From: America's Network Magazine- Letters to the Editors
A U.S.-Centric 3G
I read Alan Pearce?s ?World War 3(G)? [Last Call, Feb. 15] with interest. The view that cdma2000 should be the new world standard struck me as so U.S.-centered.
As an international executive, I feel lost in the U.S. because I am without communications; my mobile does not work there. In the rest of the world (almost), my GSM phone works with global roaming. People can call my Australian number and the call reaches me, even if I am in Sweden, Poland or the UK.
None of my business cards from U.S. executives have a mobile phone number listed. All of my European, Asian, Australian and other non-American business colleagues do.
This reflects a sea of difference between mobile cultures in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
The article states that cdma2000 is backward-compatible to IS-95 (CDMA). What use is that to 99.9% of the world?s population? If a new worldwide digital standard should be backward-compatible with anything, it should be backward-compatible with GSM, because that?s what the majority of the world uses.
Your magazine is called America?s Network, so I guess you should represent the American interest. It is in the ordinary American?s interest to be part of a mobile standard that is worldwide. And it already exists: It is GSM. The main drawback with GSM is the lack of data comms (or low capacity). Otherwise, it works okay.
The U.S. put together Iridium to get global coverage. Europe pushed GSM. Look at the speed of subscriber uptake for Iridium; it falls far short of the uptake for GSM in any country for any operator anywhere in the world. And Iridium is sold worldwide!
W-CDMA is a totally new standard. It is mainly pushed by the suppliers. It would be great for them to get a new standard, because it means global refurbishment with new equipment. As to the technical merit of W-CDMA, I have not studied it and don?t have an opinion.
In telephony, there has been a tendency for the U.S. to adopt one set of standards versus the rest of the world. Examples: Europe and Asia have E1, while the U.S. has T1; U.S. has AMPS, while Europe and Asia have GSM; U.S. has a very fragmented network of operators, while Europe and Asia have a small number of operators with a great deal of transparency from the user?s viewpoint.
Nils Oman
CEO
Radio Design Pty Ltd.
Melbourne, Australia |
