Wireless bidding in Iraq excludes most all but US Cos.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Aug 5, 2003.

  1. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #1
    Link

    First they shut down the Bahrain service now they more or less exclude the majority of Arab Wireless operators as well as many European ones. They are also requiring cdma compatability although 70% of the world uses GSM. This is a pretty important issue and one that should involve the Iraqis and serve their best interests. Colonization anyone?
     
  2. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #2
    i'd seen other stories that said GSM would be used. not sure this story confirms the CDMA use, only that some are pushing for it (of course).

    still, the rule about a gov't owning a certain amounts seems deliberately punative. and would seem arbitrary if its intent weren't so transparent.
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    From the article, "The rules...ban governments from "directly or indirectly own(ing) more than 5% of any single bidding company or single company in consortia".

    After reading further, about the amount of government ownership in the various telecoms, the questions arise: Why should foreign governments get the contracts? Why don't these various governments get out of private-enterprise business? Why let foreign governments do this "colonizing", instead of private companies?

    Now, it seems to me that since neighboring countries use the GSM technology, GSM is the only way to go.

    'Rat
     
  4. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #4
    the flipside i'd ask is: who can best provide iraq w/ service?
     
  5. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #5
    Well since I work for Verizon, and we use CDMA, I have to say that it is a superior network at this time than GSM. We have fewer dropped calls, and much much more coverage in the US. I know that is not the case in Europe.

    Most of the companies in Europe though are state owned. So why reward the countries that did not support us in the war with monetary contracts that reward those countries.

    This isn't colonization, it is just business. And good business if you ask me.
     
  6. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #6
    i bought a GSM phone because i travel abroad, even though i (obviously) live in the states. having a single handset that works just about everywhere is important to me and i firmly believe the GSM option should be available to iraqis.

    here's my crazy suggestion: offer both and let the market decide.

    i believe being punative is bad business. additionally, if this war really was "for the iraqis," why not allow a bidding process to get the best solution for the iraqis?
     
  7. Ugg
    thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    It is true that many EU telcos are partly owned by their respective governments. While USPS continues to be a government monopoly in the US, much of Europe has privatized their postal service. They have allowed the market to decide unlike the US. It serves no point to point the "government owned: finger. It seems pretty darned funny that the US has welcomed with open arms T-Mobile (Germany), Orange (France) and Vodafone (UK) into US markets they are essentially banning them from Iraq. Where is the logic in this? They're good enough to sell their services in the US but not in Iraq?

    GSM continues to get the best overall rating when compared to cdma.

    Also, installing two systems in tandem will only make the system more expensive for the Iraqis. By the way, who is paying for this? If the US is then shouldn't they be doing what is best for Iraq, not for the US?
     
  8. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #8
    the bahrain system was up and running, at least in part, for only $5 million. before the US made them take it down. sounds like sour grapes to me.
     
  9. Ugg
    thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    That and the fact that I'm sure the US wants to be able to tap into the system at will. Nothing like ruling a country with no legal system in place, they can just make up the rules as they go and spy on whomever, whenever and however they want.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #10
    maybe the WH felt it wasn't beneficial for reporters' cellphones to suddenly start working.
     
  11. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #11
    I don't know this, so I am asking. Are they saying it has to be CDMA? Cingular is GSM, T-Mobile is GSM, At&T, is GSM I think. I am almost sure that they are not CDMA.

    I know that Verizon is CDMA. So are they saying that the network has to be CDMA?
     
  12. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #12
    Wait a sec. They are not banning GSM, they are only saying that they don't want Government ran cell companies coming into Iraq. As I have said, there are plenty of US carriers that use GSM.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #13
    right. CDMA was mentioned because some are suggesting. i strongly suspect it's those whose only chance at making $$ off the deal is by setting up a CDMA system.

    assuming the system will be GSM, i still don't think it makes sense to limit the bidding to US companies. again, it's punative to other countries and not necessarily the best deal for the iraqis.
     
  14. Ugg
    thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    Yes, there are, but what government doesn't in some way subsidize its phone system? Germany, France and the UK, the most likely EU bidders, have only nominal interests in their telcos. This move isn't about what is best for Iraq, it is about what is best for America and to punish those who didn't support it during the war.

