Cell Phones: Japan vs. the United States

Stirland writes "Cell phones/Connectivity: Japan and the United States: Worlds Apart on Wireless. Interesting analysis of the economic and cultural reasons for why the Japanese kick Americans' butts when it comes to wireless cell phone technology and usage."

Comments

There's a reason for all of this...

[IronTek]

Everytime I read how behind the United States is compared to Finland, Japan, etc., it upsets me that one simple concept is rarely, if ever, mentioned..

The United States has a very, very, very large land mass compared to Japan or Finland, or any other country in Europe that has cooler cell phone technology than we do.

It's simply very, very expensive and time consuming for companies to roll out services that *might* get the public interested...

So while I would very much like to have video on my phone or simply be able to buy a Dr Pepper out of a soda machine, the sheer size of the United States makes it difficult for such widespread agreements on standards or progress in new technology...

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Heghta']

Yes, compared to Finland, the US of A have a very big landmass. But compared to Finland, they also have a lot more inhabitants. So what really counts is the population density. I don'T have the numbers, but I don't think the difference will be very big then.

I think the 3 countries in the world with the biggest cell phone usage (as by percentage of ppl owning a cell phone) are Sweden, Finland and Austria. Both Sweden and Finland are only lightly populated in their northern parts, and Austria is covered by a lot of mountains. I've been to two of these countries, namely Sweden and Austria, and the networks are great. Even at the top of some mountain, you have clear quality.

The neat thing, however, is the pricing, this is where some countries are really ahead. For example, if you are a company, some providers don't charge at all for calls within the company, all you pay is the monthly fee. That's really a big advantage for companies.

There are even similar offerings for private persons, ie, an Austrian provider let's you phone within their network for free during night hours if you've charged your prepad phone with at least 25 within the last 30 days.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[IronTek]

Well, most of you bring up interesting points about population density, but don't forget...in many parts of the country, the population isn't all that dense...yet to get nationwide coverage, you still have to build cell towers/stations every couple of miles...thus, we're back to the sheer size of the United States being a large problem...

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[EvilNTUser]

The United States has a very, very, very large land mass compared to Japan or Finland, or any other country in Europe that has cooler cell phone technology than we do.

IMHO that's not the issue. First of all, Finland has a population of roughly five million with a density of about 17 people per square kilometer.

Why's that important? Because if these services can be rolled out (profitably) in Finland, then the following technique could be used in the US:

1. Define one single national standard.
2. Try it out in one city that has an insane population density.
3. If it's profitable, start expanding to other places based on the already defined national standard. Each and every company could compete using the same standard.

Instead, this is what I think has happened:

1. Company A decides to implement a standard of its own for voice calls. Company B does the same.
2. Very few people buy phones because of major interoperability issues. (This is not the case in Finland, to continue using it as an example. A Finnish GSM phone will work anywhere in Europe, and around most of the world. Virtually everyone has one.)
3. Because of the slow growth, a mobile phone culture hasn't yet formed in the U.S, slowing down the growth even more. Thus operators have less resources to implement new features, and even if they did they'd probably be proprietary, worsening the already bad situation.

What we need is a worldwide standard that everyone would adhere to. What we have now is a bunch of companies trying to out-Microsoft each other. And yes, I do realize that's easier said than done, but it should at least be given some thought.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[rcs1000]

There is another reason (and a half) too.

In Europe we have one digital cellular technology: GSM. This means that I can use my phone on any network. The R&D cost per phone is lowered and the competition is increased.

To some extent, I believe, the same is true in Japan, with J-Phone and DoCoMo sharing the same technology. (And with DoCoMo being, by a mile, the largest cell phone company in the world.)

If, in the UK, I wish to change my operator, I can go to one of the other three 'real' operators or one of a couple of virtual ones (which lease capacity off the real networks.) This has created price and service competition. That I can take my number with me between operators helps too.

And the 'half'... easy, I don't pay to recieve calls. There is no incentive, other that avoiding my ex-girlfriend, to turn my phone off.

*r

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[ywwg]

except now the entire rest of the world -- asia, europe, australia, have better phone systems than the US. So while individual countries may be small, the sum is a much much larger landmass with much much better phones.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[kevin lyda]

that's crap.

mobile phone technology hasn't succeeded in america because american wireless operators have failed to understand the benefits of a standard. the fact is that my gsm phone will work around the developed world (and some days i feel the need to explicitly include the words "and here in ireland..."). if i see a good deal on a newer mobile phone i can buy it and take my gsm chip out of my old phone and stick it in my new phone. i can easily send text messages to my friends with no concern as to who their network provider is. i can take a call without worrying about how much it will cost me.

mobile phone technology is archaic, fractured, poor, and a national disgrace. the wireless companies in america were short-sighted and greedy. the best thing that could happen to them (at least for the american people) would be for european and other wireless providers to come in, buy them, and sort them all out.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[gimpboy]

do you think all these other countries instantly built a nation wide coverage?

some nations are wider than others.

also consider the benifit/cost ratio in countries that don't already have a nationwide coverage with land lines compared to those that do.

if a country starts with little infrastructure, it makes sense to pop up a wireless network. if you have a huge country that already has landline service, it's just not that financially feasible to construct a nationwide wireless network.

couple that with the nonstandard services and you are where we are today.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Skorpion]

This is not a problem. Similar problems were experienced in Poland about 8 years ago when GSM networks were deployed. Standard procedure was to first cover the most populated and rich areas - this would be Bay Area and New York. DCS (GSM 1800) system is used - it needs more base stations but has more network capability. Then after generating some revenue, suburban areas are covered using GSM 900 (less base stations needed). The phones are compatible with both frequencies. Rinse, lather, repeat. Area is not a problem.

,p>The second solution to area problem is internal roaming (roaming is a GSM term for using phone in other network that the one the phone is subscribed to). A few companies divide the area and roll out networks, then they deploy roaming so one's phone may work equally in all the networks (in GSM this works seamlessly and except of another network prompt and a small raming icon on the display, there's no difference). Obviously the companies would have been forced to do so by FTC, but such solutions work in Sweden very well.

Also, you don't roll out a service then wait for the people to come. You advertise it. It works in much poorer countries like Poland. Cell phones are big here.So why won;t USians want to use cell phones? I have no idea.

I consider my cell phone one of my basic tools. I talk to people with it. My servers report status via SMSes so I know if they are OK. I can pay for things with it (with cooperation of my bank and my GSM provider).Not to mention Internet access for use with my notebook and Palm. And it is not a bleeding edge phone - it was when it was new (it is a US design - Motorola), but now it lacks Bluetooth, multimedia messaging and some cool customization options. It isn;t expensive. It works everywhere in the world, even in some areas of US, where GSM 1900 is avaliable. Since it is private, I can switch it off when I'm not at work, so my employer can;t reach me everywhere. Since I can switch caller ID on and off, it won't advertise my pnone number when I don;t want to. I can't imagine living without one. Why americans don't want to use them is a mystery to me.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Daetrin]

Someone didn't read the article. They said that usage logs showed that peak times were not actually during commuting hours, but rather late at night or "between tv shows."

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[quintessent]

Very interesting. Add this cultural difference to population density difference, and you have huge incentive for wireless networks. I've read that the Japanese tend to be more enthusiastic about new and different technologies. This might also play a role.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[psavo]

also consider the benifit/cost ratio in countries that don't already have a nationwide coverage with land lines compared to those that do.

if a country starts with little infrastructure, it makes sense to pop up a wireless network. if you have a huge country that already has landline service, it's just not that financially feasible to construct a nationwide wireless network.

I fail to see how that would be related to Finland then. Finland has had nation-wide landphone infra from 1950. It costs about $60 to get a land-phone. and then there's localphone rate at about 1 cent/min (or less, i dunno, haven't had landphone for 7 years).

AFAIK GSM network doesn't have to be very dense. It's sensible to make it dense only in areas where there are many talkers -> even cheaper. Areas woth popoulation of under 5ppl/km2 can be handled by small 'power'. (I mean antenna in cellular would show up small, dunno the right term). It would take more juices out of phone, but it would _at least_ work. More than you have now.

Frankly, At the moment I can SMS fellow programmer in Latvia, former USSR resp. I can't do that to our subdivision in US. That mean I must either phone (9 hours difference..) or use e-mail, and the asses won't answer in another 9 hours. That's so lame.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[xenolon]

It has nothing to do with population density. It's about infrastructure. In a relatively small country, like Japan for instance, the amount of cell towers and communication relays is vastly reduced by the small size of the country. In the US, it takes many more of these installations to cover the distance. (So whereas a handful of relays could cover the whole of Japan, it would require much higher numbers to provide the same wervice in the US) Also, in the US the curvature of the earth is an issue. A wireless call from New York to Seattle must go from the phone to the relay tower, to a satellite, to another relay tower, then to the recipients phone. In Japan, a wireless call doesn't necesarily have to leave the earth. A call could go from a phone to just one cell tower and back to the recipient's phone. So as you can see, the logistics of covering a large landmass create a multitude of problems.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[xenolon]

It has nothing to do with population density. It's about infrastructure. In a relatively small country, like Finland for instance, the amount of cell towers and communication relays is vastly reduced by the small size of the country. In the US, it takes many more of these installations to cover the distance. It's an issue of cost to the developer. And yes I agree that a worldwide standard would be an ideal way to begin solving these problems. (kind of lofty though, isn't it? worldwide standards are merely pipe dreams. Imagine if someone had thought of creating a standard with power, and every device/appliance you had would work in any other country without converters and adapters. Or if everyone drove on the same side of the road,or if every CPU fit the same slot/socket, or if railways across the world were consistent in width and gauge. This would just never happen, everyone always thinks that their own method has it's advantages over the other options, and agreements on these matters are hard to come by. The world has a tough time agreeing with itself, and thus why we have war. ) the fact of the matter is that settling on a standard halts development to improve on what is already existing. If perhaps we had a worldwide standard, why would anyone bother to develop a newer, possibly better technology? Progress would grind to a halt and stagnate.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[psicE]

Don't we wish. :D

The largest cellular phone company in the US is Verizon. It is owned in part by various companies, but mostly by Vodafone Group (UK), which is the largest cellular company in the world, bigger even than NTT DoCoMo. Vodafone's wireless companies use GSM exclusively... except for its holdings in the US, Mexico, and China, where it uses CDMA. Sprint PCS is the other CDMA company in the US, probably soon to be bought out by Verizon.

