GSM vs CDMA2000 in Iraq.
zdnet.com.au
montanaforum.com
< “We don’t understand why MCI would be awarded this business given its status as having committed the largest corporate fraud in history,” said AT&T Corp. spokesman Jim McGann. “There are many qualified, financially stable companies that could have been awarded that business, including us.”
“I was curious about it, because the last time I looked, MCI’s never built out a wireless network,” said Len Lauer, head of Sprint Corp.’s wireless division.
The contract in Iraq is part of a short-term communications plan costing the Defense Department about $45 million, said Lt. Col. Ken McClellan.
The Pentagon also plans to have Motorola Corp. establish radio communications for security forces in Baghdad, a deal worth $10 million to $25 million depending on the options exercised, said McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. The contract with WorldCom – which plans to adopt the name of its MCI long distance unit when it emerges from bankruptcy – has prompted grumbling in the telecommunications industry from people who say it was not put up for bids.>
e-insite.net
<Industry body, the GSM Association, welcomed the choice of GSM technology after an attempt was made earlier this year by a U.S. Congressman to ensure that America's CDMA technology was deployed in Iraq.
"We are very pleased by this news, as we have been working with the U.S. government and MCI to provide GSM, and ensure that Iraq had the right technology for its people, compatible with the rest of the region and the world," said Rob Conway, MCI's CEO.>
This is NOT to benefit Iraqis. It's money for mates. The reasons given for selecting GSM are true, but trivial.
Coverage using GSM is much more limited than using CDMA. Data handling is much better and cheaper using CDMA instead of GPRS [a GSM upgrade]. The technology pathway to the future is CDMA2000.
Mqurice |
