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 true.
I remember very well when they first got 3G. It's been a few years, no more. There was tremendous customer resistance in those foreign markets for the first couple of years because of the high prices.
AT&T has had 3G for several years as well, but they lag behind the other major US carriers, who have had it at least as early as the European and Asian markets have. The other carriers have almost total coverage, which is where AT&T is behind.
Telcos are asking way too much than consumers can afford to part with.
That leaves Telcos scrounging for more money. That drives prices higher, and even more people leave them...
People won't adopt an expensive system, no matter how good it is.
I will only buy a 3G iPhone in Australia if it has a plan at $30 a month or lower... Just a data plan, and I will pay for any calls I make. (cos I don't call people, I msn)
Telcos are asking way too much than consumers can afford to part with.
That leaves Telcos scrounging for more money. That drives prices higher, and even more people leave them...
People won't adopt an expensive system, no matter how good it is.
I will only buy a 3G iPhone in Australia if it has a plan at $30 a month or lower... Just a data plan, and I will pay for any calls I make. (cos I don't call people, I msn)
this is why, even though 3G coverage is good in most places, few people use it.
In Japan and Europe most people didn't use 3G because they were texting to save money. They weren't interested in the new services at all.
The telcos want to make their money back. Here, Verison is spending over $10 billion a year just adding their FIOS, and that doesn't include what they spend for other upgrades, estimated at about $5 billion a year.
The cell companies add thousands of towers a year, and have to pay "right of way" in many areas.
If these companies maintained a static network, then the fees could be lower.
And in countries where they aren't subsidized by the government, the fees are also higher. but then, you are paying the telcos all of the fees rather then paying the government for the service, though most people don't think of it as paying the government because they don't see that broken out in their taxes..
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.
If you think the US has this badly, check out Australia -- not much smaller in land area (80%), less than 10% of the population.
If Telstra really can do this (what happened to the earlier rumour that Optus was getting the iPhone contract?), you can bet coverage will be a small fraction of the country. Good for cities, not great for the outback. Those poor goannas: what are they going to do without fast iPhone data rates?
Try Telstra's coverage map with a postcode of 0872.
You must remember, however, that Telstra MUST support regional phones.
This is because Telstra is partially government owned, and it used to be fully Gov'ment.
There are strict laws/regulations requiring it to provide a certain level of phone access in the outback.
3G, on the other hand, doesn't have to be so good.
For population vs. 3G coverage its actually pretty good.
Lets forget the land mass for a second and say that its about people covered. Telstra wins hands down.
The problem in the US is the spread of customers is such that it is far more difficult to get that Person/coverage ratio right.
Telstra is required by law to be better, but it also cannot play competetively. This is because it OWNS everything, and so if it did, no private businesses could win - a lot, including my carrier, 3, use the Telstra network at LOW prices - either way, Telstra is great service, horrible pricing (3G wireless access on a laptop is A$180 for 3 GB - horrible)
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.
The Australian government has just announced a big investment program to bring broadband to all Australians. And Australia is huge. The US prefers to spend its money on arms and war instead.
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.
So... how many months of Iraq is one trillion worth? Imagine something actually positive happening with that money..
*sigh*
Of course I'm not suggesting that the Telco's are the ones footing the bill on that one.
On a more positive note, here in NZ the Government just announced a NZ$350 million plan to speed up the broadband access to institutions and businesses etc. The Opposition is trying hard to say they will spend NZ$1.5 billion, but how they will fund that is anyones guess. A pinch of fairy dust and some happy thoughts, methinks?
Our 3G network, Vodafone is going to offer a 'special rate' of only $60 per gig for the iPhone. Yes, thats right, per gig..
I almost fainted in the shop when I was told that the other day.
AT&T this week said it would lift upload speeds of its existing "third generation" network to as much 800 kilobits per second, up from 120 kilobits. Last year AT&T boosted download speeds to as much as 1.4 megabits from a prior peak of 700 kilobits.
Sprint's WiMax network, however, is expected to offer download speeds of up to 4 megabits a second, similar to rates now achieved in homes on DSL and cable-Internet services.
Clearwire would seem to have a sizeable speed lead over the competition, and they roll out sooner also...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
First of all, let me say that your argument about population density has been regurgitated over and over for years now, and frankly it just doesn't hold any water.
