That's it --- certain corporations in Europe. In the US, it is a lot wide spread --- not just the wall street type that relies on the blackberry.
Oh come off it. You know better than that what that meant. Of the corporations that I've worked with, all of them rely and have relied on mobile internet for a long time. The demographics are just too wide for me to go and make bold statements that I would know how the whole market works (as you seem to do).
If I were to make similar assumptions, it would go something like this: "since all of the corporations I've worked with rely on mobile internet -> all corporations in Europe and Asia do. Also since some of these have been using mobile e-mail since the late nineties (HSCSD), all of Europe is at least a decade ahead of the US in mobile internet use".
But that would be a bit dishonest woudn't it? And of no real added value wouldn't it?
Let's not try to get into a kiddy "yes it is - no it isn't"-argument without facts to back up the arguments and with actually listening to what the other side said.
Personally for example I was pleasantly surprised how quickly SMS usage has reached those levels in the US. I didn't expect it to be that far along. So why SMS if E-mail is so "critical"? There's a lot to potentially learn here as discussions progress.
Just look at various European iphone deals, they give you a dinky little 250 MB iphone data allowance per month, or they crippled you to 384 kbps in speed.... You live in London, so what good is the O2 UK 3G network when they cripple PAYG iphone speed to 384 kbps.
See how AT&T gets trashed but still heads above the European carriers --- and we haven't even touch the king of the network (Verizon). Verizon has more 3G subscribers than the whole European arm of Vodafone, has 3G coverage to 280 million Americans, more quality network/antenna/coverage...
Many of the countries offer real bandwidth well in excess of 4 Mbps, With HSPA+ 21Mbps is possible (naturally not with the iPhone, but that's not the networks fault)Real life results would throttle you down to 10-14 Mbps range (64 QAM, without any real redundancy through puncturing and convolutional coding requires extremely good radio conditions to reach its potential). Next year we are talking 42-84 Mbps/cell from the network perspective.
As to iPhone data plans, could it have to do with the originally high price of the iPhone (850? unsubsidised) and the cheaper limited volume dataplans being in the 20-30? range? Or the fact that having one provider of iPhones in most countries kind of stifles the competition on iPhone contracts?
For example my operator's BW capped data plan (no contract timeframes, no phone subsidies) at 5Mbps would be 35?/mo. And this approach is the norm in Nordics (part of Europe that is) and becoming more and more common in central europe as well.
There is basically a fundamental difference in what Americans and the rest of the world regard as a smartphone. Americans view the smartphone as an corporate extension of pc-laptop-pda.
A blackberry without a full browser, without a color screen, without the app store, without a million other things... will still be regarded by Americans as a smartphone --- because they are used as a corporate enterprise tool.
A top of the line Nokia smartphone, with a million features --- will still be regarded by Americans as a feature phone --- because big companies don't use them.
It's like how courts look at the issue of obscenity --- they can't describe it, but they know it when they see it. The software industy is still dominated by Americans --- and when they look at a Symbian phone, they know it's not a smartphone.
Bullshit. Pure and simple. Got any data to support your theory as to the meaning of "smartphone" in various regions? Or did you just make this all up of the top of your head?
Since VZW has over 30 billion in debt, who has the advantage?
The advantage is to Verizon.
VZ loaded up VZW with a lot of debt, used all the cash flow on capex --- and built the best network in the US. Meanwhile VZW hasn't paid a cent of dividend in 5 years.
Many of the countries offer real bandwidth well in excess of 4 Mbps, With HSPA+ 21Mbps is possible (naturally not with the iPhone, but that's not the networks fault)Real life results would throttle you down to 10-14 Mbps range (64 QAM, without any real redundancy through puncturing and convolutional coding requires extremely good radio conditions to reach its potential). Next year we are talking 42-84 Mbps/cell from the network perspective.
As to iPhone data plans, could it have to do with the originally high price of the iPhone (850? unsubsidised) and the cheaper limited volume dataplans being in the 20-30? range? Or the fact that having one provider of iPhones in most countries kind of stifles the competition on iPhone contracts?
For example my operator's BW capped data plan (no contract timeframes, no phone subsidies) at 5Mbps would be 35?/mo. And this approach is the norm in Nordics (part of Europe that is) and becoming more and more common in central europe as well.
