There's much more concentration in Canada than in the States.
This is all very expensive. The estimate is that it's going to cost Verison over $100 billion, and as much as $200 billion, to bring FIOS to most of the potential customer base in the US. Other major carriers will have to spend amounts that are a large fraction of that as well.
I've seen numbers that suggest it may cost $1 trillion to bring high band to all customers in the US.
I'm sure that is all true, but doesn't negate my point. the argument 'it's too expensive' seems to me one of the reasons why north america is falling behind. what that means to me is: we (the corporate players) don't want to spend any money on infrastructure and rather milk this aging cow until it drops dead.
i remember gladly paying $1000 per month for a T1 line in downtown vancouver, knowing fair well that ADSL was going to be available 3 years later for a tiny fraction of that. i needed it, i was making money with it and i had no problem paying for it. this obviously does not translate into 'lets spent a trillion dollars' but i'm sure it wouldn't take that much in the first stages...
i'm no expert in telecommunications or economics, and probably don't understand the issues involved. the US is still a leader in technology, but it seems that it's the lack of implementation of that technology that is holding us back in a global playing field.
It's a consequence of being a big country with an extensive existing infrastructure. Many countries concentrate their population densities in relative few areas. Telecoms don't have to divide their infrastructure investments across many geographies. In addition, some countries have either no infrastructure or minimal infrastructure and thus a much sharper need for new build-out.
I can see your point, but Australia is in a similar position just with a smaller population.
The US experience seems more attributable to a culture of corporate profits and share value where the US telcos stopped investing in new infrastructure.
This has left one of the world's biggest markets behind the rest of us in terms of many things such as data networks, decent TV programming and the metric system...
I'd wager that a new chip (which isn't even on the market yet) will be required for 14.4Mb/s, much less 42Mb/s. No software update is going to enable this.
Or does anyone think that Apple has created there own 3G chip and the S-GOLD3H code was a jsut a red herring?
I'm sure that is all true, but doesn't negate my point. the argument 'it's too expensive' seems to me one of the reasons why north america is falling behind. what that means to me is: we (the corporate players) don't want to spend any money on infrastructure and rather milk this aging cow until it drops dead.
i remember gladly paying $1000 per month for a T1 line in downtown vancouver, knowing fair well that ADSL was going to be available 3 years later for a tiny fraction of that. i needed it, i was making money with it and i had no problem paying for it. this obviously does not translate into 'lets spent a trillion dollars' but i'm sure it wouldn't take that much in the first stages...
i'm no expert in telecommunications or economics, and probably don't understand the issues involved. the US is still a leader in technology, but it seems that it's the lack of implementation of that technology that is holding us back in a global playing field.
If the amount of money it is taking doesn't stop and make you think. Then no explanation will help.
I can see your point, but Australia is in a similar position just with a smaller population.
The US experience seems more attributable to a culture of corporate profits and share value where the US telcos stopped investing in new infrastructure.
This has left one of the world's biggest markets behind the rest of us in terms of many things such as data networks, decent TV programming and the metric system...
You're also wrong, and not paying attention to the costs.
US companies are spending more than companies anywhere else to do this. But it costs much more to do this here. Europe is composed of what to us seem to be tiny countries, not much bigger than some of our states, but with much bigger populations. The same thing is true of Korea, Japan, and some others.
The money the big providers here are spending is a large portion of the GDP of many of these countries.
A senior executive for Australia's Telstra wireless carrier has allegedly told the region's ChannelNews that Apple's upcoming iPhone revision will be capable of supporting an advanced 3G connection at speeds of 42 megabits per second.
"We know what is coming, we have seen the new device and it will be available on our network as soon as it is launched in the USA," the unidentified executive is reported to have said. "By Xmas this phone will be capable of 42mbs which will make it faster than a lot of broadband offerings and the fastest iPhone on any network in the world."
The report goes on to say that Telstra already has 3G iPhones on hand for testing and that the device will be made available to the carrier's customers "very soon after its June 9 unveiling" by Apple chief executive Steve Jobs at the company's annual Worldwide Developers Conference.
If true, the claim by the unnamed Telstra exec would suggest that Apple is building a wireless broadband chip into its next-gen iPhone that supports an advanced High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) protocol known as Evolved HSPA. In addition to downloads of up to 42 Mbps, Evolved HSPA networks also supports uploads at up to 22 Mbps.