I see this all the time, e.g., "The USA doesn't have good broadband because it costs too much to lay fiber optic cable because of the low population density".
Whether the issue is about wired broadband or cellphone technology, the flaw in that argument is that the population density of the top 25-50 markets (or even top 100) in the United States is very high, definitely high enough to warrant competitive broadband service. And yet besides the limited rollout of Verizon FIOS and some small municipal networks, most of us are limited to a DUOPOLY of DSL/Cable for internet with abhorrent speeds for either and ridiculous prices and terms of service. And that is if we are LUCKY. For a large percentage of people, DSL isn't available, and for many, even cable broadband isn't available and they have to rely on dialup or satellite.
I have spent a lot of time reading over hundreds of resources, and the more I read, the more angry I get. It's so upsetting to see what has gone on in the politics of telecommunications and broadband over the past 10-15 years, and knowing that most of America has no idea how bad they have been getting screwed. That's really the bottom line. We, the citizens, have been getting screwed since day one. The government never put into place a broadband strategy, never put adequate investment into our infrastructure, and made a litany of bad policy decisions, both through anti-consumer action and willful inaction. From the FCC unbundling the local loop of phonelines and cable lines which completely prevented competitors from offering cable and DSL service --- and thus insuring the monopoly of the local incumbents, to congress pandering to the telecomm lobby, to the complete failure of the executive branch to set any type of positive broadband goals or policy and to try and block any meaningful progress from taking place. As far as federal and state investment in broadband, I'm sure most of you would be upset to hear that billions of dollars of your tax money was given out in grants, subsidies, and tax breaks from both federal and state governments to telecommunications companies over the years to build out fiber-optic broadband infrastructure that was never completed, and in many cases never even begun. They got away with this fraud through different mergers and acquisitions, politicians and administrations changing, governing committee's changing, etc.
I apologize for the long post that is not entirely related to this thread's topic, but this is a serious and complex issue. I have put together a series of passages from different resources on this issue:
# "Where’s that broadband fiber-optic access" - Nieman Watchdog group
"The answer is, the merger of the phone companies that control the phone networks decreased competition. Instead of deploying the high-speed fiber-optic lines they promised, they were content to collect profits, tinker with existing copper connections instead of rewiring, and roll out inferior DSL services. The FCC defines anything above 200 Kbps as broadband (1000 Kbps = 1 Mbps), allowing them to claim that Americans have broadband access. However, this definition is a politically-driven embarrassment for technologists, the equivalent of two tin-cans with string.
Yet—and here is the most troubling part—the phone companies got paid anyway. Through tax breaks and increased service fees, Verizon and the old Bells reaped an estimated $200 billion since the early 1990s to improve subscriber lines in the United States. And what have American consumers received? The most common DSL Service over the old copper networks tops out at 768 Kbps in most areas—a hundred times slower than routine connections in other countries. (There are faster, more expensive versions of DSL, but most have a top speed of 1-3 mbps in one direction, and it varies based on how far a person lives from a network hub.) "....
"..... What ever happened to the networks? The dark secret was that the networks couldn't be built at the costs being quoted by the phone companies. The Bell companies submitted cost analyses to the public service commissions, such as the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, which were supposed to outline the actual costs of doing the upgrades. These “actual costs” models were intentionally kept low so the commission would approve. The original cost models showed costs of about a thousand dollars a customer; the actual cost in an installation in Dover, New Jersey, as reported by the New York Times, was $17,000 a line. The low figures ensured that the law would go through, by making upgrades seem more feasible. DSL was a bait-and-switch. The service was considered inferior as far back as 1992, because it travels over the old copper wiring. In fact, providers originally rolled it out only as a stop-gap, since the Internet craze that had been raging since 1995 led to immediate customer demands for fast products.
More importantly, various mergers meant the death of fiber-optic deployment in 26 states. Upon merging, companies either wrote off or closed down many assets, including fiber optics projects. In short, the Bell companies gamed the regulatory system: after the state deals went through and the mergers were completed, they simply closed everything, even though they had commitments under state laws. SBC had promised to be competing in 30 states by 2002, while Verizon claimed that it would be in 24 cities in 18 months. Neither of those commitments was fulfilled. It is now clear that in most states companies did minimal work, and the public was scammed as a result."
