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.
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.
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 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.
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