Europe is a diverse continent of 30+ countries --- some are based on British common law, some are based on French civil law, some are former communist countries with minimal sense of rule of law, some are protectionist, some are socialist-leaning.
It is not a practical "implementation" problem by the regulators --- if all of them failed. It is a systemic problem where they based their policies on flawed assumptions based on flawed theories.
And, in exactly what way were those theories flawed? Is it your claim that the 3G technology itself, independent of other regulations related to it, was flawed?
If so, please explain the exact flaw(s) in 3G technology itself, not the conditions of its deployment, that were problematic.
If that's not your claim, then you are misrepresenting the significance of this issue in relation to the current discussion. And, you are misrepresenting the significance of technology neutral spectrum auctions in Europe today as an example of regulators having "properly learned their lesson."
And, in exactly what way were those theories flawed? Is it your claim that the 3G technology itself, independent of other regulations related to it, was flawed?
If so, please explain the exact flaw(s) in 3G technology itself, not the conditions of its deployment, that were problematic.
If that's not your claim, then you are misrepresenting the significance of this issue in relation to the current discussion. And, you are misrepresenting the significance of technology neutral spectrum auctions in Europe today as an example of regulators having "properly learned their lesson."
The flaw in WCDMA was that they tried to leave as many Qualcomm patents as possible --- which later turned out to be quite useful.
You are the one misrepresenting the flaws in the US system --- which apparently everybody else in the rest of the world is thinking of copying right now.
US started the whole spectrum auction thing. A few European countries (Ireland, Sweden...) said auction is flawed and 3G beauty contest is better. Those beauty contest turned out to be disasters --- so Ireland and Sweden all had to eat crow and use spectrum auctions.
Suddenly we have the whole European continent doing technology neutral spectrum auctions.
Then for the last 2 years, European Commission, Ofcom (UK regulator), ComCom (New Zealand regulatior) --- they are all studying "bill and keep" American style mobile termination rate with charging incoming calls as the long term solution to their problem. They all said the American system is a good system --- they just don't have to the political will to implement them.
Every single thing that the American systems were "thought" to be flawed --- turned out to be correct.
And exactly how did this specifically lead to the precise problems that European carriers have experienced related to 3G?
There were a lot of handoff problems with the 2G-3G networks.
This is the rabbit vs. the turtle race. You want to win in the long run. You people likes the big headlines but never follow-up on long term results. The good old days were that European carriers were building 3G networks and US are years behind. The good old days were that Europeans use SMS and Americans are years behind.
So what are the long term results so far --- US (300 million population) beating Europe's 5 largest countries (300 million population) in 3G penetration, average American talking 6x more voice minutes than average OECD country and 4x more SMS than average OECD country.
Nobody follows up on the Japan iphone story as well --- the iphone fell out of the top 10 (down to number 13) merely a week after the last story about the iphone being number 1.
There were a lot of handoff problems with the 2G-3G networks.
Samab, you are slipperier than a politician on a Sunday morning news show.
Well, that's OK, I expected you to dodge the question because, as you well know, the problems of European carriers related to 3G networks are not really problems related to the technology itself, despite your insinuations to the contrary.
This idea that a single technology standard for wireless communications is bad is like saying that making all TV broadcasters in the U.S. broadcast HD signals is somehow bad. It's working out just fine. And forcing wireless carriers to use a single technology, rather than allowing them to fragment the market and use technology to lock in customers will work just fine too.
Samab, you are slipperier than a politician on a Sunday morning news show.
Well, that's OK, I expected you to dodge the question because, as you well know, the problems of European carriers related to 3G networks are not really problems related to the technology itself, despite your insinuations to the contrary.
This idea that a single technology standard for wireless communications is bad is like saying that making all TV broadcasters in the U.S. broadcast HD signals is somehow bad. It's working out just fine. And forcing wireless carriers to use a single technology, rather than allowing them to fragment the market and use technology to lock in customers will work just fine too.
How would you know that it's not related to the technology itself? It's not like the calls got drop with handoff problems because there weren't enough 3G towers --- their governments mandated 3G coverage.
You don't change your tv every 18 months. The Japanese government pushing their tv manufacturers to analog HDTV was the biggest mistake ever made --- suddenly Korea's Samsung became the world's largest tv manufacturer.
There are plenty of competition in the US cell phone service market.
The largest Japanese carrier, DoCoMo, owns over 50% of the Japanese market.
The largest Korean carrier, SK Telecom, owns over 50% of the Korean market.
The largest French carrier, France Telecom, owns 45% of the French market.
The largest German carrier, T-Mobile, owns 40% of the German market.
The largest US carrier, Verizon Wireless, owns 31% of the US market.
