WiMax operates at 3.5 Ghz, 2.5 Ghz, but also at 2.3 Ghz.
There are also manufacturers who build WiMax gear at arbitrary frequencies when those licensed frequencies are available to a company that wants to deploy WiMax. These are sometimes outside the WiMax Forum's certified profiles, but if the vendor and the operator agree on it, that's up to them. There's little reason why one couldn't deploy WiMax at, say, 900 Mhz or even 700 Mhz, assuming that the spectrum is available to the operator and the manufacturer can develop and implement.
An affordable version of LTE (or WiMax, for that matter) that worked in unlicensed spectrum, had to accept interference from other devices, and was similarly limited in power, would have about little more than the range of a WiFi base station. Most of the gains in range and penetration are either due to higher transmission power and/or larger/more antenna elements.
Even a 4G pico base station, designed to serve a wifi-sized area, costs in the low six figures. What you're asking for doesn't exist, and it's not because of the "evil telcos". If anything, ask the manufacturers why they don't make a 2.3Ghz OFDMA-based device and price it around $500. The reason is because it wouldn't be able to compete with wifi on price, and the advantage isn't worth it for most people. Plus, you can make more margin selling a few large stations to telcos than trying to sell thousands to invidividuals.
4G is being run by "evil telcos" because that's how the use of spectrum and power can be limited by government, and it's now infrastructure manufacturers can maximize their margins.
People who are 'good at math' are more likely to analyze the law exactly as written and determine logically whether or not he actually violated the law as written. People who are good at math are far more likely to see answers as absolute - either it's absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect.
Most people just look at the first question, which is "Is what he did sick and disgusting, and probably immoral and/or unethical?" To which the answer of course, is an obvious 'yes'.
Why is that the first question? Since when is that the sort of question put before courts? What if this question was asked to a jury from a town comprised disproportionately of various sex offenders, who might answer that this is not sick and disgusting, but rather "totally hot"? Would that make it all right?
Math people ignore that, because that's not really relevant when it comes to law. The real question is "Did he violate the law as written?" And the answer to that in this case is a pretty clear 'no'.
It is, I think, missing the point to paint this as a distinction between the letter of the law and what's gross. The fact is that the DA's allegation not only isn't consistent with the letter of the law, it is inconsistent with its intent as well, which is to protect minors. Minors engaged in sexual activity, simulated or otherwise, are given special protection because community standards dictate that informed consent only exists above a certain age. Therefore, behaviors which are acceptable above a certain age, between consenting adults, are unacceptable below that same age. It is recognized as arbitrary, but necessary, as courts would be unable to examine the specifics of every case to determine whether informed consent existed.
Miley Cyrus, in this case, needs no such protection. She was not involved. Only an image of her, an incomplete one, was involved, and the "simulated sex" involved existed only in the mind of the perpetrator and nowhere else-- not in her own image, not in the use of her image in a collage with another image. If this man is guilty of violating this law then so am I, since I just read about what he did and also thought about what he had done-- which was imagine a minor in a sexual situation. Unless the DA is saying the crime is masturbation, in which case I wonder how they are going to substantiate that. Tissue samples?
The question here is not merely whether he violated the law as written, which he clearly did not. The further question is whether he has violated the spirit and intent of that law, and he has not done that either has he has in no way victimized a minor.
You'd have a better chance of trying to imply that all mass media images of celebrities are distributed with a shrinkwrap license, and by jerking off to it, he violated the license.
No. But I might want software that allows me to download and read from Project Gutenberg. Which was banned because a text only version of the Karma Sutra is available.
They removed Stanza from the App Store? Funny, looks like it is still there to me. It has a direct link to Project Gutenberg under "online catalog". And the kamasutra shows up. I think you're misinformed here. I think one should be able to jailbreak the phone, and mine is, in fact, jailbroken. At the same time, one should be complete and honest about the real reasons for doing so, and not embellish the list with things that are actually quite possible without jailbreaking. Jailbreaking is not everyone's cup of tea, and not all of Apple's actions are evil-- especially ones they have not actually taken.
Or I might just want a vm for the scripting language of my choice for no reason at all. I've installed python on every phone I've had that supported it. To date I've never done anything useful with it, but I might one of these days.
This puts me in mind of the quote, "what's the point of defending your right to have babies when you can't have babies?"