VoiceStream/T-Mobile is the largest GSM-exclusive company in the US, though it also has the smallest marketshare of the six national providers. It has GSM in almost all major markets, California being a notable exception. To make matters worse, in the US, we use GSM 1900, incompatible with the rest of the world; one of the best features that GSM could advertise, "Free world roaming, one phone #", therefore doesn't work quite so well.

The second largest cellular phone company in the US is Cingular. SBC has a controlling stake in the company, and BellSouth owns the rest. Unlike Verizon, therefore, the entire company is American. In most markets, Cingular uses TDMA; that's as much digital (pardon my analogies) as Windows 95 is 32-bit. But GSM is available nationally. Any market where VoiceStream doesn't have a network, Cingular does.

Cingular is gradually converting its entire network to GSM, and will hopefully be providing all new customers with GSM by, IIRC, January 2003. Also, Cingular convinced VoiceStream to enter into a European-style shared network agreement, so that VoiceStream could provide service in California/Nevada, and Cingular could provide service in NYC/Northern New Jersey, without building any new towers.

There's also AT&T Wireless; there is a rumor that ATTWS will soon buy Cingular, and keep its 100%-GSM strategy for the new company, and all evidence (mainly financial) suggests that the rumor is true. And finally, there's Nextel. It uses a custom technology (iDEN) and caters to business users who use their cellphone enough to warrant a $150/mo plan and want to-the-second billing. It is essentially a niche carrier, with very loyal customers, and as many of those customers travel the world, it may soon switch to GSM itself.

Vodafone has repeatedly pressured Verizon to switch to GSM; its efforts have been unsuccessful so far.

So much for Europe coming in and making things better.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[hqm]

You are sooo right..

WAP is such a disaster because it is not a standard at all. Each phone and each service has
enough random incompatibilities that the chance of
successfully reaching a given WAP site is about 30% or less. In Japan, all imode sites are
essentially compatible, plus cHTML is a much better page description language than WAP for phones. WAP has basically torpedoed the entire
cell phone industry in the US. Thanks guys!

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Lars Arvestad]

I think GSM phones never really took of in the US because there were many successful alternatives, as Pagers and Analog cellphones. Neither did really have success in europe.

The pager presence is a good point; Analog mobiles is not. Sweden and Finland, two of the most GSM dense countries since the start of GSM, both had a very successful analog mobile net called NMT. In fact it is still in use in the northern parts simply because of it better range.

I am not sure why GSM so quickly replaced NMT, but I think the GSM phones were smaller right away.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[sab39]

that's as much digital (pardon my analog-ies)

Classic - although probably unintentional...

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Beliskner]

A wireless call from New York to Seattle must go from the phone to the relay tower, to a satellite, to another relay tower, then to the recipients phone.

All telcos use point to point microwaves and buried cables (copper or fibre) to span large distances. SONET and SDH are used as the central "backbone". The telcos decide whether it goes over a satellite or not. Are you saying all calls from LA to NY go over satellite? Only if the telco is too lazy to lay cable or decides satellite would be cheaper.

Satellite has advantages over cable - cable is a big investment, and when you eventually finish laying the cable the city might have moved or become a ghost town like Atlantic City. The telcos use actuaries to make these risk assessments.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Cato]

It IS about population density - with enough population density AND a suitable standard, it's easy for a number of operators to deploy compatible networks. This is exactly what happened in Europe.

And by the way, there is already a world standard for mobile phones - GSM has over 70% of the world market by number of subscribers, and it works in virtually every country you can name, including the US and Canada as well as most of Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa and Australasia.

Another example is TCP/IP - there were many competing network protocol stacks in the 70s and 80s, but IP has won out, resulting in a hugely competitive market for equipment and networks.

Standards don't necessarily impede development - for all its benefits, GSM will soon be superseded by W-CDMA, a 3G standard that will be implemented by most GSM operators.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Cato]

This isn't how mobile networks work - they consist of a huge 'backhaul' network linking cell towers, which finally terminates in a fixed-line network, usually optical these days. Calls within a single country or within Europe are very unlikely to use satellite, due to the added latency - there is already some significant latency due to the way voice is chopped up into small frames by the mobile phone's radio interface, and by transcoding between various voice-compression regimes.

The curvature of the earth is of absolutely no significance - what matters is latency, bandwidth and costs, and for everywhere outside the radio access network fixed lines are superior for these factors.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Cato]

Coverage targets are based on population not area - the operator claims something like '95% of population covered', which lets them focus on large cities and towns while leaving very sparsely populated areas uncovered.

The size of the US is simply not a factor in the lack of mobile usage - China already has *more* mobile users than the US, with 90% of the land area but much more population density.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Hast]

And I'm sure you're a representative part of the population. It's not as if laptops/802.11b doesn't work in Japan. You just need to bring your base station for the wireless.

OTOH if you brought your neat phone which can take pictures from Japan to the US you couldn't even use it as a door stop. (They are generally too light.)

Here is Sweden over 50% of the population has mobile phones, when over 50% of the population in the US has laptops and 802.11b then call again. (And Japan has an even higher market penetration of phones IIRC.)

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Saige]

And finally, there's Nextel. It uses a custom technology (iDEN) and caters to business users who use their cellphone enough to warrant a $150/mo plan and want to-the-second billing. It is essentially a niche carrier, with very loyal customers, and as many of those customers travel the world, it may soon switch to GSM itself.

The iDEN system is already in a number of countries - Nextel has a number of them covered, but there are also a significant number of other companies using the same system. MIKE in Canada, for example, and assorted local companies. There are iDEN phones available designed for being used around the world - the i2000plus. There are iDEN phones available that have embedded Java for app development, and the i95cl has been introduced recently with a color screen.

They've moved beyond targetting just business users, though there's still a large percentage of their userbase made up of that demographic. That's why they are coming up with a bigger variety of phones with more interesting appearances.

There is also NO consideration of iDEN or Nextel moving to GSM. Nextel has been looking at going to a CDMA variant, and Motorola has offered some solutions to that end.

Trust me, I work on iDEN.

Re:There's a reason for all of this...

[Saige]

Also, I don't know if NexTEL is even known outside the US but it has a great advantage over regular wireless phones.

Yes, Nextel does have a number of operations outside of the US. However, the iDEN system it uses has a number of other customers around the world. I'm not sure where, but there are a number in Europe and Asia, including Korea.

I'm not sure what services and pricing plans are offered outside of Nextel's US plans, however.

Let's make a distinction

[Joel Ironstone]

Meanwhile, a working dad in Japan gets to watch his son grow up.

Yes, I suppose in 128x128 resolution at 1 frame per second. But in north america and europe where the working week is 60 hours a week, the father (or mother) can actually watch the child and maybe offer a helping hand. Instead of admire a pixelated version.

Perhaps this phenemonon can explain the adoption gap. If we have more time to spend with the ones we love, we don't need to purchase technological replacements for this contact.

Just a thought.

Re:Let's make a distinction

[CProgrammer98]

Not in the UK it aint mate. The average is 37.5 A lot of "manual labour" types work 40, financial industry seems to 35 and a lot of other people work 37.5.

There are some professions (catering and hospitals for example) that do work long hours but on the whole most UK citizens work far less than 60. In fact, we have a law that restricts how many hours we can work (something like an average of 45 per week averaged over a 12 week period, but that's from memory and may be wrong)

Re:Let's make a distinction

[CProgrammer98]

cool! nice comment dude.

Echoes of Monty Python's "4 Yorkshiremen sketch"

People, If you haven't heard this before, check it out, it's VERY funny.

To forestall any comments

[PhysicsGenius]

I always see a ton of trolls talking about how cell phones give us cancer and I'd like to post some real, science-based information to forestall the inevitable tide. We are right to be skeptical of outrageous claims like "my cell phone gave me cancer" and I applaud the many geeks who, in this story and others, have stood up to suspected pseudo-science and brought to bear a modicum of scientific knowledge.

However, there are significant reasons to believe the claim is true in this case. For instance, consider electric fields. You may not be aware of this or have thought of it this way, but a microwave oven is basically just a big, unmodulated radio station broadcasting in the microwave band instead of the radio band. And what do we use microwave ovens for? Cooking things.

And microwaves, like all electromagnetic radiation, are caused by what? Electric fields. And a major source of electric fields and broadcast power is what? Cell phones. And we put cell phones where? Next to our genitals and next to our brains[1].

So, while I love my personal computer, SUV, air-conditioning and other marvels of modern life I Just Say No to cancer-causing cell phones.