Regs, Jarkko
Theoretical speed claims are all garbage. People around the world laughed at AT&T's and Verizon's 3G networks because the American carriers are truthful in their real life speed claims. The fact is that AT&T's 3G network isn't that bad --- they are near the top when you compare it internationally. The problem is that AT&T is being compared with Verizon (the king of the networks).
When multiple carriers started selling the iphone --- did they lower the prices? No, the second and the third iphone carriers sell at almost the same price as the original exclusive iphone carrier.
Central Europe has lower cost of living --- making comparisions difficult.
Personally for example I was pleasantly surprised how quickly SMS usage has reached those levels in the US. I didn't expect it to be that far along. So why SMS if E-mail is so "critical"? There's a lot to potentially learn here as discussions progress.
The fact is that Americans talk 3-4 times more voice minutes than the rest of the world, use corporate e-mail on cell phones like mad, and use sms more than anyone else.
Cell phone is a tool and Americans know how to use them fully. This ISN'T a case where Americans can't afford voice minutes, so they have to use sms OR that they can't afford corporate email, so they have to use sms. This is a case where Americans can afford to talk all day long, can afford to send useless short "LOL" sms all day long, and can afford to send corporate emails all day long.
Europeans had their initial bragging rights. Americans got their last laughs. This is why European telecom regulators (in Ireland and Sweden) abandoned their 3G beauty contest and embraced American style spectrum auction. This is why in the last 5 years all the European telecom regulators have started using American style technology neutral rules on their spectrum auction. This is why European Commission is actively looking at the long term migration of European mobile termination rates to American style "bill and keep" zero mobile termination rate (i.e. killing free incoming calls in Europe).
Theoretical speed claims are all garbage. People around the world laughed at AT&T's and Verizon's 3G networks because the American carriers are truthful in their real life speed claims. The fact is that AT&T's 3G network isn't that bad --- they are near the top when you compare it internationally. The problem is that AT&T is being compared with Verizon (the king of the networks).
Do you have problems reading? Or just difficulty in understanding what's being written? Theoretical 21Mbps, practical 10-14 mbps in real life. I get 20Mbps every week, but that's more to do with my work than anything else. Soon theoretical will jump to 42 to 84 Mbps, practical speeds are likely to be roughly half that depending on radio conditions and backhaul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Central Europe has lower cost of living --- making comparisions difficult.
Compared to what? The U.S.? Which central european countries? France, Germany, Poland? Once you factor in all the taxes and costs of living, central Europe is very likely more expensive. Just look at electronics. as an example. iMac starting from 1099EUR vs. 1199USD. That is 1500USD vs. 1200 USD.
But I'm having enough of this discussion. You voice personal "feelings" as undisputed fact and refuse to read what's written in response. No point in continuing further.
This is why European Commission is actively looking at the long term migration of European mobile termination rates to American style "bill and keep" zero mobile termination rate (i.e. killing free incoming calls in Europe).
So you really don't know why you have to pay for incoming calls in the US and why the _REST OF THE WORLD_ doesn't?
Bill & keep is aimed to reduce the roaming charges and nothing to do with incoming local calls. Roaming incoming calls have always cost money. I'll leave that as homework for you as to why it is like that.
So you really don't know why you have to pay for incoming calls in the US and why the _REST OF THE WORLD_ doesn't?
Bill & keep is aimed to reduce the roaming charges and nothing to do with incoming local calls. Roaming incoming calls have always cost money. I'll leave that as homework for you as to why it is like that.
Bill and keep has nothing to do with roaming charges.
Telecom regulators are supposed to regulate what normal people pay 50 weeks out of the whole year --- not the 2 weeks when they are in vacation.
Do you have problems reading? Or just difficulty in understanding what's being written? Theoretical 21Mbps, practical 10-14 mbps in real life. I get 20Mbps every week, but that's more to do with my work than anything else. Soon theoretical will jump to 42 to 84 Mbps, practical speeds are likely to be roughly half that depending on radio conditions and backhaul.
On a what network? A sparsely populated Nordic country with a pretty empty 3G network that not many people uses with governments giving vast amounts of spectrum space --- and people have capped plans.
Normal countries don't give their carriers 20 MHz of spectrum space at practically zero cost. That's the main difference between the insane speed claims of LTE network in Oslo and the realistic speed claims of LTE network by VZW.
