Europe Vs. North America in WiFi growth.

r.future writes " InfoSync World and netstumbler.com have posted an interesting story that speculates about the financial growth of WiFi networks In Europe anD North America from 2003-2008. The story states: 'Insight Research's analysis of the WiFi industry, WiFi in North America and Europe: Telecommunications' Future 2003-2008, suggests that wireless LAN technology - increasingly popping up in public spaces such as airports and cafes, in private residences, and in businesses - will grow faster in Europe than North America. Worldwide WiFi revenues are expected to grow from $7 billion USD in 2003 to over $44 billion USD by 2008, at a compounded annual rate of 44 percent.'"

Comments

Perhaps an odd perspective...

[__aavhli5779]

Being a dedicated New Urbanist, I often see comparisons between the United States and Europe in an urban-development light. What comes to mind regarding the faster expansion of WiFi in Europe is the added emphasis that Europeans seem to place on public space.

There is a greater tendency to gather in concentrated areas (witness the Cafe culture prevalent through the continent) and an overall higher density that is much more conducive to the increased usage of WiFi hotspots.

I wouldn't be surprised if, just based on the tighter physical plant of your average European city, a resident or visitor is much more likely to be within range of an 802.11b/g hub, different attitudes towards technological adoption notwithstanding.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[TrancePhreak]

If they are in tighter (aka smaller) areas, would this not restrict WiFi growth since there are so few bands that often interferrance is present? Typically you can only have about three 802.11b/g bands in use before you start to have trouble connecting to any of them.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[__aavhli5779]

I never really thought about that, but that's an interesting point.

What was more on my mind was the idea that a critical mass of people by a hub is necessary for successful WiFi, and that the physical/social layout of European cities especially is more conducive to the formation of such a mass.

Once again, my utopian vision has been nixed by technology. Drat.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[pubjames]

I think that's more to do with population than any real social tendencies. The US is a highly populated area, perhaps the 4th largest country in the world. Europe with a smaller population HAS more open space, which belies the installation of large hard wired network: witness the lower takeup of cable services in europe. Wireless networks just make sense in that situation alot of the time

It depends what you mean by Europe, of course, but after the next round of expansion in 2004, when Eastern European countries will join the EU, Europe is actually going to have a populartion to some 450 million. Which I believe is more than the USA and Japan combined.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[slim]

I think that's more to do with population than any real social tendencies. The US is a highly populated area, perhaps the 4th largest country in the world. Europe with a smaller population HAS more open space, which belies the installation of large hard wired network: witness the lower takeup of cable services in europe. Wireless networks just make sense in that situation alot of the time

You've got odd ideas about the amount of open space in the USA. I found some stats here:
Europe's overall population density is 115 people per square km (and that number is pulled *right* down by sparsely populated areas such as Iceland), compared the USA's density of 29 people per square km.

Europe just doesn't do wide open spaces like the US does. As a Briton who's travelled a fair amount in mainland Europe, and whos driven across the USA twice (take the hi-line across Montana then tell me the USA is densely populated), those figures tally pretty well with my expectations.

At this early stage, however, nobody expects WiFi in the back of beyond. Hotspots in towns is where it's going to happen. Perhaps this article is using the wrong measurement. Rather than raw investment figures, or investment per square km, they should be measuring investment per unit of population.

The danger of this, of course, is the same thing as what's happening with broadband. British Telecom brags that 90% of the population has a DSL enabled exchange. Unfortunately those 90% of the population live on 10% of the land: i.e. reaching the remaining 10% of the population is going to be a hell of a job. (stats in last paragraph dredged from memory, approximate, illustrative only).

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[Dan-DAFC]

Not sure how you got modded informative, and at the risk of responding to a troll:

Since when have France and Germany been second/third world countries? I'm not sure how anybody could think they don't have nationwide telecommunications networks (never heard of Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom?)

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[ahillen]

Basically almost everywhere in the US has a massive investment in landlines while many areas of the second and third world (France, Germany, China, etc.) have yet to develop nationwide telecommunications networks.

Huh? You do not seriously believe yourself what you just wrote, right? As far as I know, most western European countries have a very good land line network, and I can speak here from first hand experience in Germany.
Actually, when digital wireless phone networks were introduced in Germany 1991/92 (shortly after unification), there was a big difference between east and west Germany, since the east German network was by far not as developed as the west German. AFAIK, in the old GDR people had to wait for years to get a phone at home, and it took Deutsche Telekom until about 1995 to rebuild a new all-digital fixed line network in the East. So in the beginning of the wirless digital area, there probably was some incentive in the East to go with a wireless phone (though they were quite expensive at that time) instead of waiting for a couple of months for a fixed line one, but these (rather special) circumstances are long gone. I surely don't believe that wired infrastructure in Germany is by any means worse than in the US.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[Lionfish]

You really need to tell your findings to the CIA.

From the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /gm.html#Comm):

general assessment: Germany has one of the world's most technologically advanced telecommunications systems; as a result of intensive capital expenditures since reunification, the formerly backward system of the eastern part of the country, dating back to World War II, has been modernized and integrated with that of the western part domestic: Germany is served by an extensive system of automatic telephone exchanges connected by modern networks of fiber-optic cable, coaxial cable, microwave radio relay, and a domestic satellite system; cellular telephone service is widely available, expanding rapidly, and includes roaming service to many foreign countries international: Germany's international service is excellent worldwide, consisting of extensive land and undersea cable facilities as well as earth stations in the INMARSAT, INTELSAT, EUTELSAT, and INTERSPUTNIK satellite systems (2001)

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[warkda rrior]

I think the comment you replied to referred to "open spaces" in the sense of agora, i.e. public spaces where people like to gather -- he mentions cafes, you could also consider the many restaurants with sidewalk eating areas, the large pedestrian traffic, the many parks, etc. So in that sense, Europe has more public/open spaces that are used by many people and where only wireless access is a decent option.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe already has a much higher population that the US. According the CIA World Fact Book, the US has a population of 290,342,554.

The combined population of the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Greece, Belgium, Demark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden & The Netherlands is 380,116,637.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Europe's overall population density is 115 people per square km (and that number is pulled *right* down by sparsely populated areas such as Iceland)"

Iceland isn't part of the EU.

"The danger of this, of course, is the same thing as what's happening with broadband. British Telecom brags that 90% of the population has a DSL enabled exchange. Unfortunately those 90% of the population live on 10% of the land: i.e. reaching the remaining 10% of the population is going to be a hell of a job."

You've plucked that 10% figure out of thin air, if that were true it mean 55m people live in a land mass smaller than greater London, whilst in actual fact less than 20% of people in the UK live in the South East (an area greater than 10% of land).

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[bdsesq]

It depends what you mean by Europe, of course, but after the next round of expansion in 2004, when Eastern European countries will join the EU, Europe is actually going to have a populartion to some 450 million.

It looks like you are the one who should explain what you mean by Europe . In the same comment you use Europe ("Eastern European countries") as a continent and as a political thing ("Europe is actually going to have a population ...")

The population of the continent of Europe will not increase by the political action of adding countries to the EU. It is the population included in the EU that will increase.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[awol]

On the contrary, you have an odd definition of "public space" which is not the same thing as open space. The original poster talked about the European model of using public spaces, whether they be more limited in area is more or less irrelevant, in urban areas more than they are used in the US. The cafe culture, the Piazza, the square, all examples of ideal Wifi access points, the equivalent of which is much harder to find in the US in general and US cities in particular.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[sgt101]

Iceland isn't part of the EU.

Scotland is though, and so are the famous urban centers of Sweden.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[radish]

I just moved from the UK to the US. So the first night I arrive, I'm sitting in my corporate apartment on the 49th floor of some building in NY. I open up my laptop and start digging around under the desk for the phone connection, ready to feel the full power of 56k dialup :) Just then I hear a noise from the machine, look up, and it's found no fewer than 11 wireless networks, of which a massive *1* has any kind of security on it. So much for dialup - I've spent the last few weeks "borrowing" 2mbit cable lines :)

So I guess you can have more than a few working at once, but I don't know the technicalities of how/why it worked...

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[slim]

On the contrary, you have an odd definition of "public space" which is not the same thing as open space. The original poster talked about the European model of using public spaces,

I think /.'s moderation-based filtering is causing you to think I was responding to a different post to the one I did respond to.

The post I responded to is (at time of writing) rated -1, with one "overrated" moderation. Pretty harsh, when someone thinks a score of 0 is overrated ;)

The post I responded to seemed to suggest (by inference) that the town planning that gives Europeans piazzas and so forth, is because Europe has so much more room for open spaces in cities than the US. But this is nonsense. Admittedly I may have misunderstood, after all I'm not sure what verb he meant to use when he used "belies".

Incidentally I've seen a few public spaces along the lines of the European piazza in American cities. In New York - Central Park, the square outside the Rockerfeller Centre, etc. In LA, many of the beachside areas. Navy Pier in Chicago...
but it's not ubiquitous as it is in France or Italy (nor is it in the UK, by the way -- we don't have the weather for it).

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[slim]

Iceland isn't part of the EU.

I was going to say "Nobody mentioned the EU until you did", but that stat was for the EU, so well caught! As another poster pointed out, though, there are big empty places in Europe: Norway, Scotland, Finland...

You've plucked that 10% figure out of thin air ... and pointed out that I was doing so at the time. I also plucked the 90% figure out of thin air. Someone with more time than me can chase up the real figures...

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when have France and Germany been second/third world countries?

For a short period from 1944 to 1945 when they had a major land war going across them?

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[TrancePhreak]

All I know is that I went to my friend's apartment and found no fewer than 3 other access points. I tried to put my AP in with the lot, but I couldn't find a channel that gave me a good enough signal to be ~30 feet away. It works just fine if you are right close to the AP, but once you get farther away, all the signals start to cross each other. There are only 11 channels sanctioned for use in the USA. They are all very close together. They range from 2.412GHz to 2.462GHz.

Re:Perhaps an odd perspective...

[awol]

Fair enough on the "wrong reply" front. The public spaces you mention (rockerfella centre apart) are not quite in the european model. What I mean is that Central Park etc are really quite large open spaces where the public _go_. The difference in Europe is that there are many more public spaces servicing smaller areas, that are nearby where people _are_.

I spent a lot of time in NYC trying to find a place like the 100m sqaure on which my office in London is situated. The nearest other such square is only a few hundred metres away. I found nothing really comparable in midtown (50th - 55th between 2nd and 5th avenues) in Manhattan so I think that the difference between US cities and European cities is quite marked.

In the end, I think that we are probably in vehement agreement about the difference between US cities and European cities. As for the UK, yes the weather doesn't really suit and yet the spaces are still here to some extent (in central london at least). Must be a European thing :-)

wifi@SFO

[mirko]

In September, while travelling between Bern(CH) and Frisco.
I had the sweet surprise to see some Wifi logo in SFO.
I then open my iBook and check for a network, which I find.
I try to browse and find a web page which asks me to pay 25$.
Bullshit!
How do they believe they will sell such access, especially to people who need at most one hour accesses ???
If you want such networks to develop, you will have to give the access for FREE (as in Beer).

Re:wifi@SFO

[bbtom]

Dude, have you ever been to Starbucks?

Same deal, same ripoff.

(And, yes, wifi 'wants' to be free)

Re:wifi@SFO

[Anonymous Coward]

I try to browse and find a web page which asks me to pay 25$.
Bullshit!
How do they believe they will sell such access, especially to people who need at most one hour accesses ???
If you want such networks to develop, you will have to give the access for FREE (as in Beer).