[1] For me this is two separate locations, YMMV

Land line costs are insane in Japan

[case_igl]

My aunt lived in Japan for two years. From what she said, and this article mentions, is that getting a land line phone is very expensive.

The article quotes $700, but if I recall my aunt mentioned it was more than that. Additionally, the waiting list to get a telephone was months and months long.

So, to me, it's no surprise that Japanese are using cell phones for both voice and data more than US counterparts. A big chunk of people there simply can't even make a call from home. So they are used to using their cell phones more than your average American.

I think geography has something to do with it as well. Japan has a much higher population density than the US, so it's easier for the providers. You don't need to erect as many towers to cover the same number of people.
Installing and upgrading cell towers to support higher speed data services costs a fortune, so I'm not surprised it's not happening faster in the US. You'd need thousands of towers in Japan, compared to tens of thousands here.

Case

Five rules to successfully owning a cellphone

[Audent]

It's simple: in Japan, Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc... you only pay to call someone, not to receive a call. I understand most Americans are reluctant to give out their cellphone numbers because you pay to receive calls as well.
This is stupid.
Also, the US has a large culture of pager use that just hasn't taken off anywhere else in the world. We have cellphones with SMS capability to do the same thing. Forget combining the two products - they're already combined.

There are five stages to owning a mobile phone: This presumes you've got one to make use of it, not to just so you can say you have one.
1: Buy the phone. Many people think this is the only thing they have to do. It's not.
2: Carry the damned thing with you everywhere. Most fall over at this point because they do things like only carry the phone to work or whatever - if it's not with you AT ALL TIMES then people won't get used to reaching you on it. This stage is tricky because you carry it everywhere even when it doesn't ring, and it won't for ages until:
3: Don't be afraid to give out your number to everyone. EVERYONE. Once you've done this you'll actually start receiving calls - it's only at this point you'll be seeing the benefit of having the phone.
4: Don't be afraid to MAKE calls on your phone. The more you use it the more you'll be contacted on your phone.

Re:Five rules to successfully owning a cellphone

[kawaichan]

With 33cents a minute, who on earth would try to make a call unless it's absolutely necessary? problems with US and Canadian wirless are:

1) Cost - If calls are cheap enough, then more and more people will have phones.
2) Availability - If it's cheap enough, more people would have cellphones with them then I might need one too (domino effect)
3) Cheaper data services, more flexable service plans etc. might help too.

Re:Five rules to successfully owning a cellphone

[GrandCow]

You forgot rule #5: Talk on the phone while sitting on the crapper, drop phone in toilet, curse loudly.

Re:Five rules to successfully owning a cellphone

[kawaichan]

no, I live in Canada.

sucks eh?

Re:Five rules to successfully owning a cellphone

[Jucius Maximus]

"You're lucky. I'm stuck with 21.6 (on a good day) that once hung up every few hours (seems to have gone away lately). The worst part is trying to get Bell off their ass to do something."

Try unplugging other devices (phones, fax, etc) that use that line. I have seen a connection speed jump from 19.2 to 28.8 after a few phones get unplugged. Also the latest modem firmware often does wonders. Currently I am looking into the price of getting a T1 and sharing/selling it via WiFi to my neighbours to pay for it.

What american satellite internet service are you thinking of? Starband? Do any of these offer up and downstream through the dish?

Re:Five rules to successfully owning a cellphone

[ross.w]

Here in Australia, Orange used to have a plan where you could use your mobile phone within 5km or so of home and you would be billed as if it were a landline. I have a contract like this with them, but they mustn't have made any money out of it, because they don't offer it to new subscribers.

They do, however have a plan that lets other people call you on a landline style number when you are in your local talk zone, but you have to use caller ID to get the number, because Orange won't tell you what it is. (They get a cut when people call your mobile at mobile rates)

Re:Five rules to successfully owning a cellphone

[horza]

It's simple: in Japan, Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc... you only pay to call someone, not to receive a call.

That is true for 99% of people. The exception is when you start roaming around the world with your mobile. When abroad, the person calling pays their standard mobile rate and you have to pay the difference.

In the UK most operators now offer flat rate fees so you can stay on the mobile all day long and not pay an extra penny. On the plus side it cut my phone bill down by a factor of three! On the minus side you no longer have the excuse to get off the phone, "Got to go, this call is costing me a fortune".

3: Don't be afraid to give out your number to everyone. EVERYONE. Once you've done this you'll actually start receiving calls - it's only at this point you'll be seeing the benefit of having the phone.

Totally.With all the advance screening features on today's mobiles there aren't the same privacy problems as on the old fixed lines. I screen all my calls these days, and with the answerphone built into my Sony Z5 I can decide whether to pick up whilst the caller is leaving a message (or decide to call them back later).

Phillip.

The rest of the world

[waimate]

Ignoring glizty features like clunky video, and just talking about the ability to make and receive phone calls, pretty much the whole world is way ahead of the US in mobile telephones.

And the "large country" argument doesn't hold water. Mobile telephony in Australia is a generation ahead of the US, and we're about the same land mass with one fifteenth the population. Ok, coverage ain't great in the middle, but you can make a phone call in Melbourne, and hold the same connection while you drive 4000km to Cape York.

I once stood on the ancient Greek island of Delos which was once the centre of the known universe, and received a mobile phone call from someone back home in Oz who'd just dialed my regular number. Awesome.

Re:The rest of the world

[thogard]

Keep in mind that Melbourne has more people than Chicago. It is a higer density city than most in the US. I can drive 20 minutes in any direction from the CBD (downtown) and find many places where GSM coverage is poor non-existant. Australia needed MAPS (old analog) for the rural areas but they pulled it out and replaced it with a worthless CDMA system which provides much less coverage in rural areas. The population density of Australia seems to be a mix between very high (like in Europe, not high for Aisa) or none (like most of the outback). There are very few areas that have medium or low density of people unlike the midwest US where there are vast tracks of land with lots of little setlements spread all around.

Re:The rest of the world

[alizard]

Anybody in the US who hasn't figured out that the Libertarian cult argument that "if we get government completely out of the marketplace, everything will be wonderful" is bullshit need only look at the US inferiority in the area of cell phones to get the point.

There are certain areas where government regulation to protect corporations from their own short-sighted stupidity and the public from the consequences is a very good idea.

EU regulation forced the national (later private) carriers to standardize on ONE cell phone technology.

As a result, there is effectively one cellular network in EU that the different carriers build towers for, and as a result, an EU mobile user can get dial tone practically anywhere. SMS works everywhere. An EU user who wants to change carriers can do so by swapping the SIM card. EU users don't have to pay for incoming calls.

Meaning that just about everyone has a mobile in the more advanced parts of EU, and the same phone that works in Holland works fine in Spain. I have a close friend in Holland. I take it for granted my SMS messages will get to her no matter where in the EU she goes.

"Let the market decide" has put the US a generation behind the rest of the world for mobile services. The major RBOCs got exactly what they paid for, and not only did the public get screwed, but they are not profiting off cell phones the public can't be bothered to buy. Isn't it wonderful having the best elected officials money can buy?

Re:The rest of the world

[wowbagger]

I might point out that the US started building its cell network before the rest of the world did - as such, the rest of the world got to learn from our mistakes and benefit from our discoveries, while we got to live with our mistakes and make our discoveries.

Hence, the rest of the world had an advantage in being able to build with newer, better tech than the US.

Re:The rest of the world

[Cato]

According to this history of US PCS networks - http://www.gsmdata.com/es53060/history.htm - the first cellular network was in Japan in 1979, followed by Norway. The US was some years later.

All the early phone networks were analogue, so there was little advantage in copying each other when it came to building digital networks, which happened at roughly the same time in the early 1990s. The initial US TDMA standard may have been a bit earlier than GSM though, so you could be right on that one.

Behind?

[huckda]

No, we are not "behind" in technology, we are RESTRICTED...

FACT...anyone can go to Japan/Europe/etc. and purchase any of the equipment, but good luck getting the FCC permission to implement it, even for a local market.

The United States is not behind in technology, be 'merely'(I say tongue in cheek) restricted in the area of what technology they are ALLOWED to use.

--Huck

Re:Behind?

[mesocyclone]

This is exactly backwards. The problem in the US is that the FCC allowed the phone companies to implement any standard they wanted as long as it met spectral density requirements. Most of the rest of the world (Japan excluded, btw) required one system: GSM.

Charges for Data suck

[weave]

Whenever a U.S. carrier comes out with a data service, they charge ridiculous rates to use it. Either airtime (for wap browsing on verizon) or some insane per Kilobyte fee for data. Plus the speed sucks too bad to use it for much more than text...

i would have to agree with you...

[gimpboy]

another thing to consider is that we really dont need all the extra crap:

"I'm very disappointed to see that the majority of phones in the U.S. are black and white and four lines (of text)," said Satoshi Nakajima, chief executive officer of UIEvolution, a Bellevue company that develops software for Japanese wireless companies. "Then you'll never succeed."

well it depends on how you define success. if you define success as video at 1fps, then yes we will never succeed. if you are trying to give people phone access, then four lines of text are enough to succeed. personally i dont want a hot pink phone, with a hello kitty theme and a ringer that playes the theme from shaft. i really dont need the aformentioned phone with streaming video.. it's simply not necessary... for me.

just because someone has different needs doesnt mean the have failed. i guess you could say linux has failed since it's not running on the hello kitty phone.. i would say it's a success since it runs my webserver very well.

Re:i would have to agree with you...

[handsomepete]

"just because someone has different needs doesnt mean the have failed."

