US lags once more

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2004-12-21 06:16am

US once more lags behind other countries. This time with wireless.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/12/20/ ... index.html

Its sad we are almost as bad as Jamaica.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-21 06:20am

Disturbing. We simply cannot allow a brain tumor gap!

Post by **Edi** » 2004-12-21 06:43am

And it's fucking sad that the US networks are rejecting the model that has allowed the market to prosper in Europe just because some Wall Street twit doesn't understand how the market works. The refusal to use prepaid subscriptions is unbelievable. If you had cheap, $20 to $30 prepaid subscriptions that allow for between 15 and 20 hours (or whatever it comes down to when averaged to an hourly rate comparable to other types of subscription) before it runs out or needs resetting, there would be more people willing to use the damn things.

Prepaid subscriptions also have the advantage that if you buy your phone (instead of using the subsidized leasing model where cost of the phone is marginal and tacked onto the phone bills), users are not restricted to just a limited area to get coverage. You could buy a prepaid subscription elsewhere during e.g. holidays and use that in areas your regular network doesn't cover, and you just swap the SIM cards. Of course, it results in a hassle with the phone numbers, but it's better than having no phone at all.

The model where phones are not subsidized means that the users on average have lower phone bills, but they will conversely use their phones more. Finland has used this model, and we have iirc the cheapest call prices in the entire Europe, and our mobile phone networks have seen a booming business that has driven the prices even more downward (won't go any lower, that would wipe out profits).

The article also makes condescending noises toward the European 3rd Generation mobile phone license fiasco, while conveniently failing to mention that it was a fiasco precisely because the AMERICAN model of selling frequency ranges to the highest bidder was used. That's right, the US has such a fucked up wireless network structure because it has been fragmented into such many networks that are not nearly as interoperable with each other as they should, and which suffer from a lack of investment because the greater portion of available money was sunk into the licenses and they have had a hard time recouping the costs. A big portion of Europe tried that same model on the recommendation of those self-same analysts, and consequently the development of cell phone technologies was set back at least five years. The market roll-out phase was set back by a lot more than that. Finland fortunately just doled the licenses out for free to the most qualified bidders, so we got apred the worst catastrophe, but one of the biggest operators here managed to squander billions in the Central European market, which had ripple effects here.

Then there is the fact that as of five years ago, the US mobile phone networks used inferior technology simply because it was American. GSM networks were far superior to their CDMA equivalents, but Motorola's stranglehold meant that it was what was going to be used. Afaik the situation is changing due to tech advances and other factors, but not quickly enough that there would be a pronounced shift in a short period of time.

Edi

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-21 06:59am

the problem with the US is one of geography and population density. The country is just too goddamn huge and it becomes incredibly expensive to implement a nationwide infastructure to support such an upgrade to the cellular phone system. Japan is so adavanced, because of it's small size and tremendous population density. That makes it easier and cheaper to create such a system.

also, what kind of assclown needs three wireless phones anyway?

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2004-12-21 07:00am

GSM's great stuff. I was suprised to hear that it isn't dominant in the US. SIM cards are just such a versatile method of registering phones it isn't funny. They also make for a more condusive business model too, just using New Zealand as an example, the leading GSM provider sold 60,000 pre-pay connection packs from august through to october while the leading CDMA supplier by comparrison signed up 20,000 new connections to their pre-pay network. Also, because it's easier to change phones with GSM more handsets are getting sold.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-12-21 07:22am

Col. Crackpot wrote:the problem with the US is one of geography and population density. The country is just too goddamn huge and it becomes incredibly expensive to implement a nationwide infastructure to support such an upgrade to the cellular phone system. Japan is so adavanced, because of it's small size and tremendous population density. That makes it easier and cheaper to create such a system.

also, what kind of assclown needs three wireless phones anyway?

Rubbish. Australia's got almost continent-wide coverage with GSM networks, and you have to go pretty damned far into the outback before you're out of range. Implementing a nationwide infra in the US would not be difficult at all if it were done as a joint venture by the biggest operators. You don't need to cover all the most remote places, but if the networks can't provide state wide coverage in fucking FLORIDA, they are just incompetent.

What you need is regional coverage hubs around the big cities and along the main arteries from there to the biggest rural areas. Leaving the smallest places without coverage is not a problem as long as the majority of the population is covered. Bandwidth leasing would also help, over here the biggest networks use each other's infra all the time and charge a small premium for it, which means that aside from the north of Lapland, both networks have full coverage everywhere.

Obviously it's going to be more expensive in the US to create the system, but it os far from impossible or even difficult, it just takes more time so the costs can be spread out over a longer period of time, and calls will probably never be as cheap as in e.g. Japan or here because of the greater infra costs, but the longer the US carriers delay those investements, the more America will lag behind, and the more marginal any technologies developed there will become unless they are based on the most common technologies (mosty of which have been developed outside the US).

Your wireless market is dysfunctional, and it will take a lot to get it to shape. As for what kind of assclown needs three phones, I don't know about Japan, but just five years ago it was a common occurrence that you needed up to five different cell phones just to be able to travel anywhere in the US and be covered. I know, because my Electronics teacher had to go to various parts of the US on school business (he was the coordinator for a lot of international stuff at EVTEK), and he always ranted about needing a minimum of three or four phones. He was NOT a happy bunny.