Dude, internet access costs money. Wireless access points cost money. If you give away access, you aren't making any money.

You are correct that $25 is a ridiculous price, but you can't expect it to be always free.

Re:wifi@SFO

[iDaZe]

If you want such networks to develop, you will have to give the access for FREE (as in Beer).

Because everybody knows that developing such networks costs them nothing.
Ok so $25 is a bit on the high side, but I don't see why they couldn't charge a small fee dor the service they provide.

Re:wifi@SFO

[mirko]

If they just put a proxy in the middle that would add a top ad frame to the web pages I'd be browsing, I'd consider it more decent.
Remember the wireless telephone boom only started when they began giving away phones with subscriptions.
Here, it's the same deal : let people depend on these accesses and insert a decently sized ad in the pages they'll be browsing (this could BTW be an ad for one of the airport shops)...

Re:wifi@SFO

[10Ghz]

Remember the wireless telephone boom only started when they began giving away phones with subscriptions.

Here (Finland) they NEVER gave away phones with subscriprions (in fact, tying the device with the service is illegal. You buy the service and the phone separately), and the usage of mobile-phones spread like wildfire.

Re:wifi@SFO

[mirko]

Nokia is Finnish so I guess you are happy to spend money on your nattional production, aren't you ?
BTW how less expensive are Nokia devices, up there ?

Re:wifi@SFO

[10Ghz]

Well, Nokia does have about 80% market-share here, but I dunno that does nationalism have anything to do with it. As to prices. They are more or less the same here. We migth get some phones few days earlier than some other countries do, but that's it.

Re:wifi@SFO

[mirko]

not "nationalism" : protectionism.
If you buy a Nokia phone, you might at least save its import taxes, no ?
And you'll also improve your country's economy by keepping some of your fellow citizen at work.

How's this "nationalist" when every country in the workl, except European countries have understood how vital it is to keep their populations from consuming more foreign than local goods for economic sanity's sake ?

Re:wifi@SFO

[10Ghz]

not "nationalism" : protectionism.

Uh, no. There was no trade-barrier protecting Nokia back then (and there isn't one today). Most of the Nokia-phones that are sold here (except for some hi-end model) are made in Germany or Hungary. Hi-end models (such as the Communicator) are still made in Finland.

Re:wifi@SFO

[PReDiToR]

I don't know if this still holds true, but the Communicator was one of the worst phone ever for returns due to breakages.

I wouldn't like to suggest a corelation with the workforce, because that would be racist, but was teh 8210 also made in Finland? That phone has to have the shortest life of any mobile device outside of a firecracker.

Re:wifi@SFO

[Eunuchswear]

...vital it is to keep their populations from consuming more foreign than local goods for economic sanity's sake

And another idiot fails econ 101.

Hint: If someone wants to sell you something for less money than it takes you to make it: buy it from him!. Use the money you've saved to do something more interesting.

Re:wifi@SFO

[mirko]

If someone wants to sell you something for less money than it takes you to make it: buy it from him!. Use the money you've saved to do something more interesting.

Like for exemple, how the USA saved money by delocalizing their workforce ?

Re:wifi@SFO

[Anonymous Coward]

I Norway phones are often sold for 1 NOK (approximately one US-American dime) to avoid that law.

Re:wifi@SFO

[Eunuchswear]

Well, yes, of course.

Next question?

Re:wifi@SFO

[Katchina'404]

How's this "nationalist" when every country in the workl, except European countries have understood how vital it is to keep their populations from consuming more foreign than local goods for economic sanity's sake ?

Hmmm, here are some facts (paid for by the American taxpayers, should I add) :

USA Exports : $687 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
USA Imports : $1.165 trillion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
USA balance : - $487 billion

France Exports : $307.8 billion f.o.b. (2002)
France Imports : $303.7 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
France balance : $4.1 billion

Germany Exports : $608 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
Germany Imports : $487.3 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
Germany balance : $120.7 billion

Belgium Exports : $162 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
Belgium Imports : $152 billion f.o.b. (2001)
Belgium balance : $10 billion

Finland Exports : $40.1 billion f.o.b. (2002)
Finland Imports : $31.8 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
Finland balance : $8.3 billion

Come on now, who hasn't figured your statement yet ? The USA is widely known for having a hugely negative trade balance. These few figures are just examples.

Re:wifi@SFO

[twiddlingbits]

I'm not certain but I think that goods produced within the EU and sold to other EU nations are not consider in these import/export figures. The EU counts things in some interesting ways. The two largest trade partners of the US are Mexico and Canada. I think US consumers are more price sensitive preferring the cheaper import to the US made product. Europeans consumers support their own manufacturers well, in part because import bans and quotas protect the locals. Also, the US has a much larger population and a more consumerist life style, all of which contribute to the trade imbalance. I'm not saying a trade imbalance is a bad thing, just that there is more to it than just numbers.

Re:wifi@SFO

[ncc74656]

In September, while travelling between Bern(CH) and Frisco. I had the sweet surprise to see some Wifi logo in SFO. I then open my iBook and check for a network, which I find. I try to browse and find a web page which asks me to pay 25$. Bullshit! How do they believe they will sell such access, especially to people who need at most one hour accesses ???

The Denver airport (passed through it each way between LAS and PHF recently) has big banners hanging in its gate areas touting wireless access. No mention is made anywhere that they charge for access...and since the connection was constantly going up and down, there wasn't even a default webpage that can be called up. (A few weeks later, I found the AT&T Wireless page that said it would've cost $10 to connect. At the time, I just went back to doing offline stuff.)

Re:wifi@SFO

[Katchina'404]

These numbers are for each nation independently. So I suppose they include imports/exports to other EU member states. I would have liked to come up with aggregate EU figures, because indeed there's a lot of internal trade going on, but couldn't find it with a quick lookup in the CIA Facts Book.

The EU sure has some import bans and quotas, but so does the US. The so-called free-market is mostly for domestic products.

Re:wifi@SFO

[Anonymous Coward]

..in part because import bans and quotas..

For example steel, lumber or Catfish. Oh no, those are well known and obvious U.S protectionist trade barriers. My mistake.

Re:wifi@SFO

[10Ghz]

It wouldn't be "racist" since finns are not really a separate race. And I can see why Communicator was error-prone. After all, it was (and is) ALOT more complicated device than your regural phone is! More complicated = more things that could malfunction.

I know people who have had 8210's, and I haven't seen any problems with that phone. And it was made elsewhere besides Finland to my knowledge.

Re:wifi@SFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, Catfish... perhaps the most important and vital industry in the modern world...

Re:wifi@SFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, Catfish... perhaps the most important and vital industry in the modern world...

If you are going to be selective, select the biggest one quoted: steel.

Europe

[bbtom]

If it's growing so fast over here in Europe, why can I still not find a free wi-fi point outside of my University library?

Re:Europe

[pphrdza]

Because availability does *not* mean *free*?

Re:Europe

[Timesprout]

Because outside University is the real world. If someone goes to the trouble and expense of providing a service for you, they usually expect something in return.

Re:Europe

[logic7]

depends on what "free" means for you. i've been driving through my city (cologne, germany) last week with my notebook and i discovered lots and lots of private wlans. more than 30 access points in just a few minutes. most of them (about 85%) were totally unprotected and gave direct access to the internet and even to their windows shares...
ok it might not be legal to use those, but you can get wireless internet access virtually everywhere in town. :-)

Re:Europe

[DCowern]

Because outside University is the real world. If someone goes to the trouble and expense of providing a service for you, they usually expect something in return.

Granted, University life doesn't always equate to "real life" but in the case of paying for services, University students pay for them. If you don't believe me, I have a $15,000+ (USD) tuition bill for this semester and a huge pile of student loans I can show you.

University students DO pay for their access even though the charges for it might not be as explicit as those on the average users ISP bill.

Re:Europe

[Timesprout]

I agree totally with you, I actually deleted mentioning that student fees and in some cases the taxpayer subsidize University WiFi access from my post. I just got the impression the original poster was under the delusion that for some reason a company should provide services to him/her without expecting anything in return. Thats not SOP in the real world, or as you point out in the fantasy University land the original poster resides in.

Re:Europe

[nilenico]

Or, just come home with your brand new laptop and find that your neighbour has a totally insecure WLAN, conveniently sited in his living room right under yours..:)

Of course, his connection sucks - I checked his router (also VERY open), and it would seem that he has another visitor on his WLAN as well, using all the bandwidth (the rat!). So I've kept my wirefull ADSL.

Re:Europe

[bbtom]

They will get something in return... http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=68 6_0_1_0_C

Re:Europe

[Stargod]

I find it amazing that there are so many WiFi networks left unprotected. I started "WarDriving" about 18 months ago and the number of networks open is (I would saw over 60%). I can get from almost oneside of the city to the other and have nice free web access. Its also great for business cause I contact these companies and offer my services to close their network to prying eyes >:}

Re:Europe

[The Cydonian]

Yes, heard the areas near the University (Barbarosaplatz?) had an open Wi Fi, particularly near the train station.

[Rumoured, so take it with a pinch of salt. ;-) ]

Re:Europe

[logic7]

yes, i've heard that rumour too. but afaik the campus-wide wlan is now secured by a VPN solution. every student can get access for free, but unfortunately i'm not a student any more.

Re:Europe

[logic7]

GoodThing(TM) if you have such a neighbor. most of my neighbors still live in the stone age, so i have to leave my house to get access, or use plain old wired dsl. such a pity.

At home, perhaps...

[heironymouscoward]

Certainly in Belgium, the main ISP (ironically called "Skynet") is pushing wireless ADSL routers. It makes sense: home internet users are already so down on security that it's hard to imagine wireless making any difference.

But for public access? Way too expensive, for one, and secondly there are really few people who trot around with their laptops, with the exception of air travellers, where wifi is a definite niche product with a future.

There have been projects to create free acess wifi networks around European cities but these need a level of collaboration which Europeans don't seem able to give.

Finally, Europe is _so_ wired. Why go wireless? For instance, in Brussels, there must be several hundred cybershops which offer internet at 1 Euro per hour.

Re:At home, perhaps...

[pphrdza]

secondly there are really few people who trot around with their laptops,

What about PDA's?

Re:At home, perhaps...

[SupaMegaBuffalo]

Certainly in Belgium, the main ISP (ironically called "Skynet")

How exactly is that ironic?

Re:At home, perhaps...

[Andrew Leeson]

Skynet - as in the Terminator movies....

Re:At home, perhaps...

[Timesprout]

Your question will be ironic when you, despite being SupaMega, go the way of the rest of the buffalo when SkyNet becomes aware and starts with the Terminators.

Re:At home, perhaps...

[dabadab]

I guess PDAs are not that big in Europe, esp. PDAs with WiFi.

Re:At home, perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you read that the PDA is dead?
PDA, RIP

Re:At home, perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

home internet users are already so down on security

In the U.S. at least, to be "down on" something means to be "with it," i.e. to have understanding or approval of something.

Hence the catchphrase of a few years ago: "You down with OPP?"

Should we be suprised by this?

[pubjames]

Is there any reason to be suprised by this?

The USA has been behind in the uptake of a lot of technologies recently - mobile, WiFi and broadband to make just three.