For the love of Mike, can we get people to stop quoting the bogus $65B figure?
If I take a dollor from you today and claim I'm going to turn it into a million by tomorrow, and tomorrow I don't have the million, how much have I swindled? One million? Or one dollar?
$65B is the total of money Madoff said he made for all his clients. The thing is, he never made it, since he was using money from later investors to show gains for old ones. That's why it's a pyramid scheme. The "value" of a pyramid isn't the amount of the supposed, fictional eventual payoff, it's the value of all the real money that went into it, which in this case was a lot less than $65B.
Actually, Palm (and before them Handspring) used to be the BEST option for just getting whatever phone you like and then signing up for service later. Handspring usually sold unlocked GSM phones (like the Visorphones and then the early treos) and even when the 600 and 650 came out I was able to get unlocked devices either day and date with the carrier versions, or shortly thereafter.
Palm has decided they want to play with the big boys, and to sell big numbers you need access to the operator stores, and that means exclusive deals, long contracts, and subsidized handsets, as well as all the nonsense that comes with it, including credit checks and invasive procedures like this.
A shame, really. All around. The US mobile phone market in particular is a shriveled, stunted, twisted thing that makes incompetent mom & pop shops in the third world look good.
I honestly don't know what beef people have with the movies. Every complaint I read is extremely vague, usually on the lines of "didn't work in movie format" or "would have been better as episodes".
Frankly it always seemed to me like it was structured like episodes, one after the other. I also thought they were all fairly good, although "Bender's Game" was considerably weaker than the other three and "Beast With A Billion Backs" is a bit slow to get going.
The first one I thought was great and so was the last; of them, only the first stands out as different in tone and content from the series because of how seriously it takes itself.
So beyond length, what problem to people have with the movies?
Right now, Apple is a fairly large porcupine and Palm a fairly small one. Apple has plenty of reserve cash to throw at lawyers, far more than Palm. And ultimately I think such a battle would be perceived as Palm trying to reclaim lost glory by riding Apple's coattails. It'd be a PR black eye the longer it went on.
Let's not forget that Apple took Microsoft to the mat with their "look and feel" suit and eventually extracted a cash payment for non-voting stock and a commitment to keep making Office at a time when the company was at their lowest ebb. Now they're fairly strong. I think Palm has a better chance of competing in the marketplace on the merits of their device than they do in the courtroom.
"why do problems with paperwork make it necessary to turn away patients?"
Before posting a rhetorical question try answering it yourself. It may not hold up.
What do you think would happen the first time a patient died or suffered other permanent consequences as a result of improper treatment due to missing or incorrect paperwork describing their condition and medical history? Those ambulances didn't drive into the river. They went to another hospital, one with a working computer that could give doctors in the emergency room the information they need to have the best chance of delivering the proper treatment.
This is complete and utter unsubstantiated nonsense. The reason why the purchase model has so far done better than either the subscription or streaming models is because the user gets something concrete-- even if it is just a file-- that they can feel is theirs. The barrier to streaming being the dominant method is not pricing. After all, radio is essentially streaming and it was ad-supported and free. Free ad-supported streaming and ubiquitous broadband might kill radio, but it won't kill the iTMS or its business model.
This is a bit of self-interested claptrap from someone with a vested interest in seeing their prediction come true.
One, the original story is a joke. English sites have picked it up as if it were legit in order to make a joke of it, but it was already a joke to start with.
2nd, quit referencing that movie in every story that mentions Kazakhstan for god's sake.
Oh that's right, because they're refusing to loan out money even to reputable companies like GM and Chrysler.
Anyone familiar with Chrysler's reputation should be wary of giving them money.
The real question is, why is the government giving money to companies that banks see as being bad risks?
Another example, I needed a tool to just crop an image on OSX (splitting a desktop wallpaper in two for spaning multiple monitors). I found ImageWell, which worked fine but has a weird workflow and a non-resizeable interface that forces you to work in a very small preview version of your image!
OS X's default image viewer, Preview, does this. It even uses a standard keystroke, Command-K (the same as photoshop uses) for doing the crop. It also shows that command, and the key shortcut, in the Tools menu.
"Wait... if I am not mistaken, it is faster to list the (quasi-industrialised) countries, which don't provide unlimited plans: Australia, New Zealand."