Stateside, AT&T is putting the finishing touches on its own standard HSPA network that currently offers download speeds of 1.4 Mbps and upload rates around 800 Kbps. However, the US carrier promises to follow through on a plan that will boost download speeds to 7.2Mbps in the next year, eventually hitting 20Mbps sometime in 2009.
Interesting to read this coming from a Telstra exec. Back in Jan 2007, just after Apple announced the iPhone at MacWorld, another named Telstra exec, Mr. Greg Winn, was quoted by a AAP reporter as saying that Apple "Should stick to its knitting" as it was not a mobile phone manufacturer and that the established players would soon beat Apples' feature set. Full article here.
I also note the following, Telstra has not been announced as a carrier for the iPhone as yet in Australia, only VodaFone and Optus (SingTel). That is not to say that Telstra wont be. They do have one of the most advanced 3G implementations going. As for coverage, well Australia is a pretty big place too, similar to both Canada and the USA, but our populations are very concentrated in the cities. Telstra claims 98% coverage of the population. Here is their coverage map.
Telstra probably represents the "best fit" of a carrier in Oz for the iPhone, but their attitude, arrogance and pricing models, leave a lot to be desired, and leave room for the alternate competitors, VodaFone, Optus, 3, Virgin, all of whom are capable of supporting the iPhone.
If this Telstra exec comments are true, then maybe SJ, particularly if he is aware of the "Stick to your knitting" remarks, might just see to it, that Telstra will be the last carrier in Oz to get the iPhone.
I hear that same argument in Canada all the time, 'big country, blablabla' but here, as well as in the states to a certain degree, most of the population IS concentrated in the big cities and even there we are far behind other parts of the world. the providers have not done much to keep their infrastructure updated and have instead oversold their bandwidth and raked in the money. the way Canadians get shafted on mobile internet access is legendary...
..and the mainland USA is roughly the same size as Australia. The infrastructure is the same vintage and level approximately in all 3 countries, after all we are not the 3rd world.
I just love watching these "experts" at Telstra. Same mob that just last year was pooh-poohing the iPhone and telling Apple to stick to its knitting.
The Apple negotiators must be laughing behind their hands everytime they sit in negotiations with the Telstra guys. Mind you these overpaid morons from Texas have stuffed up every deal they have been involved in and screwed their investors for years.
Sol Trujillo the CEO is using his illgotten gains from Telstra to fund McCain's presidential campaign. I think he is hoping to jump ship to Ambassador to Australia if the Republicans win next November.
You're also wrong, and not paying attention to the costs.
US companies are spending more than companies anywhere else to do this. But it costs much more to do this here. Europe is composed of what to us seem to be tiny countries, not much bigger than some of our states, but with much bigger populations. The same thing is true of Korea, Japan, and some others.
The money the big providers here are spending is a large portion of the GDP of many of these countries.
They might be spending huge amounts now, but they have to just in order to catch up.
Had they been progressively spending over the last 20 - 30 years, then you might not have Rupert bringing his satellite TV dishes (DirecTV? is that the name?) plastered everywhere and people in rural areas might have access to DSL technology. But corporate America and it's "competition" have meant that no one wants to invest in low profit areas. The greatest "democracy" in the world has created a huge amount of have and have nots thanks to profits and share value.
Getting off track, just that I'm bitter and twisted that the world had to have a slow iPhone released only in the USA before we got one...\
They might be spending huge amounts now, but they have to just in order to catch up.
Had they been progressively spending over the last 20 - 30 years, then you might not have Rupert bringing his satellite TV dishes (DirecTV? is that the name?) plastered everywhere and people in rural areas might have access to DSL technology. But corporate America and it's "competition" have meant that no one wants to invest in low profit areas. The greatest "democracy" in the world has created a huge amount of have and have nots thanks to profits and share value.
Getting off track, just that I'm bitter and twisted that the world had to have a slow iPhone released only in the USA before we got one...\
They have been spending large amounts over the years.
I can tell you one thing though. For decades, the US telecommunications networks has had was was felt, around the world, to be the most reliable phone network. Europeans were struggling to catch up, esp after the war.
What has happened in a number of countries, is that rather than spend the big bucks it takes to advance land networking, they invested in the cheaper, but still expensive (for large areas) cell networks. Much cheaper per capita in Europe, and some other countries, than here.