Why is this? Many Americans that it is because of the USAs more disperse population, but personally I find that a very poor excuse considering, for instance, the places with the strongest usage of these technologies (Norway, Finland) are actually harsh environments with disperse populations.

Personally I think the route cause may be fairly simple. It has become common in the USA to believe that a completely free market always comes up with the most efficient solution, and that which is best for the people. Perhaps this just isn't true in these situations.

So for instance, the competing standards for the mobile phone networks in the USA, where as in Europe they agreed on a standard beforehand. Perhaps government regulation of this sort in Europe is actually a good, positive thing?

It has also become worryingly popular in the USA of late to dismiss outright views that don't fit the neo-Con agenda, so I expect I am going to be mocked by some for even proposing that government regulation might be senisble in some situations, and that the European system might be better in this regard. It is interesting to note that the World Economics Forum recently identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective, despite it being a fully paid up member of the EU and the Euro currency.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting to note that the World Economics Forum recently identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective

Dont worry, Finland can soon expect to be 'liberated' from their cruel and oppressive competitive overlords.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah and they can't listen to him, 'caus he was writing. Perhaps you meant "read".

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[CGP314]

It has become common in the USA to believe that a completely free market always comes up with the most efficient solution, and that which is best for the people. Perhaps this just isn't true in these situations.

No kidding. There isn't going to be a wifi network that spans the country because of a single company. You really just need the government for large-scale, for-the-public-good type of projects. Corps don't care about the public good, just the short term buck, so they lack a certain grandness of scale.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Dikeman]

I think this IS surprising. The USA has been behind in the uptake of mobile, compared to Europe, mainly due to the fact that the standards used where not so much competitive, but all used a payment scheme where the receiver payed for incomming calls. Consumers thought twice before purchasing a mobile phone because they didn't want to pay for incomming BS calls from direct marketing companies.
In Europe, not bothered by strange payment models, mobile was nothing short of a small revolution.

The lack of a dense, highly used mobile network like Europe has right now was considered to be a strong driving force behind WiFi. Therefor agencies like Forrester thought WiFi would develop quicker and bigger in the states. apparently that isn't the case. I think that's surprising.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[ivaradi]

Government regulation is evil, because the government lives on money extorted from people. While it can have effects that look good in the short run and in specific area (and the GSM standard does look better than competing standards in the USA), the other effects, which can be observed later and/or in other areas can be much more negative.

As I see it, though I have no personal experience, the USA is becoming one of the countries with the most powerful governments. A completely free market does not exist, and even if the telecom industry were complete unregulated (which it is not), the effects of the regulation in other areas would certainly affect the telecom industry as well.

I think, a completely free market does come up with the most efficient solution, but it must not be forgotten, that a solution is not only "consumed", but it is also "produced". And most efficiency is achieved when the interests of both sides (the producer and the consumer) are balanced. In a completely free market we may have several competing standards or only a single one initially, but in the long run it should tend towards what is the best compromise for both service providers and consumers.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[pubjames]

Government regulation is evil, because the government lives on money extorted from people.

It's sad that there are so many in the USA that believe this these days.

This is the 21st century. We should be getting more civilised, not less. Many in the USA seem to believe that the only model that works is one of selfish individualism - like animals - and want to drag the rest of the world down to their level.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[nickos]

"identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective, despite it being a fully paid up member of the EU and the Euro currency"

Why "despite" it being a member of the EU and Euro? One of the reasons for the EU and the Euro is to create a single European trade block, and as everyone knows, the larger the block and the less barriers to free trade exist, the more competition there is within the block.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[pubjames]

Why "despite" it being a member of the EU and Euro? One of the reasons for the EU and the Euro is to create a single European trade block, and as everyone knows, the larger the block and the less barriers to free trade exist, the more competition there is within the block.

My wording came from writing it from the perspective of someone who thinks the EU and the Euro is a bad thing. I personally don't think that myself.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[nickos]

"I expect I am going to be mocked by some for even proposing ... that the European system might be better in this regard"

Not by me - here's is an interesting article that compares the economies of the EU and the USA, and dispells the myths that the American economic model is better:

According to the International Monetary Fund, an institution more often accused of imposing Washington's ways than of knocking them, Europe's has. Over the past three years, living standards, as measured by GDP per person, have risen by 5.8 percent in the European Union but by only 1 percent in the United States. An unfair comparison, perhaps, given America's recent recession? Then look at how the European Union and the United States size up since 1995, a period that includes the go-go late '90s, when America apparently advanced by leaps and bounds. While living standards in the United States have risen by a healthy 16.1 percent over the past eight years, they are up by 18.3 percent in the European Union. Another statistical sleight of hand? Not at all. Pick any year between 1995 and 2000 as your starting point, and the conclusion is the same: Europe's economy has outperformed America's.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[ivaradi]

Taxation is just a fancy name for legalized theft. I would not call a system based on thievery "civilised".

We can talk about civilization only when people can get along peacefully, each pursuing their own "selfish" interests, while fully respecting the right of others to do the same. Not when a central authority decides what is good and what is wrong (regardless of whether that authority is a dictatorship or elected by people) and actively force people to follow its mandates. Such a system is exactly a model of selfish individualism, when a select few can impose its will on the rest without the rest being able to resist and keep the select few within limits. I would say this is more like animals.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather believe WSJ you know ....

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[general_re]

Over the past three years, living standards, as measured by GDP per person, have risen by 5.8 percent in the European Union but by only 1 percent in the United States.

And if your per capita GDP goes from $1 per year up to $2 a year, you'll have a 100% increase in your standard of living, making those Europeans look like a gang of lazy bums - of course, the elephant in the living room in such a case is that your absolute standard of living is still abysmal by comparison. And then the follow-up question is whether such percentage gains are really sustainable over time - in my hypothetical, they certainly aren't, and the jury is still out, I think, on whether such gains are sustainable for Europe as well. In any case, the fact remains that the per capita GDP in France and Germany, for example, is still about 70% of what it is in the United States. They ought to be increasing faster, considering how far they have to go in order to catch up.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Rotten168]

The US was named #2 in that same survey.

I must say, the US really isn't behind in any of those technologies, at least as far as jobs are concerned. The broadband tends to be there for those who want it (like me), you just have to live in a fairly dense area (which most people don't). The business infrastructure has always been top-notch, here, which means plenty of growth in IT jobs, which is where it matters most for most techies.

America has beaten Europe in the past and, barring some unforeseen factor, will contine to do so in the future.

As for mentioning neo-cons, I don't really see how this fits into the conversation except as an extremely irrational viewpoint of the US.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he's been a Special Adviser to the Director-General for the World Trade Organisation and the Trade and Economics Correspondent for The Economist!

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Bull999999]

I'll bet that they didn't factoring in the recent 7.2% increase.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[montmorency77]

Actually, GDP per working hour (productivity) is on par in Western Europe and the US. Far higher in economies such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and The Netherlands. The gap in GDP per capita can be explained by the fact that in the US, people work a lot more. Another important difference, which at first galnce might not look so important, is that fact that the US counts software as an investment (counts in GDP) where as in the EU it counts as operating costs. I don't know which is better, but it makes the US economy seem to be about 1% bigger Than it actually is. Factor in both these things and Europe has higher productivity and probably that obtuse concept: "Quality of life". I'm not biased, since I'm half American, half European...

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[unother]

Should our representative democracy thus be viewed as such, as some "central authority" akin to a dictatorship? Why have government at all, then? Ah--but that is your point! "Government is best which governs least", etc.

In closing all I will say is that I disagree with your point about (other) animals. They seem much more enlightened in their approach to each other than we humans.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had a cell phone for about 3 years now and have not once received a telemarking call. I am pretty sure it is illegal for them to do so. As to the slow uptake of cells, what is the big deal about them? I have one because I need it for work. Why do the majority of people need to be on call so often that they have to carry a phone everywhere they go? I don't think it has anything to do with the network, but rather that the vast majority of Americans who do not currently have cell phones (and probably a large percentage of those who already do) do not need them.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that could just mean that the previous standard of living in Europe was so bad that any improvement at all would increase the numbers greatly. Maybe there is some theoritical logrithmic curve of standard of living and the US is closer to reaching the plateau.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the european solutions that are available are targeted towards the consumer and not the business user. This brings up serious security issues which has hampered the deployment of their technology in the US.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Yartrebo]

Which goes to show that we should be using NDP (Net Domestic Product), not GDP (Gross National Product). NDP subtracts out depreciation, which would make the question of "Is software an investment?" mostly irrelevent. Personally, I think that writing software is an investment, but buying software is an operating cost (since the actual contribution to NDP is done by the writers of the software, and everything from then is just moving money around).

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[general_re]

Actually, GDP per working hour (productivity) is on par in Western Europe and the US. Far higher in economies such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and The Netherlands.

Except that it isn't. The numbers for 2001 are the easiest to lay my hands on at the moment, so in Sweden, for example, the average number of hours worked per person in 2001 was 1,603, and the per capita GDP was about $24,700 (purchasing-power parity adjusted). That works out to about $15.40 per hour per worker. Contrast with the US, which had 1,821 hours per year per worker, and a per capita GDP of $36,300, or about $19.93 per hour per worker - productivity almost 30% higher than in Sweden, by that measure. Netherlands: $25,800 per capita, 1346 hours per worker per year = $19.16 per hour per worker, or close to par with the US but certainly not "far higher". Of the countries you listed, the only one that's somewhat higher than the US is Norway, which is hardly a surprise given that the Norwegians are floating on a pool of oil.

And looking at the larger economies of Europe, they really aren't on a par at all - France: $25,400 per capita GDP, 1,532 hours per worker per year = $16.57 per worker per hour. Germany: $26,200 per capita GDP, 1,467 hours per worker per year = $17.85 per worker per hour. UK: $24,700 per capita GDP, 1,711 hours per worker per year = $14.43 per worker per hour.

This is all readily verifiable - I drew the hours-worked numbers from the OECD and the per capita GDP estimates from the 2002 World Factbook.

Factor in both these things and Europe has higher productivity and probably that obtuse concept: "Quality of life".

Well, I think I've adequately addressed productivity, but "quality of life" is an inherently subjective measure, by any definition. There's nothing inherently inferior about European workers, by any stretch of the imagination - the major difference is in cultural values, I think. We value different things, and the choices we make reflect those values. And so long as we're all happy with those choices, and we understand that both parties have made certain trade-offs in pursuit of those choices...well, who am I to complain? ;)

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

ITYM "bloc" A "trade block" is something else.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[montmorency77]

The 2001 numbers are too old to use in this case. They may seem current, but they are not. The appreciation of the Euro to the Dollar between the end of 2001 and now is almost 30%. And since you are comparing everything in dollar terms, that makes a huge diference. I'm not sure about the dollar against the swedish koruna though, but I'm guessing it is similar. Purchasing power parity is also a very tricky measure. The simplest form of of that measure that I know is the "Big Mac" index, used by "The Economist" to compare economies relatively. Here they use a single product and still admit that the model has big flaws. So an overvalued currency makes the US numbers look fantastic. That will become a huge problem once China and the rest of the world stops buying US treasury bonds. Once again, I'm not jingoistic, but I seem to detect a tendency of american statisticians to make their numbers look more impressive. The software as an investment is an excellent example.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[general_re]

Nevertheless, I notice you're not exactly rushing out to find any numbers of your own to support your currently-unsupported contentions about productivity - data that is admittedly imperfect is still orders of magnitude better than no data at all, when it comes to picking and choosing between my flawed numbers and your anecdotes. Pick the measurement you prefer and pick the observer you prefer - my prediction is that the relative relationships I've outlined will be borne out, even if the absolute measurements are different.