# "America's Internet Disconnect" - Michael J Copps - DEMOCRATIC FCC MEMBER
"America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don't do something about it. ---- The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU measured a broader "digital opportunity" index (considering price and other factors) we were 21st -- right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for connections that are one-twentieth the speed. How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, U.S consumers face a "cable and telephone broadband duopoly." And that's more like a best-case scenario: Many households are hostage to a single broadband provider, and nearly one-tenth have no broadband provider at all.
We need a broadband strategy for America. Other industrialized countries have developed national broadband strategies. In the United States we have a campaign promise of universal broadband access by 2007, but no strategy for getting there. With less than two months to go, we aren't even within shouting distance. The solution to our broadband crisis must ultimately involve public-private initiatives like those that built the railroad, highway and telephone systems. Combined with an overhaul of our universal service system to make sure it is focusing on the needs of broadband, this represents our best chance at recapturing our leadership position. It seems plain enough that our present policies aren't working. Inattention and muddling through may be the path of least resistance, but they should not and must not represent our national policy on this critical issue."
# "Fixing US broadband: $100 billion for fiber to every home in the United States" - EDUCAUSE / ArsTechnica
"Competition is key. The OECD notes that the broadband situation is better in areas with multiple broadband options. "Price decreases and improved services have been the most marked in markets characterized by intense competition," says the report. "Competition may be the product of regulatory intervention, as in the case of local loop unbundling, or may be the result of new infrastructure-based competition.
In Europe, the regulatory environment allows consumers in many countries to choose from any number of DSL and cable providers. When Nobel Intent correspondent Chris Lee moved into his flat in the Netherlands, he had no less than three cable and three DSL providers competing for his business, including one company—KPN—that offered both. France is another country with abundant broadband competition—and it has the fifth-cheapest broadband in the world in terms of price per Mbps...
...In contrast, the Federal Communications Commission's policy of deregulation has left most consumers faced with duopolies (at best) and de facto monopolies (I live over 20,000 feet from the nearest DSLAM in Chicago, so DSL isn't an option for me). The situation is such that the nation as a whole is a broadband laggard, according to one FCC commissioner. As a result of the FCC's policies, competition based on price and speed is spotty at best, and fiber deployments are in their early stages."
"New OECD Report Shows Limitations of US Broadband Policy - OECD Communications Outlook 2007" - OECD/Arstechnica
"The report calls for going beyond the "either-or" shouting matches between the "market fundamentalists" and the "digital populists" to embrace a set of pragmatic principles that should help the US improve its ranking. These include more favorable tax policies that encourage broadband investment; making more spectrum available for broadband, including the white spaces; extending the Universal Service Fund program to cover not just rural telephone service but rural broadband) supporting state-level broadband initiatives like Connect Kentucky; and keeping broadband usage free from all taxes. Several of these initiatives have been proven in countries like Sweden, which has pumped $800 million into subsidies for broadband deployment; for a country the size of the US, that would come to some $30 billion. Needless to say, no such major infrastructure investment has been forthcoming from the federal government. But Sweden has also targeted the demand side of the equation, subsidizing personal computers that businesses purchase for employees' home use. This kind of a program is also important in the US, where broadband availability runs ahead of actual broadband usage. "
If you think the US has this badly, check out Australia -- not much smaller in land area (80%), less than 10% of the population.
and other that the occasional small group of people here and there, how much of that area is actually inhabited? Very little.
Except for some areas, most of the area of the US has small towns. There are more people in those small towns spread out across the country that the entire population of Australia.
The Australian government has just announced a big investment program to bring broadband to all Australians. And Australia is huge. The US prefers to spend its money on arms and war instead.
That's an idiotic statement, and you know it.
If it weren't for those arms, you would either be part of Japan, with an all Japanese population, or China would be next door.
So... how many months of Iraq is one trillion worth? Imagine something actually positive happening with that money..
*sigh*
Of course I'm not suggesting that the Telco's are the ones footing the bill on that one.
