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.

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.

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.