and is only a problem to developers. But the difference is still relevant enough to make most film buffs try to get the PAL version of DVDs instead of the NTSC version (that and the fact that the american versions are often censored, but that's another issue).

RMN
~~~


[ Parent ]

more on pal vs ntsc (3.00 / 1) (#243)
by taniwha on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 06:58:34 PM EST

If you've worked in professional video you know that NTSC is simply a nightmare (especially in analog formats, but even in new digital formats it still has lots of legacy problems).

While I agree with all you've said let me point out one other advantage of PAL over NTSC - PAL offers more bandwidth to the color sub carrier which means a greater color range (and more saturated colors - which get used in ads a lot and isn't always a good thing :-). The phase alternating part and the higher subcarrier freq also reduces the 'crawlies' a bit (which lead to the downfall of the herringbone tie and sports jacket in the US when people stopped wearing them on TV once color came out).

All in all though these differences will soon be moot - in the US there already a lot of digital cable/satellite .... which is YCrCb based (and basicly the same color space as PAL). Sadly they chose to keep the gamma correction thru the transmission system which causes colors in low brighness situations to be heavily quantized (check out the dark smoky rooms in Bladerunner some time)

[ Parent ]

I don't get it (4.33 / 3) (#198)
by dachshund on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 03:22:39 PM EST

There is a reason why European standards are used in many places outside of Europe while US standards are normally confined to the USA: European standards are better ... A very good example of this is PAL vs. NTSC (the TV standard).

You argue that PAL is better than NTSC because the Europeans had a chance to address NTSC's limitations and come up with a better standard. Then in the next breath, you bash the US for using CDMA rather than GSM, when in that case, CDMA is the more advanced standard that was developed to improve upon TDMA systems like GSM.

If you'd used the same reasoning when PAL was introduced, you'd be bashing the hell out of the Europeans for adopting a format that isn't compatible with anyone else's systems. "None of your televisions are going to be compatible with the perfectly functional NTSC," you might cry.

CDMA is a much newer and more advanced standard. It is so much more advanced, in fact, that until relatively recently, most people did not think it CDMA was practical, because it required so much more processing power in the handsets than TDMA systems like GSM. Moore's law took care of that, as it will take care of the compatibility issues you're so worried about: I imagine that dual-network (CDMA/GSM) handsets will soon be affordable to market... though honestly I'm not sure that there will be too much of a market for them-- the standardization of GSM is a really big deal for Europeans, who have to cross international borders on a regular basis, but only a small segment of the US population cares about using their phone in other countries (especially when they see your exhorbitant International Roaming fees.)

Europe started building early, so they're locked into a technically inferior scheme, but they do have the advantage of international compatibility, which is the only reason that GSM should be used in Iraq. Not because GSM is better; rather, because it would be silly to create an tiny area of incompatibility in a small country surrounded by GSM users.

My bet is that over the next couple of decades GSM will be quietly displaced by next-generation CDMA networks. Compatibility issues will be dealt with on the handset, rather than requiring entire national infrastructures to stick with older technologies.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (3.50 / 2) (#205)
by rmn on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 07:13:42 PM EST

Excuse me? Where did I "bash the US for using CDMA rather than GSM"? In fact, the US also has GSM coverage in many areas (and some areas even have older - pre-GSM - TDMA networks).

Issa's argument is that Iraq should use CDMA because "GSM is french" (what a great technical argument) and because it "will benefit the american economy". Hence the comparison with NTSC: I don't think anyone in Europe manufactures NTSC cameras and recorders, so contracts would go to the US, not to the evil Germans or the devious French (PAL/SéCAM).

But just as it would be very stupid for a single american state to adopt PAL (despite its advantages), it's very stupid for a country surrounded by GSM (TDMA) networks to install a CDMA-only network, despite its possible advantages. In other words, it's not enough for something to be better to justify its adoption. And this is why the US didn't adopt PAL, although it is better.

CDMA was not created specifically to address serious limitations in GSM; it's a simple evolution made possible by advances in electronics. PAL, on the other hand, derives its name (Phase-Alternated Lines) precisely from a feature designed to avoid NTSC's main problem: colour shift caused by interference. PAL didn't require any advances in technology, it was simply the practical implementation of a few "clever tricks" designed to fix NTSC's problems. Problems that were significant enough to cause NTSC to be "updated" later.

GSM is a perfectly functional system. CDMA is newer and (naturally) improved on some aspects of TDMA, but GSM doesn't have any significant limitations that make its users long for a new standard.

Contrary to what Issa says, GSM is not an "outdated standard", just as x86 is not an "outdated standard". Maybe it's not as elegant as IA-64 (then again, opinions diverge), but it gets most jobs done more than fast enough, it's the "de facto" standard on the desktop (meaning it's compatible with existing applications), and it's cheap. There's very little incentive to "upgrade" from x86 to IA-64, and even for people making their first investment, the advantages of x86 usually outweigh the advantages of IA-64.

The same goes for GSM. It gets the job done, it's cheap, it's used all over the world. The extra cost of CDMA handsets is pretty hard to justify to end users, since it doesn't have any obvious benefits (slightly faster data transfer... well, how many people use their cell phones to transfer large amounts of data?).

In fact, as operators are starting to realise, not even "3G" (which is a big jump from current networks) is meeting much public interest. People don't want to watch TV on a 3x2cm screen. They just want a phone that lets them make and receive calls wherever they are. And current GSM (and CDMA) networks are more than able to provide this.

The extra range of CDMA is a nice "feature" for the operator, because it reduces the number of transmitters required to cover a certain area. But the added cost of the equipment makes things more or less even, from an economical point of view.

It's important to note that Issa never mentions the technical benefits of CDMA (bigger range, capacity for more users per cell, faster data transfer); he says that Iraq should (be forced to) adopt CDMA because "it would benefit the american economy". And, given his connections to Qualcomm, it would probably benefit his personal economy, too.

RMN
~~~

[ Parent ]

Cost (3.00 / 2) (#206)
by rmn on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 07:57:42 PM EST

I found this article, that quotes some values for the cost of CDMA and TDMA base stations. The difference (300k vs 80k) might be related to the fact that CDMA is owned by Qualcomm, while TDMA / GSM is an open standard (as are WAP, OMA, and several other standards associated with GSM).