Once again, I'm not jingoistic, but I seem to detect a tendency of american statisticians to make their numbers look more impressive.

Should be easy enough to find out if most European economists and statisticians reach differing conclusions, then. I tend to doubt you'll find much, but I'm always willing to entertain new ideas.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[general_re]

That will become a huge problem once China and the rest of the world stops buying US treasury bonds.

LOL - I almost missed this one.

Yes, yes - we all know that European politicians would dearly love for the euro to become the world's de facto reserve currency. And then they'll discover that 35 hour work weeks are still too long, and wouldn't it be nice to have 27 hour work week, and just think of how many jobs that'll create, and spending 28% of GDP on welfare really isn't enough, so let's boost it to 35%, and of course we'll have to raise the tax burden to 65% of GDP instead of 60%, and so forth and so on and on and on. Or something like that, and the charming phenomenon of "Euro-sclerosis" will once again rear its head, and oh yes, no doubt, they'll be beating a path to your door to buy euro-bonds then... ;)

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[montmorency77]

Yes, I admit that I can't quote exacly from which study my claims originate. I hope, however, that people's faith in publications such as The Economist is such that I would not have to. There was a report recently in that very magazine whose conclusion was the one I was arguing for: the apparent gap in economic strength, growth and productivity can be explained by largely two things: longer working hours in the US and different ways of calculating macro economic conditions. But once again, I cannot give you the exact publication date of that perticular issue (I think it was in July...). But perhaps you could find the content of the argument interesting rather dismiss solely it because of lack of exact sources. But maybe that would destabilize your view of the world too much, carefully crafted by Fox News (just kidding).

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[general_re]

Ah, that's enough information, then. I assume that the article you mention was either this one, or one similar to it. In which case, we should remember that it's strictly discussing productivity growth rates, not absolute measures of productivity itself. And even when the suggested corrections are made, the US still has a higher rate of growth than Europe.

Re:Should we be suprised by this?

[montmorency77]

Not that one, a bit too old, but yes it posed the same questions. It was not about growth, only static conditions. But ok, I take everything back since I can't give the exact to the article. I don't know if you mean growth per capita, but that must surely be the only interesting measure since the US population is growing and the european one is contracting. The US productivity numbers both in static terms and their derivatives (growth, growth growth, etc) have always been better the last 100 years I suppose.

Sweet... All good news

[weave]

I'm heading to UK on Wednesday and worry about net access. I was hoping to leech off of some open (read: hence public) wifi hotspots here and there.

Dial up access sucks in UK since one has to pay per-minute phone rates, even local calls. Worse, it looks like my poor ole trusty ISP that I've had an account on since 1982* (no lie) that I kept around for worldwide access (compuserve classic) is dropping local numbers. In England they now only have a national number (and it ain't toll free of course).

Any hints on where to find hot spots (free or otherwise) in England, specifically London and that boring center bit (Northamptonshire)?

* Ah, the good ole days of Compuserve in the 80s. $6.00/hr for 300 baud, and of course, no connections to anywhere else. Even at just 300 baud, the output often sat there waiting since their box was so busy. Then AOL came around and killed them off.

Re:Sweet... All good news

[Library Spoff]

yeah a penny a minute with a 5p connection fee sucks... 60p (just over a dollar) an hour extortionate!

Re:Sweet... All good news

[OldManSteptoe]

If you want dialup, have a look at uk2.net which have a free service. I can't guarentee the availability though. You get what you pay for.

Re:Sweet... All good news

[weave]

a penny a minute with a 5p connection fee

Oh wow, not too bad. I guess that's come down then since a few years ago? That's the national number rate? Off peak only? I'm staying with friends and I really don't want to stick them with a high phone bill next quarter. Just trying to do the right thing...

Re:Sweet... All good news

[Library Spoff]

Thats the price any time of day (if i remember correctly). It's a local priced number from anywhere in the UK. You could pick up an AOL disc and get 150 hrs toll free - but that requires a credit card...

Re:Sweet... All good news

[fuckfuck101]

Dial-up in the UK is available in MANY packages (monthly fees and alot of others), so I'm not sure what you're referring to pay-per-minute rates for, thats one of many options.

Just walk around london, there's hotspots EVERYWHERE.

Re:Sweet... All good news

[gilesjuk]

You have to sign up to an ISP package to get free calls.

I remember hearing that there's a pub in St Albans which offers WiFi access. Ok just found the info:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28381.ht ml

Anyway, if you can swallow your pride then use AOL, they have a long trial period in their latest pack, free calls included.

Re:Sweet... All good news

[legoburner]

you should go to consume.net and check by postcode to see all free as in beer wireless broadband points in the area. It is the uk national free wireless network set up by volunteers... just contact the people who are operating the nearest node to where you are staying and check that they have open access or get the keys/info from them.

Re:Sweet... All good news

[weave]

Woah, nice. Found a few operational nodes listed around Kettering -- Rothwell and Wellingborough. Not too far away. Thanks!

Re:Sweet... All good news

[a5cii]

0845 numbers are national rate and most free ISPs use it

4p a minute from 8am to 6pm
1.5p per minute at all other times
Saturday and Sunday are 1p per minute at all times

local calls are the same price as the national rates as above

national number is so that people in scotland, wales, ireland, guernsey, jersey dont pay extra

for example 20 min call from scotland to london using 0845 at peak = 80p

20 mins from an 01224(aberdeen) to 020(london) 6p a minute

Gee, talking about a timely article....

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe grows WiFi faster than North America
By: Anthony Newman, Friday 24th October 2003, 08:29 GMT

Europe Vs. North America in WiFi growth.
Posted by timothy on Monday November 03, @05:12AM
from the head-to-kopf dept.

$44 billion in 2008???

[Anonymous Coward]

Wifi is nice, but it gross overestimation that people are willing to spend that much just to surf the net while they are walking in driving.

The "problem" is that most people who need net daily already have connection at home and at work. Thus they would use Wifi only if it's cheap.

mirko's wifi business plan

[vrai]

1. Spend thousands of dollars/pounds/swiss-francs installing WiFi hotspots and allow completely free access to them.
2. ???
3. Profit!

How could this fail? Surely companies will be queuing up to invest money with no hope of every recouping it! It could herald a who new era of a financial planning ... mirkonomics.

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Charging for using WiFi is like charging for using the toilet.

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[mirko]

thousands ?
A spot costs 200$.
It might just be enough for a plane's passengers. (only one or 2 dozens might actually use it)

Proxy them the whole internet so that they get an ad frame each time they surf.
The ads will be about bargains or sales in the duty free shops.
So, each shop will surely make a little money out of the little investment it takes : browsing the Internet with a laptop is not the same as letting anymone Torrentse.cx his harddisc, is it ?

Now, of course, this won't earn companies millions but it might make their customers (the flight passengers) happy.
So, they'll tell their fellows travellers...

Seriously think about this instead of posting such an idiotic comment, Mr "Vrai" (as in "Ivraie").

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[vrai]

All the frequent flyer lounges I've ever been in have either free internet terminals or WiFi - so airlines have already taken care of that.

As for poorer passengers (who are stuck out in the main terminal anyway) - I'm pretty sure that the duty free shops would rather have people browsing out of boredom rather than glued to their laptops. After all, that's how the shops make sales.

Airlines have demonstrated on many occasions that they don't give a s*** about non-premium class passengers - why are they going to bother offering them free web access? If you want that I suggest you fly business class from now on.

Seriously think about this instead of posting such an idiotic comment, Mr "Vrai" (as in "Ivraie").

I assume that was an attempt at an ad hominem. However given that I don't have a f***ing clue what 'Ivraie' means it wasn't very effective.

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[mirko]

All the frequent flyer lounges I've ever been in have either free internet terminals or WiFi - so airlines have already taken care of that.
How many frequent flyers are there for one occasional flyer ?
I don't plan to fly every week, do I have not to benefit from a wireless access point in 2002 ?
What if this gives salers further occasion to get me in their shops ?
My point is : it will rather gain airports/lines/shops money than lse them some.
Now, they way they can earn money by giving away internet access still has to be handled on a per-airport basis.

However given that I don't have a f***ing clue what 'Ivraie' means it wasn't very effective.
I like to teach interseting stuff to young people (even Brits ;) so, what you have to remember is "Ivraie" is not "true", it rather is the bit you'll drop when harvesting...

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[pkp_gl211]

A spot costs 200$.

$150 a month for reasonable bandwidth. Cable and DSL in some areas charge more for businesses than residences.

Businesses would probably have to pay for installation, setup and all tech support. $200 will buy you a consumer level unit not a commercial one. I would say setup is closer to $500 (with installation costs from the ISP) with an average reoccuring charge for maintence and access at $200.

This turns out to be a lot of money for small cafes that sell donuts and coffee. If you were internet illiterate and someone approached you and said that they would provide the equiptment and internet access for free allowing you to advertise that you have wifi -or- you could float the bill and the responsibility, which would you choose?

Some larger chains like Panera Bread (breafast/lunch shop) do provide free access. However they get stung because with a high volume of customers during the morning-afternoon hours people are content on spending 1$ on a cup of coffee and sitting there for two hours. Actual customers that do not even seek access have no where to sit.

No this isnt a conspiracy against the working man, the shops just want to stay profitable. I doubt a cafe or a bookstore for that matter will make millions.

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[vrai]

Right, where we disagree is that you believe that your average traveller is likely to purchase more at duty free if they are advertised at using WiFi. Where-as I believe that people are more likely to purchase items when they are browsing the shops due to a lack of other distractions (which is why few airport terminals have decent video arcades, despite the obvious captive market). If you can convince airlines that you're right then all power to you - but I wouldn't put money on it.

Bear in mind that non-frequent flyers aren't that individually important to airlines. Hence that massive disparity in service between coach and non-coach. There isn't a massive economic incentive to give economy class passengers anything over the bare minimum.

I like to teach interseting stuff to young people (even Brits ;)

The beauty of having been the birthplace the world's most important (according to Weber et al) language is that we don't have to waste time learning any other ones. I believe they even teach it in Switzerland these days ...

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[mirko]

No this isnt a conspiracy against the working man, the shops just want to stay profitable. I doubt a cafe or a bookstore for that matter will make millions.
I doubt it too, but I think if the Terminal shops associates, they will not lose money, hence my remark.

Re:mirko's wifi business plan

[mirko]

you believe that your average traveller is likely to purchase more at duty free if they are advertised at using WiFi.
No, you just misunderstood my whole point : what I actually "believe" is that it should be possible for a bunch of shops not to lose money offering Wifi in an Airport Terminal. This obviously involves advertising (how do shops make money ?)

Bear in mind that non-frequent flyers aren't that individually important to airlines. Hence that massive disparity in service between coach and non-coach. There isn't a massive economic incentive to give economy class passengers anything over the bare minimum.
I just consider my situation and the one of most people I know : we do not travel that much were we given the choice to fly or take the train, the internet access would be consider after both time and costs aspects.
I do not know how many of each of us there are, if there are more frequent flyers or occasional ones but I guess there'd be some opportunity which could be triggered by giving people a way to communicate with others while being able to send them messages.

