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 (Op-Ed)

By cce
Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 11:27:28 AM EST

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

 


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
Advertise here! 100 character titles, 255 characters of text, only $0.50 per thousand.
Kuro5hin now offers ad space on story pages. These ads feature more text and a lower price, and the rotation is specially managed to ensure that your ad will run for at least a week. Express yourself, and be seen more!
comments (49)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
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the US Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense use American CDMA technology instead of the "outdated French standard" GSM (which he called "Groupe Speciale Mobile") in "any such contract for the provision of commercial mobile wireless communication service."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 Servers
o Managed Clusters
o Virtual Hosting


Collocated UNIX Server
$65/Month
o Root on your own FreeBSD or Linux server
o Very fast, triple-homed network
o NO hardware or setup fees, unlimited support
Testimonials from K5 Users

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Related Links
o H.R. 1441
o US Agency for International Development
o Department of Defense
o CDMA
o GSM
o website
o Parlez-vous 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-enabled vehicle locator
o CDMA technology
o More on Politics
o Also by cce


View: Display: Sort:
Congressman with business ties to Qualcomm pushes for CDMA in Iraq | 245 comments (229 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Its a Shiet because the US invation is no finished (none / 0) (#239)
by piraxter on Mon Apr 7th, 2003 at 03:45:41 PM EST



What happened to the free marketplace? (none / 0) (#233)
by Raindoll on Sun Apr 6th, 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.

Everyone is arguing (5.00 / 1) (#227)
by werner on Sun Apr 6th, 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?

"u.s. patent holders"? (none / 0) (#221)
by ksandstr on Sat Apr 5th, 2003 at 11:35:35 AM EST
(ksandstr&at;iki.fi) http://www.iki.fi/~ksandstr/

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.
--
Gegen kommunismus und bolschewismus und terrorismus, jawohl!

The right decision for the wrong reasons (2.00 / 4) (#202)
by CmdrTroll on Fri Apr 4th, 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 lesson here (none / 0) (#185)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 4th, 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.





Who cares? (none / 0) (#178)
by khakipuce on Fri Apr 4th, 2003 at 06:55:54 AM EST
http://www.sys-dyn.net

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


Lest the engineer be hoist by his own petard (Hamlet Act 3)
We aren't going to provide any aid! (2.00 / 1) (#175)
by gr00vey on Fri Apr 4th, 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.

Its things like this.... (4.50 / 4) (#159)
by bluemonkie24 on Fri Apr 4th, 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

There will be Cheap oil.... (2.00 / 4) (#157)
by bluemonkie24 on Fri Apr 4th, 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!

CDMA all the way! (2.16 / 6) (#153)
by Legato Bluesummers on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 10:24:27 PM EST
(spikehayplato@charter.net minus dead greek)

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 silly, or dead, or both
Groupe Speciale Mobile (4.50 / 2) (#144)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Apr 3rd, 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?
This is absurd... (3.40 / 5) (#141)
by rainbow child on Thu Apr 3rd, 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

What many of you may have missed (4.83 / 6) (#134)
by G0dSpiral on Thu Apr 3rd, 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

"Your tax money" (3.66 / 3) (#127)
by synx on Thu Apr 3rd, 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.

This is just plain absurd... (4.83 / 6) (#126)
by Lethyos on Thu Apr 3rd, 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
If you want to understand EVERYTHING about the war (3.42 / 7) (#92)
by Sloppy on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 04:15:04 PM EST

then three words will enlightenment you: "Follow the money."
---
"We have to share the world's resources and... Hey, you idiots! Get away from my car!"
so is this the time to say... (3.66 / 3) (#90)
by RelliK on Thu Apr 3rd, 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.
Well, we see the answer... (3.00 / 1) (#83)
by burbilog on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 03:32:04 PM EST
http://www.gunlab.com.ru

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.
Well, I actually agree... (4.00 / 2) (#82)
by SamBC on Thu Apr 3rd, 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.

that's nice... (2.83 / 6) (#81)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 03:23:16 PM EST
(dpspmacct @ hotmail . com)

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...



We bomb for peace on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. We bring democracy by bypassing the UN voting process on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays...- Rogerborg
This war is about... (4.50 / 8) (#79)
by opendna on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 02:51:38 PM EST

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


"...but that's above my pay grade."
Vultures (1.07 / 13) (#76)
by n8f8 on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 02:34:46 PM EST
(tlowing@nospam.lowing.org) http://www.Lowing.org

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)
Force them use NTSC, too... (4.23 / 17) (#70)
by rmn on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 02:26:20 PM EST
http://dvd-hq.info

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
~~~


I have no problem with this (1.52 / 17) (#61)
by popolo ungavunga on Thu Apr 3rd, 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!

europe won't support the us, so why is this odd? (1.90 / 11) (#58)
by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 3rd, 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
C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
SCANDAL! Oh wait...it's just hack journalism (2.70 / 10) (#56)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 01:25:06 PM EST
(thelizman1221.yahoo@com) http://www.geocities.com/thelizman1221

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...


--
You only give "facts" (and boring ones at that). How is that "the truth"? - gdanjo epitomizing the microwave mentality.
Two words (4.75 / 4) (#51)
by jabber on Thu Apr 3rd, 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"
Excellent! (3.80 / 5) (#46)
by it certainly is on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 01:10:02 PM EST
http://www.kyz.uklinux.net/

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.
Quickly erecting a CDMA network is good (2.55 / 9) (#38)
by gte910h on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 12:34:17 PM EST
(MikeInBaggyPants@aim.screen.name.com)

  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).

Oh I get it (3.00 / 5) (#37)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Apr 3rd, 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?

Well I hope Bush's troops are making damn... (4.50 / 4) (#36)
by the on Thu Apr 3rd, 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!

--
Mr Leopold Bloom ate with relish the inner organs of beasts and fowls. - Ulysses, James Joyce
So? (3.00 / 6) (#31)
by Verve on Thu Apr 3rd, 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!

sounds like my diary (1.75 / 4) (#28)
by Burning Straw Man on Thu Apr 3rd, 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...
From a technical viewpoint (3.50 / 8) (#25)
by BushidoCoder on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 10:56:42 AM EST
(my_kuro5hin_username@hotmail.com)

... 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

Microwave radiation (3.00 / 3) (#21)
by RaveWar on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 10:06:53 AM EST
http://www.emergent-rly.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

With specially dense coverage for those people who missed out on their depleted uranium cancerdusting

The BBC is reporting (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by jubal3 on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 09:31:25 AM EST
(shadowdude23@yahoo.com)

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*** Iraqwar.ru is a hoax
Another sickening example (4.00 / 7) (#9)
by werner on Thu Apr 3rd, 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?

do neither (3.28 / 7) (#4)
by caridon20 on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 03:06:21 AM EST
(lynxx at computersociety at lth, sweden)

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
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Hmm (3.00 / 5) (#3)
by strlen on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 03:05:58 AM EST
(strlen)

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).


--
Britney Spears: vast silicone mounds of right wing conspiracy
CDMA may be better tech for Iraq... (3.88 / 9) (#2)
by goonie on Thu Apr 3rd, 2003 at 02:59:45 AM EST
(r g m e r k a t m i r a d o t n e t) http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~rgmerk

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.

Congressman with business ties to Qualcomm pushes for CDMA in Iraq | 245 comments (229 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
View: Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest � 2000 - 2002 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.
Registered at the post office as: Fried Pigs and Cheese

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