RMN
~~~

[ Parent ]

Your post still doesn't make sense (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by dachshund on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 12:31:29 AM EST

But just as it would be very stupid for a single american state to adopt PAL (despite its advantages), it's very stupid for a country surrounded by GSM (TDMA) networks to install a CDMA-only network

Absolutely, and if you read my last post you'll see I'm in total agreement. GSM is the correct standard for Iraq, because that's what it's neighbors are using.

My confusion over your post has nothing to do with Iraq; rather, it's to do with your conflicting logic. In the first paragraph you assert that "European standards are better", which is not true at all with respect to wireless standards. You then make matters even more confusing by illustrating your argument with PAL and NTSC... which is an apt comparison, unless the thesis of your argument is that the more recent CDMA is an inferior standard (and if you're not arguing that, then I'm confused by your first statement!)

CDMA was not created specifically to address serious limitations in GSM; it's a simple evolution made possible by advances in electronics.

Nonsense. The key issue in these cases is not just what drives the technological development, but what drives the adoption of a particular technology. CDMA could have been a completely accidental discovery, for all it matters. It's been successful because many corporations believe it offers superior capabilities to GSM-- capabilities that are apparently worth the higher equipment costs.

GSM is a perfectly functional system. CDMA is newer and (naturally) improved on some aspects of TDMA, but GSM doesn't have any significant limitations that make its users long for a new standard.

In your other post, you point out that most of the flaws in NTSC aren't apparent to end-users, and are generally only a concern for professionals and "film buffs". Similarly, GSM is just fine for the average user, who just wants to make voice calls and doesn't have to think about technical issues (like how efficiently the available spectrum is being used.)

People who are trying to push the capabilities of a network do care, of course. And if you think that data isn't going to be important in the next decade or so, I think you've made a poor bet.

It's important to note that Issa never mentions the technical benefits of CDMA

And Issa is an idiot. No argument there.

[ Parent ]

A bathtub full of bicycles (3.50 / 2) (#213)
by rmn on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 02:12:53 AM EST

When GSM was defined (and became widespread), the "american standard" was not CDMA. It was AMPS (in fact, I think the US still have functioning AMPS networks). GSM is clearly superior to AMPS, and that's why many countries (including Japan and most of Europe) adopted it. CDMA was standardised a few years later and its advantages weren't really enough to offset the fact that GSM was already available in many countries (and mobility is a major part of mobile phones)

The difference between GSM and AMPS is much bigger than the difference between PAL and NTSC; it's more like moving from black-and-white to colour TV.

The difference between GSM and CDMA, on the other hand, is more similar to the difference between PAL and PAL Plus (a 16:9 format with slightly better resolution that never really took off, and whose advantage over normal 16:9 PAL was simply to save you having to press a button on the remote to switch from 4:3 to 16:9). It doesn't offer any tangible new features and it forces you to replace all your infrastructure.

With HDTV on the horizon, no-one in their right mind will waste money "upgrading" from PAL to PAL Plus. In fact, given the price difference and the (lack of) extra features, most people who are buying for the first time are also likely to prefer "plain" PAL.

While TV emission and reception are usually limited to a single country (i.e., if you go to a different country, you don't take your TV, so who cares if they use NTSC or PAL or whatever), a fundamental "feature" of a mobile phone is the ability to use it anywhere you go. If you're picking a standard that has to interface with the countries around you, then you have to weigh its technical merits against the problems you'll have trying to make it compatible with the systems used in those countries.

It doesn't make any sense to say something is "better" without considering its practical implementation. Is an airplane "better" than a car? Well, it's faster, carries more people, and probahly has much more advanced electronics. But when you consider the cost and the needs of most people, things aren't quite as simple. How many people find themselves bumping into GSM's limitations? And of those, how many would not bump into CDMA's?

The fact that (TDMA-based) GSM is being used so successfully in Europe - where there is a ludicrous concentration of cell phones - shows that its "technical disadvantages" compared to CDMA are not particularly relevant. On the other hand, its lower price (both the handsets and the infrastructure) and existing network coverage give it a very real advantage over CDMA-based solutions.

In other words, GSM may be (on paper) an inferior standard (which is natural, since it's older), but it is still (in practical terms) a better solution. If we were talking about a standard for the next 20 years, GSM would probably start showing its age... but so would CDMA. But chances are that neither GSM nor CDMA (in their current form) will be in use 5 years from now.

Anyway, in my original post I was mainly referring to video standards (I work in video), hence the rant about NTSC, and the title ("Force them to use NTSC too [since that will also benefit the american economy]").

Data is going to be important, but it won't be based on either CDMA or GSM in their present form. Unless you're talking about CDMA2000 or 3GSM, but I really don't think those are the standards being proposed for Iraq.

In other words, in the future (in 5 years or so), both GSM and CDMA (in their current forms) will become obsolete. During that period, is there any (real, practical) advantage to using CDMA? I don't think so. It's more expensive and it's not supported in most of the world. So what if it "makes better use of the airwaves"? There's plenty of free spectrum. It's like trying to sell a new type of candle by saying "it makes better use of the oxygen". People will buy it if it's cheaper or if it gives them more light, but they won't pay more for a "technical advantage" that has no practical effects.

RMN
~~~


[ Parent ]

Only the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#223)
by dachshund on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 12:56:47 AM EST

When GSM was defined (and became widespread), the "american standard" was not CDMA. It was AMPS (in fact, I think the US still have functioning AMPS networks). GSM is clearly superior to AMPS

But of course, this discussion isn't about AMPS. Europe leapfrogged the US with GSM, and then it was leapfrogged again. The key question is, will Europe be able to leapfrog the US one more time, or are they locked in with compatibility issues.

While TV emission and reception are usually limited to a single country (i.e., if you go to a different country, you don't take your TV, so who cares if they use NTSC or PAL or whatever), a fundamental "feature" of a mobile phone is the ability to use it anywhere you go.

When PAL was first introduced, the nations involved faced enormous obstacles, IIRC. PAL TV sets cost significantly more than NTSC sets for a long time, and when the VCR was invented, they faced major issues getting hold of properly formatted content. Of course, a part of the defense in many European countries was that Europeans shouldn't watch American content, which is as bogus as the US saying that Americans shouldn't need to use their phones in Europe. The problems continue to this day in the arena of video game consoles, which are designed primarly for NTSC compatibility.

The fact that (TDMA-based) GSM is being used so successfully in Europe - where there is a ludicrous concentration of cell phones - shows that its "technical disadvantages" compared to CDMA are not particularly relevant.