The beauty of having been the birthplace the world's most important (according to Weber et al) language is that we don't have to waste time learning any other ones. I believe they even teach it in Switzerland these days ...
If you argue this regarding my typo, then, well, I just have to get more used to this Swiss German keyboard. :)

It's not just a matter of progress

[squarooticus]

Communism/socialism would be wrong even if it worked, because it entails a loss of individual freedom.

In this case, the proper calculus is not limited to, "Which system or combination of systems produces the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people?" There are lots of other considerations as well, including, "Is it fair to confiscate someone's income to benefit someone else?" and "Is it right to command decisions that can be left to individual choice?"

This last one IMO outweighs all other considerations in this particular case: e.g., I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.

Besides, not a single person has yet demonstrated to my satisfaction that the proliferation of wireless technologies has at all been responsible for the lower per capita wireless use in the US.

(Furthermore, in this particular case, CDMA---the best, and most clever, mobile technology---never would never have appeared if the US had the same needless restrictions on wireless systems that Europe does.)

Finally, stop picking on "neo-Cons": there is a large coalition of forces who believe in the superiority of the free market to command economies. I point to economic growth during the US's recessions rivaling Europe's times of normal productivity as evidence that the free market, despite all invective against it from the left in media and the academy, works incredibly well. The US's biggest problem may be that it doesn't rely on the free market more often.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[pubjames]

Finally, stop picking on "neo-Cons"

I have no problem with the neo-Cons. What I do have a real big problem with is the aggressive way they to try to completely distort, dismiss or destroy any person/organisation that doesn't agree with them. That is extremely unhealthy from my point of view.

Do you know, for instance, that Ashcroft is currently trying to use ancient and irrelevant laws to destroy Greenpeace in the USA? Now, that kind of thing I really object to, and I will continue to "pick on" the neo-Cons whilst the continue to behave in such a manner.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Timesprout]

I point to economic growth during the US's recessions rivaling Europe's times of normal productivity as evidence that the free market, despite all invective against it from the left in media and the academy, works incredibly well

Maybe you should tell that to Ohio, or is that just more left wing media invective?

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism/socialism would be wrong even if it worked, because it entails a loss of individual freedom.

Who the f**k said anything about communism or socialism??? Jeeze.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[ahillen]

"Is it right to command decisions that can be left to individual choice?"
This last one IMO outweighs all other considerations in this particular case: e.g., I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies.

I believe that there are areas where it absolutely makes sense to define an official standard, especially when it comes to public infrastructure.
I'm happy that basically all European countries agreed on a common standard for the electric power networks, so that I can use my phone charger/notebook/hair dryer/whatever almost all around Europe without having to worry about blowing up the power supply unit. It is good that most European countries use the same track width for their railroad lines, and the lack of such a standard for the electric power supply for electyric locomotives is quite unfortunate.
GSM was developed in the end of the 80's by a joint effort of the European Community, the European telecom suppliers and(!) the European telecom companies, and I think the result is much better than it would have been without cooperation, escpecially for (and that is what I mostly care about) the consumer.
CDMA might be more technologically advanced. In fact, since it was developed after GSM, it better should be. But at the time it came around, almost all European countries had their wirless networks up and running, and you don't want to change the technology after 3-4 years.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[mark2003]

Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.

Interesting view - of course individuals would have the opportunity to use any technology they wished even though they may be unsupported by a network carrier. I can use a CDMA phone in the UK if I want, provided I want to use it as a paperweight. I don't not have the choice because of evil government interference but because no companies support it.

Standards are useful - think of everyone using their own version of HTML. Would the internet have grown so quickly if no-one could read anyone else's webpages?

The simple fact is that in the case of mobile telephony agreeing on a standard early on has led to a much better customer experience and has helped the industry grow. Things we have taken for granted with respect to mobile telephony for several years in Europes are only now being rolled out in the US. With respect to CDMA, please learn some facts before just agreeing with the standard American is better line that we have come to expect from neo-Cons. It has advantages in some respects but not in others - on balance the choice of GSM (or GPRS these days) vs. CDMA really depends on a whole variety of factors ranging from roll out cost to population density to upgrade roadmaps - the senator that tried to push CDMA as the choice for Iraq's mobile network spouted incredible amounts of crap.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[cheeseflan]

I feel I should reply to this as there are a few inaccuracies here:

GSM wasn't "mandated". In summary most of Western Europe agreed that there should be a single, interoperable standard to replace the early analogue phone networks (i.e. "2G" replacing "1G"). The hardware and software vendors built their own common reference and then it was put out into a single standard. This is no different to everyone agreeing to Internet Protocol rather than a soup of protocols and interconnects. Remember that wasn't a free market choice either. Every vendor licences from the GSM group so it isn't "open" in the more modern sense but if you are a telco the licences are freely available for low fees.

Remember in Europe there is a much greater sense that we, the voters, own the commons (such as radio spectrum or fishing rights) so that corporations have to be good citizens or we'll withdraw their franchise (i.e. the citizens will regulate them out of existence). We are often much more bemused by the adherence to free market principles that don't make sense - such as the Californian Electricity Regulation (it is not de-regulation, just a different regime) that is based almost exactly on the UK's original privatisation model. Note that the UK changed the model rapidly once we realised the problems inherent in the risks and rewards of such a setup - but California ignored the issues until recently. Your politicians really don't act in your interests!

You are right, CDMA is better - but that's simply due to the relative ages of the designs. So much more is known now that CDMA looks poor compared to the much-later 3G designs - and I'm sure that future schemes will produce even better connectivity.

Which needless restrictions are you mentioning? Such as the interoperability requirements, transparent interconnection and billing? Number portability (you've finally caught up with that only 20 years later...:-)

There are several, competing reasons why the US falls behind at technologies it should be leading the world in... (especially when you consider the discrepancies in R&D spends).

The US regulatory regime hinders mobile uptake. Mobiles aren't easily identifiable as such - most GSM-using countries push their phones onto a separate area code for ease-of-identification (e.g. UK has 01... for all landline area codes and 07... for all cellular). "Caller-Pays" isn't evenly implemented in the US - so not only do you not know if you are calling a mobile, you aren't sure if you'll pay to receive calls too! This principle makes phone service in many countries much more transparent - and hence more likely to be used. I know if I call a landline I'll pay 3-7 cents and a mobile will cost 20-50 U.S. cents per minute, but to receive I'll pay nothing - ever. As a mobile user that makes me much more likely to leave the phone on compared to my American friends. In every GSM country all providers must interoperate with each other. This is true for voice in the US, but not for all the extras such as SMS texting. Please note that this is responsible for up to 50% of the profits of GSM providers! Also, one number finds me anywhere in the world. No other system offers that.

The proliferation of wireless technologies has stopped you buying one phone and using it with any provider - increasing your costs.

It has also stopped you from having an open market in more modern phones - only "approved" phones are available from your telco - so they maximise profits by providing you with older-generation phones with crappy features for high prices - hence the US/rest-of-world split when it comes to deciding that Bluetooth is dead. We see the benefits with our newer generation handsets, but you struggle to get a limited range. Try Nokia.co.uk and see the number of phones you can buy!

Vendor lock-in has really reduced your choice and increased your prices. It's only a free market for the Telco - certainly not you.

Finally, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[unother]

The economic definition of a recession is: two consecutive quarters of declining output.

How, pray tell, is a recession supposed to post superior "growth"? Ah that's right--people have come to continue to call our "jobless recovery" a recession, by dint of that fact alone!

That's all right however; we understand that Friedman is your handmaiden.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Bull999999]

And since when did Ohio represent the whole US?

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[squarooticus]

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

"Caller-Pays" isn't evenly implemented in the US - so not only do you not know if you are calling a mobile, you aren't sure if you'll pay to receive calls too!

I don't want "caller pays." I want people to be able to call me without them stopping to think whether the call is going to cost them a fortune or not. If it's a choice, that's fine, but in Europe (AFAIK) there is not even a choice for receiver-pays.

Besides which, if receiving calls costing a lot is really a problem, make the first 30 seconds free, so the receiver has the right to hang up if he doesn't want to pay for the call. Me, I don't care: I have 300 minutes/month during the day, and 3000 minutes/month nights and weekends, neither of which I even come close to using up.

One-size-fits-all SUCKS.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[grandmofftarkin]

If it's a choice, that's fine, but in Europe (AFAIK) there is not even a choice for receiver-pays.

Sure there is on Orange (one of the biggest mobile networks in the UK) you can have a London Landl ine number assigned to you. You pay the extra cost of the mobile call.

Alternatively, it is fairly easy to have a land line number you own redirected to your mobile with you picking up the cost of doing this.

Hardly anyone takes up these options but they are available!

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling to cellphone is not that much more expensive than landline. Most just don't care.

If you want to offer good service to customers or just have extra money and don't want your friend to pay extra you could always enable call forwarding on your landline. Your customer pays regular feed and you pay extra for cellphone part.

We all know that main reason USA is sooo much behing in wireless tech than rest of the world is those extra charges and incompatible networks among operators.

Althought I have to admit that those very same charges are main reason why VoIP evolution has been as fast as it is.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Jordy]

Standards are useful - think of everyone using their own version of HTML. Would the internet have grown so quickly if no-one could read anyone else's webpages?

I don't remember the US Federal government mandating the use of HTML, do you? In fact, the evolution of HTML through competition by Microsoft and Netscape is a perfect example of how the free market works.

Competition drives innovation.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[misterpies]

>> I point to economic growth during the US's recessions rivaling Europe's times of normal productivity as evidence that the free market, despite all invective against it from the left in media and the academy, works incredibly well.

Please explain to me how any economy, even the US economy, can grow during a recession? The definition of a recession is an economic contraction (usually for 2 successive quarters). Anyway let's examine the truth of this statement by looking at the last US recession, in 2001. The US economy contracted for 3 successive quarters in 2001 (starting well before 9/11, so don't blame Osama for that), with total growth for the year around 0.6%. By comparison, Britain grew almost 2%, and the Euro area as a whole managed 1%. (Source: The Economist).

Indeed, the Economist (6 Feb 2002) also reports that since 1950, European productivity growth has averaged 3.3% compared to 2% for the US. Productivity in Belgium, France and Germany is higher than the US. GDP growth since 1995 has been higher in Europe (2.3% per year, averaged out) than the US (2%). It's true that overall US GDP remains higher than in Europe, but that's the payoff for getting 5-8 weeks' paid vacation per year and a 40-hour workweek. Its a payoff most Europeans are more than happy to take. I bet that given the choice, a lot of Americans would take that option too.

In any case, the Economist also points out that GDP is a poor measure of living standards. It includes things like prison spending and defence. It includes money spent on heating and air-conditioning -- so people in Britain, where neither is needed for much of the year, automatically have a lower GDP than people with identical lifestyles in Texas or Alaska. By GDP measures, a country in which everyone commutes 60 miles to work every day is better off than one where everyone is within walking distance, because of all that money spent on transport.