And it's easy to see what these have in common compared to the others. They are geographically remote, sparsely populated, English language markets. As TFN mentions, most of the traffic comes from outside Australia.
Korea offers unlimited plans, but the vast majority of the traffic originates within the country. Same for Japan and Russia. The reason? Language. All of those markets consume primarily content generated in their own native languages. Even the other content they do demand-- Hollywood movies-- is usually localized and those sources distributed (whether legitimate or illegitimate).
They are calling net neutrality an "American problem" because the incentive for ISPs to throttle comes from the market demand for flat rate pricing. They are saying that because the balance of their traffic is expensive international traffic, they can't and don't offer flat rate plans. There is no need for regulatory net neutrality because their is no incentive for that kind of abuse.
So let me ask... would the duopoly, if the traffic patterns somehow magically shifted from 70/30 International/Local to 30/70, voluntarily drop prices and/or offer unlimited plans? Or would things stay the same and profit margins skyrocket?....yeah, that's what I thought.
Regulation like this is necessary because the barriers to entry in the telecom sector are already fairly high, and other rational regulations placed on the sector make it even higher. If you want competition to work everything out and let providers price however they like, then fine-- but then you should let me buy whatever broadcast equipment I want without type certification, broadcast at any power I can afford on whatever band I like, and let the deepest pockets win.
Once you've licensed spectrum, certified equipment, limited power, and required health and safety certificates for radio equipment, you've added high hurdles onto an already steep climb and it's no wonder you're lucky if you have a couple of wired providers and a half-dozen (at best) wireless providers to choose from, all of whom have eerily similar price points. If you're going to divide up the market by territory (cable) and by radio frequency (wireless) and thereby limit the number of players in the market, then you need also to set some ground rules.
Net neutrality is a basic groundrule: I pay for my bandwidth from my box to your core. You don't get to charge me more based on where my traffic goes after that; you don't get to throttle that traffic in an attempt to make me pay more for one direction than another, or an attempt to get revenue from content generators that are not your clients-- say, trying to charge clients extra for loading Google as compared to MSN, and then trying to charge Google for the delivery of that traffic to them, even if Google isn't your client; because those kinds of things are possible.
"The US will not extradite their own citizens; they have even promised to invade countries that hold american citizens "
What?
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Many American citizens are imprisoned overseas every year. Embassies tell them, quite properly, that US citizens living and working abroad are subject to local laws. Embassy staff can visit, but that's about it.
I personally know someone who was in jail in Kazakhstan for about six months. Nobody invaded. He eventually got out anyway, but it certainly wasn't in a military operation.
I have never met a single iPhone user who has had extensive use of a smart phone. Most iPhone users probably couldn't even come up with a somewhat accurate definition of a smart phone. Most probably know nothing about PalmOS or WindowsCE. Your remark is FUD, at best.
Either you haven't met many iPhone users or you're also guilty of FUD. Many Palm sites ran polls and forum threads regarding the iPhone, and in the deafening silence from Palm about when it is going to rev its aging OS, many considered switching to the iPhone and many have. Which is not surprising as Palm was proportionally more popular with Apple users than Windows Mobile, and Palm was founded by ex-Apple employees.
I've owned just about every PalmOS powered smartphone ever made, from my Treo 650 all the way back to the VisorPhone.
I've liked them all and they all have their virtues. But aside from a few niggling things, mostly related to sync, the first gen iPhone is clearly a better device.
Dominant gaming platform? Compared to what, OS X? Linux?
That is not saying much. Sales of console titles absolutely dwarf PC gaming. PC gaming drives a certain segment of hardware sales, but if you're saying that the Windows OS cannot be unseated because the gaming industry depends on it, you're dead wrong. The biggest names in PC gaming are already making plenty in the console market, and if Windows wasn't there for them, they'd manage to do fine. The rest are niche players.
There may be plenty of reasons why it may not happen, but that's hardly a good one.
Thanks for playing, though. The industry does make it very, very easy to get confused, and there are more than enough parties willing to take advantage of that.
The bottom line is that most of the world is still using 2G/2.5G services, mostly based on GSM. And even in places where 3G exists (UMTS or HSDPA with CDMA2k) many users are still not using those services.
Slashdot Mirror
WiMax operates at 3.5 Ghz, 2.5 Ghz, but also at 2.3 Ghz.