What is shows is that GSM is fine, as long as people aren't stressing the network. Unfortunately, as soon as the network gets crowded, or as soon as a few people start using data services, the rest of the network does start to be stressed. Bolt-on solutions like GPRS literally devour network bandwidth from normal voice users.

But of course you're right. Europe will upgrade to something different: specifically, a TDMA-based 3G network in a few years. In the meantime, the more chaotic (and performance-based) US networks will have upgraded to whatever works better. Which will include GSM, CDMA and perhaps things more advanced.

In other words, the future of the European cellphone infrastructure for the next decade and a half can already be written on the back of a napkin, because there are strong governmental interests in maintaining a compatible network. The future of the US infrastructure depends to a much greater extent on future developments in technology; whatever works best will likely be adopted.

I hate to sound like a Libertarian wacko, but I have a great deal of faith in the US approach in the long term. Even though it doesn't necessarily cater to the small percentage of Americans that want to use their cellphones in Europe (at a ridiculous cost), it does have the greatest potential to advance the technology. Would any nation be deploying more advanced technologies like CDMA if it weren't for the US and it's attitude toward global compatibility?

The best analogy I can draw, since you brought up x86, is the Macintosh. The first Macs were totally incompatible with any DOS software, but they managed to completely revolutionize the entire computing industry. If it hadn't been for Apple's willingness to throw compatibility aside, we might still be working at a DOS prompt, and that's a pretty scary thought.

[ Parent ]

Consoles? WTF? (2.00 / 1) (#235)
by dammitallgoodnamesgone on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 03:39:21 AM EST

The problems continue to this day in the arena of video game consoles, which are designed primarly for NTSC compatibility.
Allow me to quickly mention that you are talking absolute shit. Especially with the current (Dreamcast and more recent) generation of consoles. The problem with with games consoles is that (a) until recently Japanese games companies didn't give a shit about Europe as their American advisers told them it was a worthless market (ha!) and (b) America - 1 language. Japan - 1 language. Europe - lots of languages. Hello translation problems...

[ Parent ]
Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#236)
by dachshund on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 09:12:16 AM EST

Allow me to quickly mention that you are talking absolute shit. Especially with the current (Dreamcast and more recent) generation of consoles. The problem with with games consoles is that (a) until recently Japanese games companies didn't give a shit about Europe as their American advisers told them it was a worthless market (ha!)

Thanks for the update. I'm not sure how I'm talking shit; apparently this was a major problem until recently. PAL users have been have had compatibility issues, because games have been primarily oriented towards the NTSC market. Who's to blame for that isn't the issue, and I'm not saying that PAL's worse for it... It's just an example of the type of compatibility issues you can get with a TV network, even though people don't physically carry their TV to other countries.

[ Parent ]

Problem (none / 0) (#244)
by dammitallgoodnamesgone on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 08:51:42 PM EST

It's because the problem has never been to do with the video standards, but more to do with translation. The obvious answer is to just publish in the UK/Australia, which has happened a few times, but publishers insist on treating Europe as one single country. If they treated all of America (North America and South America) as one country you'd have the same sort of problems.

[ Parent ]
Vultures (1.07 / 13) (#76)
by n8f8 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:34:46 PM EST

Personally I have no problems with puching use of US tech in poestwar Iraq. Nor do I have any problem with a politician trying to make sure an American company he sits on the board of making money. What I do have trouble with is the greedy bastard proposing it during the opening volleys of the war. Just plain bad taste.

I also agree that French and EU companies shouldn't get a penny of any reconstruction contract. Those French pigfuckers backstab us enough without us paying them to do it. Christ, they stole all out tech throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. Isn't that enough?

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)

Stolen technology (4.00 / 1) (#89)
by BridgeHugger on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:07:55 PM EST

Christ, they stole all out tech throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. Isn't that enough?

Is this something like the time the US and Great Britain had a technology sharing programme?  Britain shared its technology, then the US had a change of heart and decided their technology was classified.

[ Parent ]

Examples? (none / 0) (#95)
by throbgristle on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:32:13 PM EST

Are you talking about the Bell X1 perchance?

[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0) (#103)
by n8f8 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:55:10 PM EST

More like the time France recalled over 100 spies working for US high tech firms like Boeing because their cover was blown.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
[ Parent ]
That's true (none / 0) (#113)
by BridgeHugger on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:31:09 PM EST

The US relied on the much safer route of bugging French comunications.

[ Parent ]
Theft of technology? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by hughk on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 02:06:53 AM EST

The French were probably looking for how much graft they should offer to top the payments made by US companies. Forget the FCPA, US companies pay bribes too (yes I know about a certain tobacco company paying $70m into a swiss bank account for access to a former soviet country).

The British has patents on the Gas Turbine, for powering aircraft and the hovercraft. Both technologies were stolen. The British finally received compensation about 20 years ago.

At the beginning of the last century, America didn't acknowledge foreign patents and German chemical processes were expropriated as well as British steel making.

[ Parent ]

Apples & Oranges (1.00 / 2) (#179)
by n8f8 on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 08:59:05 AM EST

As far as bribery, that I see as a societal thing. The US gov't has laws but I personally don't see their validity on foreign soil. Not that I approve either. In reality you can view certain bribery the same way you do taxes.

As far as patent infringements a century ago, I'm pretty sure the ground rules have been worked out since then. Unfortunately we are all too aware that the words of the French government and businesses aren't worth shit. Unless they are promising some Communist state or dictatorship they are willing to fuck over an ally.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
[ Parent ]

Who should rebuild Iraq then? (5.00 / 3) (#100)
by gordonjcp on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:44:40 PM EST

The Americans certainly shouldn't. What a great idea - bomb the fuck out of a country, then "lend" them the money and technology to rebuild it.
Suppose a French nuclear missile under test went astray and blew up Detroit. It would serve you buggers right if the French then gave you "humanitarian aid" by making you all drive around in tiny Peugeots...

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Is that possible? (none / 0) (#136)
by seanic on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:33:30 PM EST

Suppose a French nuclear missile under test went astray and blew up Detroit. It would serve you buggers right if the French then gave you "humanitarian aid" by making you all drive around in tiny Peugeots...