I agree with that completely. The whole tone of that article is that the U.S. is failing to keep up with Japan when in fact we don't have the need to keep up. Our phones work just fine. We don't need LCD displays that can show DivX movies downloaded from ph0n3.l33t-pr0n.net. I don't own a cell phone only because I don't need one, but I know that they can be very useful in emergencies and for business. People tend to forget that there was a time not very long ago when there were no cell phones. We still got along fine. I would argue that anything beyond standard phone/pager functionality is extra and not necessary for anyone. Just my opinion.

Re:i would have to agree with you...

[handsomepete]

"What a dumb ass argument. We got along just fine without computers too. Yet we both used one to post these messages."

What a dumb ass argument when replying to a post about the necessity of cell phone features. I didn't need to post that message or this one. It didn't make my life any better, especially since I got a response that was less than life changing. That comment had nothing to do with mine. Besides, it wasn't even an argument. It was a statement of fact. We *did* get along fine without cell phones. I don't remember any mass suicide because of a lack of portable communication devices in my lifetime.

"Gee, could it be that people just like to communicate with each other. Technologies that enable more communication, easier communication, new forms of communication become popular."

Congratulations, you told me that technology that enables people to communicate more, easier, or differently becomes popular. Now explain to me how that new technology (feel free to reference the article) is necessary to communication which was, of course, the point of my post. Then, for extra credit, feel free to tell me how the U.S. lacking any of your referenced technologies is hurting the country (or yourself in particular) in any way, shape or form. Not having as "neat" of stuff as the Japanese doesn't count. Here are some choices:

Hello Kitty screensavers

an endless variety of ring tones

the video camera in a phone

send e-mail

play games

Everything I found in that list I could do at home or through any phone book/gas station and I can't think of any important reason why I would have to be able to do it anywhere in the world. Once again, I've got no problems with cell phones and their usefulness. My original point was simply that not having all of those extra features does not make any country lesser than another because they are unnecessary to the services that cell phones provide (mobile communication/notification).

If you feel like being stupidly insulting and sarcastic, at least go to the effort of backing it up. Or log in. That would substantially raise your ability to communicate.

Re:i would have to agree with you...

[Milican]

Well a cell phone is one way to write e-mails or messages, but I would rather write e-mails on my computer with a full sized keyboard. Cell phones will do in a jiffy, but writing messages on them is much less efficient. I don't want to be pecking away on buttons smaller than my fingernails. I'll just use those keys on the cell *phone* to call them ;)

JOhn

Re:i would have to agree with you...

[handsomepete]

"Now I travel to the US. Oops. Doesn't work. I'm isolated from the whole civilized world because you can't keep up with the technology. You suck."

No, you're cut off because you refuse to use a perfectly good functioning land line phone. Don't want to spend money on an international phone call? That I can understand. Prefer to send a message? I have yet to visit a public library that will turn down computer access to someone with a passport or at least some valid form of identification, but that may have changed drastically in our now assume-everyone-is-a-terrorist-that-isn't-American culture. Not going to be near a library during your stay (or don't want/know how to use a computer)? Well, I'm out of options. But you're still making the choice to be cut off. There are lots of other ways to communicate in the U.S. than your own personal cell phone. Regardless, I'll have to continue to think that making you feel less home sick is a necessity. I'll completely concede that the situation that you pointed out is a very valid, good reason to own a cell phone and to have a more functional cell phone network. That is very neat. But blaming the U.S. for your decision to only want to communicate in that fashion is silly and hardly the cell phone manufacturers' problem (side note: not defending cell phone companies. Don't care about them one way or another).

Re:i would have to agree with you...

[handsomepete]

"The fact of the matter is that I do feel quite cut off whenever I have to travel to the US."

Well, there's just not much that I can really say to that, because after all is said and done, I live here so I'm apparently accustomed to whatever "limitations" we have *and* I don't have a cell phone. I could probably sit here and bicker until this thing is archived but what would the point be? I'm obviously in a completely different situation than you without the advantage of being able to experience the very thing I'm arguing, whereas you claim to be able to experience every single thing you're talking about (not doubting it, but this *is* the internet). And besides, this has gone from me saying that the extra features for cell phones in the article are unnecessary to you talking about how you feel when you travel to the U.S., and arguing about feelings is just about as ridiculous as it gets.

And I won't argue against convenience. Who the hell would? Convenience is great!

Re:i would have to agree with you...

[handsomepete]

"and certainly don't mean to come off as that 'other poster' you were conversing with"

No problem. It's just internet conversation. It's not like any of you guys stole my wallet or anything.

As a broad response to everyone that has responded to what originally was just a lame "I agree" post, not once have I said that cell phones are inconvenient. They're very useful tools and lifesavers in emergencies (I would like to buy one of those disposable ones just for that reason - and for the record 9mm I agree with your response completely). I'd personally prefer that people be a little more courteous with them in public places, but whatever. I've got no issues with the phones or the techonology. All I was trying to say that was just because our cellphones can't play freaking Doom 3 != U.S. is a failure. That's it.

*sigh*

I'm going to go do something productive now.

Re:i would have to agree with you...

[CProgrammer98]

LOL!!!

There was a time when we didn't have computers. We managed just fine.

There was a time when we didn't have electricity. We managed just fine.

There's a term for people who think like that - Luddites.

The point is that technology improves the quality of life. Sure I could do without my mobile phone, just as I could manage without a car, or a computer or a music system. I have one because it's CONVENIENT. People can speak to me and I to them without having to ring several numbers to try find me or leave a message on an answering machine that I may or may not reply to.

Here in the UK, the market for ringtones and cute cases is largely the teenagers. They spend huge amounts of money on personalization, and also on text messaging. The mobile phone operators make billions out of texting.

They can then use the money they make to improve the services they offer. I just signed up last week for a service where my bank texts me whenever a transaction over a certain amount is made. I don't NEED that service, but I do find it USEFUL (if only so I can see when my wife is taking money out of my account!!!)

more like GSM vs U.S. fsck up

[johnjones]

the rest of the world uses 1 yes ONE way and the good ol US of A are stuck useing anouther demand that your network use GSM !

regards

john 'no its not broken' jones

Re:more like GSM vs U.S. fsck up

[Vegeta99]

hmm.
http://www.voicestream.com/
http://www.attw s.com/mobileinternet/
http://www.gsmworld.com/roa ming/gsminfo/cou_us.sht ml
http://www.cingular.com/

There's a LOT of GSM in the USA.

Re:more like GSM vs U.S. fsck up

[evilned]

One small problem, it is GSM, but its not the same frequency as the rest of the world. I have heard of dual frequency GSM phones that can do both US and the rest of the world GSM, but I havent seen them myself.

Re:more like GSM vs U.S. fsck up

[Vegeta99]

world phones. T68i. There's a LOT of em. The only reason we don't use the same frequency as the rest of the world is the damn military.

Re:more like GSM vs U.S. fsck up

[ywwg]

most of the world uses 1800/900 GSM, you just have to find a phone (marketed abroad as "world phones") that also work on the 1900 GSM system -- the US version. www.gsmarena.com has a bunch.

Re:more like GSM vs U.S. fsck up

[Sycraft-fu]

We have plenty of GSM service. VoiceStream, Verizion, Cingular and AT&T all offer GSM service. AT&T also offers GPRS service (not sure about the others).

Re:more like GSM vs U.S. fsck up

[Sycraft-fu]

Well the rest of the world isn't quite as one frequency as you'd think. Most of the rest of the world is GSM 1800, but there are still parts that are GSM 900. The US is GSM 1900, so different from the rest of the world. No problem though, it's still GSM and all new GSM phones like the Motorola v60 support all 3 frequencies.

Near as I know the reason the US went with a new GSM frequency is because the military makes use of the 1800 bands (and 800 doesn't offer good quality).

how expensive is home Internet?

[ryantate]

Some say that many Japanese have turned to wireless phones because a residential phone line costs $700 to install. While that explains the quick adoption of mobile phones for voice calls, it doesn't explain the embrace of data services.

Umm, except that in most countries people get online and access "data services" through the telephone network. If it is prohibitively expensive to access the Internet from home, due to setup and/or per-minute/per-month charges, it makes sense that people spend more time sending e-mail and accessing information from their phones rather than from home PCs. I don't know if this is the case, but I would like to have seen it addressed in the article.

I know at $700 I would not be ready to add a second phone line for the Net and I don't know how far along the broadband rollout is over there.

Re:how expensive is home Internet?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Umm, except that in most countries people get online and access "data services" through the telephone network

Back to Japan - you don't actually need a PC for email and browsing. The phones themselves are sufficient to the task.

Re:how expensive is home Internet?

[ryantate]

So your argument is invalid.

It might be invalid, but not because of this line in the article =)

If you start with among the lowest adoption of broadband in the world, it's not hard to create a very high one-year rate; ie go from 300 homes to 30000 and oh my god it's growing 100x per year. I'm not saying that's the case, but I couldn't tell from the article. Also, "equal to Germany's"?? I didn't know Germany was the benchmark for wired-ness, nor that being more wired than France and Italy meant anything.

Anyway, as I said in my post, I have no idea what the broadband adoption rate in Japan is, and the excerpt you provided doesn't tell me that. Still, based on other posts here, they might have plenty of home Internet.

Of course, there was a question mark in my subject line =)

Sigh

[bogie]

"the Japanese kick Americans' butts when it comes to wireless cell phone technology and usage"

This of course would imply that being 24/7 connected to everyone and the internet is somehow a "good thing". Personally I think its a flaw. Don't get me wrong I think the idea of streaming video and web surfing is cool on a phone, its just that in the scheme of things I don't think this is some sort of great positive influence on society.

