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.
So 4 operators (Telia, Tele2, Telenor and 3) with nationwide 3G coverage in a country of 9 million people and one of the largest by land mass in Europe isn't enough (i.e. low population density with mountaneous areas to boot)?. Also with prices amongst the lowest in Europe and the most innovative networks? The only large country with low prices is the UK, where the price has come down only in the last 2 years. Where did your logic go awry? Take a look at a factual study:
It's actually quite simple. Free auction where price is the only factor -> Big players can afford to pay the licenses and recoup the costs from the subscribers. Best case for the country is that the prices are collected from other countries, but the Nordics that is not if you look at real data. Worst case scenario is that the innovative smaller players can't pay the high pricesof the license and thus lose out on the licenses so the incumbents can keep the prices high to recuperate costs and do little innovation.
This is simple really. It's kind of like you asking someone to renovate your house, but you ask them for 1000$ to gain entry into your house. Do you think that 1000$ is not going to be added to your renovation bill with interest?
It would be a bit different if you ask for licenses on a diamond mine for example. It doesn't produce stuff that everyone needs and has to pay for. There it's beneficial to get as much money to the government as possible.
Telecommunications is a basic commodoty for a nation's people. You want the best possible coverage and service with the lowest possible price. For Sweden it has worked. The people (what the government exist for) have gotten an excellent deal. The fact that they didn't get money upfront doesn't matter as they don't have to pay through their nose in the long term.
So it is a world wide standard that people that purchase American "tech" stocks don't expect a dividend from them?
So that I've read & heard, yes, it is generally true. It's not a standard, it's just a general expectation or understanding. For a very long time, Microsoft didn't do dividends either, and general practice was that tech stocks, at least most US tech stocks, didn't offer one.
I found an article to back that up and partially explained:
I can't find the exact reason why MS started paying dividends. I recall reading something where regulators were going to start calling MS a mutual fund and not a stock because they had so much money, but I can't find that right now.
Please be sure you're not letting ill will from a previous argument carry over onto this one.
It's actually quite simple. Free auction where price is the only factor -> Big players can afford to pay the licenses and recoup the costs from the subscribers. Best case for the country is that the prices are collected from other countries, but the Nordics that is not if you look at real data. Worst case scenario is that the innovative smaller players can't pay the high pricesof the license and thus lose out on the licenses so the incumbents can keep the prices high to recuperate costs and do little innovation.
Telecommunications is a basic commodoty for a nation's people. You want the best possible coverage and service with the lowest possible price. For Sweden it has worked. The people (what the government exist for) have gotten an excellent deal. The fact that they didn't get money upfront doesn't matter as they don't have to pay through their nose in the long term.
Regs, Jarkko
Land mass means nothing --- I live in Canada (the largest country in the world), but most of us live within 2 hours drive from the US border.
If you look at German prices --- they are below the European averages --- that's pretty significant for a country with the highest per capita 3G auctioned prices.
Sweden hadn't worked at all --- that's why Sweden's PTS has switched all their telecom licensing processes to auctions (from their original 3G beauty contest).
Land mass means nothing --- I live in Canada (the largest country in the world), but most of us live within 2 hours drive from the US border.
It does, if your goal is to have good coverage nationwide instead of just the cities. Swedens 3G rules stated just that. Nationwide coverage, not just urban areas. Canada being the second largest country in the world by land area and one of the smallest by population density and some pretty harsh terrain has a pretty tough task at building good coverage. That's what Telus and Bell guys keep telling me as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Sweden hadn't worked at all --- that's why Sweden's PTS has switched all their telecom licensing processes to auctions (from their original 3G beauty contest).
I don't know which criteria you are using, but availability of services nationwide (85% already in 2005, 100% now) for a cheap price with latest tech (still many world or at least European firsts) is a "worked" in my book. But let's just agree to disagree. We're getting to a stage where there's little added value here.
To be honest, I'm actually envious about how well they have it in Sweden even if it's not too bad here in Finland either. Those darn Swedes have nationwide fibre coverage in the cities thanks courtesy of their government (I'd love 100Mbps FDX to my home for similar prices as I now pay for 24 Mbps ADSL). Our 3G coverage is 90% of population at the moment. http://elisa.com/english/index.cfm?t...0.00&did=15611 (a reference to real life minimum speeds and growth as well if you're interested).
I don't know which criteria you are using, but availability of services nationwide (85% already in 2005, 100% now) for a cheap price with latest tech (still many world or at least European firsts) is a "worked" in my book. But let's just agree to disagree. We're getting to a stage where there's little added value here.
To be honest, I'm actually envious about how well they have it in Sweden even if it's not too bad here in Finland either. Those darn Swedes have nationwide fibre coverage in the cities thanks courtesy of their government (I'd love 100Mbps FDX to my home for similar prices as I now pay for 24 Mbps ADSL). Our 3G coverage is 90% of population at the moment. http://elisa.com/english/index.cfm?t...0.00&did=15611 (a reference to real life minimum speeds and growth as well if you're interested).
Regs, Jarkko
That line of argument doesn't work at all --- when you look at Verizon Wireless, with their basic business model being "it's the network, stuipid". No other carrier in the world base their whole business model to be that.
Sweden had its high-profile 3G beauty contest 10 years ago --- because they thought they could get the carriers to build a good network. It didn't work and PTS has switched to spectrum auctions for the last 5 years now.
European carriers have been arguing that migrating to the US style "zero mobile termination rate" would reduce the carriers' finances which will lead to reduce network build-out. Complete BS --- just look at Verizon Wireless --- it's the network, stupid. Verizon Wireless' 3G network covers 280 million people (90%+ population).
Sweden had its high-profile 3G beauty contest 10 years ago --- because they thought they could get the carriers to build a good network. It didn't work and PTS has switched to spectrum auctions for the last 5 years now.
I must be stupid or something since I don't get where your "it didn't work" comes from. Maybe because you haven't said one word about how the Swedish contest and rules to carriers to build a good network hasn't worked. The fact that they've changed to auctions now doesn't mean that the original beauty contest and the goals set for it didn't work. Look at the evidence for gods sake. Sitting in the middle of Stockholm in a hotel room with average coverage 3 years ago, I was getting consistent 2.4Mbps downloads measured with speedtest. Is that bad? Or just again "a nonrelevant case" because it doesn't fit your mantra?