The funny thing is that the country which had the most insane 3G auction prices --- UK --- also has the lowest iphone data plans in the whole G7. Therefore the Nordic countries were wrong to basically give out vast amounts of their spectrum space for peanuts.
VZ loaded up VZW with a lot of debt, used all the cash flow on capex --- and built the best network in the US. Meanwhile VZW hasn't paid a cent of dividend in 5 years.
No, only a third of VZW debt is owed back to Verizon, they are still wearing 20 billion of debt on their books, and you think that is good? Well depending on your tax laws it might be good for ripping off the tax man
No, only a third of VZW debt is owed back to Verizon, they are still wearing 20 billion of debt on their books, and you think that is good? Well depending on your tax laws it might be good for ripping off the tax man
With VZW's size and amount of cash flow --- they are planning to repay $20 billion debt in 2 years. I don't see any problem with that.
Central Europe has lower cost of living --- making comparisions difficult.
Sorry for joining everybody else in making you the whipping-boy of these forums, but do you really know what are you talking about? Do you even know what 'Central Europe' means? Been to Prague or Vilnius as of late?
On a what network? A sparsely populated Nordic country with a pretty empty 3G network that not many people uses with governments giving vast amounts of spectrum space --- and people have capped plans.
Normal countries don't give their carriers 20 MHz of spectrum space at practically zero cost. That's the main difference between the insane speed claims of LTE network in Oslo and the realistic speed claims of LTE network by VZW.
So? Also means there are less people to pay for the investments. In more densely populated areas it's easier to build a network which offers acceptable service (look at AT&T) with statistical multiplexing and lower transmission installation costs etc.
In Finland, the LTE spectrum allocation is 1-2x50MHz per operator at around 840k€ a pop, so getting the 20MHz spectrum isn't a problem and allows for advanced services. So the Oslo speed claims aren't as insane as they sound are they? BTW, none of the operator's here advertise 7.4 or 14 Mbps (the theoretical), they talk about 2-5Mbps, whihc is realistic in normal radio conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
The funny thing is that the country which had the most insane 3G auction prices --- UK --- also has the lowest iphone data plans in the whole G7. Therefore the Nordic countries were wrong to basically give out vast amounts of their spectrum space for peanuts.
Not really. Look at the population density in the Nordics. You have to have money left to invest in the network itself. Otherwise you might run into the problem, that since you wasted too much money on the original European 3G auctions after the US model (which was an acknowledged failure and part of the reasons for the 2000 downturn), you don't have enough money to keep investing in your networks (as seems to be the case in the UK if we are to believe your statement about the UK networks quality).
Take a look at slide #9http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events...n_policies.pdf. Want to review your position? The UK and Germany for example haven't been able to recoup the costs of the licences because the auction was handled with greedy government and pricing left to the free market.
Judging how well the networks work in the Nordics, the decisions made have been the correct ones so far. And the US model of auctioning and technology agnosticity hasn't worked very well so far. Imagine what the scene would be like if the US had mandated a specific technology and interoperability. Even now you have incompatible frequency bands causing issues and AT&T is just now rolling out 7.2Mbps HSDPA. But the speed at which the US is evolving in the mobile space is impressive and will pass the rest if they keep it up.
So? Also means there are less people to pay for the investments. In more densely populated areas it's easier to build a network which offers acceptable service (look at AT&T) with statistical multiplexing and lower transmission installation costs etc.
In Finland, the LTE spectrum allocation is 1-2x50MHz per operator at around 840k? a pop, so getting the 20MHz spectrum isn't a problem and allows for advanced services. So the Oslo speed claims aren't as insane as they sound are they? BTW, none of the operator's here advertise 7.4 or 14 Mbps (the theoretical), they talk about 2-5Mbps, whihc is realistic in normal radio conditions.
Not really. Look at the population density in the Nordics. You have to have money left to invest in the network itself. Otherwise you might run into the problem, that since you wasted too much money on the original European 3G auctions after the US model (which was an acknowledged failure and part of the reasons for the 2000 downturn), you don't have enough money to keep investing in your networks (as seems to be the case in the UK if we are to believe your statement about the UK networks quality).
Take a look at slide #9http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events...n_policies.pdf. Want to review your position? The UK and Germany for example haven't been able to recoup the costs of the licences because the auction was handled with greedy government and pricing left to the free market.