There are other reasons not mentioned

[Ethelred Unraed]

The biggest reason why cellphones have not taken off in the US in comparison to Europe, at least, is simply price -- or in particular the *way* they are priced.

In Germany (and, I believe, in most other European countries), cellphones are charged exactly the same way a fixed-line phone is charged. You pay a basic monthly fee, and you pay per second or 10 seconds for calls you make. There are no "airtime" fees or other gotchas. The rates are also easy to understand, more or less -- for a call within your provider's network, you pay a "local" call; calls within your country are "long-distance"; and calls outside of your country are international. Quite rational.

My provider also has the added perk that I can choose either five fixed-line numbers or one area code to get discounted calls. So if I choose Berlin's area code -- 030 -- I can call anyone in Berlin for a much lower rate.

In comparison, my family in the States has a blizzard of confusing fee schedules, with plenty of "gotchas" built-in.

Another problem is the lack of standards across the States. Europe has the GSM standard, and your phone will work across nearly all of Europe. The USA has no such common standard, and even if you're smart enough to get a dual-band or tri-band cellphone, you get hammered on the roaming charges in the States.

I'm actually not that much of a fan of cellphones-as-portals, though -- WAP seems such an abortion of an idea and so far navigating the Web with a keypad is just a non-starter (and, like the article says, Americans tend to drive and not take public transport, so they have less time to fiddle with the things). But it is often a nice option to have. I use it to check what movies are playing (and to reserve tix), check train times (OK, that's not too useful in the States ;-P ) and sometimes to check the news, but that's about it -- I would never buy anything with it, because the technology is so far rather insecure.

i-Mode was also recently introduced in Germany by my provider (they licensed the technology from NTT-DoCoMo), so Europe is close to Japan's level now, though it remains to be seen if i-Mode and other 2.5G technologies take off in Europe (let alone 3G).

GPRS and HSCSD are also well-established, so I can go online at 56K digital with my Nokia and Powerbook via infrared and OS X (haven't gotten it to work with Linux, tho). GPRS is *very* expensive, though -- 2.5 Eurocents per 1K of data -- but HSCSD is fairly reasonable (why the difference, I don't know -- both give you the same speed AFAIK).

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:There are other reasons not mentioned

[sheldon]

I guess I'm somewhat confused by the fee schedule.

I have a Voicestream phone... er I mean Deutsche-Telekom... er I mean T-Mobile... here in the states. For US$40/month I get 600 minutes during the work week and unlimited on weekends.

I get free long distance, and if I stay within GSM providers I get free roaming.

Now, yes... the US is a large country and we don't have 100% coverage on any given standard. Generally only in the major metro areas and along connecting interstates.

Re:There are other reasons not mentioned

[swillden]

The biggest reason why cellphones have not taken off in the US in comparison to Europe, at least, is simply price -- or in particular the *way* they are priced

For that to make sense, you have to believe that cellphones have not been widely adopted in the U.S. And that is simply not true.

A very large percentage of people have cellphones, and among people in their late teens through early thirties, *most* people have cellphones.

What hasn't "taken off" is the newer cell technologies, which is caused more by the plethora of inconsistent standards and the mistaken attempts of service providers to lock their customers in and make it difficult to switch. It's also related to the sheer size of the country and the fact that the population is so mobile. It's impossible to deploy a new infrastructure all at once nationwide, and few people want to sign up for a service that has limited area. The adoption of digital PCS caused companies to resort to abominations like my phone, which can communicate on three different types of networks.

PCS deployment is actually still rolling out; large areas of the country are only covered by analog cells. That being the case, it's hard to get cell companies excited about dropping yet another large pile of cash into new infrastructure that covers territory they've already populated with at least two kinds of networks.

Re:There are other reasons not mentioned

[Jucius Maximus]

"In Germany (and, I believe, in most other European countries), cellphones are charged exactly the same way a fixed-line phone is charged. You pay a basic monthly fee, and you pay per second or 10 seconds for calls you make."

This is yet another reason why mobile phones are not nearly as popular in north america compared to europe/asia. In Canada and the USA all landline phones have a 'local' calling area (usually your city and a bit of the surrounding area) where calling costs exactly $0.00/second as long as you are paying the monthly charge for basic phone service. This means that for dialup internet, you can stay connected for as long as you want and you don't run up big phone bills unless for some reason your are dialing long distance to an ISP (which is insane.)

The landline networks in Canada/USA are extremely reliable and cheap to use so we have less motivation to switch to mobile phones.

Re:There are other reasons not mentioned

[Jucius Maximus]

"In comparison, my family in the States has a blizzard of confusing fee schedules, with plenty of "gotchas" built-in. "

I challenge anyone to count the number of phone service 'plans' in Canada and the USA. Some like you say have many 'gotchas' while others were made for the purpose of being simple - you just pay $x.xx/month for so many minutes plus extra $0.xx/minute for long distance. No nonsense. The same situation exists for landline phone service. except that local (non-long distance) calling is not limited in any respect.

Basically I'm saying that there is great variety in north american landline and mobile phone plans.

Re:There are other reasons not mentioned

[Ethelred Unraed]

...you just pay $x.xx/month for so many minutes...

You're missing the point. The German plans don't have a minute limit. It works exactly like a fixed-line phone -- you pay for the time you call someone, and that's all.

The minute limit is just one "gotcha" I'm talking about. I pay one monthly fee for unlimited time, and I don't pay any airtime fees (so I don't pay if someone calls me). This is the standard way of doing it over here -- the providers compete on price on only two areas: monthly fee and per-second fee. Nothing else.

Which, as I said, is precisely how fixed-line connections work. So why not with cellphones?

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:There are other reasons not mentioned

[Cato]

Mobile phone penetration in the US is significantly lower than all European countries - check the statistics.

Re:There are other reasons not mentioned

[Jucius Maximus]

"You're missing the point. The German plans don't have a minute limit. It works exactly like a fixed-line phone -- you pay for the time you call someone, and that's all."

OK, I see. If you told someone over here about mobile phone service that is unlimited for a flat rate they would think you were trying to trick them because as you said it does not exist here. It is a totall foreign concept. Clearly it makes much more sense to have a cell phone in europe just as it makes good sense to have a landline in canada. It does not work that way here for a multitude of reasons - I think it is mainly that society communications here are completely built around free local calling - imageine how things would change in Germany (and the chaos) if overnight everyone had free local landline calling but expensive cellphones.

Simple

[The Cat]

They don't lay off their staff every six months.

Having someone around who actually knows how to build something is important to the empire-building, plant-watering donut list and their bonuses.

Japan in particular probably has a much better developed sense of loyalty and business ethics as well. Of course, the suits will disagree, but when was the last $4 billion "accounting error" in Japan?

Re:Simple

[The Cat]

Bad loans are not accounting "errors."

But thanks for playing.

Re:Simple

[Galvatron]

They are when you refuse to write them off, as Japan does. When it is obvious that a loan is unrecoverable, a company must account for it as a bad loan, take the expense, and move on. Japanese companies tend to keep these bad loans listed as assets.

Re:Simple

[Syberghost]

Of course, the suits will disagree, but when was the last $4 billion "accounting error" in Japan?

We'll never know, because they don't have a free press.

Not This Boring "Story" Again

[tealover]

*sigh*

Why do seemingly well-intentioned and intelligent people assume that distinct and different cultures should enjoy a technological homogoneity?

Is it that difficult to understand that not everything that works for Americans works for Japanese or Europeans? There are many factors that determine which technologies thrive in different countries. This article both acknowledges these difrerences and at the same time dismisses them. Why? Probably because a rationale article doesn't pay the bills for a freelance writer compared to a doom and gloom article.

The Japanese like their cellphones? Good for them. I like my broadband connection.

Re:Offtopic: working 60 hours a week

[Joel Ironstone]

In Japan and Hong Kong it is very common to work at least half a day on saturday, and many people don't return home from office jobs until 8:30.

He's got to, got to, go -- Godzilla!

[Anonymous Coward]

If your cities were invaded and devastated by giant monsters as much as they are, you'd have a cell phone too. Think about what a giant reptile rampaging about does to the power and phone grids.

Re:Offtopic: working 60 hours a week

[Vegeta99]

and it's 40 hours in north america, 44 tops, then it's overtime.

Data point...

[march]

Two years ago when I was in Tokyo, we were giving a demo with our Japanese counterparts to a financial instutution there.

The demos were given at 120k bps over a cell phone that flipped open and plugged into a pcmcia slot in our laptop.

That freakin' rocked. We (USA) didn't have anything even close.

Re:Data point...

[BrookHarty]

I work for AT^H^H^H Telco.. running the SGSN/GGSNs (main transport) for the GPRS data network. Currently we have multiple products to give you faster speed, most is used for tethering, if you use a gprs modem or a phone in gprs tethered mode, you can use compression software to get better speed. 56K(115K) is a nice notch up from the 1.2k+ of cdpd. With the compression software installed, windows (sorry, ive only seen a windows client) takes the fat inet pipe and converts it into a compressed format that downloads text in 768K speed, re-images pictures to make them faster for download. This solves the short term problem for speed. UMTS is already being deployed, (WE are talking FULL GSM people..) This is why most everyone went the GPRS method(TDMA), the hardware is easily upgradeable, just swap out part of the nortel hardware, and boom, Full 2mbit GSM. We already have multiple T1's going to base stations for the bandwidth. Yes its shared bandwidth, so is cable modems.