Your argument about the UK is a case in point. Their 3G investments lagged behind for years and their prices were some of the highest for 8 years! The low prices have just now come into play.
I must be stupid or something since I don't get where your "it didn't work" comes from. Maybe because you haven't said one word about how the Swedish contest and rules to carriers to build a good network hasn't worked. The fact that they've changed to auctions now doesn't mean that the original beauty contest and the goals set for it didn't work. Look at the evidence for gods sake. Sitting in the middle of Stockholm in a hotel room with average coverage 3 years ago, I was getting consistent 2.4Mbps downloads measured with speedtest. Is that bad? Or just again "a nonrelevant case" because it doesn't fit your mantra?
Your argument about the UK is a case in point. Their 3G investments lagged behind for years and their prices were some of the highest for 8 years! The low prices have just now come into play.
Regs, Jarkko
With papers titled "The Swedish 3G Beauty Contest: A Beauty or a Beast?", you know that there is something massively wrong with the Swedish system.
3 years ago, Verizon completed its ev-do rev A deployment for their whole network --- and they did it with paying massive amount of money to the FCC for the spectrum.
As I said repeated, this is aboiut turtle and the rabbit. Who really cares if 3G was cheaper 10 years ago --- when nobody actually used it. You talk about imaginary bragging rights of 3G network deployments and cheap 3G tariffs --- when nobody actually used them in that era. The turtle always wins in the long rum --- and the long run is right now.
You talk about glory days in Camelot --- but it never really existed.
So you're looking at a title of a paper? This giving you an idea about the whole process and the quality of the existing networks. I don't have an account on that site so I can't read it myself. There are BTW several papers with even more flashy and condemning titles about spectrum auctions as well.
I do get that you are annoyed by the fact that we have had working 3G networks for a long time and that our bitrates, coverage and pricing is very good for the consumer and that many have bragged about it and so on. I do get your turtle and hare argument and while you may have a point, it may also be a case of larger markets always offering the possibility for lower unit costs in the long term. You just haven't proven any of your points yet (except the SMS and Voice part). On the SMS part, I was just wondering how much of it is Twitter stuff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
You talk about imaginary bragging rights of 3G network deployments and cheap 3G tariffs --- when nobody actually used them in that era. The turtle always wins in the long rum --- and the long run is right now.
.
A) They are not imaginary, They were used for stuff like corporate E-mail, and the occasional web-surfing for data on the go C) I wasn't bragging. I was giving you factual information that counter your intuitive claims to bragging rights for Verizon and the US at the same time assuming the rest of the world is lying and bragging about their network quality and pricing. Every time I bring out factual evidence, you fail to acknowledge it or to counter it with other factual evidence. Instead you bring out short and bold statements without supportive documentation and shift the focus.
Which is better or worse, the US system, the European , the Asian or African is not the point(thus the bragging is kind of out the window). I'm more interested in facts (which the SMS stuff for example was, thank you) so that I can analyse and make my own mind from those. The reasons behind the differences are the really intriguing things. Opinions of course may exist, but when you start shouting about things as fact instead of opinion, please present factual data as well. I'm all game for changing my opinions against factual evidence.
So you're looking at a title of a paper? This giving you an idea about the whole process and the quality of the existing networks. I don't have an account on that site so I can't read it myself. There are BTW several papers with even more flashy and condemning titles about spectrum auctions as well.
I do get that you are annoyed by the fact that we have had working 3G networks for a long time and that our bitrates, coverage and pricing is very good for the consumer and that many have bragged about it and so on. I do get your turtle and hare argument and while you may have a point, it may also be a case of larger markets always offering the possibility for lower unit costs in the long term. You just haven't proven any of your points yet (except the SMS and Voice part). On the SMS part, I was just wondering how much of it is Twitter stuff?
A) They are not imaginary, They were used for stuff like corporate E-mail, and the occasional web-surfing for data on the go C) I wasn't bragging. I was giving you factual information that counter your intuitive claims to bragging rights for Verizon and the US at the same time assuming the rest of the world is lying and bragging about their network quality and pricing. Every time I bring out factual evidence, you fail to acknowledge it or to counter it with other factual evidence. Instead you bring out short and bold statements without supportive documentation and shift the focus.
Which is better or worse, the US system, the European , the Asian or African is not the point(thus the bragging is kind of out the window). I'm more interested in facts (which the SMS stuff for example was, thank you) so that I can analyse and make my own mind from those. The reasons behind the differences are the really intriguing things. Opinions of course may exist, but when you start shouting about things as fact instead of opinion, please present factual data as well. I'm all game for changing my opinions against factual evidence.
Regs, Jarkko
There are plenty of academic papers which I have linked in the past about Sweden. The level of disaster by the Swedish/Irish regulators on 3G beauty contest --- was most evident by their absolute silence on the matter when they switched to auctioning later on. You won't even be able to find a single article in their regulator's website on why they switched to auctions.
Pricing has NOTHING to do with cost --- it has to do with the level of competition. All the cheap iphone plans come from Hong Kong (6 carriers), UK (5 carriers)... All the really idiotic price plans come from Norway (2 carriers) and Canada/France (3 carriers).
As for pricing in general --- looking at regular priced iphone data plans is the best way to go (i.e. don't have to argue about special time limited promotion pricing). US iphone plans are the second cheapest in the G7. As for network quality in general --- the wired.com survey really gives us some solid numbers on how the much blamed AT&T still managed to be the third fastest in the world.
Which is better? Just look at everything that was "supposed" to be wrong with the American system --- that has been adopted by the Europeans later on. Sweden/Ireland stopped their idiotic beauty contest and adopted auctions. The whole Europe started auctioning TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL spectrum for the last 5 years. European/Australian/New Zealand/UK regulators are all studying American style zero mobile termination rates.
