Congressman defends bill to require CDMA in Iraq
jamesr at best.com
Thu Apr 10 13:07:57 PDT 2003
From: Michael Shields [mailto:shields at msrl.com]
> It's not clear to me that the CDMA->CDMA2000 transition would
> really be much less expensive than the GSM->CDMA2000 or
> GSM->W-CDMA transitions.
I don't disagree at all. All the upgrade paths will probably be equally
expensive because they all essentially require a rebuild of the
infrastructure for all intents and purposes.
I don't have a horse in this race because, quite frankly, I have zero
interest in it. I do think the case for W-CDMA is totally contrived and
more a case of "Not Invented Here" on the part of the Europeans (who didn't
want to admit that CDMA was a better technology in the first place). They
would probably be better off just using CDMA2000/3G and calling it a day.
The European telecom industry doesn't like Qualcomm, but over time they have
had to grudgingly admit that Qualcomm had it right and the relationship is
> Well, this is a matter of opinion. I am extremely
> unimpressed with current CDMA phones, especially since
> Motorola's new models are actually larger and heavier than
> the previous generation (V8160). My new Ericsson T600
> (800/1800/1900 GSM) is far superior.
*Shrug*. Motorola phones have generally sucked for a long time. My
Ericsson GSM phones were always better than my Motorola GSM phones. Both
the Europeans and Japanese know how to make better phones than Motorola in
> I don't agree with you, but for the sake of argument let's
> say regional standardization is enough. Iraq is about the
> size of California, and GSM is used by all of its neighbors.
> Do you think that is a large enough region?
How long will all of its neighbors be using GSM? If Europe, North America,
and parts of Asia migrate to CDMA in the relative short-term, I'm not sure
that this has advantages other than in the short-term. By the time the
infrastructure actually gets built, important sections of the world will be
well on their way to a CDMA conversion. This is what I'm concerned about.
If you are going to build a new network from scratch, CDMA2000 or W-CDMA
would be the smart choices. Of those, CDMA2000 is probably the better bet
at this point in time. I just don't think it is a particularly wise idea to
invest in an inferior technology merely for the sake of being backwardly
compatible with a technology that nobody in the first-world plans on
deploying any more. Five years ago GSM would have been a good choice for
building a new network, but not today.
jamesr at best.com
More information about the FoRK