In order to do that they'd need a missle more reliable than a Peugeot. I'll keep my Honda, thanks.
--
"The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is, however, alleviated by their lack of consistency" -- Albert Einstein
[ Parent ]
Ah, thats a bit of history nobody brought into it (none / 0) (#148)
by Crono on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 09:23:39 PM EST

I'm not to up on my history, but didn't we rebuild Japan after we nuked them? Twice? And now we drive Honda brand. ^_^

[ Parent ]
Quod Erat Demonstratum... (n/t) (none / 0) (#168)
by gordonjcp on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 03:27:59 AM EST


Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
This war is about... (4.50 / 8) (#79)
by opendna on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 02:51:38 PM EST

...Iraq's valuable cell phone market, not the liberation of the people from a brutal regime.



Time to update signs... (5.00 / 3) (#88)
by mpath on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:58:49 PM EST

No Blood for OilCDMA

[ Parent ]
Now that the US will sell Iraq's assets ... (4.50 / 2) (#150)
by bobzibub on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 09:52:28 PM EST

...to finance the rebuilding of Iraq, they can re-sell all the WMD sold Iraq to the next country.  ; )

Betcha can't do that France!  Betcha can't!

-b


[ Parent ]

that's nice... (2.83 / 6) (#81)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:23:16 PM EST

I don't know about you, but I think the people of Iraq would perfer running fucking water and a stable government before stupid cell phones.

You know, considering the US took those two things aways and all...


It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

honestly... (none / 0) (#84)
by Work on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:34:28 PM EST

one of the keys to stability in the modern world is communications, and laying down landlines is expensive and time consuming.

Yes, they need running water. Good roads. Food. But they also need a communications system installed in a relatively short amount of time.

[ Parent ]

Does Afghanistan have cel phones? (2.00 / 1) (#101)
by Gooba42 on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:47:40 PM EST

Or did we forget that we laid waste to their country and infrastructure as quickly as we forgot that Iraq hasn't attacked us and hasn't proven to be any significant threat to anyone who isn't invading it?

[ Parent ]
Yes. They do. Recently built by americans. nt (none / 0) (#107)
by Work on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 05:11:27 PM EST

nt

[ Parent ]
And GSM, I should add (N/T) (none / 0) (#123)
by JAM on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:22:21 PM EST


-- Sorry for my engRish (TM)
[ Parent ]
Stupid comment. (none / 0) (#124)
by jmzero on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:27:59 PM EST

Obviously the reconstruction efforts are going to focus on water, roads, sewage, etc.  This crap about cell phones is peripheral, but still not exactly a waste of time.  

...the contract will cover rehabilitation of power generation facilities, assessment of the electrical grid, and assessment and repair of municipal water and sewerage systems. The contract also will cover repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction or upgrade of hospitals, various ministry buildings, schools, airports, seaports and roads. link
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

not stupid... (4.00 / 2) (#146)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 08:47:51 PM EST

Stories like this serve to illustrate just how much of an illusion the "liberation" of Iraq really is.

This crap about cell phones is peripheral, but still not exactly a waste of time

Yeah, it is. The "New Liberated and Democratic" Government in Iraq should be worried about shit like this, not American Congressmen.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

I think you're wrong. (none / 0) (#183)
by jmzero on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 10:14:01 AM EST

Why don't we let the newfound government fix the water, sewer and hospitals too?  Because they won't be setup well enough to do that quickly.  

And while cellphones might be more of a luxury to you, they're a necessity for many people.  They're even more of a necessity if landline infrastructure was damaged (and may be slow to repair), or wasn't there to begin with.

I'd say it makes sense for the US to be preparing now to reconstruct/build anew a lot of this kind of infrastructure.  

Of course, the critter is also being silly - I think GSM is the better choice.  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Well, I actually agree... (4.00 / 2) (#82)
by SamBC on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:28:42 PM EST

at least one "northern and western" european country is actually helping america with this damnfool war - people seem to forget that. So the "they aren't helping with the war" argument is a little flat.

More to the point, they aren't helping with the war because they didn't believe a war should take place. This fiasco with CDMA is merely more evidence that the US has more interests in this war than defence or humanitarianism.

Well, we see the answer... (3.00 / 1) (#83)
by burbilog on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 03:32:04 PM EST

Well, we see the answer why people of Iraq are fighting everywhere, blitzkrieg failed and all-out partisan war looms ahead. U.S. are loosing information war and loosing quickly, 50% because of such messages in press. It doesn't make sense to surrender to people who will take and sell their oil, only 0.5% of population will be allowed to clean american workers shoes and other won't have anything except continuous "humanitarian aid" (read death to local production, you can't compete with something free).

Back to GSM vs CDMA topic, it's way better to use NMT. Screw the weight, design and "harmful radiation" reasons, these exist only in over-fed western consumers, but NMT requires way less base stations. Yes, it can't handle as much subscribers as GSM/CDMA, but most of Iraq population won't be able to afford mobiles for a long time, and base station price is the main concern. Note that while GSM rules in Moscow, St. Petersbourg and other big cities (I use GSM motorola T260) NMT covers whole Russia and that's the main concern of anyone of importance if he wants to be connected everywhere.
-- If the life is just a game of D&D then the DM really sucks.

It all makes sense now (none / 0) (#143)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 08:31:07 PM EST

People would rather die than accept CDMA. Yes. It's all so clear.

Look, the people are fighting because their country is being invaded. It's a natural response, all other facts be damned.

We can sit back and armchair quarterback their motivations but when it comes down to it, a person points a gun at your face, you point one right back no matter that the person had a reason for doing so.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
so is this the time to say... (3.66 / 3) (#90)
by RelliK on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:12:32 PM EST

"I told you so" to all those "liberation" proponents? See also this post.
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
If you want to understand EVERYTHING about the war (3.42 / 7) (#92)
by Sloppy on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 04:15:04 PM EST

then three words will enlightenment you: "Follow the money."
"RSA, 2048, seeks sexy young entropic lover, for several clock cycles of prime passion..."
This is just plain absurd... (4.83 / 6) (#126)
by Lethyos on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:33:37 PM EST

As if the Iraqi people were not burried in oppression, now we're going to mire them up in US patent and IP nonsense. By the time we're through, the people will never have a foothold to get any technological endeavor off the ground. They'll be forever burried by our stupid laws. Of course, bad patent & IP laws are better than being murdered by your government, it's still kind of a sinister trade. The Iraqi people have no idea what we may be getting them into -- until they try to make any significant advances in the global technology industry.

earth, my body; water, my blood; air, my breath; fire, my spirit
"Your tax money" (3.66 / 3) (#127)
by synx on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 06:45:20 PM EST

... is not paying for any rebuilding in Iraq.