Judging how well the networks work in the Nordics, the decisions made have been the correct ones so far. And the US model of auctioning and technology agnosticity hasn't worked very well so far. Imagine what the scene would be like if the US had mandated a specific technology and interoperability. Even now you have incompatible frequency bands causing issues and AT&T is just now rolling out 7.2Mbps HSDPA. But the speed at which the US is evolving in the mobile space is impressive and will pass the rest if they keep it up.
Regs, Jarkko
(1) American carriers also paid massive amount of money for their spectrum in FCC auctions before the internet bubble bursted in 1999/2000. That didn't ruin the American mobile industry at all. And it certainly didn't ruin Verizon's financial strength to massively build their networks.
(2) These are multi-nationals --- if they got screwed in the UK 3G auctions, AND they can't raise prices in UK (because there are 5 national carriers in the UK) --- then the only thing that they can do is price gouge in some other country where there isn't a lot of competition and the government is giving away the spectrum for free.
That's the main problem with you argument. Companies like 3/Orange/Vodafone "overpaid" their UK/Germany auctioned licenses --- so what are they going to do? They gave back the "free" 3G licenses back to Sweden. Now what? Sweden got screwed, these countries won't have enough competition because the carriers gave back the 3G licenses. Sweden didn't get any money on the license, now they couldn't get the carriers to build 3G networks on spectrums they gave away for free.
Brits got the best out of the situation. Their government got a lot of money for their 3G licenses --- which they spent it on stuff like health care. Brits still manage to have the lowest mobile tarriffs in the big European countries.
Comments
That's it --- certain corporations in Europe. In the US, it is a lot wide spread --- not just the wall street type that relies on the blackberry.
Oh come off it. You know better than that what that meant. Of the corporations that I've worked with, all of them rely and have relied on mobile internet for a long time. The demographics are just too wide for me to go and make bold statements that I would know how the whole market works (as you seem to do).
If I were to make similar assumptions, it would go something like this: "since all of the corporations I've worked with rely on mobile internet -> all corporations in Europe and Asia do. Also since some of these have been using mobile e-mail since the late nineties (HSCSD), all of Europe is at least a decade ahead of the US in mobile internet use".
But that would be a bit dishonest woudn't it? And of no real added value wouldn't it?
Let's not try to get into a kiddy "yes it is - no it isn't"-argument without facts to back up the arguments and with actually listening to what the other side said.
Personally for example I was pleasantly surprised how quickly SMS usage has reached those levels in the US. I didn't expect it to be that far along. So why SMS if E-mail is so "critical"? There's a lot to potentially learn here as discussions progress.
Regs, Jarkko
That total BS.
Just look at various European iphone deals, they give you a dinky little 250 MB iphone data allowance per month, or they crippled you to 384 kbps in speed.... You live in London, so what good is the O2 UK 3G network when they cripple PAYG iphone speed to 384 kbps.
See how AT&T gets trashed but still heads above the European carriers --- and we haven't even touch the king of the network (Verizon). Verizon has more 3G subscribers than the whole European arm of Vodafone, has 3G coverage to 280 million Americans, more quality network/antenna/coverage...
Many of the countries offer real bandwidth well in excess of 4 Mbps, With HSPA+ 21Mbps is possible (naturally not with the iPhone, but that's not the networks fault)Real life results would throttle you down to 10-14 Mbps range (64 QAM, without any real redundancy through puncturing and convolutional coding requires extremely good radio conditions to reach its potential). Next year we are talking 42-84 Mbps/cell from the network perspective.
As to iPhone data plans, could it have to do with the originally high price of the iPhone (850? unsubsidised) and the cheaper limited volume dataplans being in the 20-30? range? Or the fact that having one provider of iPhones in most countries kind of stifles the competition on iPhone contracts?
For example my operator's BW capped data plan (no contract timeframes, no phone subsidies) at 5Mbps would be 35?/mo. And this approach is the norm in Nordics (part of Europe that is) and becoming more and more common in central europe as well.
Regs, Jarkko
There is basically a fundamental difference in what Americans and the rest of the world regard as a smartphone. Americans view the smartphone as an corporate extension of pc-laptop-pda.
A blackberry without a full browser, without a color screen, without the app store, without a million other things... will still be regarded by Americans as a smartphone --- because they are used as a corporate enterprise tool.