While, even here, the US was ahead, in the beginning, the smaller jurisdictions, and higher taxes in some other countries gave the governments the ability to fund much of this. We tend to not want the government to do this here. Most people in the US prefer to have lower taxes, and have the companies fight it out themselves, which is what they do.
Because of those costs the companies are burdened with, it tends to take longer.
Most people here are content to live with that, as it gets done in the end.
In Europe, Japan, and other countries, the resistance to 3G was very high. People simply didn't want to pay the higher fees. Rollout doesn't imply usage, and usage in those areas was very low.
Companies here prefer to wait until people indicate they are ready for it.
In Europe, Japan, and other countries, the resistance to 3G was very high. People simply didn't want to pay the higher fees. Rollout doesn't imply usage, and usage in those areas was very low.
Companies here prefer to wait until people indicate they are ready for it.
um, Europe and Japan and Australia have all had 3G for a very long time. Companies (both govt. controlled and private) invested in the technology because it was cheaper due to the geographical situation. Very similar geographical situation to the US.
AT&T were dragged kicking and screaming into 3G because of the iPhone
Telstra probably represents the "best fit" of a carrier in Oz for the iPhone, but their attitude, arrogance and pricing models, leave a lot to be desired, and leave room for the alternate competitors, VodaFone, Optus, 3, Virgin, all of whom are capable of supporting the iPhone.
If this Telstra exec comments are true, then maybe SJ, particularly if he is aware of the "Stick to your knitting" remarks, might just see to it, that Telstra will be the last carrier in Oz to get the iPhone.
Yeah, Telstra is so focussed on saying ANYTHING about "amazing" future speeds that I certainly don't believe this rumour in the slightest. Already they say their network supports 14Mbps, but there are no devices available faster than 7Mbps.
Also, though it LOOKS like a legitimate site, I hadn't heard of "channelnews.com.au" before - and I read a fair bit online.
Yeah, Telstra is so focussed on saying ANYTHING about "amazing" future speeds that I certainly don't believe this rumour in the slightest. Already they say their network supports 14Mbps, but there are no devices available faster than 7Mbps.
Also, though it LOOKS like a legitimate site, I hadn't heard of "channelnews.com.au" before - and I read a fair bit online.
I think Telstra are focused on their knitting.
I've never heard of it either. Build a site, add some iPhone rumours and the traffic will come...
This rumour already has a sub-heading and paragraph in Wikipedia...
Not any more, I deleted it. This rumour is almost as good as the one that said Apple had secretly put a 3G chip in the iPhone but had not turned it on. If you believe it you're an idiot.
Anyway, I heard that the new iPhone is going to get everyone laid, it allows you to travel backwards in time and had 5G technology that retrieves pages before you even request them.
um, Europe and Japan and Australia have all had 3G for a very long time. Companies (both govt. controlled and private) invested in the technology because it was cheaper due to the geographical situation. Very similar geographical situation to the US.
AT&T were dragged kicking and screaming into 3G because of the iPhone
Not only we gone over the fact that land area doesn't equate to coverage (Australia has a much smaller mobile phone coverage compared to the US although they are a similar size), but you're also wrong about 3G on AT&T, they had 3G in July of 2004.
They might be spending huge amounts now, but they have to just in order to catch up.
Had they been progressively spending over the last 20 - 30 years, then you might not have Rupert bringing his satellite TV dishes (DirecTV? is that the name?) plastered everywhere and people in rural areas might have access to DSL technology. But corporate America and it's "competition" have meant that no one wants to invest in low profit areas. The greatest "democracy" in the world has created a huge amount of have and have nots thanks to profits and share value.
Getting off track, just that I'm bitter and twisted that the world had to have a slow iPhone released only in the USA before we got one...\
Rupert Murdoch sold his satellite interests in the US some time ago. Even before that he'd discarded the idea of proving internet access via satellite because of bandwidth and latency problems.
Comments
This is the most advanced chip I could find. Note that it has a max download rate of 14.7Mb/s and won't be available for mass production until 2009.
That's still almost twice as fast as whats available in homes.
There's much more concentration in Canada than in the States.