The Administration said that Iraq must pay for their own rebuilding by selling oil.

Besides which, many countries will be contributing to the rebuilding effort. Its not an "Americans are going to go it alone" type of deal.

IOW (5.00 / 2) (#130)
by enterfornone on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:19:37 PM EST

Iraq will be paying for American goods and services with their oil.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
some confusion to that (4.00 / 2) (#140)
by G0dSpiral on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:46:00 PM EST

There's definitely a lot of mixed messages designed to get everyone to hear what they want.

But the way it will play is:

US taxpayer paid corporate-welfare construction projects should and will go to US firms.

Iraqi taxpayer/oil paid services should go to competitive bidders.

The plan for shadow ministers (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-20-day-after-cover_x.htm) shouldn't play, because it will involve a permanent US police presence to keep the shadow ministers from being shot.

The US has no right to Iraqi wealth.

Only Satanists accepted this war
[ Parent ]

Nonetheless (none / 0) (#192)
by subversion on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:30:32 PM EST

My tax money is paying for them to be removed from under the heel of a horrible dictator (yeah, Saddam is a Bad Man), and my pocket money will be paying for their reconstruction by buying their oil.

Seems fair enough - we do the reconstruction, we make the choices.  (Yes, Britain should get a big voice, seeing as they're in this with us).

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

what?? (none / 0) (#201)
by chalito on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 05:12:17 PM EST

My tax money is paying for them to be removed from under the heel of a horrible dictator (yeah, Saddam is a Bad Man)

yes, but nobody asked you to. You can't go around doing things because YOU want to do them, then charge people for it.

and my pocket money will be paying for their reconstruction by buying their oil.

what? your money is going to buy oil. They get money, you get oil. End of transaction. The problem is, now their country has been bombed to ashes, so they have to spend on rebuilding the money they could have used for other things, like developping an industry or whatever they see fit to do with THEIR money.

Seems fair enough - we do the reconstruction

of course, after all it was you who did the bulldozing.

we make the choices.

No. It's THEIR country, not yours. Please go grab a dictionary and look up "sovereignty"
chalito
[ Parent ]

Normally (none / 0) (#203)
by subversion on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 05:29:07 PM EST

I wouldn't do something like this, but you've managed to rehash the same tired arguments, so...

No. It's THEIR country, not yours.

Not for long, it isn't.

(Take it with a grain of salt, will ya?)

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]

from the people who promote democracy (none / 0) (#204)
by chalito on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 06:01:54 PM EST

that's very democratic of you

chalito
[ Parent ]
hey, that's an average USKAian (none / 0) (#228)
by vivelame on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 08:39:40 AM EST

for you!

"democracy for us, and fuck the rest. Those sand-monkeys should be glad we bomb them and let them buy our goods after that!"

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Who will be the middleman? (none / 0) (#232)
by Raindoll on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 05:55:55 PM EST

[i]The Administration said that Iraq must pay for their own rebuilding by selling oil.[/i] And which company do you think that USAID will appoint to be the middleman in all of this? If bidding is not open to [i]all[/i] international companies, or if written agreements between Iraqi and non-US foreign oil companies are broken, then the US government would have prooven that the war would be for the conquest of oil. That would be sinking to Saddam's level.

[ Parent ]
What many of you may have missed (4.83 / 6) (#134)
by G0dSpiral on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:23:11 PM EST

A US Congresscritter is proposing regulations for what we're told is to be a liberated country, and not a colony.

If Puerto Rico wanted its own cell or TV standards, it probably could.

And, btw, Iraq already has GSM network (however small), and all of its surrounding neighbours are also on GSM

Only Satanists accepted this war

Regulations? (4.00 / 2) (#145)
by khym on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 08:44:54 PM EST

So far as I understand things, the U.S. government is spending its money to rebuild Iraqi infrastructures, and a congress-critter is trying to steer spending towards his constituants. Of course, if you attack a country to liberate it, and then help it to rebuild, you should rebuild in a way that's best for the country being rebuilt, but pork-barrel politics like this isn't the same as establishing regulatory laws.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
[ Parent ]
CDMA only investment = CDMA only Iraq (4.50 / 2) (#147)
by G0dSpiral on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 09:16:17 PM EST

You're right that its not quite the same as officially making an Iraqi law mandating Iraq use only CDMA technology, but given that splitting investment accross dual standards is not going to be a priority for the iraqi people, the only possible basis that this pork could pass is that it would accompany a US commitment to displace the GSM infrastructure.  It implies full control of the decision chain.

Plus once you mandate CDMA only technology in USAID projects, then only CDMA licensed contractors can bid, which is Qualcom and ... noone?

Only Satanists accepted this war
[ Parent ]

Iraqi money (5.00 / 1) (#188)
by dachshund on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 12:13:32 PM EST

So far as I understand things, the U.S. government is spending its money to rebuild Iraqi infrastructures

Presuming, of course, that we are talking about U.S. money. From what I've heard, much of the rebuilding cash is supposed to come from Iraqi oil revenues, which makes this a little different from plain old-fashioned pork-barrel politics.

[ Parent ]

accually you know.... (none / 0) (#196)
by bluemonkie24 on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 02:04:41 PM EST

...it is sort of shitie that Ive thought of this but..lets really look at how this can all go down.

Congress give $90b for rebuilding...now, if say $45b go to rebuilding IRaq...now if Us companies get 20-30b of that...then isnt that basically the same as the government giving us companies money to do what the government wants them to? And with that new cash that is totally nw business...they "pay"tax and workers...new equipment is bought from other US companies...now this 20-30b that was for rebuilding Iraq has turned into a economic situlation package...with money going from the gov't, through the economy, and back to the gov't...the economy gets a boost, Saddam is out, iraq is rebuilt, and US interests and in the middle east in a American Favored country....Combine this with with the fact that more money will be needed...which is comming from other countries (even thoughs not fighting the war, Canada giving 100mil in aid to feed them) plus money from the oil that Iraq has...that someone has to buy (much going to america) and the price will drop because of a stamble area now exists and more oil can be pumped out of iraq...so they will have to sell more oil at 15-20$/b then the 20-30 that oil is now....so....after all is said and down....if things work out, or work this way...Iraq has a new pro-america gov't...america has kicked up their economy, is getting lots ofcheap oil to keep things moving....and most of those billions the gov't spent come back to the gov't.