On a more positive note, here in NZ the Government just announced a NZ$350 million plan to speed up the broadband access to institutions and businesses etc. The Opposition is trying hard to say they will spend NZ$1.5 billion, but how they will fund that is anyones guess. A pinch of fairy dust and some happy thoughts, methinks?
Our 3G network, Vodafone is going to offer a 'special rate' of only $60 per gig for the iPhone. Yes, thats right, per gig..
I almost fainted in the shop when I was told that the other day.
Another brilliant statement.
Boy, you people from those tiny suck-up countries have no sense of history, do you?
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'd love to have you survive on your own. You're about the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism left around that part of the world. If you think they love you there. Think again!
I'm curious as to how long you would last on your own without us standing around with a big stick.
First of all, let me say that your argument about population density has been regurgitated over and over for years now, and frankly it just doesn't hold any water.
I see this all the time, e.g., "The USA doesn't have good broadband because it costs too much to lay fiber optic cable because of the low population density".
I've read those articles you've posted (along with many others), mostly a while ago.
I know what they say, and they are just as opinionated as anything else. there are a lot of arguments on both sides.
But, I'm sorry, you can't take the area of the country out of the equation. It's too important. no matter how angry some get about the situation, and I'm not happy either, even your own post shows that costs to implement this here are enormous.
Besides, its not the top 50 or 100 markets that are the problem. Those are covered. It's the top 300, or 500 or 750, etc.
So we cover those top 100 markets and then what? How much of the population is still not covered? Far too much.
I don't particularly care if the definition is 200 Kps. for most people thats fine. Very few use more than basic services, and won't for a decade. Even in Europe, most people still aren't on broadband, despite the coverage. and many of those rates are even higher, as we see from so many posts on these forums.
Would I like to see the government attempt to force the issue more? Sure. They finally did that with digital Tv, though that was a simpler situation.
But don't forget the political situation here either. For almost 11 years we have had a conservative Congress, and for the last 7.5 years of that, a conservative President.
Since the people elected them for at reason, it's to be expected that hands off rules. As you know, people here are more concerned with lower taxes than the benefits from heavier government "interference".
Just don't vote for McCain, and possibly we will get a more coherent policy.
42Mbit doesn't sound realistic to me. My home DSL is only 11Mbit. And how much CPU power would be needed for a connection like that? Would the iPhone GUI stutter and freeze while the network was active? Good if true though.
42Mbit doesn't sound realistic to me. My home DSL is only 11Mbit. And how much CPU power would be needed for a connection like that? Would the iPhone GUI stutter and freeze while the network was active? Good if true though.
That's really a good question.
Even when on WiFi, it's been noted that the iPhone doesn't seem to be much faster that 1 Mbs. Or is it 1MBs? I don't remember, but either is far below what WiFi is doing. The speed of the processor is important here.
If it weren't for those arms, you would either be part of Japan, with an all Japanese population, or China would be next door.
It's only because of us that you can do that.
Don't be so naive and hateful!
My last comment to you because if you really do believe what you just typed, then it is no wonder you probably accepted your government invading a sovereign nation in order to install a regime that would allow the US to artificially keep oil prices for the voters low.
Oh that wasn't the reason? That's right, it was to make sure Saddam couldn't reveal anything about the secret deals Bush Snr. made with him while he was in charge of the CIA fighting the Ayatollah.
My last comment to you because if you really do believe what you just typed, then it is no wonder you probably accepted your government invading a sovereign nation in order to install a regime that would allow the US to artificially keep oil prices for the voters low.
Oh that wasn't the reason? That's right, it was to make sure Saddam couldn't reveal anything about the secret deals Bush Snr. made with him while he was in charge of the CIA fighting the Ayatollah.
That's really stupid.
If we wanted lower prices for oil, it would have been easier and cheaper to make a deal with him. we're spending far more on the war (which I never agreed with ).
and if you think he would have blabed secret "deals", thats pretty stupid too. He could have blabed the first day we invaded.
You have a small mind, and don't understand logic.
Comments
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 true.
I remember very well when they first got 3G. It's been a few years, no more. There was tremendous customer resistance in those foreign markets for the first couple of years because of the high prices.