You fail to acknowledge the overall trend of these regulatory shifts. These regulators can no longer ignore the fact that Americans have more 3G penetration than they do, talk a lot more than they do, cost per voice minute is a lot cheaper than they do, SMS more than they do, use data more than they do....
Which is better? Just look at everything that was "supposed" to be wrong with the American system --- that has been adopted by the Europeans later on. Sweden/Ireland stopped their idiotic beauty contest and adopted auctions. The whole Europe started auctioning TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL spectrum for the last 5 years. European/Australian/New Zealand/UK regulators are all studying American style zero mobile termination rates.
New Zealand regulators were not going to implement zero termination, they wanted to reduce termination fees, it has been one of the operators that have proposed a zero termination for SMS, and a massive lowering of voice termination fees
There are plenty of academic papers which I have linked in the past about Sweden. The level of disaster by the Swedish/Irish regulators on 3G beauty contest --- was most evident by their absolute silence on the matter when they switched to auctioning later on. You won't even be able to find a single article in their regulator's website on why they switched to auctions.
Thereby you deduce, that the failure of the original beauty contest to fulfill it's goals (which it didn't fail to do) was the reason? My what logic. Ever think of the possibility that the goals have changed and that would be the reason? No, you're just so full of awe to the US system that you fail to even think of anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Pricing has NOTHING to do with cost --- it has to do with the level of competition.
Yet again a very narrow view. If cost is above price, you get no service since the company is losing money and will stop selling or go bankrupt. Period. Price has a lot to do with cost. It cannot be below cost. How much it can be above cost is where competition comes in. You as a supporter of capitalism and the american way should understand that simple premise. You can try to hide the cost (phone for 0£/$, 24mo contract BS), but it doesn't mean that the price is free. Someone always pays cost + margins. The margins are what is decided on things like competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Which is better? Just look at everything that was "supposed" to be wrong with the American system --- that has been adopted by the Europeans later on. Sweden/Ireland stopped their idiotic beauty contest and adopted auctions. The whole Europe started auctioning TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL spectrum for the last 5 years. European/Australian/New Zealand/UK regulators are all studying American style zero mobile termination rates.
When you mandate LTE, how technology neutral is that? And zero termination rates has to do with traffic between operators (to increase price competition) and stop price gouging by stronger operators. Pretty much the same goal as caps on roaming charges set by the EU. Since competition didn't drive the costs down, EU said they're going to make them if they don't do it themselves. Operators called the bluff and now we have capped roaming charges which are going to go down further still. Do you see the US of A doing that?
We also adoted a lot of the "free unregulated market" bullshit from the US. Look where that put all the banks and the whole economy. And who is now busy closing his borders and implementing tolls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
You fail to acknowledge the overall trend of these regulatory shifts. These regulators can no longer ignore the fact that Americans have more 3G penetration than they do, talk a lot more than they do, cost per voice minute is a lot cheaper than they do, SMS more than they do, use data more than they do....
And it took you nearly thirty years to get there due to the massive failures of your original regulatory and competitive mechanisms of your telcos. The current success has more to do with the American operators adopting the same strategies and technologies as the rest of the world than regulatory practices. And it is entirely natural, that once the technology and service accessibility starts taking off (25 years after the rest of the world in this case) and penetration hits appropriate levels, with the big unified markets in the US, you're going to bypass just about everyone (except maybe China). That's common sense and has nothing to do with regulatory policies after that point.
# Users in Germany and the Netherlands reported the fastest average 3G download speeds ? about 2,000 Kbps.
# In some major metropolitan areas that are supposedly 3G-rich, 3G performance can be very slow. For example, zooming in on San Francisco, you?ll see that 10 out of 30 participants reported very slow 3G speeds ? barely surpassing EDGE. "
and:
Quote:
*European T-Mobile users reported the fastest 3G Download Speeds: 1,822 Kbps on average.
* Factoid: Europe has some of the most mature 3G networks, which have been in development since 2001. (AT&T introduced its 3G network in the United States in 2004.)
And that is already outdated data and is valid only for with countries having significant iPhone penetration (study statistics?) in 2008 but it still clearly contradicts your statements.
If you want to look at a more recent test: http://www.pcworld.com/article/16739...ife_of_3g.html. Speeds of below 1Mbps in all of the US networks (Boston area over). And that's not bad, but doesn't support your claims either. Again I'm not trying to find who is best and who is worse, but you state a lot of stuff without posting fact. When facts are brought in to counter your claims, you keep with your mantra without providing supporting fact. Or do you just want to argue for argument's sake?
Thereby you deduce, that the failure of the original beauty contest to fulfill it's goals (which it didn't fail to do) was the reason? My what logic. Ever think of the possibility that the goals have changed and that would be the reason? No, you're just so full of awe to the US system that you fail to even think of anything else.
Yet again a very narrow view. If cost is above price, you get no service since the company is losing money and will stop selling or go bankrupt. Period. Price has a lot to do with cost. It cannot be below cost. How much it can be above cost is where competition comes in. You as a supporter of capitalism and the american way should understand that simple premise. You can try to hide the cost (phone for 0£/$, 24mo contract BS), but it doesn't mean that the price is free. Someone always pays cost + margins. The margins are what is decided on things like competition.
When you mandate LTE, how technology neutral is that? And zero termination rates has to do with traffic between operators (to increase price competition) and stop price gouging by stronger operators. Pretty much the same goal as caps on roaming charges set by the EU. Since competition didn't drive the costs down, EU said they're going to make them if they don't do it themselves. Operators called the bluff and now we have capped roaming charges which are going to go down further still. Do you see the US of A doing that?
We also adoted a lot of the "free unregulated market" bullshit from the US. Look where that put all the banks and the whole economy. And who is now busy closing his borders and implementing tolls?
And it took you nearly thirty years to get there due to the massive failures of your original regulatory and competitive mechanisms of your telcos. The current success has more to do with the American operators adopting the same strategies and technologies as the rest of the world than regulatory practices. And it is entirely natural, that once the technology and service accessibility starts taking off (25 years after the rest of the world in this case) and penetration hits appropriate levels, with the big unified markets in the US, you're going to bypass just about everyone (except maybe China). That's common sense and has nothing to do with regulatory policies after that point.