Its funny, we use the same hardware as the UK Telecoms, the same phone vendors, but we are 6+ months from deploying (or trial) UMTS that will put the UK telecoms to shame. American pricing is all you can eat, unlimited service. I will have high speed wireless to my apartment, before Verizon gets me DSL. (Verizon has some messed up lan lines in seattle/bothell areas)

GPRS is an easy mod for GSM phones, this is why your seeing UK style phones with color displays now. Nokia, Ericcson only has to modify a phone, not re-invent it.

6 months till 2003, it will be an Interesting year...

Re:Not only the japanese

[throwaway18]

Indeed, until it broke reccently I could happily read slashdot on the bus to work on the half-vga screen on my my nokia 9110. I used the built in browser for that as the charges go from E0.03/min to E0.40/min at 8am. Off peak I telnet (with s/key one time passwords) to my home PC and use lynx, IRC from the pub etc. I not sure wether to get it repaired to to pay less for a second hand one off ebay with no guarantee. I can't manage without an electronic organiser/nagging device to tell me I should have bee somewhere five minutes ago but I'm not going to carry one and a phone.

When I was in the states last year I was amazed to find I could not buy a pay-as-you-talk mobile for less than USD200. I wanted one to use for ten days then bin when I left. Here they are E45 from newsagents. Amazingly in the USA you have to pay
for incoming calls to mobiles!! The mobiles have normal numbers mixed in with landlines so you don't know if you a phoning one or not.

your numbers

[mattdm]

July 2001 est. population density (people per sq/km of land):

Finland: 16.9
Sweden: 21.6
Japan: 415.0
US: 30.4

Of course, as you say, the density of major urban areas is in many ways more important than overall density. But it's still worth noting the difference in Japan -- I'd count a 13.7x difference as significant enough to have an effect.

How much do they pay TOTAL?

[httpamphibio.us]

This article doesn't mention how much they pay all together, and what sorts of services their plans offer. All the plans here have some downfall: not enough daytime minutes, nasty long distance charges, exorbitant roaming, etc. Pick one or two of those and you have basically every plan. Anyone know?

Free WiFi at Narita airport

[saw]

While waiting at the gate for a flight out of
Narita airport, I tried plugging in my wireless
card just on a lark. I was surprised to find that
the card saw an access point plus dhcp gave me
an address and a full connection to the net. I was
able to spend the rest of my wait doing email,
IM, and sshing back home. Investigating later, it
seems that something called the IPv6 Promotion
Council, along with assorted agencies,
is sponsoring a free wireless LAN trial at
the airport and on some trains and train stations
until July 31, 2002. (See http://www.nex.v6pc.jp/)

I wonder if we can every expect such experiments
in the US?

Tradeoffs

[Ilan Volow]

Japan has a much higher population density than the US, so it's easier for the providers. You don't need to erect as many towers to cover the same number of people.

So in other words, Americans have far more erections than the Japanese, but when they have an erection they do it with more people.

Cell phone use.

[Christopher Thomas]

It's simple: in Japan, Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc... you only pay to call someone, not to receive a call. I understand most Americans are reluctant to give out their cellphone numbers because you pay to receive calls as well.
This is stupid.

I'm not sure about that. Firstly, I don't use all of the monthly minutes on my phone. So an incoming call costs me nothing (up to a point). Secondly, cost is 10 cents *Canadian* per minute up here/on my provider, so I could talk for an hour straight for the cost of a submarine sandwich. My conversations are typically 2 minutes or so (arranging to see people in person or conveying quick information), so quantity of calls is simply not a factor.

The real reason I don't give out my cell number much is that there's a select few people who I want to be able to bug me at any minute of the day. Everyone else can just email me.

So I don't think the cost argument holds, in my location and within my peer group at least.

Re:Brain Cancer

[glitch!]

I wonder what effect this is having on the brain cancer rate in Japan?

It is probably too low to measure. Yes, it is true that the cell phones would tend to block background ionizing radiation and cosmic rays simply by virtue of its mass, but I think it would be hard to prove that cell phone usage reduces the cancer rate enough to be significant.

One rule to keep your sanity

[dfenstrate]

1. 99.99 percent of the time, it can wait.

Yeah, see the thing is, I don't want to be reached all the time. Right now, there is no reason any one would need to contact me urgently. Whatever it is, it can wait. If it's that much of an emergency that you have to get in touch with me, maybe you should call 911 first.

Thats why my cell phone sits in a drawer, and is only pulled out and activated when I move someplace where I can't get a land line. (I'm a college student, the moving every 9/3 months thing is getting old fast...)

I understand that there are certain careers where you do need to be in touch all the time, but if I'm not in one, the cell phone stays in the drawer.

Re:Not only the japanese

[squiggleslash]

Telephone service throughout Europe is generally modern and up to date. Virtually all the systems there are digital, and in many counties ISDN has replaced POTS as the dominant home phone system. (Yes, ISDN, the rich flexible multi-facited system that for some unearthly reason was marketed in Britain and the US as a cool way to connect to the Internet, arguable the only thing it was ever bad at.) As a general rule, the average European has a more advanced network at their fingertips than an average American - a large swave of the US is still toiling under 30 year old analogue exchanges. Though most Europeans and Americans have roughly equivalent systems.

If you want to fault the land line systems of Europe as helping the cellphone markets, you'd better try the marketing. The US has that rather nice system of unmetered local calling and per-minute usually-flat-rate long distance. Most phone companies in Europe, with the exception of that of Kingston Upon Hull, Great Britain (!), charge per-minute rates for every phone call (800 numbers to the receiver, obviously, and emergency and maintenance calls are obviously free.), and rates vary depending on distance, time of day and day of week. This means the concept of paying per minute for phone calls wasn't an issue when mobile phone networks started to have enough capacity to be popular.

But in all, a lot of the credit for the success of mobile networks in Europe has to go to GSM. GSM was designed to have much of the functionality of ISDN networks (AMPS, which sadly IS-136 [so called D-AMPS or TDMA and derivatives] and cdmaOne have done much to try to emulate, tried to look as much like POTS as possible.), the phones were cheap and interchangable, users could have multiple phones on a single subscriber line (via the SIM card - if you have any difficulty understanding why, get a PDA phone), and the standardisation on a single standard and cost savings as a result, have done much to make the phone a genuine one-size-fits-all standard.

Why?

[tkrotchko]

Why would you need to be reachable most of the day?

I consider it a blessing that I'm unreachable while commuting. I don't give out my cell phone number because I don't want anyone to call me.

My favorite is watching people talking on their cell phone as they walk down the street. The conversation is always like this:

"...no no, not doing anything, just walking down the street...nope, in the city. Nope, nothing going on. How about you? So, what's going on..."

Complete inanity.

I guess if you pay for 9000 minutes a month, you're going to use them no matter how ridiculous it is.

Re:Why?

[jquirke]

And this is exactly what the article is talking about. This is the reason why the US is behind in this technology.

There is nothing wrong with this attitude at all, however in other countries this attitude is generally not accepted, and that is the reason they adopt wireless technology more quickly.

No this is not flamebait, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

things are different here

[mrm677]

1) U.S. is huge in terms of area. Nationwide digital, I mean real nationwide, can't be rolled out because of the cost. This is another reason why Europeans have one standard being GSM. GSM was initially rejected by U.S. operators because the cell size is so small. CDMA was promised to solve all of the problems that GSM didn't. CDMA, widely adopted in the U.S., can have larger cell sizes because it is not based on time division. If you make a GSM cell too large, it takes too long for the signal to travel thus messing up the frame of the next time slot. With CDMA, there is a tradeoff of cell size versus capacity versus quality (9.6kps or 14.4kbs). Cell sizes can be made much larger however the noise floor is raised thus reducing the capacity of that cell.

Also smaller cell sizes, as present in Japan, makes phones smaller because they don't need to output as much power thus requiring a smaller battery.

However looking back, it sure would be nice if we had a single unified digital standard like the Europeans, but does that really inhibit people here?? If I have a TDMA phone, that doesn't stop me from calling my buddy who has a GSM phone?

2) We already have an efficient land-based voice&data infrastructure that is cheap and omnipresent. Everybody, I mean everybody including your grandparents, already has land-based voice service. This isn't the case in other countries where land-based service is costly or unavailable.

3) We have the space, and the money, for computers in our households. Why surf the internet on a 2" screen when you have that Gateway sitting in your living room at home?

4) A multitude of other socio-economic/cultural reasons that are on the tip of my tongue but I don't feel like delving into. For example, I did away with my cellphone because I would rather spend my money on DSL at home. Even if my cellphone had the nifty Japanese features, I still would choose my PC at home with DSL. Some may not agree with me, but I believe that many do. If I had a little more money to spend, a cellphone with basic voice service would suffice.

