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.
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
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.
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.
Another factor:
7 7.htm
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/Article1122
My own country is slow to develop in this regard unfortunately:
http://www.dublinwan.org
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!
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.
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.
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 ]
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