The only industrial country where there is even less market concentration is UK where their largest carrier, O2, owns 27% of the UK market. But there are constant news report of T-Mobile UK getting out of the UK market --- which will mean that whoever buys them out will become the top UK carrier with about 40% of the UK market.
I would like to add I think your statistics are wrong in relation to the Japanese market. After taking the iPhone exclusively and buying out Vodaphone, Softbank is now the largest, with Docomo's slide slowing and turning back to growth in recent months. Just an FYI :-)
They do compete - obviously. You pointed it out in your post how they compete. You chose a service that gives you a non-smart phone because you didn't like the price of the smart phone - that's the regular phone competing with the smart phone (and possibly another carrier).
Apple not only wanted to make $ off the iPhone they needed to make $ off the iPhone so they went to Verizon and they said no go so they went to AT&T who said sure. Apple has now used those massive profits to continue to make the iPhone better and since Apple got the guaranteed money from AT&T they pushed forward with the iPhone and now, because of the success of the iPhone other companies are making iPhone competitors (which are also carrier exclusive because, just like Apple, they need money as well).
You can't have 1 without the other.
Your post explains the problem.
The carriers compete by utilizing the features of devices they allow on their network.
Instead carriers should compete based upon the price, service and reliability of their network.
The phone company doesn't tell us which phone we can use on the phone lines, we are free to buy a phone from Walmart, Radio Shack or Bang and Olsen. We are able to take that phone when we move and plug it in to the local phone company and it works just fine.
People should be able to take any phone to any carrier. Because there are different type networks, phones should be cross network capable with major networks.
Sure the phone has to be authorized to work on a network, and certain devices the carriers have a right to refuse if abuses the network, but the carriers shouldn't decide who they are going to favor or who gives them the most kickbacks. This is illegal competition.
We are paying the carriers the equal of a MacBook Pro every two years because of this illegal competition.
Apple makes one cross platform phone and can sell more of them because nearly everyone can do what they want.
Despite what the carriers are saying they need to charge the same for data as voice, people use data a hell of a less time than voice.
I would like to add I think your statistics are wrong in relation to the Japanese market. After taking the iPhone exclusively and buying out Vodaphone, Softbank is now the largest, with Docomo's slide slowing and turning back to growth in recent months. Just an FYI :-)
Go away, poster with 1st post who actually know absolutely nothing.
DoCoMo owns more than 50% of the Japanese market --- 55 million out of 108.9 million subscribers in the Japanese market.
The carriers compete by utilizing the features of devices they allow on their network.
Instead carriers should compete based upon the price, service and reliability of their network.
Where have you been for the last 10 years?
"It's the network (stupid)" --- says the motto for Verizon Wireless. Our service costs a lot but if you want a superior service, you have to pay a premium.
It is the choice of AT&T to spend the massive amount of money to subsidize the iphone, instead of spending that money on network improvements to keep up with Verizon.
That's some rather twisted illogic there. Let's examine it more closely. The claim is that competition stifles innovation, and that the inverse, stifling competition promotes innovation.
OK, AT&T, in it's incarnation as Ma Bell (which, in fairness to the current AT&T, is not the same company as that which carries the name today, although, today's AT&T is descended from the anticompetitive part of the old AT&T), did a pretty damn good job of stifling competition in all areas related to it's business. Did a thousand flowers of innovation bloom as a result? They most certainly did not.
I don't think further counter-arguments are even necessary.
Then, there's this provocative claim: "If AT&T hadn't promised to give Apple all the money they were after we might, to this day, be iPhone-less." Oh no! Impossible to prove or disprove, but certainly pretty scary, isn't it? Very nice rhetorical effect, very nice indeed, well done!
Oh, but, in reality it's nothing but meaningless words. Meant to scare, certainly -- just like the comments on the Pre -- but without substance. What if Steve Jobs had to go for his liver transplant just as the deal with AT&T was being inked? No iPhone, that's what! What if John Kerry had been elected president? No iPhone, that's what! What if a butterfly had flapped it's wings in the wrong place? No iPhone, that's what!
Clearly, if we want Apple to keep producing great products, we're going to have to rid the world of butterflies. Very dangerous things those butterflies!
The facts of my argument remain the same even if you don't like them (which apparently you don't). The fact of the matter is that is has increased competition and innovation and you have no data to support otherwise. Please, really, I want to see this alternate universe where Apple created a CDMA and GSM phone and just released it into the wild without any subsidy whatsoever (the 2G was a comparative flop compared to the 3G and 3GS). Oh, you don't? Isn't that convenient...
Comments
There are no misrepresentation at all.
Europe is a diverse continent of 30+ countries --- some are based on British common law, some are based on French civil law, some are former communist countries with minimal sense of rule of law, some are protectionist, some are socialist-leaning.