And that is already outdated data and is valid only for with countries having significant iPhone penetration (study statistics?) in 2008 but it still clearly contradicts your statements.
If you want to look at a more recent test: http://www.pcworld.com/article/16739...ife_of_3g.html. Speeds of below 1Mbps in all of the US networks (Boston area over). And that's not bad, but doesn't support your claims either. Again I'm not trying to find who is best and who is worse, but you state a lot of stuff without posting fact. When facts are brought in to counter your claims, you keep with your mantra without providing supporting fact. Or do you just want to argue for argument's sake?
Regs, Jarkko
The original beauty contest FAILED to achieve its goals, period. Deployment was delayed several times. There were numerous lawsuits against the regulators. Carriers gave back their spectrum license. Name one single success to the original goal.
I never said that I am in awe with the American system. In a imperfect world that we live in --- the American system manages to be working a lot better than the alternatives.
Spectrum licensing fee is a sunk cost has NOTHING to do with mobile tariff prices.
They never mandated LTE in Europe, carriers can deploy wimax on that spectrum if they want to.
There is NOTHING wrong with American regulatory environment in the last 30 years (except the Bush era where they reduced 6 carriers down to 4 carriers by allowing M&A). There is something wrong with German government still being the largest shareholder of DT, the Finnish/Sweden government being the largest shareholder of Telia, the Japanese government being the largest shareholder of NTT.
There are a lot of fine print with the speed data. What good is T-Mobile being the fastest in Europe --- if a bunch of their network give you a dinky 250 MB iphone data plan per month or that over certain amount of data allowance they crippled you down to 64 kbps.
The original beauty contest FAILED to achieve its goals, period. Deployment was delayed several times. There were numerous lawsuits against the regulators. Carriers gave back their spectrum license. Name one single success to the original goal.
I believe I did, but let's just agree to differ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Spectrum licensing fee is a sunk cost has NOTHING to do with mobile tariff prices.
Unless you had to borrow the money for it, the interest on that is a cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
They never mandated LTE in Europe, carriers can deploy wimax on that spectrum if they want to.
Correct, my bad. I wasn't looking at the rules, I just looked at the end results of the auctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
There is NOTHING wrong with American regulatory environment in the last 30 years (except the Bush era where they reduced 6 carriers down to 4 carriers by allowing M&A). There is something wrong with German government still being the largest shareholder of DT, the Finnish/Sweden government being the largest shareholder of Telia, the Japanese government being the largest shareholder of NTT.
Different spectrum for different operators for example causing issues with competition via terminal incompatibility and inbound roaming users don't get to choose from multiple operators is not a flaw? Or the actual reason you pay for inbound calls (inability distinguish a mobile number from a fixed line number, thereby giving the original caller no possibility to know the rate), when the rest of the world doesn't to name a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
There are a lot of fine print with the speed data. What good is T-Mobile being the fastest in Europe --- if a bunch of their network give you a dinky 250 MB iphone data plan per month or that over certain amount of data allowance they crippled you down to 64 kbps.
Again, you're looking for single examples. If I point a single example to refute it am I then in the right? Sonera (The Finnish part of your hated government mainly owned Telia, of which the Finnish government does NOT have a majority share of) offers 3.2 Mbps (unlimited) at 9.90?/mo.
I see both sides having issues (different ones), which both sides are fixing to make networks more available, useful and profitable. About voice and SMS pricing (possibly excluding iPhone deals) I dound that the European and Asian operators I looked at did offer cheaper prices than AT&T and verizon, but is that a reason to fight? no. It also has a lot to do with relative purchasing power to find the real cost differences.
Unless you had to borrow the money for it, the interest on that is a cost.
Correct, my bad. I wasn't looking at the rules, I just looked at the end results of the auctions.
Different spectrum for different operators for example causing issues with competition via terminal incompatibility and inbound roaming users don't get to choose from multiple operators is not a flaw? Or the actual reason you pay for inbound calls (inability distinguish a mobile number from a fixed line number, thereby giving the original caller no possibility to know the rate), when the rest of the world doesn't to name a few.
Again, you're looking for single examples. If I point a single example to refute it am I then in the right? Sonera (The Finnish part of your hated government mainly owned Telia, of which the Finnish government does NOT have a majority share of) offers 3.2 Mbps (unlimited) at 9.90?/mo.
I see both sides having issues (different ones), which both sides are fixing to make networks more available, useful and profitable. About voice and SMS pricing (possibly excluding iPhone deals) I dound that the European and Asian operators I looked at did offer cheaper prices than AT&T and verizon, but is that a reason to fight? no. It also has a lot to do with relative purchasing power to find the real cost differences.
Regs, Jarkko
Nobody ever talks about "beauty contest" anymore --- that tells you something about whether they actually accomplished anything or a complete failure.
Financing cost is also part of the original sunken cost --- nothing to do with tarriffs.
The iphone has shown that there are no effective simlocking laws in Europe --- you can't unlock the iphone. It means that you can't take it to the next carrier, you can't change roaming carriers. And we haven't even talked about the most important thing in the world --- much of Europe don't have early termination fees. You have to pay off the rest of the contract in order to get out of contract --- really makes the whole point that complaining about how Americans can't take their cell phones to the next carrier completely pointless.
Europe's iphone plans are RARELY cheap and RARELY without a thousand fine prints. You have O2 crippling PAYG iphone 3G speed. You have Italy having 250 MB iphone data allowance. You have T-Mobile Germany crippling iphone 3G speed. It's not just one example --- they are everywhere.
Comparing iphone plans are often the most effective comparison because they are regular price (non-time-limited special pricing) and from actual wireless operators, not MVNO's. Your 9.99 euro sonera deal is a time-limited special which regularly sells for 35 euro a month. It is really comparing apples to apples.
Comments
Is this your definition, an American definition, or what you think the world thinks?
It is pretty much a standard worldwide.
It is pretty much a standard worldwide.
So it is a world wide standard that people that purchase American "tech" stocks don't expect a dividend from them?
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.