It's a mantra in the US that "old" Europe is forever condemned to economic stagnation while the US forges ahead. But it's based on ideology, not facts.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Jordy]

The US regulatory regime hinders mobile uptake. Mobiles aren't easily identifiable as such - most GSM-using countries push their phones onto a separate area code for ease-of-identification (e.g. UK has 01... for all landline area codes and 07... for all cellular). "Caller-Pays" isn't evenly implemented in the US - so not only do you not know if you are calling a mobile, you aren't sure if you'll pay to receive calls too! This principle makes phone service in many countries much more transparent - and hence more likely to be used. I know if I call a landline I'll pay 3-7 cents and a mobile will cost 20-50 U.S. cents per minute, but to receive I'll pay nothing - ever. As a mobile user that makes me much more likely to leave the phone on compared to my American friends. In every GSM country all providers must interoperate with each other. This is true for voice in the US, but not for all the extras such as SMS texting. Please note that this is responsible for up to 50% of the profits of GSM providers! Also, one number finds me anywhere in the world. No other system offers that.

There is one little thing you forget that is a much bigger hindrance to mobile phone usage in the US; the prevalence of a wide-spread cheap land line system.

The US has had free regional calling on land lines and stupidly cheap long distance service for so long that it doesn't make a lot of sense for some people to purchase a mobile phone.

So a huge chunk of our population that doesn't live in cities and simply has no need to be connected 24/7 can't justify spending 4-8x more money on a mobile service compared to a land line and on top of it have to purchase a phone.

That reason alone far outweighs any silly ideas of standards being the issue or the fact that switching providers is hard. I doubt very much that those issues even pop up in the mind of a new mobile customer.

I'm not even sure what the issue with caller-pays is. In the US, if you are on a land line the receiver never pays a dime. If you are a mobile line, you pay for your own air time for calling or receiving calls. Both are charged at the exact same rate (long distance charges may apply for outgoing depending on your plan though).

Further, mobile numbers usually have special exchanges, but not area codes. There is a good reason for this. The US is over 3,000 miles wide and area codes denote physical areas. If you use a land line and you dial an area code that isn't immediately near you, you will be billed for long distance service. Having a cell phone with its own area code would make it impossible for a land line owner to tell if they are getting charged for long distance service or not.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Xrikcus]

Though the difference between different versions of HTML doesn't require billions of dollars in infrastructure investments like CDMA/GSM would. Clearly then it's easier for the loser to adapt, for there to be many more examples of competition and similar issues that allow the free market to adapt quicker.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Xrikcus]

Hardly any consumers take up the options. Small businesses on the other hand frequently do, forwarding office numbers to mobiles out of work hours, works a treat.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Xrikcus]

About the size of the US and area codes... true, though clearly it doesn't have to be billed like that. In the UK, smaller clearly but the same point applies just less so, area codes are just that, area codes, mobiles are all non-regionalised numbers though, and the same works in reverse, any landline number is local to a mobile. Just depends on how the system is implemented.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Radius9]

And I do want "caller pays" and can't get it here in the US. You argue that "One-size-fits-all SUCKS", and yes, it does. But in Europe, as many other posters have mentioned, you have a choice. Here in the US, you have one.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[squarooticus]

And I do want "caller pays" and can't get it here in the US. You argue that "One-size-fits-all SUCKS", and yes, it does. But in Europe, as many other posters have mentioned, you have a choice.

Agreed. You should have the option. But if it's so great and has huge demand behind it, why hasn't some company come up with it yet? Surely the 1-900 infrastructure can be modified to achieve this goal.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[gammoth]

As someone returning to the US after living abroad for 10 years (and loving it), I am amazed how Americans think they have a broad range of choices, when the reality is they don't.

Americans have a broad range of choices over things of little consequence, eg which "restaurant" to get tonight's dinner or which cable channel to numb their mind with.

The truly important options like transportation, civic participation, etc, are routinely scorned.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Quikah]

What law? The article conveniently leaves that out.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[EinarH]

Communism/socialism would be wrong even if it worked, because it entails a loss of individual freedom.

Why are you dragging in Communism?
The above poster mentioned Finaland and Norway, they are social-democratic countries with a market economy but also with some governmental regulations. Finland is a EU and Euro member, Norway is a EEC member. Both have massive amounts of their incomes from trade with other countries.

When you lump socialism together with communism you are degrading the difference between those two ways of running a country.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[beakburke]

no, just the cost of redoing millions of documents from one format to another.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in the U.K, with its Socialist Labour Government, hasn't reduced my individual freedoms.

Please learn what the terms "Communism" and "Socialism" actually mean. Thanks.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[cheeseflan]

Thanks for the rational response - as opposed to squarooticus' rant.

Area codes exist in other countries too - but they are bogus wherever they are. The only directly attributable cost to a phone call is the ink on the bill. Seriously.

Think about it. There's a set of pipes to shove the data about, and a big fat backbone to move it long distance. Unless it's going to your local exchange and back, it could move a couple of thousand miles in transmission just to go to the next town. Where is your local telco backbone? Do you care? If the phone system works - only the engineers need to!

Charging for area codes was originally a simple way to increase revenues in a way that the average Joe would be able to "understand". Even in the day it didn't match the geographic spread of a single exchange. It also historically allowed the extra costs inherent in manually connecting bits of wires and paying for more operators to put the call together

That died with digital exchanges and integrated networks

Nearly all mobiile telcos in other countries are given a set of "area" codes to do with as they wish. In the UK they start with different numbers to show they are a different price - but there's enough to have 0708 (mobile) match up with 0208 (outer London).

To begin with the major telcos did exactly as the US companies have done, and mapped them 1to1 with physical locations - because that way there were local and long distance calls - and that way you could confuse the customer into higher revenues.

That simply died with competition. It only took one provider to offer "All calls are local calls!" and all of them took out the extra code in their exchanges that calculated the "local" area for billing. Since then, nearly all GSM providers just don't bother. In fact in the UK it's now getting to the point where you can't find a "local" call for any call - land or mobile. They are simply split between landline and mobile.

If a call terminates in a single backbone there's no way to distinguish between local and national - even in the USA - unless the billing system is explicitly set-up to look for origination and termination data. It doesn't cost any more or less for a local, national (or in fact international) call anymore. Even satellite time is simply bulk purchased by the data rate it carries.

Oh, and I think you are right about landlines slowing adoption - although I think it's more the "free" local calls making it hard to justify a mobile bill. I'll add another thing to the list though - cars.

I think the fact that so many Americans practically live in their cars makes it a higher barrier than in the rest of the world. My day starts with a few calls to friends as I stand on the railway platform - it's not so easy if you are trying to change lanes...

Just on more thing - Caller Pays is a principle that makes having a mobile much easier if you are poor. You don't get to 80% of the population in penetration (e.g. UK, Finland etc.) without selling mobiles to people with a small amount of disposable income. If you pay to receive and you don't have much pre-pay credit (because of your poor credit history) you aren't going to have your phone on. Hence the network effect of having a mobile and being instantly contactable is reduced. But if you know you never have to pay to pick up - you'll do it gladly.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop trying using that tired old argument of "Europe has a poor POTS network so thats why cell networks are widespread" because it is wrong and ignorant. Most (And I really do mean 95%) of Europe (The EU countries) have a perfectly fine, modern (All digital switchs, fiber & microwave) networks. They have had these networks for over 50 years. Calls are not expensive, and the network does not break on a regular basis. The networks are now competetive and privetly owned.

Most people have a cell phone in addition to a regular land line (Or two. Or a land line & a broadband connection). Many families have one mobile per person, including the kids. Only recently (I'm talking in the previous couple of months here) have a couple of networks started to push to the concept of replacing your landline with a mobile. It hasn't been a steller success.

In conclusion, thats just dead wrong.

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[cheeseflan]

I feel I have to respond to this.

It works like this. Caller pays is a simple way to reduce complexity in a bill for someone who is unsure about whether they need a mobile or not.

Market making is about moving the wavering mass to change their habits and get onto the "new" whatever it is.

Caller pays is a market making move that then gives every person the ability to say "I want a mobile, but I want to retain "control" of my spend. (remember this is a reduction in percieved complexity - having free minutes or free connections doesn't reduce complexity on your bill) Paying to receive calls isn't perceived as control - simple politeness means you stay on the line when someone wants to chat for just a bit longer than you want. That costs - and you (as a typical person, not a careful bill-watcher) feel like you are being ripped off because you didn't even want the call.

Yes, it's nice to have the choice (and in good old communist the-rest-of-the-world, we do). You don't.

Caller pays has to be imposed originally by the regulatory body - because no telco wants to see it (they love complexity on your monthly bill!)

But once it's there - they can offer all kinds of options - including receiver pays.

I'll give you one more example. How do you think the countries that are a decade or more ahead of the USA have gained those 80% or more market penetrations?

In the UK even people on welfare have mobile phones. Because if they don't make a call, they don't pay for the call. That's where the regulator forced all calling plans to put that in as the default - because otherwise someone else gets ripped off to pay for their plan. That means they can job hunt and only pay for the calls they want to. They can be "called in" immediately. They never miss calls (and can call straight back if they do).

Compelling stuff - and all for people who would never have a mobile in a system where they have to pay to be told they aren't wanted at the factory today.

This is a major reason why the US is backward and will stay that way until the regulatory regime stops giving the telcos more importance than the voters. You are the ones losing out because of "choice" that really means "whatever the telco paid your representative for".

Re:It's not just a matter of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, the Economist also points out that GDP is a poor measure of living standards. It includes things like prison spending and defence. It includes money spent on heating and air-conditioning -- so people in Britain, where neither is needed for much of the year, automatically have a lower GDP than people with identical lifestyles in Texas or Alaska. By GDP measures, a country in which everyone commutes 60 miles to work every day is better off than one where everyone is within walking distance, because of all that money spent on transport.

That is something that should be taken into account when comparing GDP per person among nations. But GDP growth expressed as a percentage per year does not suffer from this effect.

Makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Population spread in Europe is much denser than in the US, it's not inconceivable that WiFi successors to 802.11a and g could quite happily link on a city to city basis. I mean, in Europe, distances are tens of miles rather than hundreds of miles.

Ergo, Europe is likely to have more WiFi access than the US - basically because the scale of WiFi fits the geographical scale more closely...

Satellete communication too..

[essreenim]

Another factor:
In general, European cities are older / more historical etc. It is not as ease to get planning permission to dig up roads for fiber optics.
This makes wireless feasible.

But, the US generally has taller buildings, so why are you not using this advantage?

Also, satellite broadband is becomming increaingly popular with very high bandwidth:

Germany and the Netherlands have excellent satellite services in place. France and the UK are not far behind.

Related story:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Article11227 7.htm

My own country is slow to develop in this regard unfortunately:

http://www.dublinwan.org

Re:Satellete communication too..

[jandrese]

Satellite has very nice bandwidth, but it has horrible lag. This effects more than just gamers, it also hurts people using internet phones, terminal sessions, or anything else where interactivity is important. Besides, did you read the article on that satellite service? It's the pits. 1.6Mb/s down (great!), but a 500Mb/month limit and 64k up (ugh!). Forget grabbing the latest Debian ISO, that would barely get you through a month of Nimda attacks. It's not cheap either.

Re:Satellete communication too..

[evilWurst]

Well, the US *is* doing wireless stuff, but the critical population density that drives wireless adoption is present in very few places here. Averaging it over the entire population for your statistics will make it look as if the US is doing very little for wireless compared to Europe. But both statements are true, depending on how you look at the numbers. We both ARE and AREN'T pushing wireless.

Some other factors: we probably aren't counting private internal corporate office wireless networks in the figures, because they're not open to the public.