It is not a practical "implementation" problem by the regulators --- if all of them failed. It is a systemic problem where they based their policies on flawed assumptions based on flawed theories.
And, in exactly what way were those theories flawed? Is it your claim that the 3G technology itself, independent of other regulations related to it, was flawed?
If so, please explain the exact flaw(s) in 3G technology itself, not the conditions of its deployment, that were problematic.
If that's not your claim, then you are misrepresenting the significance of this issue in relation to the current discussion. And, you are misrepresenting the significance of technology neutral spectrum auctions in Europe today as an example of regulators having "properly learned their lesson."
And, in exactly what way were those theories flawed? Is it your claim that the 3G technology itself, independent of other regulations related to it, was flawed?
If so, please explain the exact flaw(s) in 3G technology itself, not the conditions of its deployment, that were problematic.
If that's not your claim, then you are misrepresenting the significance of this issue in relation to the current discussion. And, you are misrepresenting the significance of technology neutral spectrum auctions in Europe today as an example of regulators having "properly learned their lesson."
The flaw in WCDMA was that they tried to leave as many Qualcomm patents as possible --- which later turned out to be quite useful.
You are the one misrepresenting the flaws in the US system --- which apparently everybody else in the rest of the world is thinking of copying right now.
US started the whole spectrum auction thing. A few European countries (Ireland, Sweden...) said auction is flawed and 3G beauty contest is better. Those beauty contest turned out to be disasters --- so Ireland and Sweden all had to eat crow and use spectrum auctions.
Suddenly we have the whole European continent doing technology neutral spectrum auctions.
Then for the last 2 years, European Commission, Ofcom (UK regulator), ComCom (New Zealand regulatior) --- they are all studying "bill and keep" American style mobile termination rate with charging incoming calls as the long term solution to their problem. They all said the American system is a good system --- they just don't have to the political will to implement them.
Every single thing that the American systems were "thought" to be flawed --- turned out to be correct.
The flaw in WCDMA was that they tried to leave as many Qualcomm patents as possible --- which later turned out to be quite useful.
And exactly how did this specifically lead to the precise problems that European carriers have experienced related to 3G?
And exactly how did this specifically lead to the precise problems that European carriers have experienced related to 3G?
There were a lot of handoff problems with the 2G-3G networks.
This is the rabbit vs. the turtle race. You want to win in the long run. You people likes the big headlines but never follow-up on long term results. The good old days were that European carriers were building 3G networks and US are years behind. The good old days were that Europeans use SMS and Americans are years behind.
So what are the long term results so far --- US (300 million population) beating Europe's 5 largest countries (300 million population) in 3G penetration, average American talking 6x more voice minutes than average OECD country and 4x more SMS than average OECD country.
Nobody follows up on the Japan iphone story as well --- the iphone fell out of the top 10 (down to number 13) merely a week after the last story about the iphone being number 1.
http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcategory_0010.html
There were a lot of handoff problems with the 2G-3G networks.
Samab, you are slipperier than a politician on a Sunday morning news show.
Well, that's OK, I expected you to dodge the question because, as you well know, the problems of European carriers related to 3G networks are not really problems related to the technology itself, despite your insinuations to the contrary.
This idea that a single technology standard for wireless communications is bad is like saying that making all TV broadcasters in the U.S. broadcast HD signals is somehow bad. It's working out just fine. And forcing wireless carriers to use a single technology, rather than allowing them to fragment the market and use technology to lock in customers will work just fine too.
Samab, you are slipperier than a politician on a Sunday morning news show.
Well, that's OK, I expected you to dodge the question because, as you well know, the problems of European carriers related to 3G networks are not really problems related to the technology itself, despite your insinuations to the contrary.
This idea that a single technology standard for wireless communications is bad is like saying that making all TV broadcasters in the U.S. broadcast HD signals is somehow bad. It's working out just fine. And forcing wireless carriers to use a single technology, rather than allowing them to fragment the market and use technology to lock in customers will work just fine too.
How would you know that it's not related to the technology itself? It's not like the calls got drop with handoff problems because there weren't enough 3G towers --- their governments mandated 3G coverage.
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entrie...10/GSM3G.shtml
You don't change your tv every 18 months. The Japanese government pushing their tv manufacturers to analog HDTV was the biggest mistake ever made --- suddenly Korea's Samsung became the world's largest tv manufacturer.
There are plenty of competition in the US cell phone service market.
The largest Japanese carrier, DoCoMo, owns over 50% of the Japanese market.
The largest Korean carrier, SK Telecom, owns over 50% of the Korean market.
The largest French carrier, France Telecom, owns 45% of the French market.
The largest German carrier, T-Mobile, owns 40% of the German market.
The largest US carrier, Verizon Wireless, owns 31% of the US market.