So 4 operators (Telia, Tele2, Telenor and 3) with nationwide 3G coverage in a country of 9 million people and one of the largest by land mass in Europe isn't enough (i.e. low population density with mountaneous areas to boot)?. Also with prices amongst the lowest in Europe and the most innovative networks? The only large country with low prices is the UK, where the price has come down only in the last 2 years. Where did your logic go awry? Take a look at a factual study:
http://www.ficora.fi/attachments/eng...paketti_EN.pdf (page 15 for example)
The prices in Germany are twice that of Sweden.
It's actually quite simple. Free auction where price is the only factor -> Big players can afford to pay the licenses and recoup the costs from the subscribers. Best case for the country is that the prices are collected from other countries, but the Nordics that is not if you look at real data. Worst case scenario is that the innovative smaller players can't pay the high pricesof the license and thus lose out on the licenses so the incumbents can keep the prices high to recuperate costs and do little innovation.
This is simple really. It's kind of like you asking someone to renovate your house, but you ask them for 1000$ to gain entry into your house. Do you think that 1000$ is not going to be added to your renovation bill with interest?
It would be a bit different if you ask for licenses on a diamond mine for example. It doesn't produce stuff that everyone needs and has to pay for. There it's beneficial to get as much money to the government as possible.
Telecommunications is a basic commodoty for a nation's people. You want the best possible coverage and service with the lowest possible price. For Sweden it has worked. The people (what the government exist for) have gotten an excellent deal. The fact that they didn't get money upfront doesn't matter as they don't have to pay through their nose in the long term.
Regs, Jarkko
So it is a world wide standard that people that purchase American "tech" stocks don't expect a dividend from them?
So that I've read & heard, yes, it is generally true. It's not a standard, it's just a general expectation or understanding. For a very long time, Microsoft didn't do dividends either, and general practice was that tech stocks, at least most US tech stocks, didn't offer one.
I found an article to back that up and partially explained:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_98709751/
I can't find the exact reason why MS started paying dividends. I recall reading something where regulators were going to start calling MS a mutual fund and not a stock because they had so much money, but I can't find that right now.
Please be sure you're not letting ill will from a previous argument carry over onto this one.
It's actually quite simple. Free auction where price is the only factor -> Big players can afford to pay the licenses and recoup the costs from the subscribers. Best case for the country is that the prices are collected from other countries, but the Nordics that is not if you look at real data. Worst case scenario is that the innovative smaller players can't pay the high pricesof the license and thus lose out on the licenses so the incumbents can keep the prices high to recuperate costs and do little innovation.
Telecommunications is a basic commodoty for a nation's people. You want the best possible coverage and service with the lowest possible price. For Sweden it has worked. The people (what the government exist for) have gotten an excellent deal. The fact that they didn't get money upfront doesn't matter as they don't have to pay through their nose in the long term.
Regs, Jarkko
Land mass means nothing --- I live in Canada (the largest country in the world), but most of us live within 2 hours drive from the US border.
If you look at German prices --- they are below the European averages --- that's pretty significant for a country with the highest per capita 3G auctioned prices.
Sweden hadn't worked at all --- that's why Sweden's PTS has switched all their telecom licensing processes to auctions (from their original 3G beauty contest).
Land mass means nothing --- I live in Canada (the largest country in the world), but most of us live within 2 hours drive from the US border.
It does, if your goal is to have good coverage nationwide instead of just the cities. Swedens 3G rules stated just that. Nationwide coverage, not just urban areas. Canada being the second largest country in the world by land area and one of the smallest by population density and some pretty harsh terrain has a pretty tough task at building good coverage. That's what Telus and Bell guys keep telling me as well.
Sweden hadn't worked at all --- that's why Sweden's PTS has switched all their telecom licensing processes to auctions (from their original 3G beauty contest).
I don't know which criteria you are using, but availability of services nationwide (85% already in 2005, 100% now) for a cheap price with latest tech (still many world or at least European firsts) is a "worked" in my book. But let's just agree to disagree. We're getting to a stage where there's little added value here.
To be honest, I'm actually envious about how well they have it in Sweden even if it's not too bad here in Finland either. Those darn Swedes have nationwide fibre coverage in the cities thanks courtesy of their government (I'd love 100Mbps FDX to my home for similar prices as I now pay for 24 Mbps ADSL). Our 3G coverage is 90% of population at the moment. http://elisa.com/english/index.cfm?t...0.00&did=15611 (a reference to real life minimum speeds and growth as well if you're interested).
Regs, Jarkko
I don't know which criteria you are using, but availability of services nationwide (85% already in 2005, 100% now) for a cheap price with latest tech (still many world or at least European firsts) is a "worked" in my book. But let's just agree to disagree. We're getting to a stage where there's little added value here.
To be honest, I'm actually envious about how well they have it in Sweden even if it's not too bad here in Finland either. Those darn Swedes have nationwide fibre coverage in the cities thanks courtesy of their government (I'd love 100Mbps FDX to my home for similar prices as I now pay for 24 Mbps ADSL). Our 3G coverage is 90% of population at the moment. http://elisa.com/english/index.cfm?t...0.00&did=15611 (a reference to real life minimum speeds and growth as well if you're interested).
Regs, Jarkko
That line of argument doesn't work at all --- when you look at Verizon Wireless, with their basic business model being "it's the network, stuipid". No other carrier in the world base their whole business model to be that.
Sweden had its high-profile 3G beauty contest 10 years ago --- because they thought they could get the carriers to build a good network. It didn't work and PTS has switched to spectrum auctions for the last 5 years now.
European carriers have been arguing that migrating to the US style "zero mobile termination rate" would reduce the carriers' finances which will lead to reduce network build-out. Complete BS --- just look at Verizon Wireless --- it's the network, stupid. Verizon Wireless' 3G network covers 280 million people (90%+ population).
Sweden had its high-profile 3G beauty contest 10 years ago --- because they thought they could get the carriers to build a good network. It didn't work and PTS has switched to spectrum auctions for the last 5 years now.