There are also manufacturers who build WiMax gear at arbitrary frequencies when those licensed frequencies are available to a company that wants to deploy WiMax. These are sometimes outside the WiMax Forum's certified profiles, but if the vendor and the operator agree on it, that's up to them. There's little reason why one couldn't deploy WiMax at, say, 900 Mhz or even 700 Mhz, assuming that the spectrum is available to the operator and the manufacturer can develop and implement.
An affordable version of LTE (or WiMax, for that matter) that worked in unlicensed spectrum, had to accept interference from other devices, and was similarly limited in power, would have about little more than the range of a WiFi base station. Most of the gains in range and penetration are either due to higher transmission power and/or larger/more antenna elements.
Even a 4G pico base station, designed to serve a wifi-sized area, costs in the low six figures. What you're asking for doesn't exist, and it's not because of the "evil telcos". If anything, ask the manufacturers why they don't make a 2.3Ghz OFDMA-based device and price it around $500. The reason is because it wouldn't be able to compete with wifi on price, and the advantage isn't worth it for most people. Plus, you can make more margin selling a few large stations to telcos than trying to sell thousands to invidividuals.
4G is being run by "evil telcos" because that's how the use of spectrum and power can be limited by government, and it's now infrastructure manufacturers can maximize their margins.
Well, I suppose it depends.
How many large scales are you planning on monitoring?
People who are 'good at math' are more likely to analyze the law exactly as written and determine logically whether or not he actually violated the law as written. People who are good at math are far more likely to see answers as absolute - either it's absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect.
Most people just look at the first question, which is "Is what he did sick and disgusting, and probably immoral and/or unethical?" To which the answer of course, is an obvious 'yes'.
Why is that the first question? Since when is that the sort of question put before courts? What if this question was asked to a jury from a town comprised disproportionately of various sex offenders, who might answer that this is not sick and disgusting, but rather "totally hot"? Would that make it all right?
Math people ignore that, because that's not really relevant when it comes to law. The real question is "Did he violate the law as written?" And the answer to that in this case is a pretty clear 'no'.
It is, I think, missing the point to paint this as a distinction between the letter of the law and what's gross. The fact is that the DA's allegation not only isn't consistent with the letter of the law, it is inconsistent with its intent as well, which is to protect minors. Minors engaged in sexual activity, simulated or otherwise, are given special protection because community standards dictate that informed consent only exists above a certain age. Therefore, behaviors which are acceptable above a certain age, between consenting adults, are unacceptable below that same age. It is recognized as arbitrary, but necessary, as courts would be unable to examine the specifics of every case to determine whether informed consent existed.
Miley Cyrus, in this case, needs no such protection. She was not involved. Only an image of her, an incomplete one, was involved, and the "simulated sex" involved existed only in the mind of the perpetrator and nowhere else-- not in her own image, not in the use of her image in a collage with another image. If this man is guilty of violating this law then so am I, since I just read about what he did and also thought about what he had done-- which was imagine a minor in a sexual situation. Unless the DA is saying the crime is masturbation, in which case I wonder how they are going to substantiate that. Tissue samples?
The question here is not merely whether he violated the law as written, which he clearly did not. The further question is whether he has violated the spirit and intent of that law, and he has not done that either has he has in no way victimized a minor.
You'd have a better chance of trying to imply that all mass media images of celebrities are distributed with a shrinkwrap license, and by jerking off to it, he violated the license.
No. But I might want software that allows me to download and read from Project Gutenberg. Which was banned because a text only version of the Karma Sutra is available.
They removed Stanza from the App Store? Funny, looks like it is still there to me. It has a direct link to Project Gutenberg under "online catalog". And the kamasutra shows up. I think you're misinformed here. I think one should be able to jailbreak the phone, and mine is, in fact, jailbroken. At the same time, one should be complete and honest about the real reasons for doing so, and not embellish the list with things that are actually quite possible without jailbreaking. Jailbreaking is not everyone's cup of tea, and not all of Apple's actions are evil-- especially ones they have not actually taken.
Or I might just want a vm for the scripting language of my choice for no reason at all. I've installed python on every phone I've had that supported it. To date I've never done anything useful with it, but I might one of these days.
This puts me in mind of the quote, "what's the point of defending your right to have babies when you can't have babies?"