This is all very expensive. The estimate is that it's going to cost Verison over $100 billion, and as much as $200 billion, to bring FIOS to most of the potential customer base in the US. Other major carriers will have to spend amounts that are a large fraction of that as well.
I've seen numbers that suggest it may cost $1 trillion to bring high band to all customers in the US.
I'm sure that is all true, but doesn't negate my point. the argument 'it's too expensive' seems to me one of the reasons why north america is falling behind. what that means to me is: we (the corporate players) don't want to spend any money on infrastructure and rather milk this aging cow until it drops dead.
i remember gladly paying $1000 per month for a T1 line in downtown vancouver, knowing fair well that ADSL was going to be available 3 years later for a tiny fraction of that. i needed it, i was making money with it and i had no problem paying for it. this obviously does not translate into 'lets spent a trillion dollars' but i'm sure it wouldn't take that much in the first stages...
i'm no expert in telecommunications or economics, and probably don't understand the issues involved. the US is still a leader in technology, but it seems that it's the lack of implementation of that technology that is holding us back in a global playing field.
It's a consequence of being a big country with an extensive existing infrastructure. Many countries concentrate their population densities in relative few areas. Telecoms don't have to divide their infrastructure investments across many geographies. In addition, some countries have either no infrastructure or minimal infrastructure and thus a much sharper need for new build-out.
I can see your point, but Australia is in a similar position just with a smaller population.
The US experience seems more attributable to a culture of corporate profits and share value where the US telcos stopped investing in new infrastructure.
This has left one of the world's biggest markets behind the rest of us in terms of many things such as data networks, decent TV programming and the metric system...
I'd wager that a new chip (which isn't even on the market yet) will be required for 14.4Mb/s, much less 42Mb/s. No software update is going to enable this.
Or does anyone think that Apple has created there own 3G chip and the S-GOLD3H code was a jsut a red herring?
Didn't Steve-O just buy a chip making company?
42Mbps? Oh hell yes.
Then we'll all be like Ted Kennedy and get brain cancer.
I'm sure that is all true, but doesn't negate my point. the argument 'it's too expensive' seems to me one of the reasons why north america is falling behind. what that means to me is: we (the corporate players) don't want to spend any money on infrastructure and rather milk this aging cow until it drops dead.
i remember gladly paying $1000 per month for a T1 line in downtown vancouver, knowing fair well that ADSL was going to be available 3 years later for a tiny fraction of that. i needed it, i was making money with it and i had no problem paying for it. this obviously does not translate into 'lets spent a trillion dollars' but i'm sure it wouldn't take that much in the first stages...
i'm no expert in telecommunications or economics, and probably don't understand the issues involved. the US is still a leader in technology, but it seems that it's the lack of implementation of that technology that is holding us back in a global playing field.
If the amount of money it is taking doesn't stop and make you think. Then no explanation will help.
They're still a horrible company. They're like the Microsoft of Australia.
I can see your point, but Australia is in a similar position just with a smaller population.
The US experience seems more attributable to a culture of corporate profits and share value where the US telcos stopped investing in new infrastructure.
This has left one of the world's biggest markets behind the rest of us in terms of many things such as data networks, decent TV programming and the metric system...
You're also wrong, and not paying attention to the costs.
US companies are spending more than companies anywhere else to do this. But it costs much more to do this here. Europe is composed of what to us seem to be tiny countries, not much bigger than some of our states, but with much bigger populations. The same thing is true of Korea, Japan, and some others.
The money the big providers here are spending is a large portion of the GDP of many of these countries.
A senior executive for Australia's Telstra wireless carrier has allegedly told the region's ChannelNews that Apple's upcoming iPhone revision will be capable of supporting an advanced 3G connection at speeds of 42 megabits per second.
"We know what is coming, we have seen the new device and it will be available on our network as soon as it is launched in the USA," the unidentified executive is reported to have said. "By Xmas this phone will be capable of 42mbs which will make it faster than a lot of broadband offerings and the fastest iPhone on any network in the world."
The report goes on to say that Telstra already has 3G iPhones on hand for testing and that the device will be made available to the carrier's customers "very soon after its June 9 unveiling" by Apple chief executive Steve Jobs at the company's annual Worldwide Developers Conference.