AT&T has had 3G for several years as well, but they lag behind the other major US carriers, who have had it at least as early as the European and Asian markets have. The other carriers have almost total coverage, which is where AT&T is behind.
Telcos are asking way too much than consumers can afford to part with.
That leaves Telcos scrounging for more money. That drives prices higher, and even more people leave them...
People won't adopt an expensive system, no matter how good it is.
I will only buy a 3G iPhone in Australia if it has a plan at $30 a month or lower... Just a data plan, and I will pay for any calls I make. (cos I don't call people, I msn)
The entire 3G issue is simple.
Telcos are asking way too much than consumers can afford to part with.
That leaves Telcos scrounging for more money. That drives prices higher, and even more people leave them...
People won't adopt an expensive system, no matter how good it is.
I will only buy a 3G iPhone in Australia if it has a plan at $30 a month or lower... Just a data plan, and I will pay for any calls I make. (cos I don't call people, I msn)
this is why, even though 3G coverage is good in most places, few people use it.
In Japan and Europe most people didn't use 3G because they were texting to save money. They weren't interested in the new services at all.
The telcos want to make their money back. Here, Verison is spending over $10 billion a year just adding their FIOS, and that doesn't include what they spend for other upgrades, estimated at about $5 billion a year.
The cell companies add thousands of towers a year, and have to pay "right of way" in many areas.
If these companies maintained a static network, then the fees could be lower.
And in countries where they aren't subsidized by the government, the fees are also higher. but then, you are paying the telcos all of the fees rather then paying the government for the service, though most people don't think of it as paying the government because they don't see that broken out in their taxes..
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.
If you think the US has this badly, check out Australia -- not much smaller in land area (80%), less than 10% of the population.
If Telstra really can do this (what happened to the earlier rumour that Optus was getting the iPhone contract?), you can bet coverage will be a small fraction of the country. Good for cities, not great for the outback. Those poor goannas: what are they going to do without fast iPhone data rates?
Try Telstra's coverage map with a postcode of 0872.
This is because Telstra is partially government owned, and it used to be fully Gov'ment.
There are strict laws/regulations requiring it to provide a certain level of phone access in the outback.
3G, on the other hand, doesn't have to be so good.
For population vs. 3G coverage its actually pretty good.
Lets forget the land mass for a second and say that its about people covered. Telstra wins hands down.
The problem in the US is the spread of customers is such that it is far more difficult to get that Person/coverage ratio right.
Telstra is required by law to be better, but it also cannot play competetively. This is because it OWNS everything, and so if it did, no private businesses could win - a lot, including my carrier, 3, use the Telstra network at LOW prices - either way, Telstra is great service, horrible pricing (3G wireless access on a laptop is A$180 for 3 GB - horrible)
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.
The Australian government has just announced a big investment program to bring broadband to all Australians. And Australia is huge. The US prefers to spend its money on arms and war instead.
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.
So... how many months of Iraq is one trillion worth? Imagine something actually positive happening with that money..
*sigh*
Of course I'm not suggesting that the Telco's are the ones footing the bill on that one.
On a more positive note, here in NZ the Government just announced a NZ$350 million plan to speed up the broadband access to institutions and businesses etc. The Opposition is trying hard to say they will spend NZ$1.5 billion, but how they will fund that is anyones guess. A pinch of fairy dust and some happy thoughts, methinks?
Our 3G network, Vodafone is going to offer a 'special rate' of only $60 per gig for the iPhone. Yes, thats right, per gig..
I almost fainted in the shop when I was told that the other day.
From the article:
AT&T this week said it would lift upload speeds of its existing "third generation" network to as much 800 kilobits per second, up from 120 kilobits. Last year AT&T boosted download speeds to as much as 1.4 megabits from a prior peak of 700 kilobits.
Sprint's WiMax network, however, is expected to offer download speeds of up to 4 megabits a second, similar to rates now achieved in homes on DSL and cable-Internet services.
Clearwire would seem to have a sizeable speed lead over the competition, and they roll out sooner also...
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 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.
First of all, let me say that your argument about population density has been regurgitated over and over for years now, and frankly it just doesn't hold any water.
I see this all the time, e.g., "The USA doesn't have good broadband because it costs too much to lay fiber optic cable because of the low population density".