Edi

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-21 08:48am

*shrugs

my 2 year old digital Samsung on Verizon Wireless is supposed to work coast to coast. Although i do roam outside of New England. The only time it has ever not had service was when i was in the middle of the White Mountain National Forest. You can't build cell towers in National Forests because of environmental laws apparantly.

Quite frankly i'm getting tired of having to buy 2 new $200 mobile phones every 18 months to keep up with the European jonses.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-12-21 08:55am

My fiancee went on a cruise last month, and we were told our cell phones wouldn't work while she was on the water, or when she was in Toronto. However, they once the ship was near land, they worked fine.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-12-21 09:02am

I suppose the infra over there is now light years better than it was just a few years ago, so I'll take your word for it, Crackpot and Poe. Obviously national parks are going to be no-coverage zones on account of the masts ruining the scenery. Off the coast the coverage is limited by distance, so a few miles out is not going to affect it much, but farther than that and the field disappears.

Verizon is also one of the bigest operators, so I would expect their coverage to be better than some small local operator in Podunk, Nowhere (just like it's useless here to try to use the smaller providers' services in north Lapland for example, Sonera is the only one with coverage there).

Edi

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-12-21 09:11am

Col. Crackpot wrote: Quite frankly i'm getting tired of having to buy 2 new $200 mobile phones every 18 months to keep up with the European jonses.

don´t you have cell phone contracts which provide you with a free cell phone?
here you sign the contract over 12 or 24 months and you simply get a cell phone with it. even with the really cheap contracts.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-12-21 09:13am

I'm still frantically trying to figure out why I should even want a cell phone. Suuure, I'm going to pay money for the privelige of letting people pester the fuck out of me wherever I am at will. Uh...screw that. If I want to call somebody, there's phones all over the place.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-12-21 09:14am

Edi wrote:I suppose the infra over there is now light years better than it was just a few years ago, so I'll take your word for it, Crackpot and Poe. Obviously national parks are going to be no-coverage zones on account of the masts ruining the scenery.

You won't have to worry about that for too much longer:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5475347.html

Cell phone towers in camouflage

Off the shores of Southern California, for example, oil rigs are masked by colorful facades that resemble small amusement parks. So it is no surprise that unsightly landmarks of high technology are similarly disguised--in this case, cellular phone towers are made to look like trees, buildings or even works of art.

Some, of course, are more convincing than others.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-12-21 09:14am

Damn you, lack of edit button! *shakefist*

That said, I'm even less inclined to get one given the way my mother always bitches about horrid reception, and given how much it costs.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-21 09:17am

salm wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote: Quite frankly i'm getting tired of having to buy 2 new $200 mobile phones every 18 months to keep up with the European jonses.
don´t you have cell phone contracts which provide you with a free cell phone?
here you sign the contract over 12 or 24 months and you simply get a cell phone with it. even with the really cheap contracts.

we do, but the free phones are NEVER the newest technology. The last time the wife and i bought phones was about 2 years ago. We signed a two year contract. Even with the contract the phones cost about $100 each. and i pay a total of $95 for the two phones. I do use them more than my home phone because we have an almost neverending supply of airtime and free long distance service over most of the continent.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-12-21 09:33am

In Brisbane there are heaps of those wierd 'camotowers'. Once you notice them, the camoflage just looks ridiculous.

Do you Americans really have such a wierd model? Here most people go for contracts, pay their $50 (or whatever) and get a phone for nothing. I buy mine (cause I like expensive ones and I can get them wholesale) but I'm an exception. It sounds like you guys don't have SIM card based phone identities; how does it work?

I always heard that US had a backwards wireless industry cause the gov't wants it that way for unlikely and shady reasons.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-12-21 09:34am

Col. Crackpot wrote: we do, but the free phones are NEVER the newest technology. The last time the wife and i bought phones was about 2 years ago. We signed a two year contract. Even with the contract the phones cost about $100 each. and i pay a total of $95 for the two phones. I do use them more than my home phone because we have an almost neverending supply of airtime and free long distance service over most of the continent.

oh, yeah, if you want the newest technology you have to pay here normally as well. that´s true. but then, the average cell phoner doesn´t need the newest technology.
you just get a phone which can, well telephone, a couple of games and an integrated camera with lousy resolution. what else would you need?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-12-21 09:36am

[double post bad mojo]
In AU you can get whatever phone you want on contract, it just jacks your monthly fee up... which doesn't really matter, since you get that value or more of free calls anyway.
[/double post bad mojo]

Post by **Edi** » 2004-12-21 09:37am

salm wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote: Quite frankly i'm getting tired of having to buy 2 new $200 mobile phones every 18 months to keep up with the European jonses.
don´t you have cell phone contracts which provide you with a free cell phone?
here you sign the contract over 12 or 24 months and you simply get a cell phone with it. even with the really cheap contracts.