For the love of Mike, can we get people to stop quoting the bogus $65B figure?
If I take a dollor from you today and claim I'm going to turn it into a million by tomorrow, and tomorrow I don't have the million, how much have I swindled? One million? Or one dollar?
$65B is the total of money Madoff said he made for all his clients. The thing is, he never made it, since he was using money from later investors to show gains for old ones. That's why it's a pyramid scheme. The "value" of a pyramid isn't the amount of the supposed, fictional eventual payoff, it's the value of all the real money that went into it, which in this case was a lot less than $65B.
Actually, Palm (and before them Handspring) used to be the BEST option for just getting whatever phone you like and then signing up for service later. Handspring usually sold unlocked GSM phones (like the Visorphones and then the early treos) and even when the 600 and 650 came out I was able to get unlocked devices either day and date with the carrier versions, or shortly thereafter. Palm has decided they want to play with the big boys, and to sell big numbers you need access to the operator stores, and that means exclusive deals, long contracts, and subsidized handsets, as well as all the nonsense that comes with it, including credit checks and invasive procedures like this. A shame, really. All around. The US mobile phone market in particular is a shriveled, stunted, twisted thing that makes incompetent mom & pop shops in the third world look good.
... Is this a trick question?
I honestly don't know what beef people have with the movies. Every complaint I read is extremely vague, usually on the lines of "didn't work in movie format" or "would have been better as episodes".
Frankly it always seemed to me like it was structured like episodes, one after the other. I also thought they were all fairly good, although "Bender's Game" was considerably weaker than the other three and "Beast With A Billion Backs" is a bit slow to get going.
The first one I thought was great and so was the last; of them, only the first stands out as different in tone and content from the series because of how seriously it takes itself.
So beyond length, what problem to people have with the movies?
Right now, Apple is a fairly large porcupine and Palm a fairly small one. Apple has plenty of reserve cash to throw at lawyers, far more than Palm. And ultimately I think such a battle would be perceived as Palm trying to reclaim lost glory by riding Apple's coattails. It'd be a PR black eye the longer it went on.
Let's not forget that Apple took Microsoft to the mat with their "look and feel" suit and eventually extracted a cash payment for non-voting stock and a commitment to keep making Office at a time when the company was at their lowest ebb. Now they're fairly strong. I think Palm has a better chance of competing in the marketplace on the merits of their device than they do in the courtroom.
"why do problems with paperwork make it necessary to turn away patients?"
Before posting a rhetorical question try answering it yourself. It may not hold up.
What do you think would happen the first time a patient died or suffered other permanent consequences as a result of improper treatment due to missing or incorrect paperwork describing their condition and medical history? Those ambulances didn't drive into the river. They went to another hospital, one with a working computer that could give doctors in the emergency room the information they need to have the best chance of delivering the proper treatment.
This is complete and utter unsubstantiated nonsense. The reason why the purchase model has so far done better than either the subscription or streaming models is because the user gets something concrete-- even if it is just a file-- that they can feel is theirs. The barrier to streaming being the dominant method is not pricing. After all, radio is essentially streaming and it was ad-supported and free. Free ad-supported streaming and ubiquitous broadband might kill radio, but it won't kill the iTMS or its business model.
This is a bit of self-interested claptrap from someone with a vested interest in seeing their prediction come true.
And for files that contain audio and video, each with its own codec, you name the file after... ?
Should I come over and open a competing service and call it Euphrates?
It has to be TIGR and not TGRS. Because the wonderful thing about TIGR is that it's the only one.
One, the original story is a joke. English sites have picked it up as if it were legit in order to make a joke of it, but it was already a joke to start with. 2nd, quit referencing that movie in every story that mentions Kazakhstan for god's sake.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right. APAC includes China and Japan, not just New Zealand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pacific
Anyone familiar with Chrysler's reputation should be wary of giving them money. The real question is, why is the government giving money to companies that banks see as being bad risks?
Another example, I needed a tool to just crop an image on OSX (splitting a desktop wallpaper in two for spaning multiple monitors). I found ImageWell, which worked fine but has a weird workflow and a non-resizeable interface that forces you to work in a very small preview version of your image!
OS X's default image viewer, Preview, does this. It even uses a standard keystroke, Command-K (the same as photoshop uses) for doing the crop. It also shows that command, and the key shortcut, in the Tools menu.