    Is a CDMA system best for Iraq when it is surrounded by GSM? I don't think so.
     
  15. Ugg
    thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #15
    Here is a link to the CPA's page outlining the bidding requirements. From my reading, there has been no decision made as to whether Iraq will have either CDMA or GSM or both.
     
  16. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #16
    http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/Mobile_competitionQandA.html

    It says that both can be bid on, but they are looking at costs. I personally don't see what the big deal is here. There has to be other companies in other countries that are not state owned that can bid on the project.

    All they are saying is that they will not let the countries that stood against the liberation of the Iraqi's come in and make money off of them.

    I say Kudos on this policy.
     
  17. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #17
    i call shenanigans. i'd like to see us take the high road on this one.
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #18
    Oh, are the Iraqi people liberated now?

    Oh. Could have fooled me.
     
  19. Ugg
    thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    Once again, a partial investment in a company does not make them state owned.

    So, the Iraqis may pay a huge premium for their telephone service and it may not be compatible with the regional services but the US' pride and its policies are more important? I fail to understand how this serves the best interests of the Iraqi people.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    So not only would we be punishing a country for not supporting the war, we would be punishing the citizens of the country (who are likely investors in these companies), whether they supported the war or not. What if a US company was run by someone who was anti-war? Or a French company run by someone who was a war supporter? Who gets to bid then?
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    We should stop pretending we took action in Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It was clearly taken with the US's best interest at heart. Any benefit to the Iraqi people will be coincidental. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that US companies will get most of the rebuilding contracts, if not directly then through intermediate subcontracting. The position of most conservatives I have met (and any of you conservatives here feel free to inform me otherwise) has been that the military is only to be used to protect US interests and our national security, and that humanitarian relief is not what the military is designed for. That argument is fine, I can understand it even if I disagree. But now we are told that we did this to help the poor Iraqi citizens who were suffering under a brutal regime, and that we will be acting in the best interests of the Iraqi people. Yeah right! Somehow I don't see the US sticking this out long enough to actually make it work. In fact I am waiting for the calls to start removing troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan to come from polititicians during this next presidential election cycle. I was not a supporter of the war, but that is history now, and we need to make the best out of what we have. We need to have frank and honest discussions about the cost we will be incuring, and the length of committment for our soldiers. I heard a Brookings Institute analyst saying we have about 3/4 of our military deployed abroad, with only 1 complete division (10th Mountain, I believe) intact and ready to be deployed right now. As Gen. Shinseki said, beware the 12 division strategy with a 10 division army. Even thought Rumsfeld says we don't need a larger military, all he wants to do is shift some of the administrative jobs to civilians, whom the government will still be paying, even if it doesn't show as part of the military budget. Shrinking the size of government indeed. (sarcasm):rolleyes:
     
  22. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #22
    This is off topic, but ok, the war was multi-faced. 1st. Remove Saddam from Power. 2. Remove any terror organizations from Iraq. 3. Restore order and humanitarian need to the Iraqi people. 4. Find, and destroy all of the WMD's in Iraq. 5. Rebuild the country so that the people can have a democracy in a region surround by brutal regimes that do not represent the people of their country.

    As far as the cost of the war. How much did 9/11 cost? Have you seen the final estimates? This was part of the war on terror. Saddam funded suicide bombers in the middle east. Allowed free passage to Al Queada members through Bagdad, and even had Iraqi intel meet with Mohammad Atta. The man was a bad man, and needed to be removed from power.

    Case closed.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Ok, that was a very good job of listing the objectives of the war, but you conviently skipped over the justification part of it, which is more what I was interested in. My point was that we did this out of our own interests rather than Iraqi's. But I guess since you closed the case, that's all that is allowed on this subject.
     
  24. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #24
    ;)

    Not at all. The justification was weapons, that the world knew he had. Weapons that they (the world) had demanded for over a decade that he give up and he would not. Why? Because he intended to use them eventually? That would make logical sense because he has used them before. Now, given that we took action because of intel from various sources that led us to war. The same evidence that Daschle and Gephart, and other dems saw that made them call for his removal in 98.
     
  25. Ugg
    thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    What weapons? The invisible ones?
     

Share This Page