More city factors: cities in the US have additional economic differences from European cities. Many of those who *live* in the cities here are lower-class/middle-class and can't afford nifty new laptops with wifi (not true for ALL American cities, but it does really hurt in terms of getting enough computer-using population in close proximity to make wireless worthwhile). As the technology improves (helped along by its early adoption in Europe), the costs will come down. While it'll look like the US is behind, the US will catch up rapidly as the prices come down - people who won't buy a $2500 laptop WILL buy a $200 tablet.

Re:Satellete communication too..

[gotw]

Many of those who *live* in the cities here are lower-class/middle-class

I'm confused! How do you assume those of us in european cities live? We don't all live in castles you know. I'm pretty sure that the actual class mix in european cities is quite similar to an american city of similar size. As a londoner I probably share more with a new yorker than I do a devon farmer.
Anyway, should e-mail not work please post any replies to:

GOTW
Flat 366A
Buckingham Palace
The mall
St. James's
LONDON
SW1A 1AA
UK

Re:creators' newclear power vs. unprecedented evil

[displaced80]

Hehe. These AC's posts always make me smile.

I'd like to think they're the act of some mischievous drone from Iain Banks' Culture universe... using its effectors and fields to insert strangely-capitalized musings into Earth's primitive datasphere...

Regulation != socialism

[poszi]

I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.

Yes, it would be better if everybody drove on the side of the road he wishes and the voltage in the plug was different in each town.

It's not about state ownership. It's about regulation.

Re:Regulation != socialism

[Jubedgy]

Comparing apples to oranges. Mandating that one drives on one side of the road has nothing to do with the topic of mandating the use of one type of technology. If people could drive however they wanted, the roadways (and sidewalks!) would be a wholesale slaughter. How many people die because they use different types of cell phone tech? (ok, despite the cheapo exploding hand grenade type phones popping up which is more of a quality control issue).

Voltage one is good though, however is it a government mandated voltage? Or just industry standard (ie, de facto as opposed to de jure)?

Re:Regulation != socialism

[ahillen]

Voltage one is good though, however is it a government mandated voltage? Or just industry standard
I don't know, but until 15 years ago countries in the EU (then EC) still had slightly different voltages (e.g. Germany 220V, UK 240V), in the last 15 years the EU was gradually moving to a common standarf of 230V. And I would be quite suprised if this wouldn't have happened in compliance with some EU law ;). But I didn't find a link conforming this assumption.

Re:Regulation != socialism

[Rotten168]

Logic should dictate to you (although I understand that logic is in short supply on slashdot) that such a scenario would never happen. Each town would choose the same voltage and side of the road because it is in their own self-interest. Why would a town choose economic, social, and political isolation by choosing a unique standard?

Just because a government forces something doesn't mean it won't happen.

Re:Regulation != socialism

[Dun Malg]

Yes, it would be better if everybody drove on the side of the road he wishes and the voltage in the plug was different in each town.

Nice try, but agreeing on the side of the road we drive on is a safety issue. Wireless phone protocols are not. As for the voltage thing, please show me the government regulation that sets the voltage. Can't find it? That's because the market decided upon a standard, but only after the early providers fought it out with incompatible systems. Don't you know the whole Tesla's AC vs. Edison's DC story?

Next time, when you pull out arguments, pull them from a less stinky place.

Re:Regulation != socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an even better argoument, power dispersion is directly proportional to the voltage amount and proportional to the quadratic of current intensity, therefore to power up the same appliance, it is far more efficient to use higher volts (ex 220) and lower Intensity current. The system in use in the states is from this point of view obsolete. We had it in use in Italy till the early 70's if I remember correctly, then we switched to 220. Not sure about EC interventions but often tolerance in regard voltage is 5% and that would make the 230 figure fitting perfectly the bill for the 220-240 range and THAT would be tipical EC = trying to achieve something even without having the power to impose any change to anyone :)))))

Re:Regulation != socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, most houses in the US are wired with both 120 VAC and 240 VAC circuits (voltage measured wrt RMS of course).

The 240 VAC is generally only used for appliances that stay in one place and use a lot of power --- electric ovens, dryers, washing machines, electric heaters, central air conditioning, and so on.

Smaller appliances use 120 VAC. There is actually some advantage to this in that, all else being equal, accidental electrocution is considerably worse when the voltage source is 240 VAC rather than 120 VAC.

A rule of thumb is that an AC current of over 1 amp passing through a person's chest is likely to be fatal. So using Ohm's law, you see that fatal electrocution with 120 VAC requires a connection that is twice as good. Electrocution at lower voltages also will cause lesser damage to the nervous system and less burns, but that difference is not as dramatic.

Of course, the really important safety improvement is GFCI, but that's another story.

reasons for the faster grow in europe...

[jlemmerer]

there are a few good reasons for the faster growth rate in europe. first of all europe's countrys are smaller, and so a single provider can cover a whole country's hotspots without going bancrupt because of hardware costs. here in austria the largest cellular carrier is planing to launch WLAN. as far as i know they are using the antennas they use for gsm transmission also as wlan hotspots. this makes sense especially in cities where the antenna density is quite high. in my opinion customers will prefer that they receive access from a single provider instead of having to make a subscription in every major city. since coverage of all american city's by a single provider is almost not feasible the people will be more sceptical about the WLAN.
so, to sum it up: Europe's average small country size is the main reason for the faster spreading of WiFi technology

Well sheesh....

[turnage]

If you're going to compare an entire continent's WiFi growth to a single country's....

In related news, it's been found that the United States' WiFi growth will be much larger than that of Rhode Island's.

Re:Well sheesh....

[philbowman]

Isn't North America a continent, containing two countries - USA and Canada?

Re:Well sheesh....

[Orne]

Technically everything north of (and including) Panama is in North America: USA, Canada, and Mexico being the largest by area. Here's some maps of North America, which lists 25 countries, most of which are island nations.

In surface area (which is what matters in telecom), the continent of Europe is est. 3,837,000 Sq. Miles (9,938,000 Sq. Km) vs North America at 9,365,000 Sq. Miles (24,256,000 Sq. Km). The United States alone comes out to 3,537,438 Sq. Miles.

Re:Well sheesh....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's plain wrong. Consult any atlas and see for yourself that from Mexico (included) and up is North America, from Mexico down to Panama (included) is Central America and from Panama and down corresponds to South America. Not sure where about.com got its data from but *ANY* modestly educated person should know that.

Re:Well sheesh....

[Easy2RememberNick]

Central America is part of North America.

Re:Well sheesh....

[philbowman]

Who was it said a worrying percentage of Americans thought Central America meant Kansas? Phil (British)

Re:Well sheesh....

[philbowman]

Either way, I stand corrected. North America is a continent with (many) more than two countries. Didn't know Greenland was part of it.

Re:Well sheesh....

[Anonymous Coward]

Any "modestly educated" person should know that the seven continents are North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica.

Thank you though, I hadn't realized that the public education system had deteriated to the point that it had, that you can't even comprehend simple cartography. You should have quit while you were ahead, which would have been just before you hit Submit.

Wifi profits

[philbowman]

As with many useful things (Free software included) there's the split between increase in use of a technology because it's useful (e.g. I have a Wireless Router in my house so I can use my laptop in the garden, etc) and businesses trying to expand technology to make money out of it.

I see WiFi hardware being sold to places that want easy access available for their own purposes - homes, workplaces as well as cafes etc, but whether commercial/subscription access will be as big is less convincing.

Communism/socialism

[brunes69]

Your view of what socialism/communism even means is fundamentally flawed and tainted by capitalism. Communism/socialism doesn't purport to "confescate someones income to benefit someone else", it purports that there is no need for people to have an "income" at all. The idea is not that the janitor is stealing part of the teachers income, it is that the teacher has no right to earn more than the janitor in the first place. And if all earn equally, then where's the need for a currency? Under a true communist world there would be no currency at all. Each person on earth would have equal access to resources.

The concept is that human culture, as a whole, has evolved enough that we can work towards a common good without feeling the need for personal gain.

Whether or not you think that this is an idealistic view of humanity that could never work (it has yet to be shown either way, since a true communist society has never been fully implemented, and probably never would, since unless it was implemented globally it's pretty much doomed to fail), it can truthfully be said that communism at it's heart is a much more moral economic system than capitalism, even if human beings aren't moral enogh to see it through.

Re:Communism/socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

oh
my
god

this better be a troll....

holy fuck

i mean...FUCK!!!

"it is that the teacher has no right to earn more than the janitor in the first place"

ok...it MUST be a troll, i mean, any 8 year old can see the problem with this...

"even if human beings aren't moral enogh to see it through"

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

oh forget it...definate troll

Re:Communism/socialism

[brunes69]

What is your problem? Why do you feel the need ot elevate yourself above your fellow man?

How would you like to work in a school filled with trash and messy tables?

The janitor's job is just as difficult as the teachers, perhaps even more so. It is a thankless job as well. Yet he does it. Why should he not be compensated equally?

Re:Communism/socialism

[beakburke]

"Why should he not be compensated equally?"

Simple, if everyone were paid the same, how do you determine where you have a shortage of workers, and how would you get people to change from jobs where there is a surplus of workers to that where there is a shortage? Or would the government just dictate who works where?

For socialism to work, you have take away an incredible amount of power from individuals and place it in the hands of government officials. Which, if you believe in the maxim of Lord Acton, is very very unhealthy.

Re:Communism/socialism

[brunes69]

Frankley, true socialists believe that there would never be a shortage of workers. If you take huge population X odds are that there are a fair number of Y people who would actually *like* to perform job Z, be it janitorial work (yes some people like this), programming or whatever.

As for your second paragraph, this is toal bullshit since a true socialist doesn't believe in government control over the economy AT ALL. Thats just a twisted Soviet-Stalinist view of what socialism / communism means. It's not what Marx originally intended at all.

If true socualism was ever achieved on a global scale, no government would have any need to care about economics period. All they'd need to be concerned with is what a government should be concerned with, encorcing laws andd protecting human rights.

Good lord, do I really need to point out...

[squarooticus]

...the flaw in this analogy?

Driving on your own side of the road = clear and present danger to life.

Using different wireless technologies on different bands = no such danger.

Come on, you (the moderators) can do better than this.

PDAs with wifi.

[StrawberryFrog]

I guess PDAs are not that big in Europe, esp. PDAs with WiFi.

I'm in the UK and I recently purchased a palm tungesten T3.

PDAs with WiFi are not common, period.

They are physically bigger, much more expensive, have even worse battery life and there's not many models to choose from. I'm sure that my next PDA will have wifi not bluetooth but that's in a year or two.

I'd have hoped the /. crowd would know better

[ThinWhiteDuke]

C'mon! There's this "research" paper claiming some figures for WiFi spending in 2008 in Europe and the US. And everybody and his brother goes with his insightful explanation, as if it was a fact.

Last time I checked, 2008 was in the future. And AFAIK, nobody knows the future. It's not like we never experienced that. The Internet bubble is not so old that we forgot its lessons. Do you remember the 2004 projections for internet advertising or 3G mobile data consumption back in 2000?

No, the US are not lagging behind because of the neo-cons, population density or consumer culture or whatever. The US ARE not lagging behind, period. The ONLY fact we can comment is that some (unknown) guy pretends that they WILL in 5 years.

Re:I'd have hoped the /. crowd would know better

[beta21]

You are right no one knows the future but we all attempt to predict it via certain methods (magic 8 ball, tea leaves, simulations, past experience). It's like saying heavier than air flying machines by 1910.

What most ppl are bringing up are points to consider, usually referred to as a discussion.