Good grief, please tell me you don't walk into shops yelling that.
"Wait... if I am not mistaken, it is faster to list the (quasi-industrialised) countries, which don't provide unlimited plans: Australia, New Zealand."
And it's easy to see what these have in common compared to the others. They are geographically remote, sparsely populated, English language markets. As TFN mentions, most of the traffic comes from outside Australia.
Korea offers unlimited plans, but the vast majority of the traffic originates within the country. Same for Japan and Russia. The reason? Language. All of those markets consume primarily content generated in their own native languages. Even the other content they do demand-- Hollywood movies-- is usually localized and those sources distributed (whether legitimate or illegitimate).
They are calling net neutrality an "American problem" because the incentive for ISPs to throttle comes from the market demand for flat rate pricing. They are saying that because the balance of their traffic is expensive international traffic, they can't and don't offer flat rate plans. There is no need for regulatory net neutrality because their is no incentive for that kind of abuse.
So let me ask... would the duopoly, if the traffic patterns somehow magically shifted from 70/30 International/Local to 30/70, voluntarily drop prices and/or offer unlimited plans? Or would things stay the same and profit margins skyrocket? ....yeah, that's what I thought.
Regulation like this is necessary because the barriers to entry in the telecom sector are already fairly high, and other rational regulations placed on the sector make it even higher. If you want competition to work everything out and let providers price however they like, then fine-- but then you should let me buy whatever broadcast equipment I want without type certification, broadcast at any power I can afford on whatever band I like, and let the deepest pockets win.
Once you've licensed spectrum, certified equipment, limited power, and required health and safety certificates for radio equipment, you've added high hurdles onto an already steep climb and it's no wonder you're lucky if you have a couple of wired providers and a half-dozen (at best) wireless providers to choose from, all of whom have eerily similar price points. If you're going to divide up the market by territory (cable) and by radio frequency (wireless) and thereby limit the number of players in the market, then you need also to set some ground rules.
Net neutrality is a basic groundrule: I pay for my bandwidth from my box to your core. You don't get to charge me more based on where my traffic goes after that; you don't get to throttle that traffic in an attempt to make me pay more for one direction than another, or an attempt to get revenue from content generators that are not your clients-- say, trying to charge clients extra for loading Google as compared to MSN, and then trying to charge Google for the delivery of that traffic to them, even if Google isn't your client; because those kinds of things are possible.
"The US will not extradite their own citizens; they have even promised to invade countries that hold american citizens "
What?
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Many American citizens are imprisoned overseas every year. Embassies tell them, quite properly, that US citizens living and working abroad are subject to local laws. Embassy staff can visit, but that's about it.
I personally know someone who was in jail in Kazakhstan for about six months. Nobody invaded. He eventually got out anyway, but it certainly wasn't in a military operation.
Either you haven't met many iPhone users or you're also guilty of FUD. Many Palm sites ran polls and forum threads regarding the iPhone, and in the deafening silence from Palm about when it is going to rev its aging OS, many considered switching to the iPhone and many have. Which is not surprising as Palm was proportionally more popular with Apple users than Windows Mobile, and Palm was founded by ex-Apple employees. I've owned just about every PalmOS powered smartphone ever made, from my Treo 650 all the way back to the VisorPhone. I've liked them all and they all have their virtues. But aside from a few niggling things, mostly related to sync, the first gen iPhone is clearly a better device.
Dominant gaming platform? Compared to what, OS X? Linux?
That is not saying much. Sales of console titles absolutely dwarf PC gaming. PC gaming drives a certain segment of hardware sales, but if you're saying that the Windows OS cannot be unseated because the gaming industry depends on it, you're dead wrong. The biggest names in PC gaming are already making plenty in the console market, and if Windows wasn't there for them, they'd manage to do fine. The rest are niche players.
There may be plenty of reasons why it may not happen, but that's hardly a good one.
Umm...
LTE is not GSM.
LTE is not 4G.
GSM is not 4G.
In fact, there *is* no 4G, no such thing exists.
Thanks for playing, though. The industry does make it very, very easy to get confused, and there are more than enough parties willing to take advantage of that.
The bottom line is that most of the world is still using 2G/2.5G services, mostly based on GSM. And even in places where 3G exists (UMTS or HSDPA with CDMA2k) many users are still not using those services.