Plus lets not forget that all thoughs weapons need to be replaced, either with the smae thing or something new...so there is more money and jobs that keep going for a few more years.

War s get to stimulate a floundering economy....and I hope to high hell that none of thi had to do with going to war....and that no one even thought that this was a good idea for a war.

[ Parent ]

Yep, that's a good one (none / 0) (#245)
by tetrode on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:12:46 AM EST

War is good for you, you'll stimulate the economy that way. Except for some poor chaps that got killed.

Mark
________ The world has respect for US for two main reasons: you are patriotic, you invented rock'n'roll (mlapanadras)
[ Parent ]

This is absurd... (3.40 / 5) (#141)
by rainbow child on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 07:52:31 PM EST

And quite short sighted... Now less seriously : As a french, I wholeheartedly give the right to the US to rebuild Iraq and chose CDMA... Your campaign will cost you heavily and you have a moral obligation to rebuild this country in the face of the world's population opinion.

So you need the oil there, fore some years, if you want to get paid. It is absolutely logical. Get it also...

So rebuild Iraq, make friends there if you can... It is clear on every tv image that even if they were terrorised by Saddam Hussein, they are not keen on meeting you on their soil either, brothers... ;-)

So be cautious, because, when this totalitarian regime will be out, you will severely lack arguments in front of any type of just (Iraq is their home) Iraqian resistance or internal troubles. And the world will be weighing your competencies in assuming such a huge task.

Should appeasement not be the case, you will have a choice between a prolonged war, or going home and ask the help of the UN, who will surely put the country into the hands of a friendly arab regime there to calm everything down.

Either way I do not believe (but I may be wrong) that the cash you have invested into this "illegal" (from the point of view of international laws) war will be recovered. Therefore, there is a certain risk that the financial markets will decide against the dollar, and your country will face some kind of economical collapse. Europe and Japan will surely follow into this crisis.

Now, do you think that this will give a good image of western democracies throughout the world ?

When I see such statement (CDMA vs GMS) based on such a short term thinking in the mouth of a (ignorant ?) politician, when the long term stability of the world is at stake, I just have to recognize that the US is in search for his past great leaders (Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson , the two Roosevelts, to name a few)...

And it is really sad to see this, when you are quite educated, from this side of the Atlantic. Peace

careful about TV (4.00 / 1) (#160)
by Chep on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:25:15 AM EST

You said you were French; you also say that on "every tv image" the iraqis don't show a very friendly face to the Yanks.

Well, if "every tv image" you've seen comes only from French media, beware (of course you know this). These are the guys who translated a Marine Commander's words "they're anxious to get going" into "they start to become anxious."...

aaah, well, "the road is ahead, but the climb is steep".

--

Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.
Thucydide II, 37


[ Parent ]

short try... (none / 0) (#169)
by rainbow child on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 03:39:39 AM EST

ah yesss...
I am soooo retarded, that I do not watch BBC or CNN...
And by the way, I am just using internet to post in kuro5hin. I could have also mentionned a lot of content on the web, and simple things such as reading yahoo news.

Perhaps you are watching "only" american medias. But in France, with a small amount of money per month, you can acquire multiple channels on your tv.

And a lot of ppl do that
You were not aware of this ?
oooooh I am sooo sorry to have noticed that you did not have a single clue about how things are working outside of America.

so long chap,

rb

[ Parent ]

c'mon, chap, do a little whois (none / 0) (#171)
by Chep on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 04:22:36 AM EST

I did not allege you were looking only at the "hertzian" channels; but the way you worded your original article, it was a possibility.

Of course there are huge sat & cable offerings here, let alone Internet sources (but you mentioned tv, didn't you? ).

No need to react that aggresively; I was just anxious to find an excuse to place this bit of misreporting from TF1 (as if it was the first...).

... and don't assume I'm in the USA. S'teplaît.

--

Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.
Thucydide II, 37


[ Parent ]

c'mon, stop dreaming (none / 0) (#173)
by rainbow child on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 04:58:31 AM EST

So don't assume I am a TF1 watcher, only just because it is a "possibility"
;-) right ? rb

[ Parent ]
'kay (none / 0) (#177)
by Chep on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 06:12:19 AM EST

hence my original "(of course you know this)" tangent... :-)

--

Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.
Thucydide II, 37


[ Parent ]

Why should the Iraqis benefit? (2.00 / 4) (#162)
by mayor on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:48:08 AM EST

The spoils of war belong to the winners, and since the war was financed by the US taxpayers we are the ones who should benefit, not the Iraqis.

If the Iraqis (or any others) want the loot, they should have won the war. Did they invest in weapons of mass distraction, in atomic bombs, etc,? Apparently not; they fault.

We pay a lot of dollars to the US government here through various forms of taxation, and at many levels -- perhaps as much as 50% of our income. A good porting of taxes go straight to the military, instead of going to our personal Swiss bank accounts, or to night clubs in Europe. It is our hard-earned money, our hard-worked hours; in effect, it (literally) is a portion of our life.

If the Iraqis were so incompetent to protect their wealth, it is not too surprising that others more temperate countries would show and to grab it.

It is of little differense to the common Iraqi people who owns the oil. Most of them did not own any oil during Saddam, and (most likely) they will not own any oil after the war either. ( And by the way, why did the Iraqis were coaxed to defend their motherland? It makes not sense to protect your country if you will not yourself directly benefit!

Iraqis will probably get the same deal from Americans as they got from Saddam. They might actually gain more from Americans if our next stop is Iran and we want to win entice the citizens of Irans.

So, unless King Georgy screws up, we stand to benefit and the Iraqis will soon forget about dead relatives (they were only a few thousand, at most) when they later discover that we are willing to trade, do business, and we actually have money. What is more important, putting food on the table or remain angry about a relative who is long gone?

[ Parent ]

my brother (4.66 / 3) (#172)
by rainbow child on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 04:52:00 AM EST

You are truly a "know-nothing".
Have you ever been to countries where you have a Bass party (Iraq or Syria) ?

From what I read, I can only believe that you are even not misinformed but "out-informed".

The supporters of the soon-to-be-old regime are more than a mere thousands.
Because everyone in such a country can generate a better monthly income in writing spy or police reports for the government.
So the support of the regime was really a good supplementary source of revenue
. To that you can add that every family had one or several persons involved in the support of this regime (police, army, etc.). Because this was a simple insurance system for everyone to be easily protected from oppression.
So you can count them as millions. It is known that Bass parties buy their support.
Of course ppl are deterred from opposing such regime, but they were also financially enticed to support it.