(one of the) reality of cell phone Internet access

[ilbrec]

What the article doesn't mention is that i-mode Internet access (Internet access via your cell phone offered by DoCoMo) is very limited in many way.
Sure, your phone is capable of connecting to the Internet, but typically, most regular websites are not accessible from your phone, as it is bigger than the maximum size that your phone is capable of handling. I have found less than 1% of normal websites are accessible from my phone. So, you are basically limited to i-mode only sites, which are not very accessible from your computer. I suppose this is one of the reason why many people doens't realize i-mode is connected to the Internet.
Also, as far as the e-mail goes, I have personally found it useless. For one thing, your mail has to be less than 250 characters (2 byte Japanese characters, so you should be able to write up to 500 characters in 1 byte English characters, I think), so you cannot send a long e-mail message. At least for me, it doesn't take long for me to fill up the 250 character limit!
Inputting the text is pretty bad, if you ask me. You basically have to enter it by pressing the bunch of buttons on the phone multiple times, scrolling many times, etc. It is very inefficient to type anything into that. I think most Japanese don't think it is all that bad, as very few Japanese can type, so they find that entering text in their cell phones aren't all that worse than pecking the keyboard to enter text on their PC.
I then thought maybe I could use my cell phone to access to my servers via ssh (my phone is capable of using Java applications designed for cell phones known as "i-appli"). Well, turned out, apparently there is no way of connecting standard ssh port numbers (actually, I think you can only connect to a handful of port numbers on these cell phones). So, here again, I have found it useless.
I personally don't use i-mode access very much at all for the reasons that I listed above. Why do I have that? Well, when I got the phone last fall, there was no way not to have that, and I cannot unsubscribe from it for a year no matter what I do! That's how their contract works! I would be happy to lose the ability to connect to the Internet on my cell phone.
So, the story here is, for most of you who are used to connect to the Interent via computer, you may find the model they have in Japan is very inadequate for what you use for.

Re:ISDN is that much better?

[squiggleslash]

ISDN carries two digital phone lines plus a control channel, and that third channel, known IIRC as the D channel, is the interesting one. It allows messages to be sent to the equipment on your end out-of-band and includes everything from "What kind of call is this" to the phone number you dial.

Advantages? It really depends on how far you want to go and the complexity of the equipment you buy, and what services you want to get from your provider. Call connections are for all intents and purposes instant. You can get your computer to handle call forwarding and make up flexible rules depending on the incoming number. You can put in a cheap PBX and either route calls to different rooms in the house on the basis of CLI, or subscribe to a service whereby ten numbers will be assigned to your "two" ISDN lines and you can route on that basis. Your fax machine can automatically pick up digital fax calls without needing a seperate number and likewise your computer's TA can do similarly with data calls. Etc. etc. And it's a two way, instant on, up to 128kbps (ok, slower in the US because, for some reason, the US phone standard is 56kbps per channel, so 112kbps becomes the maximum) digital connection. At one point there was much hulabalo about it being used for basic multimedia services but that's died down as they never did figure out the metering with that.

All of which sounds rather boring but it's all stuff along the lines of "If I had it, I wouldn't want to lose it". When I came to the US, I felt the same way about GSM - there was no GSM service where I am now, and suddenly being unable to usefully use a PDA phone (who wants to have to drag such a thing around all of the time), to be able to send calls directly to voicemail or reroute them to numbers programmed in the SIM at the touch of two buttons, etc, became things I missed even when, for the very latter, I didn't use them that often.

It's a very nice system, as big a change to the phone system as the introduction of the RJ-11 jack. It's a shame that, outside of mainland Europe, it was so badly cocked up.

Sum it up

[jbridges]

1. US landlines are virtually free (local calls unbilled, long distance 2 to 3 cents a minute with calling cards, or services like BigZoo). So few use Cell instead of landline.

2. US providers charge for incomming calls, so no one gives out their number, and often leave their phone off.

3. US workers tend to drive to work. So less idle time to play with phone features.

4. US system is disorganized so your services and messaging often do not work across providers.

5. US has FAR higher ratio of PC owners than Japan. So many features like email/messaging are done from PC.

6. US is a very large place, with many different providers often with incompatible networks. So access/reception is not reliable enough replace land lines.

To those who say use in the US is low because voice rates are too high here. They are not, they are often cheaper than other countries like Japan, Germany and Finland. But a fixed line is FAR more expensive in those countries than the US.

Anyway, standardize the system, make rates competitive with land lines and you will see an explosion in use (but that raises the other issue, capacity).

Re:Sum it up

[erikdalen]

5. US has FAR higher ratio of PC owners than Japan. So many features like email/messaging are done from PC.

I don't think this matters much. Finland and Sweden have a higher ratio of PC owners than US and both those countries have far more cell phone owners than US (and Japan).

/Erik

Re:Sum it up

[jbridges]

The article was about Japan vs the US, and specificly about the fancy phone features that seem to be unique in Japan. It went into detail about odd and uniquely Japanese phone fashion culture.

Are phones commonly used in Finland and Sweden as a PC alternative for things like email?

Re:3 simple reasons

[Jucius Maximus]

"Here are, IMHO, the reasons for the cellphone/wireless phone/mobile phone situation in the USA being so far behind in technology, widespread use, acceptance and cost, compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world:"

You forgot that the landline system in the usa/canada is far more reliable and inexpensive than in most other countries. Paying $0.00/min for 'local' calling in the UK is a foriegn concept over there. Remember also that having a home/apartment/etc without a landline is highly irregular in north america and only starting to appear among people who only depend on the cell.

Re:Not only the japanese

[Archfeld]

err how about per minute charges for everything as a real argument..I have no per minute charges for anything defined as local. While I am sure the phone system quality has little difference, the billing system is much better for local calls at least here in the US.
Why am I responding to an AC ? Must be time for a break...

How GSM beat the Euro telemonopolies

[GeorgeTheNorge]

Most of the European phone systems worked okay, they were just expensive. Simple explanation - the state owned companies had a monopoly.

How did GSM beat the monopoly? Simple, the rule was that any phone line crossing a public street violated the monopoly. Cell towers circumvented this problem.

Price wars between mobile carriers got prices to an acceptable level.

Useful Feature: Home alarm - cell phone link

[ashitaka]

This article talks about a new system that calls/emails your cell phone when there is a break-in, fire or other emergency in your home. Selecting the link displays webcam images of inside your house.

Sure, with a lot of hacking you could set up a similar system here but nobody's put together the full package yet. (AFAIK)

Ttwo additional reasons that might explain this di

[stephanruby]

I won't repeat some of the good comments already made, so here are two additional reasons that might explain the cell usage difference between the US and the rest of the world.

In most European countries. You can get cell phones with special area codes that will charge the person more money for calling you. I don't know if this is the case in Japan, but in the US, this is simply not allowed and this policy has effectively barred the US from moving into the lower end of the market.

Houses in Japan are very hard to find. I am not kidding. Streets in Tokyo are adhoc. House numbers are not assigned according to geographical locations, they are assigned sequentially according to the time they were built. This reason alone was credited for the early ubiquitous adoption of the fax machine for giving out directions and I wouldn't be surprised if it also helped for the early adoption of the cell phone.

Stephan

One year in Denmark.

[Per Abrahamsen]

Just up from 6 month. It is paid by the state similar to unemployment, allthough some "family friendly" employers like IBM compensate up to full salary.

Two reasons why the US lags the rest of the world

[cheeseflan]

I'm surprised to see the attitude of some of the US-based comments. Most of the (rich) world has changed it's habits. When 80+ percent (including children) of the population have a mobile phone, you literally feel cut off without one. I wouldn't have a social life without mine as no-one would be able to find me to arrange times and places.

So why doesn't the US mirror the rest of us? Here's my thoughts.

1. Caller Pays. Until recently the major US telcos still insisted on charging for making and receiving mobile calls. BAD move... If you have to pay to get a call, it immediately puts you on the back foot - you don't want to get it when a page is free, and hardly makes you want to get a mobile - they feel expensive! (Even if charges are much higher everywhere else in the world).

2. Telco intransigence. It's only recently that Short Message Service was introduced across US operators... Wha? This was introduced with GSM in the 80's. As I understand it, only because the European operators make such a killing from SMS have the US telcos taken a solid look.

The US operators have taken a "we're different (i.e. American) so we'll ignore the world" attitude and ignored the developments made in the rest of the world. How do you think Nokia et al. have been able to dominate the industry? It's not exactly normal that the world ends up looking to a Finnish firm for technology leadership. They got ahead by doing just the sort of things that we hope the PC industry will do:

Agree standards and stick to them.
Interoperate and co-operate.

I think the US is just on the edge of the society-wide change that being constantly connected (by voice) brings. I can only barely remember what it used to be like to have to find a phone to ring round a variety of voicemail boxes trying to get in contact with someone.

You've totally missed my point

[Ethelred Unraed]

For that to make sense, you have to believe that cellphones have not been widely adopted in the U.S. And that is simply not true.

I make no such assumption. What I am saying is that people often feel unsure about what they are actually paying for the services they use (have I exceeded my minute limit? have I exceeded my airtime limit? am I in a different roaming zone? etc.) and get sticker shock when the first bill arrives.

The system in Europe is just so much simpler, and has achieved much higher rates of acceptance (which is NOT the same as rates of deployment, which is what you're talking about).

Think about it. If you had only three different rates (in-network, local area, nationwide), no minute limit, no airtime fees (so you only pay when you call), simple and standardized fees for WAP/SMS/GPRS/HSCSD and so on, you would probably feel a lot better about using your cellphone as a real alternative to your fixed-line phone.

Cellphone use in Europe has gotten so widespread that it could really replace fixed-line phones in the next few years. There are already hybrid phones in wide use here -- while you're at home, it charges you fixed-line rates; while you're away it charges cellphone rates -- and this could lead to the subsumation of fixed-line phones. With the chaotic fees and competing technologies in the US, this could just not happen.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:You've totally missed my point

[swillden]

No, I didn't miss your point, you missed mine ;-)

Mine was that the problems you mention aren't really an issue for most people. They have phones, and they deal with the issues. Some (like me) do it by getting an extremely high number of minutes per month and a nationwide no-roaming contract. Others do it by watching their usage and learning their home areas.