If true, the claim by the unnamed Telstra exec would suggest that Apple is building a wireless broadband chip into its next-gen iPhone that supports an advanced High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) protocol known as Evolved HSPA. In addition to downloads of up to 42 Mbps, Evolved HSPA networks also supports uploads at up to 22 Mbps.
Stateside, AT&T is putting the finishing touches on its own standard HSPA network that currently offers download speeds of 1.4 Mbps and upload rates around 800 Kbps. However, the US carrier promises to follow through on a plan that will boost download speeds to 7.2Mbps in the next year, eventually hitting 20Mbps sometime in 2009.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Interesting to read this coming from a Telstra exec. Back in Jan 2007, just after Apple announced the iPhone at MacWorld, another named Telstra exec, Mr. Greg Winn, was quoted by a AAP reporter as saying that Apple "Should stick to its knitting" as it was not a mobile phone manufacturer and that the established players would soon beat Apples' feature set. Full article here.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztec...405363291.html
I also note the following, Telstra has not been announced as a carrier for the iPhone as yet in Australia, only VodaFone and Optus (SingTel). That is not to say that Telstra wont be. They do have one of the most advanced 3G implementations going. As for coverage, well Australia is a pretty big place too, similar to both Canada and the USA, but our populations are very concentrated in the cities. Telstra claims 98% coverage of the population. Here is their coverage map.
http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/net...broadband.html
Telstra probably represents the "best fit" of a carrier in Oz for the iPhone, but their attitude, arrogance and pricing models, leave a lot to be desired, and leave room for the alternate competitors, VodaFone, Optus, 3, Virgin, all of whom are capable of supporting the iPhone.
If this Telstra exec comments are true, then maybe SJ, particularly if he is aware of the "Stick to your knitting" remarks, might just see to it, that Telstra will be the last carrier in Oz to get the iPhone.
Not long to wait now.
Pete
I hear that same argument in Canada all the time, 'big country, blablabla' but here, as well as in the states to a certain degree, most of the population IS concentrated in the big cities and even there we are far behind other parts of the world. the providers have not done much to keep their infrastructure updated and have instead oversold their bandwidth and raked in the money. the way Canadians get shafted on mobile internet access is legendary...
..and the mainland USA is roughly the same size as Australia. The infrastructure is the same vintage and level approximately in all 3 countries, after all we are not the 3rd world.
I just love watching these "experts" at Telstra. Same mob that just last year was pooh-poohing the iPhone and telling Apple to stick to its knitting.
The Apple negotiators must be laughing behind their hands everytime they sit in negotiations with the Telstra guys. Mind you these overpaid morons from Texas have stuffed up every deal they have been involved in and screwed their investors for years.
Sol Trujillo the CEO is using his illgotten gains from Telstra to fund McCain's presidential campaign. I think he is hoping to jump ship to Ambassador to Australia if the Republicans win next November.
"You're an Ass Sol..."
You're also wrong, and not paying attention to the costs.
US companies are spending more than companies anywhere else to do this. But it costs much more to do this here. Europe is composed of what to us seem to be tiny countries, not much bigger than some of our states, but with much bigger populations. The same thing is true of Korea, Japan, and some others.
The money the big providers here are spending is a large portion of the GDP of many of these countries.
They might be spending huge amounts now, but they have to just in order to catch up.
Had they been progressively spending over the last 20 - 30 years, then you might not have Rupert bringing his satellite TV dishes (DirecTV? is that the name?) plastered everywhere and people in rural areas might have access to DSL technology. But corporate America and it's "competition" have meant that no one wants to invest in low profit areas. The greatest "democracy" in the world has created a huge amount of have and have nots thanks to profits and share value.
Getting off track, just that I'm bitter and twisted that the world had to have a slow iPhone released only in the USA before we got one...
Two excellent companies battling out starting next month. This will be the Ultimate Super Bowl competition to watch of 3G cell phones.
They might be spending huge amounts now, but they have to just in order to catch up.
Had they been progressively spending over the last 20 - 30 years, then you might not have Rupert bringing his satellite TV dishes (DirecTV? is that the name?) plastered everywhere and people in rural areas might have access to DSL technology. But corporate America and it's "competition" have meant that no one wants to invest in low profit areas. The greatest "democracy" in the world has created a huge amount of have and have nots thanks to profits and share value.
Getting off track, just that I'm bitter and twisted that the world had to have a slow iPhone released only in the USA before we got one...