Whether the issue is about wired broadband or cellphone technology, the flaw in that argument is that the population density of the top 25-50 markets (or even top 100) in the United States is very high, definitely high enough to warrant competitive broadband service. And yet besides the limited rollout of Verizon FIOS and some small municipal networks, most of us are limited to a DUOPOLY of DSL/Cable for internet with abhorrent speeds for either and ridiculous prices and terms of service. And that is if we are LUCKY. For a large percentage of people, DSL isn't available, and for many, even cable broadband isn't available and they have to rely on dialup or satellite.
I have spent a lot of time reading over hundreds of resources, and the more I read, the more angry I get. It's so upsetting to see what has gone on in the politics of telecommunications and broadband over the past 10-15 years, and knowing that most of America has no idea how bad they have been getting screwed. That's really the bottom line. We, the citizens, have been getting screwed since day one. The government never put into place a broadband strategy, never put adequate investment into our infrastructure, and made a litany of bad policy decisions, both through anti-consumer action and willful inaction. From the FCC unbundling the local loop of phonelines and cable lines which completely prevented competitors from offering cable and DSL service --- and thus insuring the monopoly of the local incumbents, to congress pandering to the telecomm lobby, to the complete failure of the executive branch to set any type of positive broadband goals or policy and to try and block any meaningful progress from taking place. As far as federal and state investment in broadband, I'm sure most of you would be upset to hear that billions of dollars of your tax money was given out in grants, subsidies, and tax breaks from both federal and state governments to telecommunications companies over the years to build out fiber-optic broadband infrastructure that was never completed, and in many cases never even begun. They got away with this fraud through different mergers and acquisitions, politicians and administrations changing, governing committee's changing, etc.
I apologize for the long post that is not entirely related to this thread's topic, but this is a serious and complex issue. I have put together a series of passages from different resources on this issue:
# "Where’s that broadband fiber-optic access" - Nieman Watchdog group
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....&askthisid=186
"The answer is, the merger of the phone companies that control the phone networks decreased competition. Instead of deploying the high-speed fiber-optic lines they promised, they were content to collect profits, tinker with existing copper connections instead of rewiring, and roll out inferior DSL services. The FCC defines anything above 200 Kbps as broadband (1000 Kbps = 1 Mbps), allowing them to claim that Americans have broadband access. However, this definition is a politically-driven embarrassment for technologists, the equivalent of two tin-cans with string.
Yet—and here is the most troubling part—the phone companies got paid anyway. Through tax breaks and increased service fees, Verizon and the old Bells reaped an estimated $200 billion since the early 1990s to improve subscriber lines in the United States. And what have American consumers received? The most common DSL Service over the old copper networks tops out at 768 Kbps in most areas—a hundred times slower than routine connections in other countries. (There are faster, more expensive versions of DSL, but most have a top speed of 1-3 mbps in one direction, and it varies based on how far a person lives from a network hub.) "....
"..... What ever happened to the networks? The dark secret was that the networks couldn't be built at the costs being quoted by the phone companies. The Bell companies submitted cost analyses to the public service commissions, such as the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, which were supposed to outline the actual costs of doing the upgrades. These “actual costs” models were intentionally kept low so the commission would approve. The original cost models showed costs of about a thousand dollars a customer; the actual cost in an installation in Dover, New Jersey, as reported by the New York Times, was $17,000 a line. The low figures ensured that the law would go through, by making upgrades seem more feasible. DSL was a bait-and-switch. The service was considered inferior as far back as 1992, because it travels over the old copper wiring. In fact, providers originally rolled it out only as a stop-gap, since the Internet craze that had been raging since 1995 led to immediate customer demands for fast products.
More importantly, various mergers meant the death of fiber-optic deployment in 26 states. Upon merging, companies either wrote off or closed down many assets, including fiber optics projects. In short, the Bell companies gamed the regulatory system: after the state deals went through and the mergers were completed, they simply closed everything, even though they had commitments under state laws. SBC had promised to be competing in 30 states by 2002, while Verizon claimed that it would be in 24 cities in 18 months. Neither of those commitments was fulfilled. It is now clear that in most states companies did minimal work, and the public was scammed as a result."