Note that the paper references previous trends and then uses these trends to model future behaviour. Just in case you are wondering yes the US is lagging behind, cell phone use has been taken up in other countries much more rapidly then in the US. Most of these countries leading in cell phone use don't have convulated rules regarding cell phones (i.e. you pay for incoming calls, sometimes).

Anyway this is a model as to what may occur in the future and what we are doing is called a discussion!

Re:I'd have hoped the /. crowd would know better

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd have hoped the /. crowd would know better"

You must be new here?

Jobs growth is more important that network growth.

[Rotten168]

Well, as long as the still US has the majority of high-tech jobs then I won't mind too much (India is more of a threat than Europe is). Wi-fi networks will be available here where they are useful, and they certainly shouldn't be subsidized just so that we can say that our Wi-Fi networks are growing faster than Europe.

You sound like a Qualcomm shill

[CaptainZapp]

This last one IMO outweighs all other considerations in this particular case: e.g., I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.

Well, even though CDMA is apparently so much better (I hear this line a lot, but frankly I care about usability and not about technical merits as a user) I think it's extremely smart to have decided on (or if you prefer to have dictated) a standard, which has been taken up by roughly a billion people worldwide (except huge parts of the US and South Korea I think) in contrast to the joke they call "wireless services", which I had the misfortune to experience on various visits to the US.

In addition (and if I'm a slimy, evil commie so be it, alas you guys seem to have a strange definition for communism/socialism) I think it's extremely desireable not to have such vital technologies hijacked by an ip company, but that such technology is being owned by a consortium with a formal Antitrust Policy and thus by the public at large.

O/T Free ISP in Japan?

[TheRaven64]

I'm in a similar situation, in that I'm visiting Japan for a week in a short while. I'm going to be staying somewhere with a phone line, but no Internet connection. Does anyone know of a free ISP in Japan I can dial into? I'm taking my PowerBook with me, which has a built-in modem.

Free access in London

[tapiwa]

If you are in central london, there are *many* free points. Just walk down Oxford street, and you will find tons of open networks. There is a really good one outside Selfridges.

Edgware Road is the same. Ditto goes for the Kings Cross area.

The biggest problem you will encounter is how to use your laptop without getting soaked.

Re:Free access in London

[weave]

The biggest problem you will encounter is how to use your laptop without getting soaked.

Do you mean money wise, or literally?! The weather for London for the next fortnight looks wonderful!

btw, thanks for the tips. My plane arrives early AM and I'm probably going to hang in central London until later in the day, then take the train up to Kettering where I'll be staying. (I'm only packing a backpack of stuff, no suitcases...)

Thanks, Captain Obvious

[blizzardsoup]

Considering that Europe is light years ahead of the US in wireless phone ownership. When a 'study' reports that Europe will lead the US in WiFi deployment, all I can say is

No Duh!

Re:Thanks, Captain Obvious

[doyoudig]

its does not say that -- the rate of growth will be faster in Europe -- only because they were behind to begin with. And boy the EU did a great job of 3G -- NOT

Re:Thanks, Captain Obvious

[pkp_gl211]

Considering that Europe is light years ahead of the US in wireless phone ownership. When a 'study' reports that Europe will lead the US in WiFi deployment, all I can say is No Duh!

Yeah and China is light years ahead of the US in space exploration because their program is growing faster.

Only on slantdot.

Helpful info

[goldcd]

We do have unmetered dialup, usually costing around 12 a month - but this is tied to a particular landline. If you manage to get your hands on an AOL CD (harder than you think when you actually want on) you can sign up for unlimited access via an 0800 number (1-800) which'll allow you to dialup from any line. Better still they usually give you a free months trial so that's a free month for each credit card you own.

Yeah, and 1-Billion Bluetooth by 2005

[repetty]

In April of 2001, some authority or other stated that "Bluetooth To Work In Nearly 1Bil Devices By 2005."

At the time, there were approximately 0Bil Bluetooth devices in existance. Frankly, that number was pulled straight out of someone's ass and is just another reason I consider such forcasts to be irresponsibly bogus.

--Richard

Frisco :-(

[IANAAC]

It's because you called SF 'Frisco'. We automatically overcharge people that refer to our town as 'Frisco' *shudder*.

Huh, ever heard of 1-800 numbers?

[CaptainZapp]

I want people to be able to call me without them stopping to think whether the call is going to cost them a fortune or not. If it's a choice, that's fine, but in Europe (AFAIK) there is not even a choice for receiver-pays.

Sigh, I more and more get the impression that you're either a troll or some sort of a free market fanatic of the take no prisoner sort.

Anyway, here's the plan to follow if you want to pay for incoming phone calls in Europe, doesn't matter if from a cell phone or a land line (with the exception of international roaming of course):

• Call your friendly Telco and no! you don't have to beg an evil state controlled monopoly for such services
• Ask that they install an 1-800 number (0-800 in some countries and 00-800 if you want to make it available toll free to the rest of the world)
• Talk to every happy caller at your expense.

There is no need to thank me.

err this is news...

[Archfeld]

what is the point of massive public wirelesss if none of the companies allow interconnect. Europe has always been ahead of the US in corp sharing, their governments demand it. Here our's forbids it :) Heck I still cant sms people half the people becuase they are on a different service, that only support their own system. The upside is we do not adopt early so sometimes we get a better transport method when the LAME ass companies suddenly discover that there is money to be made in a market they have been denying for 5 years....

Telling you what you want to hear...

[Moblaster]

$44 billion/44% growth? These numbers mean there will be a tremendous market for Wi-Fi goods and services.

Incidentally, one of those services includes selling research reports telling you about how great the Wi-Fi market is going to be.

Prices from Insight Research's web site:

Hard Copy Price $3995
Electronic Copy Price (PDF License Descriptions) $ 4695 Single-User Printable PDF
$ 6995 6-Seat Printable PDF
$ 10000 Unlimited Corporate-Wide Distribution

TIP: before investing four thousand dollars into a report telling you all about a miraculous new $44 billion dollar market, head to the corporate kitchen, find a salt packet in the old condiment drawer, open it, pour a few grains into your hand, and take one.

Didn't anyone learn anything about "conflicts of interest" during the bubble years?

It's the apps, not the tech

[neelm]

WiFi in the states isn't growing because there isn't demand from consumers for it. There is not demand because there is no killer-app we must have at all times. Even email isn't worth the cost. If you need to take email/calander with you, sync it to your PDA. Need an update? Call the office and the secetary checks for you or changes your appoitments. Yes most would say it would be cool to do it ovber the pda and wifi, but those same people don't value it enough to pay for it.

Also, the devices suck, esp the interfaces. This is partly the industries fault, the latest models are introduced in EU and Japan years before the US. Yes, this is because the US isn't setup for the features of the latest devices, but you can see the chicken and egg problem here.

Also, consider the markets of Japan and EU. In the EU they are used to paying for metered access - most people in the US want a flat fee and don't care for metered access no matter how good the deal. In Japan, put a pokemon on the display and it's the latest craze for the kids. In the US kids don't text each other - it's a friggen phone, they call each other. Plus on our dated models it takes 3-10x longer to type in a short text message than just calling the person.

Fact is there is not the demand in the US. Broadband is struggling because of lack of demand. Most people that have the option, hell several options, won't spend $40 buck a month for broadband. EU and Japan customers would love broadband at only $40 buck a month with no meter (how many EU people let Kazaa run all the time and let anyone who wants upload from them while they pay meteredd access?).

This is good in the long run however, because the US will end up with $20 broadband with a $5 wifi add on option probably long before prices approach our current levels in other markets.

Just plain wrong.

[Hittite Creosote]

I point to economic growth during the US's recessions

Depends on what you mean by recession. To most economists, a recession is six months of negative growth. So if it isn't negative growth, it isn't a recession. So... US economic growth during a US recession is negative. EU growth during normal productivity is positive. The NBER's definition of recession would have to be extremely odd to declare a period of economic growth a recession.

Suspicious Numbers from Insight Research

[Moblaster]

Insight Research is the company that produced the $44 billion/44% annual growth/$163 billion 5-yr forecast mentioned... Here are some of their other predictions on total worldwide spending by $2008:

Add-Drop Multiplexers (read: "routers for telecoms that don't already have billions of dollars of debt they are going bankrupt trying to pay off"): $64 billion

Grid Computing (read: "that complicated and annoying parallel programming thing I have to figure out enough about so I can tell the CEO how it's a great idea but not a good fit for our environment"): unspecified "billion$"

OSS - Operations Support Systems (read: "yet more technology and services for those telecom administrative functions that we have been trying to rightsize given the 25% drop in worldwide telecom revenue over the past three years"): 12.5% annual growth to $27 billion

THE BEST ONE OF ALL:
DCS - Digital Cross Connects: (read: "high-end devices for telecom carriers that facilitate the transmission of digital information from one place to another, that we choose to call something other than routers"): 51% growth from $4.8 billion to $35 billion in 2005. This report is from 2000. They are still selling it for $999.

Reality: Total market size for high end carrier switches in 2003: less than $1 billion. Total annual router market: about $6 billion.
http://www.nwfusion.com/edge/news/2003/0815carriro ute.html

Now if you just look at the market for the high-end carrier routers/switches, then that market size should be around $20 billion already, so Insight Research's figures are off by a factor of 20 three years down the road.

Boy... I just wish I was smart enough to figure out why smart people who sell research reports for thousands of dollars seem to consistently overestimate the size of the markets they analyze by... a whole lot.

Mod up!!

[beakburke]

"Well, I think I've adequately addressed productivity, but "quality of life" is an inherently subjective measure, by any definition. There's nothing inherently inferior about European workers, by any stretch of the imagination - the major difference is in cultural values, I think. We value different things, and the choices we make reflect those values. And so long as we're all happy with those choices, and we understand that both parties have made certain trade-offs in pursuit of those choices...well, who am I to complain? ;)"

This may be one of the best posts in this whole thread.

more meaningless numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

"will grow faster"

woop!

I hate statistics in reporting. Statements like the above are meaningless with respect to math, and are only used to pump up markets around the world.

e.g. using the same time scale...
going from 1 to 1,000,000 [has a lot faster growth] than going from 100,000,000 to 200,000,000.

Of course they would lose all of their market reporting momentum if they wrote it without mongering in mind.

Go to town? ** shudder **

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in the USA, I like have to drive to civilization, err, coffee shop, to get a signal? Maybe we SHOULD tie antennas to all those antelope, big horns and stupid bears we nearly plow every day.

Why would WIFI be around in 4 years?

[RhettLivingston]

These projections look like those of an economist, not someone in the biz. I'm sincerely hoping that in 4 years WIFI will be near dead and we'll be up to one of the other standards being developed with 10 mile ranges and faster speed. Longer ranges would better fit the footprint of the existing cell towers and allow us to reuse infrastructure. And the faster speed would keep me from needing to plug into the wall during meetings because the speed of the office WIFI network sucks.

Perhaps though, I'm speaking as an American. My unique problem is that a place I'm looking to move to has cell coverage, but has no chance at DSL or cable. If you look at the coverage of the 3, cellular actually has greater coverage in America. So, the deployment about 4 years from now of a broadband system on a cell tower footprint with a speed matching what cable will be in 4 years would very likely wipe out cable and DSL in this country and give us a unified system whether we're roaming, at home, or in the office. Some of the standards being developed today could do that.