A top of the line Nokia smartphone, with a million features --- will still be regarded by Americans as a feature phone --- because big companies don't use them.
It's like how courts look at the issue of obscenity --- they can't describe it, but they know it when they see it. The software industy is still dominated by Americans --- and when they look at a Symbian phone, they know it's not a smartphone.
Bullshit. Pure and simple. Got any data to support your theory as to the meaning of "smartphone" in various regions? Or did you just make this all up of the top of your head?
Since VZW has over 30 billion in debt, who has the advantage?
The advantage is to Verizon.
VZ loaded up VZW with a lot of debt, used all the cash flow on capex --- and built the best network in the US. Meanwhile VZW hasn't paid a cent of dividend in 5 years.
Many of the countries offer real bandwidth well in excess of 4 Mbps, With HSPA+ 21Mbps is possible (naturally not with the iPhone, but that's not the networks fault)Real life results would throttle you down to 10-14 Mbps range (64 QAM, without any real redundancy through puncturing and convolutional coding requires extremely good radio conditions to reach its potential). Next year we are talking 42-84 Mbps/cell from the network perspective.
As to iPhone data plans, could it have to do with the originally high price of the iPhone (850? unsubsidised) and the cheaper limited volume dataplans being in the 20-30? range? Or the fact that having one provider of iPhones in most countries kind of stifles the competition on iPhone contracts?
For example my operator's BW capped data plan (no contract timeframes, no phone subsidies) at 5Mbps would be 35?/mo. And this approach is the norm in Nordics (part of Europe that is) and becoming more and more common in central europe as well.
Regs, Jarkko
Theoretical speed claims are all garbage. People around the world laughed at AT&T's and Verizon's 3G networks because the American carriers are truthful in their real life speed claims. The fact is that AT&T's 3G network isn't that bad --- they are near the top when you compare it internationally. The problem is that AT&T is being compared with Verizon (the king of the networks).
When multiple carriers started selling the iphone --- did they lower the prices? No, the second and the third iphone carriers sell at almost the same price as the original exclusive iphone carrier.
Central Europe has lower cost of living --- making comparisions difficult.
Personally for example I was pleasantly surprised how quickly SMS usage has reached those levels in the US. I didn't expect it to be that far along. So why SMS if E-mail is so "critical"? There's a lot to potentially learn here as discussions progress.
The fact is that Americans talk 3-4 times more voice minutes than the rest of the world, use corporate e-mail on cell phones like mad, and use sms more than anyone else.
Cell phone is a tool and Americans know how to use them fully. This ISN'T a case where Americans can't afford voice minutes, so they have to use sms OR that they can't afford corporate email, so they have to use sms. This is a case where Americans can afford to talk all day long, can afford to send useless short "LOL" sms all day long, and can afford to send corporate emails all day long.
Europeans had their initial bragging rights. Americans got their last laughs. This is why European telecom regulators (in Ireland and Sweden) abandoned their 3G beauty contest and embraced American style spectrum auction. This is why in the last 5 years all the European telecom regulators have started using American style technology neutral rules on their spectrum auction. This is why European Commission is actively looking at the long term migration of European mobile termination rates to American style "bill and keep" zero mobile termination rate (i.e. killing free incoming calls in Europe).
Theoretical speed claims are all garbage. People around the world laughed at AT&T's and Verizon's 3G networks because the American carriers are truthful in their real life speed claims. The fact is that AT&T's 3G network isn't that bad --- they are near the top when you compare it internationally. The problem is that AT&T is being compared with Verizon (the king of the networks).
Do you have problems reading? Or just difficulty in understanding what's being written? Theoretical 21Mbps, practical 10-14 mbps in real life. I get 20Mbps every week, but that's more to do with my work than anything else. Soon theoretical will jump to 42 to 84 Mbps, practical speeds are likely to be roughly half that depending on radio conditions and backhaul.
Central Europe has lower cost of living --- making comparisions difficult.
Compared to what? The U.S.? Which central european countries? France, Germany, Poland? Once you factor in all the taxes and costs of living, central Europe is very likely more expensive. Just look at electronics. as an example. iMac starting from 1099EUR vs. 1199USD. That is 1500USD vs. 1200 USD.
But that's one viewpoint. Here's some from more official sources: http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm or http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr. Look at the tables and look at how many US cities are in the Top 20 vs. European Cities.
