Congressman defends bill to require CDMA in Iraq
jm at jmason.org
Wed Apr 9 17:48:49 PDT 2003
James Rogers said:
> Speaking of GSM itself, I think the "standardization" is oversold, never
> mind that Europe is slowly making the move to CDMA technologies.
Eh? Are they? Do you mean 3G?
> I've owned
> GSM phones for many years. The only thing nice about them was the removable
> GSM chip, but just about everything else about them pretty much sucked.
Can't comment, never owned a CDMA phone to compare....
> no longer have a GSM phone because I can still roam the bloody continent and
> I get better service to boot using other protocols. Quite frankly, I don't
> think the world at large has a huge need for global telecom standardization;
> telecom only really needs to be standardized regionally. CDMA is more than
> sufficiently "standard" to be a reasonable solution.
Believe me, it's been nice to roam around Europe, SE Asia and Australia,
sending the occasional SMS with my trusty GSM phone. Standardization of
mobile technologies *is* nice.
Of course, the phone is now living switched-off in a drawer because CDMA
rulez over here in the US.
> So yes, the standardization of GSM is worth about a nickel to the average
> Iraqi. The cost savings of having a modern CDMA system as opposed to a
> decrepit GSM system will be significant over the long run. In five years
> when the rest of the world is using CDMA-based systems, I doubt the Iraqis
> will be particularly happy that they have an almost new TDMA system that
> they just paid for. If you are going to do it, at least do it right. When
> putting in new infrastructure it is generally a better idea to standardize
> on what the standard will be tomorrow (CDMA) rather than what the standard
> was yesterday (TDMA/GSM).
Alternatively, when rebuilding a shattered infrastructure, with little
cash, it might be worth using whatever you can afford.
More information about the FoRK