Secondly, you show these guys as if they were reasoning like you. A basic US citizen who only believes in personal interest, and can forget about pride wherever he can make money.
After having killed children and women there by two wars and an embargo, it is really self-evident that even if everyone was just obeying to Saddam, they do not truly like occidentals government and armies either.
And I am not even speaking of the islamic believers in the south of Iraq.

Thirdly, I am truly ashamed of your lack of respect of these people there. You underestimate the sense of the sacred these people have. Another proof that you do not know them, even on the surface.

Learn from books, think.

rb

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

Abraham Lincoln "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855).

[ Parent ]

I thought... (4.50 / 2) (#176)
by Kuranes on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 05:36:25 AM EST

...the US was there to liberate the Iraqis, not for taking the spoils of war?

Here you can see again that in future, the Iraqi people will have but one freedom: Confirm the decisions of the US-controlled military government.

By the way, it's called mass destruction.


Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
Groupe Speciale Mobile (4.50 / 2) (#144)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 08:37:01 PM EST

In reference to that portion of this article, it's interesting to note that GSM once stood for Groupe Speciale Mobile, as referenced on the GSM site. I can't see where they changed their name, maybe it's a recent change. All I know is that one of the first Google hits that I got when I searched for "Groupe Speciale Mobile" was the index page for the GSM site.

-Soc
I drank what?


French acronyms in telecoms? Surely not! (5.00 / 2) (#149)
by it certainly is on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 09:30:46 PM EST

The CCITT should stamp that out.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

CDMA all the way! (2.16 / 6) (#153)
by Legato Bluesummers on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:24:27 PM EST

Why, you ask?

Because it benefits us! We'd only be moderately screwing the Iraqis over, but it would  bring a goodly amount of money to our telcos, which dearly need it.
--And many people have ended up looking very stupid, or dead, or both.

ha (5.00 / 4) (#155)
by phlux on Thu Apr 03, 2003 at 10:51:02 PM EST

You dont know much about the telcos then do you - they "need money" the same way the oil industry needs money.

The telcos have been gouging consumers and using unethical business practices since their inception - their type of "fuck the consumer for the benefit of our bottom line" is the last thing that we need to replicate in iraq or anywhere else.

What we really need is some true vision in thinking about things and do the right damn thing for once.

I design networks for many thousands of nodes - and the last thing needed in large scale network design with really demanding requirements is the political bottom line bullshit that always happens. Obviously there needs to be serious consideration for what is cost effective - but usually - in the end - the network ends up being what it has to be, but in order to get there - there are many months talking about bullshit items and stupid fucking ideas because there are nothing but idiots trying to get their lame requirements into the spec just so they can look important and have some influence.

This trend needs to stop - leave the designing to the designers (who if they are any good will meet your requirements without killing your bank account).

Telco giants need to stop wasting their money on piece of shit spokesmodels and sports arenas and what not - and save a damn dollar and pass that savings onto the consumer.

have you driven around any city lately - have you noticed how many verizon and cingular brick and mortar stores they have? cingular is as bad as starbucks! do you think they can afford all that rent because they are hurting for money? hell no - they pay for all that shit because they charge you ten times what air time is actually costing and worth.

I designed a VOIP telco on a distributed system - and I can tell you that i was not hired to design it because there was going to be very little profit in that space.

Any and all communications costs that you are charged is a rape-rate - and we should drive corporations like sprint, mci and others out of business.

freedom of speech my ass.

(sorry but I design large networks and large telco networks - and I know that these systems are not designed to save the consumer shit - and it has brought me to an almost fanatical hatred of telco corporations and the people behind them. ok, must breathe now.)


[ Parent ]

There will be Cheap oil.... (2.00 / 4) (#157)
by bluemonkie24 on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 12:10:43 AM EST

..after the US is done...whats a good price? 10$/b. ? Bush can do the smae to the iraqis taht american government did to the natives.... Bush: We will give you some nice beeds for your oil Iraqis:No Bush: I got a really big gun here! Iraqs: Nice beeds!

Its things like this.... (4.50 / 4) (#159)
by bluemonkie24 on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 01:03:53 AM EST

...that cause people to question and really wonder about what the real reason for The US government is when they say they want to do something to help others.

I understand that Congressman Darrell Issa whats to make money and so do other american business and people, but really...the who point, as the US government put is to get ride of S.H, give the people freedom, and pertect American....now, how is forcing the iraq people to use a phone standard thats not used anywhere in the neighbouring countries going to give them much freedom? And for range, well Im sure that they will take the same route of installing towers there as they do in canada....line the main highways between cities and towns of good size, and as time goes on and more people use the service, expand the coverage area...

Sure maybe out in the middle of nowhere they wont have coverage, but niether does the sparce parts of Canada....its something you learn to deal with and except....

If you want to cover the either country in phone service...give them satellite phones....oh wait..wroks for the military...since they paied 60milliion for phones and service

We aren't going to provide any aid! (2.00 / 1) (#175)
by gr00vey on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 05:34:46 AM EST

If U.S. taxpayers are going to be gifting billions of dollars in technology and infrastructure to the Iraqi people we ought to make sure, to the greatest extent possible, that those expenditures also benefit the American people and the American economy," Except we are not. The DUbya admin already stated several times, the Iraqis won't need our aid, becasue they have all that oil, and we are going to sell it FOR them. Time to vote these assholes the fuck out of office, Kerry couldn't be more correct, we need regime change here at home.

A bit cheeky! (none / 0) (#180)
by DodgyGeezer on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 09:28:52 AM EST

It seems a bit cheeky, doesn't it? Invade a country through a war of choice rather than necessity, cause lots of damage in the process... and then have them pay for it all! Outstanding plan. And one wonders why there is so much resentment.

[ Parent ]
It's not that bad (4.00 / 1) (#207)
by enterfornone on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 10:13:41 PM EST

I mean nothing bad happened after we made Germany pay for WWI.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Not a valid comparison (none / 0) (#222)
by DodgyGeezer on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 12:41:31 PM EST

Neither world wars are a valid comparison.  Both of those wars were about coming the aid of allies in need.  Comparable with the 1991 Gulf War, not the current one.  In this war, the US is the aggressor, not the calvary coming to the rescue... so why should the Iraqis pay for it?  Aside: 90% of the previous Gulf War was paid for by other Arab allies.

