Slashdot Mirror
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 $44 billion USD by 2008, at a compounded annual rate of 44 percent.'"
Being a dedicated New Urbanist, I often see comparisons between the United States and Europe in an urban-development light. What comes to mind regarding the faster expansion of WiFi in Europe is the added emphasis that Europeans seem to place on public space.
There is a greater tendency to gather in concentrated areas (witness the Cafe culture prevalent through the continent) and an overall higher density that is much more conducive to the increased usage of WiFi hotspots.
I wouldn't be surprised if, just based on the tighter physical plant of your average European city, a resident or visitor is much more likely to be within range of an 802.11b/g hub, different attitudes towards technological adoption notwithstanding.
In September, while travelling between Bern(CH) and Frisco.
I had the sweet surprise to see some Wifi logo in SFO.
I then open my iBook and check for a network, which I find.
I try to browse and find a web page which asks me to pay 25$.
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).
Trolling using another account since 2005.
What about PDA's?
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.
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.
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
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.
Phil
...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.
[ home ]
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.
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.
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".
Pimping my Karma Whore since 1847.