But I'm having enough of this discussion. You voice personal "feelings" as undisputed fact and refuse to read what's written in response. No point in continuing further.
Regs, Jarkko
This is why European Commission is actively looking at the long term migration of European mobile termination rates to American style "bill and keep" zero mobile termination rate (i.e. killing free incoming calls in Europe).
So you really don't know why you have to pay for incoming calls in the US and why the _REST OF THE WORLD_ doesn't?
Bill & keep is aimed to reduce the roaming charges and nothing to do with incoming local calls. Roaming incoming calls have always cost money. I'll leave that as homework for you as to why it is like that.
So you really don't know why you have to pay for incoming calls in the US and why the _REST OF THE WORLD_ doesn't?
Bill & keep is aimed to reduce the roaming charges and nothing to do with incoming local calls. Roaming incoming calls have always cost money. I'll leave that as homework for you as to why it is like that.
Bill and keep has nothing to do with roaming charges.
Telecom regulators are supposed to regulate what normal people pay 50 weeks out of the whole year --- not the 2 weeks when they are in vacation.
Do you have problems reading? Or just difficulty in understanding what's being written? Theoretical 21Mbps, practical 10-14 mbps in real life. I get 20Mbps every week, but that's more to do with my work than anything else. Soon theoretical will jump to 42 to 84 Mbps, practical speeds are likely to be roughly half that depending on radio conditions and backhaul.
On a what network? A sparsely populated Nordic country with a pretty empty 3G network that not many people uses with governments giving vast amounts of spectrum space --- and people have capped plans.
Normal countries don't give their carriers 20 MHz of spectrum space at practically zero cost. That's the main difference between the insane speed claims of LTE network in Oslo and the realistic speed claims of LTE network by VZW.
http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2010...t-promised.htm
The funny thing is that the country which had the most insane 3G auction prices --- UK --- also has the lowest iphone data plans in the whole G7. Therefore the Nordic countries were wrong to basically give out vast amounts of their spectrum space for peanuts.
The advantage is to Verizon.
VZ loaded up VZW with a lot of debt, used all the cash flow on capex --- and built the best network in the US. Meanwhile VZW hasn't paid a cent of dividend in 5 years.
No, only a third of VZW debt is owed back to Verizon, they are still wearing 20 billion of debt on their books, and you think that is good? Well depending on your tax laws it might be good for ripping off the tax man
No, only a third of VZW debt is owed back to Verizon, they are still wearing 20 billion of debt on their books, and you think that is good? Well depending on your tax laws it might be good for ripping off the tax man
With VZW's size and amount of cash flow --- they are planning to repay $20 billion debt in 2 years. I don't see any problem with that.
Central Europe has lower cost of living --- making comparisions difficult.
Sorry for joining everybody else in making you the whipping-boy of these forums, but do you really know what are you talking about? Do you even know what 'Central Europe' means? Been to Prague or Vilnius as of late?
With VZW's size and amount of cash flow --- they are planning to repay $20 billion debt in 2 years. I don't see any problem with that.
At which stage they will start paying dividends again, so what is your point?
At which stage they will start paying dividends again, so what is your point?
Vodafone can't really wait because their shareholders are complaining.
Vodafone can't really wait because their shareholders are complaining.
So, Apple shareholders complain that they don't pay a dividend either, at the end of the day it is Vodafones issue to deal with.
On a what network? A sparsely populated Nordic country with a pretty empty 3G network that not many people uses with governments giving vast amounts of spectrum space --- and people have capped plans.
Normal countries don't give their carriers 20 MHz of spectrum space at practically zero cost. That's the main difference between the insane speed claims of LTE network in Oslo and the realistic speed claims of LTE network by VZW.
So? Also means there are less people to pay for the investments. In more densely populated areas it's easier to build a network which offers acceptable service (look at AT&T) with statistical multiplexing and lower transmission installation costs etc.
In Finland, the LTE spectrum allocation is 1-2x50MHz per operator at around 840k€ a pop, so getting the 20MHz spectrum isn't a problem and allows for advanced services. So the Oslo speed claims aren't as insane as they sound are they? BTW, none of the operator's here advertise 7.4 or 14 Mbps (the theoretical), they talk about 2-5Mbps, whihc is realistic in normal radio conditions.