I must be stupid or something since I don't get where your "it didn't work" comes from. Maybe because you haven't said one word about how the Swedish contest and rules to carriers to build a good network hasn't worked. The fact that they've changed to auctions now doesn't mean that the original beauty contest and the goals set for it didn't work. Look at the evidence for gods sake. Sitting in the middle of Stockholm in a hotel room with average coverage 3 years ago, I was getting consistent 2.4Mbps downloads measured with speedtest. Is that bad? Or just again "a nonrelevant case" because it doesn't fit your mantra?
Your argument about the UK is a case in point. Their 3G investments lagged behind for years and their prices were some of the highest for 8 years! The low prices have just now come into play.
Regs, Jarkko
I must be stupid or something since I don't get where your "it didn't work" comes from. Maybe because you haven't said one word about how the Swedish contest and rules to carriers to build a good network hasn't worked. The fact that they've changed to auctions now doesn't mean that the original beauty contest and the goals set for it didn't work. Look at the evidence for gods sake. Sitting in the middle of Stockholm in a hotel room with average coverage 3 years ago, I was getting consistent 2.4Mbps downloads measured with speedtest. Is that bad? Or just again "a nonrelevant case" because it doesn't fit your mantra?
Your argument about the UK is a case in point. Their 3G investments lagged behind for years and their prices were some of the highest for 8 years! The low prices have just now come into play.
Regs, Jarkko
With papers titled "The Swedish 3G Beauty Contest: A Beauty or a Beast?", you know that there is something massively wrong with the Swedish system.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wrr81157862255p2/
3 years ago, Verizon completed its ev-do rev A deployment for their whole network --- and they did it with paying massive amount of money to the FCC for the spectrum.
As I said repeated, this is aboiut turtle and the rabbit. Who really cares if 3G was cheaper 10 years ago --- when nobody actually used it. You talk about imaginary bragging rights of 3G network deployments and cheap 3G tariffs --- when nobody actually used them in that era. The turtle always wins in the long rum --- and the long run is right now.
You talk about glory days in Camelot --- but it never really existed.
Land mass means nothing --- I live in Canada (the largest country in the world), but most of us live within 2 hours drive from the US border.
May I ask why you then carry such a passion for Verizon, a company that provides a serivce you cannot use?
With papers titled "The Swedish 3G Beauty Contest: A Beauty or a Beast?", you know that there is something massively wrong with the Swedish system.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wrr81157862255p2/
So you're looking at a title of a paper? This giving you an idea about the whole process and the quality of the existing networks. I don't have an account on that site so I can't read it myself. There are BTW several papers with even more flashy and condemning titles about spectrum auctions as well.
I do get that you are annoyed by the fact that we have had working 3G networks for a long time and that our bitrates, coverage and pricing is very good for the consumer and that many have bragged about it and so on. I do get your turtle and hare argument and while you may have a point, it may also be a case of larger markets always offering the possibility for lower unit costs in the long term. You just haven't proven any of your points yet (except the SMS and Voice part). On the SMS part, I was just wondering how much of it is Twitter stuff?
You talk about imaginary bragging rights of 3G network deployments and cheap 3G tariffs --- when nobody actually used them in that era. The turtle always wins in the long rum --- and the long run is right now.
.
A) They are not imaginary,
Which is better or worse, the US system, the European , the Asian or African is not the point(thus the bragging is kind of out the window). I'm more interested in facts (which the SMS stuff for example was, thank you) so that I can analyse and make my own mind from those. The reasons behind the differences are the really intriguing things. Opinions of course may exist, but when you start shouting about things as fact instead of opinion, please present factual data as well. I'm all game for changing my opinions against factual evidence.
Regs, Jarkko
So you're looking at a title of a paper? This giving you an idea about the whole process and the quality of the existing networks. I don't have an account on that site so I can't read it myself. There are BTW several papers with even more flashy and condemning titles about spectrum auctions as well.
I do get that you are annoyed by the fact that we have had working 3G networks for a long time and that our bitrates, coverage and pricing is very good for the consumer and that many have bragged about it and so on. I do get your turtle and hare argument and while you may have a point, it may also be a case of larger markets always offering the possibility for lower unit costs in the long term. You just haven't proven any of your points yet (except the SMS and Voice part). On the SMS part, I was just wondering how much of it is Twitter stuff?
A) They are not imaginary,
Which is better or worse, the US system, the European , the Asian or African is not the point(thus the bragging is kind of out the window). I'm more interested in facts (which the SMS stuff for example was, thank you) so that I can analyse and make my own mind from those. The reasons behind the differences are the really intriguing things. Opinions of course may exist, but when you start shouting about things as fact instead of opinion, please present factual data as well. I'm all game for changing my opinions against factual evidence.
Regs, Jarkko
There are plenty of academic papers which I have linked in the past about Sweden. The level of disaster by the Swedish/Irish regulators on 3G beauty contest --- was most evident by their absolute silence on the matter when they switched to auctioning later on. You won't even be able to find a single article in their regulator's website on why they switched to auctions.
Pricing has NOTHING to do with cost --- it has to do with the level of competition. All the cheap iphone plans come from Hong Kong (6 carriers), UK (5 carriers)... All the really idiotic price plans come from Norway (2 carriers) and Canada/France (3 carriers).
As for pricing in general --- looking at regular priced iphone data plans is the best way to go (i.e. don't have to argue about special time limited promotion pricing). US iphone plans are the second cheapest in the G7. As for network quality in general --- the wired.com survey really gives us some solid numbers on how the much blamed AT&T still managed to be the third fastest in the world.
Which is better? Just look at everything that was "supposed" to be wrong with the American system --- that has been adopted by the Europeans later on. Sweden/Ireland stopped their idiotic beauty contest and adopted auctions. The whole Europe started auctioning TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL spectrum for the last 5 years. European/Australian/New Zealand/UK regulators are all studying American style zero mobile termination rates.
You fail to acknowledge the overall trend of these regulatory shifts. These regulators can no longer ignore the fact that Americans have more 3G penetration than they do, talk a lot more than they do, cost per voice minute is a lot cheaper than they do, SMS more than they do, use data more than they do....