# "America's Internet Disconnect" - Michael J Copps - DEMOCRATIC FCC MEMBER
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110701230.html
"America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don't do something about it. ---- The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU measured a broader "digital opportunity" index (considering price and other factors) we were 21st -- right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for connections that are one-twentieth the speed. How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, U.S consumers face a "cable and telephone broadband duopoly." And that's more like a best-case scenario: Many households are hostage to a single broadband provider, and nearly one-tenth have no broadband provider at all.
We need a broadband strategy for America. Other industrialized countries have developed national broadband strategies. In the United States we have a campaign promise of universal broadband access by 2007, but no strategy for getting there. With less than two months to go, we aren't even within shouting distance. The solution to our broadband crisis must ultimately involve public-private initiatives like those that built the railroad, highway and telephone systems. Combined with an overhaul of our universal service system to make sure it is focusing on the needs of broadband, this represents our best chance at recapturing our leadership position. It seems plain enough that our present policies aren't working. Inattention and muddling through may be the path of least resistance, but they should not and must not represent our national policy on this critical issue."
# "Fixing US broadband: $100 billion for fiber to every home in the United States" - EDUCAUSE / ArsTechnica
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...very-home.html
"Competition is key. The OECD notes that the broadband situation is better in areas with multiple broadband options. "Price decreases and improved services have been the most marked in markets characterized by intense competition," says the report. "Competition may be the product of regulatory intervention, as in the case of local loop unbundling, or may be the result of new infrastructure-based competition.
In Europe, the regulatory environment allows consumers in many countries to choose from any number of DSL and cable providers. When Nobel Intent correspondent Chris Lee moved into his flat in the Netherlands, he had no less than three cable and three DSL providers competing for his business, including one company—KPN—that offered both. France is another country with abundant broadband competition—and it has the fifth-cheapest broadband in the world in terms of price per Mbps...
...In contrast, the Federal Communications Commission's policy of deregulation has left most consumers faced with duopolies (at best) and de facto monopolies (I live over 20,000 feet from the nearest DSLAM in Chicago, so DSL isn't an option for me). The situation is such that the nation as a whole is a broadband laggard, according to one FCC commissioner. As a result of the FCC's policies, competition based on price and speed is spotty at best, and fiber deployments are in their early stages."
"New OECD Report Shows Limitations of US Broadband Policy - OECD Communications Outlook 2007" - OECD/Arstechnica
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ic-policy.html
"The report calls for going beyond the "either-or" shouting matches between the "market fundamentalists" and the "digital populists" to embrace a set of pragmatic principles that should help the US improve its ranking. These include more favorable tax policies that encourage broadband investment; making more spectrum available for broadband, including the white spaces; extending the Universal Service Fund program to cover not just rural telephone service but rural broadband) supporting state-level broadband initiatives like Connect Kentucky; and keeping broadband usage free from all taxes. Several of these initiatives have been proven in countries like Sweden, which has pumped $800 million into subsidies for broadband deployment; for a country the size of the US, that would come to some $30 billion. Needless to say, no such major infrastructure investment has been forthcoming from the federal government. But Sweden has also targeted the demand side of the equation, subsidizing personal computers that businesses purchase for employees' home use. This kind of a program is also important in the US, where broadband availability runs ahead of actual broadband usage. "
If you think the US has this badly, check out Australia -- not much smaller in land area (80%), less than 10% of the population.
and other that the occasional small group of people here and there, how much of that area is actually inhabited? Very little.
Except for some areas, most of the area of the US has small towns. There are more people in those small towns spread out across the country that the entire population of Australia.
The Australian government has just announced a big investment program to bring broadband to all Australians. And Australia is huge. The US prefers to spend its money on arms and war instead.
That's an idiotic statement, and you know it.
If it weren't for those arms, you would either be part of Japan, with an all Japanese population, or China would be next door.
It's only because of us that you can do that.
Don't be so naive and hateful!
So... how many months of Iraq is one trillion worth? Imagine something actually positive happening with that money..
*sigh*
Of course I'm not suggesting that the Telco's are the ones footing the bill on that one.
On a more positive note, here in NZ the Government just announced a NZ$350 million plan to speed up the broadband access to institutions and businesses etc. The Opposition is trying hard to say they will spend NZ$1.5 billion, but how they will fund that is anyones guess. A pinch of fairy dust and some happy thoughts, methinks?
