Steven, the thing about GSM and/or TDMA or any non-CDMA systems is that they are inherently more costly to operate because they can't accommodate as many conversations or transmissions on a single channel as CDMA. So, let AT&T and the others keep pushing their inferior sytems, because sooner or later they will operate at a cost disadvantage. What's more, there's a performance factor here as well - fewer dropped calls, particularly when data are being transmitted. So let them mess around as much as they want because ultimately they are going to lose out to CDMA.
The posture taken by AT&T illustrates why it is so difficult for a company to reinvent itself and change its culture. Back in the old days, up to the 1970's, when we had essentially one phone company, the company resisted to the end any technological improvements, as long as the old stuff could still provide adequate POTS (plain old telephone service) to subscribers. Digital wired technology was sufficiently developed in the early 1970's to allow a complete changeover. Yet, here in upstate New York, in a region served by Bell Atlantic (formerly New York Telephone) and clearly by a company that thrives on doing the same old things the same old ways, our local exchange did not get a digital switch until about 1989! Yes, 1989! I can just hear all these old executives at Ma Bell talking about how they can get a few more years use out of their old fashioned cellular stuff, and won't that keep costs down! Besides providing lousy service, the worst thing is that they have such a good credit rating they can borrow cheaper than anyone else. |