First off, one doesn't need a new cell phone every 18 months. My last one served me for over three years before it got bad enough to need replacement. Second, the German model Salm is talking about sucks. The phone is "free" in the sense that you don't pay for it immediately. The cost of the phone is transferred to the bills in the form of higher call rates (yes, even for the "cheap" contracts). We've got iirc the cheapest call rates in Europe because we don't use that ass-backwards-up-the-tree system.

Edi

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-12-21 10:07am

White Haven wrote:I'm still frantically trying to figure out why I should even want a cell phone. Suuure, I'm going to pay money for the privelige of letting people pester the fuck out of me wherever I am at will. Uh...screw that. If I want to call somebody, there's phones all over the place.

Its damn handy when you need to talk to one of your co-workers somewere on a massive school campus. Especially when you are moving around the campus a fair bit.

But otherwise I keep my mobile off when I'm not at work or out somewere.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-12-21 10:09am

Stark wrote:I always heard that US had a backwards wireless industry cause the gov't wants it that way for unlikely and shady reasons.

Probably for the same reason we have really shitty broadband in Ausstralia.

With Adsl2+ being expected to be rolled out within the 1st Quarter of 2005, that hopefully might change.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-12-21 11:32am

White Haven wrote:Damn you, lack of edit button! *shakefist*

That said, I'm even less inclined to get one given the way my mother always bitches about horrid reception, and given how much it costs.

Prepay is your friend, if all you need is a cellphone to make occasional calls with. One purchases just the number of minutes they need (though they usually require you purchase some airtime every couple of months to prove you're still alive.) Unused minutes sit in your account until you use them, and don't go away at the end of each month (unlike subscriptions, which offer say 1000 minutes, and all the unused minutes go bye-bye, even if you only used, say 10 minutes.) Prepaid cellphones also require no credit checks.

The caveats to prepay plans in these United States tend to be the following:

A) You buy the phone outright, compared to subscriptions where you "rent" the phone from the company and pay the cost of it through your subscription.

B) You don't get the latest and greatest phones on pre-pay. But, frankly, the features found on bleeding-edge phones tend to be comfortably in excess of what a casual user needs. It's a phone for Bob's sake! If I wanted to take pictures, I'd get a digital camera.

Carriers offering pre-pay plans in the United States include:

-Verizon Wireless. (Verizon offers the best network coverage. Verizon owns you. Their phones aren't the cheapest, but beyond that, I haven't yet run out of good things to say about Verizon.)

-Virgin Mobile (They pander their pre-pay phones to the MTV crowd. For that crime alone, they must die.)

-The AT&T/Cingular Collective. (AT&T has been known for having absolutely shitty coverage. This may have improved somewhat when they and Cingular merged.)

-TracFone. (These guys were first. They have the cheapest phones, and the most straightforward airtime rules. Beyond that, there isn't much to recommend them.)

All of this is merely proof that the United States is moving in approximately the right direction.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-12-21 11:56am

Edi wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:the problem with the US is one of geography and population density. The country is just too goddamn huge and it becomes incredibly expensive to implement a nationwide infastructure to support such an upgrade to the cellular phone system. Japan is so adavanced, because of it's small size and tremendous population density. That makes it easier and cheaper to create such a system.

also, what kind of assclown needs three wireless phones anyway?
Rubbish. Australia's got almost continent-wide coverage with GSM networks, and you have to go pretty damned far into the outback before you're out of range. Implementing a nationwide infra in the US would not be difficult at all if it were done as a joint venture by the biggest operators. You don't need to cover all the most remote places, but if the networks can't provide state wide coverage in fucking FLORIDA, they are just incompetent.Edi

The thing is this exact network is already in place...I know because I use it. Hell I've been using it for close on the last three years now.

For all the furor about "AT&T is crap" I've gotten consistent coverage along every major highway artery I've traveled (which includes about all of the US east of the Mississippi as well as the LA/San Diego area). Moreover with Cingular and AT&T now one gigantic behemoth my coverage area is now looking pretty damn good all over the place in addittion to the fact that minor local players, guys who do mostly pre-paid, are actually scattered across the country and they have contracts with AT&T/Cingular which make their network abotu the same as one's home network if you can't get coverage from the parent company.

Coverage Map

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-12-21 03:30pm

One thing to add that lead to the success of mobile phones in most of Europe, and Germany, is the wide-spread usage of short message service (SMS), which proved to be the killer application for mobile phones. There are litterally billions sent every year of these.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-12-21 04:44pm

Stark wrote:Do you Americans really have such a wierd model? Here most people go for contracts, pay their $50 (or whatever) and get a phone for nothing. I buy mine (cause I like expensive ones and I can get them wholesale) but I'm an exception. It sounds like you guys don't have SIM card based phone identities; how does it work?

Well, I went with T-Mobile (I have never had good experiences with Verizon, whether for regular telco, broadband service, or wireless). T-Mobile uses GSM, and since they're international that means that I can use my phone most anywhere. As for SIM cards, they're specific to the model of phone you get. I don't think a SIM card from a Nokia will fit a Motorola, but I could be wrong...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-21 05:03pm

Well, if we're going to lag behind in something, might as well be "annoying people who yell into their cellphones in public."