Not quite right -- GSM enforced by EU, CDMA is more advanced
Pretty sure GSM was mandated by EU, o/w Europe would have the same mix of standards that the US has.
But, on the other hand, allowing for newer standards does allow for more rapid technological advancement. The US lack of standards allowed Sprint PCS to deploy the first CDMA network -- at the time they started, many people doubted it would work. But it works quite well, and in fact will become the dominant 3G technology -- although in two flavors, of course: W-CDMA for the Euros (best GSM upgrade path) and cdma2000 for IS-95 (best upgrade path for current CDMA) systems.
And, if Sprint can deliver, we'll have 144K bps 2.5G CDMA nationwide by the end of 2002, while GSM even in Europe will be limited to the 36K or so if you're lucky GPRS. In about a year, I'll probably upgrade to a new Sprint phone capable of handling those rates, so I may be able to give hard data then. (Sprint is claiming megabit rates by 2004 or so, but I'd be pretty happy if they could just truly deliver 144K nationwide).
BTW, I believe that CDMA is also being deployed in Korea and China and I think Japan (at least DoCoMo) has their own standards, too.
That said, there is a lot to be said for standards -- or at least getting better interoperability. There's no technical reason why I cann't send a SMS message from a CDMA phone to a GSM phone -- except that the US cell companies don't seem to care.
Finally, there's one big reason GSM has a bad name in California:
currently the only GSM carrier in California is: Pacific Hell (now Cingular)
My former bosses's quote: "My GSM phone works great....except in California."
Tony