The funny thing is that the country which had the most insane 3G auction prices --- UK --- also has the lowest iphone data plans in the whole G7. Therefore the Nordic countries were wrong to basically give out vast amounts of their spectrum space for peanuts.
Not really. Look at the population density in the Nordics. You have to have money left to invest in the network itself. Otherwise you might run into the problem, that since you wasted too much money on the original European 3G auctions after the US model (which was an acknowledged failure and part of the reasons for the 2000 downturn), you don't have enough money to keep investing in your networks (as seems to be the case in the UK if we are to believe your statement about the UK networks quality).
Take a look at slide #9 http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events...n_policies.pdf. Want to review your position? The UK and Germany for example haven't been able to recoup the costs of the licences because the auction was handled with greedy government and pricing left to the free market.
Judging how well the networks work in the Nordics, the decisions made have been the correct ones so far. And the US model of auctioning and technology agnosticity hasn't worked very well so far. Imagine what the scene would be like if the US had mandated a specific technology and interoperability. Even now you have incompatible frequency bands causing issues and AT&T is just now rolling out 7.2Mbps HSDPA. But the speed at which the US is evolving in the mobile space is impressive and will pass the rest if they keep it up.
Regs, Jarkko
So, Apple shareholders complain that they don't pay a dividend either, at the end of the day it is Vodafones issue to deal with.
People who buy utility stocks or bank stocks expect dividends.
People who buy high tech silicon valley stocks don't expect dividends.
So? Also means there are less people to pay for the investments. In more densely populated areas it's easier to build a network which offers acceptable service (look at AT&T) with statistical multiplexing and lower transmission installation costs etc.
In Finland, the LTE spectrum allocation is 1-2x50MHz per operator at around 840k? a pop, so getting the 20MHz spectrum isn't a problem and allows for advanced services. So the Oslo speed claims aren't as insane as they sound are they? BTW, none of the operator's here advertise 7.4 or 14 Mbps (the theoretical), they talk about 2-5Mbps, whihc is realistic in normal radio conditions.
Not really. Look at the population density in the Nordics. You have to have money left to invest in the network itself. Otherwise you might run into the problem, that since you wasted too much money on the original European 3G auctions after the US model (which was an acknowledged failure and part of the reasons for the 2000 downturn), you don't have enough money to keep investing in your networks (as seems to be the case in the UK if we are to believe your statement about the UK networks quality).
Take a look at slide #9 http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events...n_policies.pdf. Want to review your position? The UK and Germany for example haven't been able to recoup the costs of the licences because the auction was handled with greedy government and pricing left to the free market.
Judging how well the networks work in the Nordics, the decisions made have been the correct ones so far. And the US model of auctioning and technology agnosticity hasn't worked very well so far. Imagine what the scene would be like if the US had mandated a specific technology and interoperability. Even now you have incompatible frequency bands causing issues and AT&T is just now rolling out 7.2Mbps HSDPA. But the speed at which the US is evolving in the mobile space is impressive and will pass the rest if they keep it up.
Regs, Jarkko
(1) American carriers also paid massive amount of money for their spectrum in FCC auctions before the internet bubble bursted in 1999/2000. That didn't ruin the American mobile industry at all. And it certainly didn't ruin Verizon's financial strength to massively build their networks.
(2) These are multi-nationals --- if they got screwed in the UK 3G auctions, AND they can't raise prices in UK (because there are 5 national carriers in the UK) --- then the only thing that they can do is price gouge in some other country where there isn't a lot of competition and the government is giving away the spectrum for free.
That's the main problem with you argument. Companies like 3/Orange/Vodafone "overpaid" their UK/Germany auctioned licenses --- so what are they going to do? They gave back the "free" 3G licenses back to Sweden. Now what? Sweden got screwed, these countries won't have enough competition because the carriers gave back the 3G licenses. Sweden didn't get any money on the license, now they couldn't get the carriers to build 3G networks on spectrums they gave away for free.
Brits got the best out of the situation. Their government got a lot of money for their 3G licenses --- which they spent it on stuff like health care. Brits still manage to have the lowest mobile tarriffs in the big European countries.
People who buy utility stocks or bank stocks expect dividends.
People who buy high tech silicon valley stocks don't expect dividends.
Is this your definition, an American definition, or what you think the world thinks?