[ Parent ]
and (none / 0) (#226)
by vivelame on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 08:34:26 AM EST

those 90% went in the pockets of the defense contractors, ie US companies.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Oh, yes it is. (none / 0) (#231)
by Raindoll on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 05:33:22 PM EST

After WWI, France and Britain made Germany pay a very large compensation to the victors. This strain on the already war-strained German economy led among othe things (though a series of bad choices by the leaders) to a currency devaluation of which its likeness has never been seen before or since. During this time, political extremists flourished as people were looking for an alternative that would them them out of economical misery. Both extreme right-wing and left-wing groups attempted to take control, but none of them succeeded until the Depression, when one managed to rise above the rest: the Nazi party.

[ Parent ]
No, it is not. (none / 0) (#234)
by DodgyGeezer on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 06:32:21 PM EST

Germany's unprovoked invasion of Belgium in 1914 made them the aggressor.  It is only right that they should have paid compensation.  As I said in my previous, in this current war, the US is the aggressor.  Hence they should pay, not the Iraqis.

[ Parent ]
Who cares? (none / 0) (#178)
by khakipuce on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 06:55:54 AM EST

The mobile market in Iraq will look like peanuts against the oil revenues. What really matters is that the Iraqis get to keep and profit from their natural resources.

If we try to rip them off (as we did last century ) we'll end up with another Sadam

The lesson here (none / 0) (#185)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 10:56:50 AM EST

Congressmen and Senators should represent their consituents-not their donors. How could this be done? Well all senators and congressmen should be given a susbtantially better salary than now, that salary should be available for life _and_ they should be forced to distribute all assets or place them into a blind trust upon assuming office--and all political donations should be strictly limited, airtime access improved and differential coverage of politicians by major monopoly media regulated.

Now, this _still_ wouldn't keep them from favoring relatives or taking out and out bribes-but it would be a start. The present system means that a lot of the time of US reps is speant "feathering their nests" before their eventual retirement. Under the system I'm proposing, once someone has assumed the office of a congressional representative, it would be assumed the rest of their life would be spent in public service of one type or another. The system might be extended to the upper ranks of the military also(i.e. no more of this of genderals retiring to work for defense contractors).

The average american retires with nothing but social security and something like $50,000 in savings. I'm not arguing that congresscritters should be impoverished-but congress shouldn't be a place where someone goes to get rich.



The right decision for the wrong reasons (2.00 / 4) (#202)
by CmdrTroll on Fri Apr 04, 2003 at 05:23:35 PM EST

Obviously, we should all abhor conflicts of interest amongst our elected officials. Attempting to hand this contract to his donors without debate, Congressman Issa has clearly stepped over an ethical line and should be publicly exposed for doing so.

However, the fact remains that CDMA is a technically superior standard in all areas (except for adoption rates). Like the alternative free UNIX OSes competing against the 800 pound gorilla, CDMA is a more efficient, clearer protocol that saves battery life and precious spectrum. Europe still reels from jumping the gun and adopting GSM many years ago, and they will be left behind in the dust as a result.

As a final note, my dear readers, please remember that "to the victor goes the spoils." Countries who chose not to join the coalition to liberate Iraq deserve none of the benefits accorded to those who did take the risk and lose countless young adults' lives in the struggle.

The key difference being (none / 0) (#218)
by it certainly is on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 09:35:49 AM EST

that Linux respects established standards and can interoperate with them. Not so with CDMA. The Iraqis will need to buy two phones, one for the impotent CDMA network forced upon them, and a GSM phone for every single country that surrounds Iraq and, in fact, most countries in the world. About the only place I can't get international roaming coverage is in parts of America. No wonder the yanks are so insular and scared -- they're locked out of the rest of the world's cell networks.

Furthermore, you're a victim of the same clouded thinking that the Congressman tried to trick people with. In other words, YHBT*. CDMA is not America. GSM is not France. Every phone equipment vendor in America today sells GSM kit. It's the international standard. By comparison, only a handful of American phone vendors sell CDMA kit, and every time they do sell it, they pay a license fee to a single vendor whom the Congressman is deeply familiar with. Why should the "spoils of war" go to only one American company when it could go to a multitude of American (or British -- we've had to put up with the yanks killing us left right and centre because they're retarded) companies?

*: this is assuming that you actually believe any of the words you've written, which you obviously don't. Is the fucktard who gave you a 5 some friend of yours, or is he just an idiot?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

"u.s. patent holders"? (none / 0) (#221)
by ksandstr on Sat Apr 05, 2003 at 11:35:35 AM EST

Maybe I've just missed something, but based on what pretext would the U.S. start enforcing its patent system in other nations? Granted, after the U.S. bombing has turned Baghdad into Dresdad, Iraq won't be much of a sovereign state anymore, though I still find this a bit... you know, questionable.

Oh I get it, they mean that the equipment would be manufactured in the U.S., where their patents are somewhat valider.

Heh. Another day in the "U.S. sucks, and here's why!" bucket. As if it weren't already obvious.

Fin.

Everyone is arguing (5.00 / 1) (#227)
by werner on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 08:37:19 AM EST

about the relative merits of GSM vs CDMA technology. GSM is the world standard, CDMA may well be more suited to Iraq, with its longer range.

This is not the point. Issa does not present CDMA as a superior technology, rather he presents it as an American technology. As far as he is concerned, CDMA's chief merit is that it is not French. This is hardly a mature or responsible proposal to put to a national government. Truly, this is schoolyard reasoning.

Shouldn't this decision be made on the basis of the technology, not racism?

What happened to the free marketplace? (none / 0) (#233)
by Raindoll on Sun Apr 06, 2003 at 06:14:14 PM EST

GSM/CDMA/3G and US/Europe issues aside, the proposal is for a monopoly over cell phone traffic in post-war Iraq, and for shutting down the GSM network that already exists there.

If the intention is to [i]liberate[/i] Iraq, then why shouldn't the cell phone market be liberated as well? I say: allow [i]all[/i] cell phone companies to build their own networks using their own money and compete in a free market place. Then we will see which technology the Iraqi people will choose.

Of course, we all know that is not going to happen.

Its a Shiet because the US invation is no finished (none / 0) (#239)
by piraxter on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 03:45:41 PM EST


Por que Linux es tuyo, aunque no lo compres.
Congressman with business ties to Qualcomm pushes for CDMA in Iraq | 245 comments (229 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!