They have been spending large amounts over the years.
I can tell you one thing though. For decades, the US telecommunications networks has had was was felt, around the world, to be the most reliable phone network. Europeans were struggling to catch up, esp after the war.
What has happened in a number of countries, is that rather than spend the big bucks it takes to advance land networking, they invested in the cheaper, but still expensive (for large areas) cell networks. Much cheaper per capita in Europe, and some other countries, than here.
While, even here, the US was ahead, in the beginning, the smaller jurisdictions, and higher taxes in some other countries gave the governments the ability to fund much of this. We tend to not want the government to do this here. Most people in the US prefer to have lower taxes, and have the companies fight it out themselves, which is what they do.
Because of those costs the companies are burdened with, it tends to take longer.
Most people here are content to live with that, as it gets done in the end.
In Europe, Japan, and other countries, the resistance to 3G was very high. People simply didn't want to pay the higher fees. Rollout doesn't imply usage, and usage in those areas was very low.
Companies here prefer to wait until people indicate they are ready for it.
In Europe, Japan, and other countries, the resistance to 3G was very high. People simply didn't want to pay the higher fees. Rollout doesn't imply usage, and usage in those areas was very low.
Companies here prefer to wait until people indicate they are ready for it.
um, Europe and Japan and Australia have all had 3G for a very long time. Companies (both govt. controlled and private) invested in the technology because it was cheaper due to the geographical situation. Very similar geographical situation to the US.
AT&T were dragged kicking and screaming into 3G because of the iPhone
Telstra probably represents the "best fit" of a carrier in Oz for the iPhone, but their attitude, arrogance and pricing models, leave a lot to be desired, and leave room for the alternate competitors, VodaFone, Optus, 3, Virgin, all of whom are capable of supporting the iPhone.
If this Telstra exec comments are true, then maybe SJ, particularly if he is aware of the "Stick to your knitting" remarks, might just see to it, that Telstra will be the last carrier in Oz to get the iPhone.
Yeah, Telstra is so focussed on saying ANYTHING about "amazing" future speeds that I certainly don't believe this rumour in the slightest. Already they say their network supports 14Mbps, but there are no devices available faster than 7Mbps.
Also, though it LOOKS like a legitimate site, I hadn't heard of "channelnews.com.au" before - and I read a fair bit online.
Yeah, Telstra is so focussed on saying ANYTHING about "amazing" future speeds that I certainly don't believe this rumour in the slightest. Already they say their network supports 14Mbps, but there are no devices available faster than 7Mbps.
Also, though it LOOKS like a legitimate site, I hadn't heard of "channelnews.com.au" before - and I read a fair bit online.
I think Telstra are focused on their knitting.
I've never heard of it either. Build a site, add some iPhone rumours and the traffic will come...
This rumour already has a sub-heading and paragraph in Wikipedia...
Not any more, I deleted it. This rumour is almost as good as the one that said Apple had secretly put a 3G chip in the iPhone but had not turned it on. If you believe it you're an idiot.
Anyway, I heard that the new iPhone is going to get everyone laid, it allows you to travel backwards in time and had 5G technology that retrieves pages before you even request them.
um, Europe and Japan and Australia have all had 3G for a very long time. Companies (both govt. controlled and private) invested in the technology because it was cheaper due to the geographical situation. Very similar geographical situation to the US.
AT&T were dragged kicking and screaming into 3G because of the iPhone
Not only we gone over the fact that land area doesn't equate to coverage (Australia has a much smaller mobile phone coverage compared to the US although they are a similar size), but you're also wrong about 3G on AT&T, they had 3G in July of 2004.
They might be spending huge amounts now, but they have to just in order to catch up.
Had they been progressively spending over the last 20 - 30 years, then you might not have Rupert bringing his satellite TV dishes (DirecTV? is that the name?) plastered everywhere and people in rural areas might have access to DSL technology. But corporate America and it's "competition" have meant that no one wants to invest in low profit areas. The greatest "democracy" in the world has created a huge amount of have and have nots thanks to profits and share value.
Getting off track, just that I'm bitter and twisted that the world had to have a slow iPhone released only in the USA before we got one...
Rupert Murdoch sold his satellite interests in the US some time ago. Even before that he'd discarded the idea of proving internet access via satellite because of bandwidth and latency problems.