Our 3G network, Vodafone is going to offer a 'special rate' of only $60 per gig for the iPhone. Yes, thats right, per gig..
I almost fainted in the shop when I was told that the other day.
Another brilliant statement.
Boy, you people from those tiny suck-up countries have no sense of history, do you?
We don't have to agree with this administration, just as you don't have to agree with yours
I'd love to have you survive on your own. You're about the last bastion of European Imperial colonialism left around that part of the world. If you think they love you there. Think again!
I'm curious as to how long you would last on your own without us standing around with a big stick.
New article on Clearwire vs. at&t vs. Verizon...
From the article:
Clearwire would seem to have a sizeable speed lead over the competition, and they roll out sooner also...
I don't know what to make of that on, off, and on again relationship. I had high hopes, and barely came out of it even.
First of all, let me say that your argument about population density has been regurgitated over and over for years now, and frankly it just doesn't hold any water.
I see this all the time, e.g., "The USA doesn't have good broadband because it costs too much to lay fiber optic cable because of the low population density".
I've read those articles you've posted (along with many others), mostly a while ago.
I know what they say, and they are just as opinionated as anything else. there are a lot of arguments on both sides.
But, I'm sorry, you can't take the area of the country out of the equation. It's too important. no matter how angry some get about the situation, and I'm not happy either, even your own post shows that costs to implement this here are enormous.
Besides, its not the top 50 or 100 markets that are the problem. Those are covered. It's the top 300, or 500 or 750, etc.
So we cover those top 100 markets and then what? How much of the population is still not covered? Far too much.
I don't particularly care if the definition is 200 Kps. for most people thats fine. Very few use more than basic services, and won't for a decade. Even in Europe, most people still aren't on broadband, despite the coverage. and many of those rates are even higher, as we see from so many posts on these forums.
Would I like to see the government attempt to force the issue more? Sure. They finally did that with digital Tv, though that was a simpler situation.
But don't forget the political situation here either. For almost 11 years we have had a conservative Congress, and for the last 7.5 years of that, a conservative President.
Since the people elected them for at reason, it's to be expected that hands off rules. As you know, people here are more concerned with lower taxes than the benefits from heavier government "interference".
Just don't vote for McCain, and possibly we will get a more coherent policy.
42Mbit doesn't sound realistic to me. My home DSL is only 11Mbit. And how much CPU power would be needed for a connection like that? Would the iPhone GUI stutter and freeze while the network was active? Good if true though.
That's really a good question.
Even when on WiFi, it's been noted that the iPhone doesn't seem to be much faster that 1 Mbs. Or is it 1MBs? I don't remember, but either is far below what WiFi is doing. The speed of the processor is important here.
That's an idiotic statement, and you know it.
If it weren't for those arms, you would either be part of Japan, with an all Japanese population, or China would be next door.
It's only because of us that you can do that.
Don't be so naive and hateful!
My last comment to you because if you really do believe what you just typed, then it is no wonder you probably accepted your government invading a sovereign nation in order to install a regime that would allow the US to artificially keep oil prices for the voters low.
Oh that wasn't the reason? That's right, it was to make sure Saddam couldn't reveal anything about the secret deals Bush Snr. made with him while he was in charge of the CIA fighting the Ayatollah.
My last comment to you because if you really do believe what you just typed, then it is no wonder you probably accepted your government invading a sovereign nation in order to install a regime that would allow the US to artificially keep oil prices for the voters low.
Oh that wasn't the reason? That's right, it was to make sure Saddam couldn't reveal anything about the secret deals Bush Snr. made with him while he was in charge of the CIA fighting the Ayatollah.
That's really stupid.
If we wanted lower prices for oil, it would have been easier and cheaper to make a deal with him. we're spending far more on the war (which I never agreed with ).
and if you think he would have blabed secret "deals", thats pretty stupid too. He could have blabed the first day we invaded.
You have a small mind, and don't understand logic.
So far they are the only telco to not publically say they having the iphone.
I hope for one apple and steve tells telstra where the hell to get off and stay there.
And Telstra is very misleading.