Which is better? Just look at everything that was "supposed" to be wrong with the American system --- that has been adopted by the Europeans later on. Sweden/Ireland stopped their idiotic beauty contest and adopted auctions. The whole Europe started auctioning TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL spectrum for the last 5 years. European/Australian/New Zealand/UK regulators are all studying American style zero mobile termination rates.
New Zealand regulators were not going to implement zero termination, they wanted to reduce termination fees, it has been one of the operators that have proposed a zero termination for SMS, and a massive lowering of voice termination fees
There are plenty of academic papers which I have linked in the past about Sweden. The level of disaster by the Swedish/Irish regulators on 3G beauty contest --- was most evident by their absolute silence on the matter when they switched to auctioning later on. You won't even be able to find a single article in their regulator's website on why they switched to auctions.
Thereby you deduce, that the failure of the original beauty contest to fulfill it's goals (which it didn't fail to do) was the reason? My what logic. Ever think of the possibility that the goals have changed and that would be the reason? No, you're just so full of awe to the US system that you fail to even think of anything else.
Pricing has NOTHING to do with cost --- it has to do with the level of competition.
Yet again a very narrow view. If cost is above price, you get no service since the company is losing money and will stop selling or go bankrupt. Period. Price has a lot to do with cost. It cannot be below cost. How much it can be above cost is where competition comes in. You as a supporter of capitalism and the american way should understand that simple premise. You can try to hide the cost (phone for 0£/$, 24mo contract BS), but it doesn't mean that the price is free. Someone always pays cost + margins. The margins are what is decided on things like competition.
Which is better? Just look at everything that was "supposed" to be wrong with the American system --- that has been adopted by the Europeans later on. Sweden/Ireland stopped their idiotic beauty contest and adopted auctions. The whole Europe started auctioning TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL spectrum for the last 5 years. European/Australian/New Zealand/UK regulators are all studying American style zero mobile termination rates.
When you mandate LTE, how technology neutral is that? And zero termination rates has to do with traffic between operators (to increase price competition) and stop price gouging by stronger operators. Pretty much the same goal as caps on roaming charges set by the EU. Since competition didn't drive the costs down, EU said they're going to make them if they don't do it themselves. Operators called the bluff and now we have capped roaming charges which are going to go down further still. Do you see the US of A doing that?
We also adoted a lot of the "free unregulated market" bullshit from the US. Look where that put all the banks and the whole economy. And who is now busy closing his borders and implementing tolls?
You fail to acknowledge the overall trend of these regulatory shifts. These regulators can no longer ignore the fact that Americans have more 3G penetration than they do, talk a lot more than they do, cost per voice minute is a lot cheaper than they do, SMS more than they do, use data more than they do....
And it took you nearly thirty years to get there due to the massive failures of your original regulatory and competitive mechanisms of your telcos. The current success has more to do with the American operators adopting the same strategies and technologies as the rest of the world than regulatory practices. And it is entirely natural, that once the technology and service accessibility starts taking off (25 years after the rest of the world in this case) and penetration hits appropriate levels, with the big unified markets in the US, you're going to bypass just about everyone (except maybe China). That's common sense and has nothing to do with regulatory policies after that point.
For the wired.com test, are you referring to this? http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/.../#previouspost If so, you need to brush up on your reading skills.
# Users in Germany and the Netherlands reported the fastest average 3G download speeds ? about 2,000 Kbps.
# In some major metropolitan areas that are supposedly 3G-rich, 3G performance can be very slow. For example, zooming in on San Francisco, you?ll see that 10 out of 30 participants reported very slow 3G speeds ? barely surpassing EDGE. "
and:
*European T-Mobile users reported the fastest 3G Download Speeds: 1,822 Kbps on average.
* Factoid: Europe has some of the most mature 3G networks, which have been in development since 2001. (AT&T introduced its 3G network in the United States in 2004.)
And that is already outdated data and is valid only for with countries having significant iPhone penetration (study statistics?) in 2008 but it still clearly contradicts your statements.
If you want to look at a more recent test: http://www.pcworld.com/article/16739...ife_of_3g.html. Speeds of below 1Mbps in all of the US networks (Boston area over). And that's not bad, but doesn't support your claims either. Again I'm not trying to find who is best and who is worse, but you state a lot of stuff without posting fact. When facts are brought in to counter your claims, you keep with your mantra without providing supporting fact. Or do you just want to argue for argument's sake?
Regs, Jarkko
Thereby you deduce, that the failure of the original beauty contest to fulfill it's goals (which it didn't fail to do) was the reason? My what logic. Ever think of the possibility that the goals have changed and that would be the reason? No, you're just so full of awe to the US system that you fail to even think of anything else.
Yet again a very narrow view. If cost is above price, you get no service since the company is losing money and will stop selling or go bankrupt. Period. Price has a lot to do with cost. It cannot be below cost. How much it can be above cost is where competition comes in. You as a supporter of capitalism and the american way should understand that simple premise. You can try to hide the cost (phone for 0£/$, 24mo contract BS), but it doesn't mean that the price is free. Someone always pays cost + margins. The margins are what is decided on things like competition.
When you mandate LTE, how technology neutral is that? And zero termination rates has to do with traffic between operators (to increase price competition) and stop price gouging by stronger operators. Pretty much the same goal as caps on roaming charges set by the EU. Since competition didn't drive the costs down, EU said they're going to make them if they don't do it themselves. Operators called the bluff and now we have capped roaming charges which are going to go down further still. Do you see the US of A doing that?
We also adoted a lot of the "free unregulated market" bullshit from the US. Look where that put all the banks and the whole economy. And who is now busy closing his borders and implementing tolls?
And it took you nearly thirty years to get there due to the massive failures of your original regulatory and competitive mechanisms of your telcos. The current success has more to do with the American operators adopting the same strategies and technologies as the rest of the world than regulatory practices. And it is entirely natural, that once the technology and service accessibility starts taking off (25 years after the rest of the world in this case) and penetration hits appropriate levels, with the big unified markets in the US, you're going to bypass just about everyone (except maybe China). That's common sense and has nothing to do with regulatory policies after that point.
For the wired.com test, are you referring to this? http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/.../#previouspost If so, you need to brush up on your reading skills.
and:
And that is already outdated data and is valid only for with countries having significant iPhone penetration (study statistics?) in 2008 but it still clearly contradicts your statements.
