Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Europe Vs. North America in WiFi growth.

Posted by timothy on from the head-to-kopf dept.

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.'"

41 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps an odd perspective... by __aavhli5779 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by TrancePhreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    2. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by __aavhli5779 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by slim · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

    4. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?)

      --
      Suck figs.
    5. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by ahillen · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by Lionfish · · Score: 5, Informative

      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)

    7. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Perhaps an odd perspective... by radish · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  2. wifi@SFO by mirko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:wifi@SFO by iDaZe · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:wifi@SFO by mirko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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)...

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    3. Re:wifi@SFO by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:wifi@SFO by Katchina'404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
  3. At home, perhaps... by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:At home, perhaps... by pphrdza · · Score: 3, Insightful
      secondly there are really few people who trot around with their laptops,

      What about PDA's?

    2. Re:At home, perhaps... by SupaMegaBuffalo · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      How exactly is that ironic?

    3. Re:At home, perhaps... by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
  4. Should we be suprised by this? by pubjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Should we be suprised by this? by nickos · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "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.
  5. Re:Europe by logic7 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. :-)

  6. $44 billion in 2008??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. It's not just a matter of progress by squarooticus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    [ home ]
    1. Re:It's not just a matter of progress by mark2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:It's not just a matter of progress by cheeseflan · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --

      Pimping my Karma Whore since 1847.

    3. Re:It's not just a matter of progress by squarooticus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.
      --
      [ home ]
    4. Re:It's not just a matter of progress by EinarH · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    5. Re:It's not just a matter of progress by cheeseflan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  8. Makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  9. Satellete communication too.. by essreenim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  10. Regulation != socialism by poszi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!

    1. Re:Regulation != socialism by Jubedgy · · Score: 2, Informative

      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)?

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    2. Re:Regulation != socialism by ahillen · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  11. reasons for the faster grow in europe... by jlemmerer · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    --
    ".Sig Stealer" was here
  12. Wifi profits by philbowman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Phil
  13. Re:Sweet... All good news by legoburner · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Warhammer forums
  14. I'd have hoped the /. crowd would know better by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --

    It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
  15. Jobs growth is more important that network growth. by Rotten168 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  16. You sound like a Qualcomm shill by CaptainZapp · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  17. Thanks, Captain Obvious by blizzardsoup · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

  18. Frisco :-( by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Funny

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