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

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.

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?

[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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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.