If you want to look at a more recent test: http://www.pcworld.com/article/16739...ife_of_3g.html. Speeds of below 1Mbps in all of the US networks (Boston area over). And that's not bad, but doesn't support your claims either. Again I'm not trying to find who is best and who is worse, but you state a lot of stuff without posting fact. When facts are brought in to counter your claims, you keep with your mantra without providing supporting fact. Or do you just want to argue for argument's sake?
Regs, Jarkko
The original beauty contest FAILED to achieve its goals, period. Deployment was delayed several times. There were numerous lawsuits against the regulators. Carriers gave back their spectrum license. Name one single success to the original goal.
I never said that I am in awe with the American system. In a imperfect world that we live in --- the American system manages to be working a lot better than the alternatives.
Spectrum licensing fee is a sunk cost has NOTHING to do with mobile tariff prices.
They never mandated LTE in Europe, carriers can deploy wimax on that spectrum if they want to.
There is NOTHING wrong with American regulatory environment in the last 30 years (except the Bush era where they reduced 6 carriers down to 4 carriers by allowing M&A). There is something wrong with German government still being the largest shareholder of DT, the Finnish/Sweden government being the largest shareholder of Telia, the Japanese government being the largest shareholder of NTT.
There are a lot of fine print with the speed data. What good is T-Mobile being the fastest in Europe --- if a bunch of their network give you a dinky 250 MB iphone data plan per month or that over certain amount of data allowance they crippled you down to 64 kbps.
http://www.umpcportal.com/2008/06/ex...ed-in-germany/
The original beauty contest FAILED to achieve its goals, period. Deployment was delayed several times. There were numerous lawsuits against the regulators. Carriers gave back their spectrum license. Name one single success to the original goal.
I believe I did, but let's just agree to differ.
Spectrum licensing fee is a sunk cost has NOTHING to do with mobile tariff prices.
Unless you had to borrow the money for it, the interest on that is a cost.
They never mandated LTE in Europe, carriers can deploy wimax on that spectrum if they want to.
Correct, my bad. I wasn't looking at the rules, I just looked at the end results of the auctions.
There is NOTHING wrong with American regulatory environment in the last 30 years (except the Bush era where they reduced 6 carriers down to 4 carriers by allowing M&A). There is something wrong with German government still being the largest shareholder of DT, the Finnish/Sweden government being the largest shareholder of Telia, the Japanese government being the largest shareholder of NTT.
Different spectrum for different operators for example causing issues with competition via terminal incompatibility and inbound roaming users don't get to choose from multiple operators is not a flaw? Or the actual reason you pay for inbound calls (inability distinguish a mobile number from a fixed line number, thereby giving the original caller no possibility to know the rate), when the rest of the world doesn't to name a few.
There are a lot of fine print with the speed data. What good is T-Mobile being the fastest in Europe --- if a bunch of their network give you a dinky 250 MB iphone data plan per month or that over certain amount of data allowance they crippled you down to 64 kbps.
http://www.umpcportal.com/2008/06/ex...ed-in-germany/
Again, you're looking for single examples. If I point a single example to refute it am I then in the right? Sonera (The Finnish part of your hated government mainly owned Telia, of which the Finnish government does NOT have a majority share of) offers 3.2 Mbps (unlimited) at 9.90?/mo.
https://kauppa.sonera.fi/yksityisill...hone_3G_S_32GB
I see both sides having issues (different ones), which both sides are fixing to make networks more available, useful and profitable. About voice and SMS pricing (possibly excluding iPhone deals) I dound that the European and Asian operators I looked at did offer cheaper prices than AT&T and verizon, but is that a reason to fight? no. It also has a lot to do with relative purchasing power to find the real cost differences.
Regs, Jarkko
I believe I did, but let's just agree to differ.
Unless you had to borrow the money for it, the interest on that is a cost.
Correct, my bad. I wasn't looking at the rules, I just looked at the end results of the auctions.
Different spectrum for different operators for example causing issues with competition via terminal incompatibility and inbound roaming users don't get to choose from multiple operators is not a flaw? Or the actual reason you pay for inbound calls (inability distinguish a mobile number from a fixed line number, thereby giving the original caller no possibility to know the rate), when the rest of the world doesn't to name a few.
Again, you're looking for single examples. If I point a single example to refute it am I then in the right? Sonera (The Finnish part of your hated government mainly owned Telia, of which the Finnish government does NOT have a majority share of) offers 3.2 Mbps (unlimited) at 9.90?/mo.
https://kauppa.sonera.fi/yksityisill...hone_3G_S_32GB
I see both sides having issues (different ones), which both sides are fixing to make networks more available, useful and profitable. About voice and SMS pricing (possibly excluding iPhone deals) I dound that the European and Asian operators I looked at did offer cheaper prices than AT&T and verizon, but is that a reason to fight? no. It also has a lot to do with relative purchasing power to find the real cost differences.
Regs, Jarkko
Nobody ever talks about "beauty contest" anymore --- that tells you something about whether they actually accomplished anything or a complete failure.
Financing cost is also part of the original sunken cost --- nothing to do with tarriffs.
The iphone has shown that there are no effective simlocking laws in Europe --- you can't unlock the iphone. It means that you can't take it to the next carrier, you can't change roaming carriers. And we haven't even talked about the most important thing in the world --- much of Europe don't have early termination fees. You have to pay off the rest of the contract in order to get out of contract --- really makes the whole point that complaining about how Americans can't take their cell phones to the next carrier completely pointless.
Europe's iphone plans are RARELY cheap and RARELY without a thousand fine prints. You have O2 crippling PAYG iphone 3G speed. You have Italy having 250 MB iphone data allowance. You have T-Mobile Germany crippling iphone 3G speed. It's not just one example --- they are everywhere.
Comparing iphone plans are often the most effective comparison because they are regular price (non-time-limited special pricing) and from actual wireless operators, not MVNO's. Your 9.99 euro sonera deal is a time-limited special which regularly sells for 35 euro a month. It is really comparing apples to apples.