But people do have phones and do use them, and the issues you mention aren't really an impediment to usage.

The system in Europe is just so much simpler, and has achieved much higher rates of acceptance

Rate of acceptance is exactly what I was talking about. The deployment issues have to do with the deployment of the next generation of wireless technology. It's slow and it's going to be slow for the reasons I mentioned, which have nothing to do with the acceptance of cellphones by the people (which is quite high).

Real GPRS speeds

[Cato]

I have been using GPRS for 6 months now in the UK, and speeds are quite low - just about up to 40 Kbps if you are lucky, but not as consistent as a good 56 Kbps dialup modem connection. Generally it works well, but think 40 Kbps rather than the mythical 115 or 170 Kbps. The reference to 2 Mbit connections is completely irrelevant, that's just the size of a backhaul pipe from the base station or whatever - the bottleneck is in the radio interface to the phone.

GPRS is a very handy service, but it will be the dialup modem of the wireless world - available everywhere as a fall back when you can't get a faster connection.

I'll be surprised if US operators deploy UMTS before European ones, given that there is no spectrum yet allocated for this in the US - it may happen in patches but it will be hard to get this to work consistently across the US without new spectrum, as I understand it.

Re:Real GPRS speeds

[BrookHarty]

Acutally, 2.8mbit was the speed for the devices. But like everything else it depends on how many channels you use for data. Some devices only use 2-3 channels out of 8. Phones for power reasons only use 1-2. You need a dedicated GPRS modem with muliple channels for more bandwidth.

Dont blame the telco, blame the hardware/phone vendors.

Re:Real GPRS speeds

[Cato]

GPRS is never going to go at 2 Mbps, you must be thinking of UMTS (which will probably not get that high either in reality) or CDMA2000 1xEV-DO/DV.

Use a Palm + GPRS

[Cato]

I have a Palm device (m515) connected via Bluetooth to a GPRS phone (Ericsson T68), and it works very nicely - I can install whatever Internet clients I want on the Palm, e.g. several web browsers, IMAP4/POP3/SMTP email with no size limits, ssh, telnet, SNTP, VPN clients, etc. This is probably the best solution for people who like the flexibility of a PC but don't want to be tied to a laptop the whole time. You can get mini keyboards (same width as Palm) or built-in ones (in Handspring and Sony models), or full-size keyboards for longer emails.

GPRS is great because it's always on - like a rather slow version of DSL, and you only pay for what you send/receive, not for time connected. CDMA2000 1x works in a similar way as long as you have Bluetooth on your phone.

Just to add insult to injury.

[jotaeleemeese]

The working week in the banking industry in the UK is 35 hours per week.

Re:3 simple reasons

[Cato]

Landlines are very cheap in the US, but it's a myth that they are more reliable than Europe - I can't remember the last time I had a crossed line or line fault in the UK or in fact anywhere in Europe.

Your 'free' local phone calls (and not dedicating area codes to cell phones) are also why people have to pay for incoming calls to their cell phone - otherwise the caller would have to pay more to call some local-looking numbers than for others. So it's not all upside...

What's the big deal?

[RalphSlate]

So Japan has more wireless users than the US. Who cares? The US produces more NBA players than Japan -- does that mean that Japan needs to feel ashamed about that, and should spend time on trying to figure out why that is so?

For all I know this article could be a corporate shill -- The Seattle Times is in a joint operating agreement with the Hearst Coroporation, which seems to own a company called Mobility Technologies. Mobility Technologies "product" is a service so that "Travelers can access [Mobility Technologies] data on demand via the Internet or wireless media at www.traffic.com, and they can register for personalized data unique to their route." Hmm, look at this line in the article:

If someone developed an application where a user pressed one phone key to get the traffic report on Highway 520 and another to get conditions on Interstate 90, a decent number of commuters probably would pay 50 cents a month for that service.

Sounds exactly like what Mobility Technologies can offer as a service, doesn't it?

Bottom line -- a lot of companies bet on this so-called "wireless revolution", and lost. I don't know anyone who is experiencing a pain in their life that could be solved by typing things on a phone keypad. So it doesn't matter that this took off in Japan and Europe -- it's a waste of time here, and people know it.

Ralph

Re:Cell Phone usage

[Hast]

Everyone's gotta have the latest DoCoMo or J-Phone with the 64k color screen and built-in camera, which will no doubt be discarded for a trade-up within six months.

Meanwhile everyone in the US and Europe /has/ to have a new computer. (for mailing, and stuff, oh and some video thing...) I don't think getting the latest and greatest has much to do about conforming, more like wanting to be hip. (Which is in many ways the opposite of conforming.)

I haven't been to Japan though, so it could be more too it than I think.

Re:Not only the japanese

[Archfeld]

you got a point, there is a huge usage difference between europe, japan and the us. It is probably due to the lack of interoperability between systems here. I can't send an sms message to anyone, only those on my system. There is no incentive for the companies to cooperate :(

Why are these articles all the same?

[LuYu]

I really cannot understand why these articles keep popping up saying, "Why are cell phones so popular in Japan and Europe when they are not in the US?"

The reason I am so sick of this is that the reasons are basically obvious to anybody that does not have a business degree. There are two main categories for this problem: Greed and marketing stupidity. And these problems are also pervasive in the US broadband market.

The first problem, greed, should be obvious to any customer or individual who has even inquired about cellphones at any store. Every company has their own proprietary cell phones and will not allow customers to use their service without buying a new phone. This was covered in this slashdot article.

This practice essentially creates a monopoly where the customer must deal with a large expense to switch service providers. Companies might think this is good for business because it protects their customer base, but it, in fact, harms their business because people do not like to commit like that. In this case, the cellphone becomes disposable, and who is going to shell out 300+ bucks for a disposable phone?

The other aspect to this greed was pointed out by Linus himself in his book Just for Fun . He said the fact that all of the service providers had proprietary systems instead of agreeing on a standard, like GSM, caused the market to be stagnant. I agree with this point. In addition to the fact that it would alleviate the problem stated above, it would also have avoided a lot of the other problems encountered by the cell phone industry. The biggest of these problems was the problem of building cell towers. Without a common standard, the companies all had to build their own system of cell towers, so the service varied greatly from place to place. Service was bad, so customers were annoyed.

In a common system where companies would be using compatable equipment, they could just pay eachother for bandwidth usage and compete on price and service. However, they wanted to spend all that extra money to attempt to create monopolies. I really do not see the point of having a monopoly over a small number of customers, though.

The other aspect was stupid marketing. This article talks about what American consumers are doing in their cars. It says that they might want a wireless app to give them a traffic report. This is typical of the marketing decision that was made by some brainiac way back in the early days. Some genius thought that the people who would use cellphones the most would be businessmen. The cellphone industry should find and castrate this guy. He has not only made cellphones bad for business but for the consumer as well.

Why was this guy stupid? Because businessmen know how much work they do for their dollar. They are not going to spend one more second on the phone than is necessary. They also do not care about aesthetics (unless they are in sales, but even then, most business men have notoriously bad taste, and it is often quite entertaining to watch yuppies feign artistic appreciation). Therefore, businessmen are not going to use their cellphones excessively, and neither are they going to pay top dollar for the prettiest phone on the market.

Who is going use their phones a lot and pay for the most expensive ones, then? The article has a clue. It says:

Japan's use of wireless phones has frequently been dismissed as superficial fun, a phenomenon driven by teenage girls, Hello Kitty screensavers and an endless variety of ring tones.

The author (obviously someone who has been in the business world too long) talks about "a phenomenon driven by teenage girls." This is not phenomenon. Think back to when you were a teenager and dating. How many times did you get into a serious fight with a sibling over phone usage? How many times did you get into a fight with your parents restrictions on the phone? How many times did you stay up most or all of the night whispering into the phone so that your parents would not hear?

Teenagers are the key to cellphone market. They always have been. Teenagers will talk until the battery dies. Teenages will carry an extra battery. Teenagers will buy extra accessories for their phones. Teenagers will use their phones as status symbols to their friends.

But who pays for these cell phones? Well, the parents, of course. The parents will buy cellphones for their teenagers because they want their kid to be safe. They will want to check up on the kid now and then.

Now, we have a responsible group (the parents: those businessmen whose money everyone wanted) funding the excesses of an irresposible group (the teenagers who have a hormonal imperative to generate big bills). A phenomenon? I think not.

As obvious as this may sound, it did not occur to the author of the article or the businessmen she interviewed. Cell phones have always been ugly in the US. I will not buy Motorola products because they always released ugly products to the US market (although their cellphones are quite pretty in Asia). I think this attitude that Americans have no aesthetic taste is quite insulting.

In any case, I am sick of this whining about the consequences of stupid business decisions. It sounds like GM in the late 70's blaming Japan because American consumers did not want the big cars that GM could make greater profits on. Did any of these people read Adam Smith? The market cannot be forced to accept a product (unless of course you are Microsoft).

Re:Funny, my Verizon phone is CDMA

[Sycraft-fu]

Yes GSM. We have the phones here at work. AT&T and most of the others also have old CDMA/TDMA service but they offer real, honest to goodness GSM service. The onyl difference is the frequency, it's still GSM.

Re:3 simple reasons

[Cato]

Read my post - I didn't say that landlines in the US were unreliable, I just said they were not *more* reliable than in Europe. So landlines are reliable in both places.

I already agreed that landlines in the US are cheap, but free local calls are one reason why mobiles haven't taken off there. I have lived in the US for a while as well as in Europe, by the way.