The only industrial country where there is even less market concentration is UK where their largest carrier, O2, owns 27% of the UK market. But there are constant news report of T-Mobile UK getting out of the UK market --- which will mean that whoever buys them out will become the top UK carrier with about 40% of the UK market.
I would like to add I think your statistics are wrong in relation to the Japanese market. After taking the iPhone exclusively and buying out Vodaphone, Softbank is now the largest, with Docomo's slide slowing and turning back to growth in recent months. Just an FYI :-)
They do compete - obviously. You pointed it out in your post how they compete. You chose a service that gives you a non-smart phone because you didn't like the price of the smart phone - that's the regular phone competing with the smart phone (and possibly another carrier).
Apple not only wanted to make $ off the iPhone they needed to make $ off the iPhone so they went to Verizon and they said no go so they went to AT&T who said sure. Apple has now used those massive profits to continue to make the iPhone better and since Apple got the guaranteed money from AT&T they pushed forward with the iPhone and now, because of the success of the iPhone other companies are making iPhone competitors (which are also carrier exclusive because, just like Apple, they need money as well).
You can't have 1 without the other.
Your post explains the problem.
The carriers compete by utilizing the features of devices they allow on their network.
Instead carriers should compete based upon the price, service and reliability of their network.
The phone company doesn't tell us which phone we can use on the phone lines, we are free to buy a phone from Walmart, Radio Shack or Bang and Olsen. We are able to take that phone when we move and plug it in to the local phone company and it works just fine.
People should be able to take any phone to any carrier. Because there are different type networks, phones should be cross network capable with major networks.
Sure the phone has to be authorized to work on a network, and certain devices the carriers have a right to refuse if abuses the network, but the carriers shouldn't decide who they are going to favor or who gives them the most kickbacks. This is illegal competition.
We are paying the carriers the equal of a MacBook Pro every two years because of this illegal competition.
Apple makes one cross platform phone and can sell more of them because nearly everyone can do what they want.
Despite what the carriers are saying they need to charge the same for data as voice, people use data a hell of a less time than voice.
I would like to add I think your statistics are wrong in relation to the Japanese market. After taking the iPhone exclusively and buying out Vodaphone, Softbank is now the largest, with Docomo's slide slowing and turning back to growth in recent months. Just an FYI :-)
Go away, poster with 1st post who actually know absolutely nothing.
DoCoMo owns more than 50% of the Japanese market --- 55 million out of 108.9 million subscribers in the Japanese market.
http://www.tca.or.jp/english/databas.../07/index.html
You think that iphone in Japan is hot???
ONE week after all the bloggers talking about iphone being number 1 in Japan --- the iphone fell to number 13 in sales.
http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcategory_0010.html
The carriers compete by utilizing the features of devices they allow on their network.
Instead carriers should compete based upon the price, service and reliability of their network.
Where have you been for the last 10 years?
"It's the network (stupid)" --- says the motto for Verizon Wireless. Our service costs a lot but if you want a superior service, you have to pay a premium.
It is the choice of AT&T to spend the massive amount of money to subsidize the iphone, instead of spending that money on network improvements to keep up with Verizon.
That's some rather twisted illogic there. Let's examine it more closely. The claim is that competition stifles innovation, and that the inverse, stifling competition promotes innovation.
OK, AT&T, in it's incarnation as Ma Bell (which, in fairness to the current AT&T, is not the same company as that which carries the name today, although, today's AT&T is descended from the anticompetitive part of the old AT&T), did a pretty damn good job of stifling competition in all areas related to it's business. Did a thousand flowers of innovation bloom as a result? They most certainly did not.
I don't think further counter-arguments are even necessary.
Then, there's this provocative claim: "If AT&T hadn't promised to give Apple all the money they were after we might, to this day, be iPhone-less." Oh no! Impossible to prove or disprove, but certainly pretty scary, isn't it? Very nice rhetorical effect, very nice indeed, well done!
Oh, but, in reality it's nothing but meaningless words. Meant to scare, certainly -- just like the comments on the Pre -- but without substance. What if Steve Jobs had to go for his liver transplant just as the deal with AT&T was being inked? No iPhone, that's what! What if John Kerry had been elected president? No iPhone, that's what! What if a butterfly had flapped it's wings in the wrong place? No iPhone, that's what!
Clearly, if we want Apple to keep producing great products, we're going to have to rid the world of butterflies. Very dangerous things those butterflies!
The facts of my argument remain the same even if you don't like them (which apparently you don't). The fact of the matter is that is has increased competition and innovation and you have no data to support otherwise. Please, really, I want to see this alternate universe where Apple created a CDMA and GSM phone and just released it into the wild without any subsidy whatsoever (the 2G was a comparative flop compared to the 3G and 3GS). Oh, you don't? Isn't that convenient...