Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking The Internet United States Hardware

Europe Vs. North America in WiFi growth. 214

Posted by timothy from the head-to-kopf dept.
r.future writes " InfoSync World and netstumbler.com have posted an interesting story that speculates about the financial growth of WiFi networks In Europe anD North America from 2003-2008. The story states: 'Insight Research's analysis of the WiFi industry, WiFi in North America and Europe: Telecommunications' Future 2003-2008, suggests that wireless LAN technology - increasingly popping up in public spaces such as airports and cafes, in private residences, and in businesses - will grow faster in Europe than North America. Worldwide WiFi revenues are expected to grow from $7 billion USD in 2003 to over $44 billion USD by 2008, at a compounded annual rate of 44 percent.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Europe Vs. North America in WiFi growth. More

Europe Vs. North America in WiFi growth.

Comments Filter:

  • Perhaps an odd perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by __aavhli5779 ( 690619 ) * on Monday November 03, 2003 @07:13AM (#7376535) Journal
    Being a dedicated New Urbanist [cnu.org], I often see comparisons between the United States and Europe in an urban-development light. What comes to mind regarding the faster expansion of WiFi in Europe is the added emphasis that Europeans seem to place on public space.

    There is a greater tendency to gather in concentrated areas (witness the Cafe culture prevalent through the continent) and an overall higher density that is much more conducive to the increased usage of WiFi hotspots.

    I wouldn't be surprised if, just based on the tighter physical plant of your average European city, a resident or visitor is much more likely to be within range of an 802.11b/g hub, different attitudes towards technological adoption notwithstanding.
    • If they are in tighter (aka smaller) areas, would this not restrict WiFi growth since there are so few bands that often interferrance is present? Typically you can only have about three 802.11b/g bands in use before you start to have trouble connecting to any of them.
      • I never really thought about that, but that's an interesting point.

        What was more on my mind was the idea that a critical mass of people by a hub is necessary for successful WiFi, and that the physical/social layout of European cities especially is more conducive to the formation of such a mass.

        Once again, my utopian vision has been nixed by technology. Drat.
      • I just moved from the UK to the US. So the first night I arrive, I'm sitting in my corporate apartment on the 49th floor of some building in NY. I open up my laptop and start digging around under the desk for the phone connection, ready to feel the full power of 56k dialup :) Just then I hear a noise from the machine, look up, and it's found no fewer than 11 wireless networks, of which a massive *1* has any kind of security on it. So much for dialup - I've spent the last few weeks "borrowing" 2mbit cable l
    • Another factor:
      In general, European cities are older / more historical etc. It is not as ease to get planning permission to dig up roads for fiber optics.
      This makes wireless feasible.

      But, the US generally has taller buildings, so why are you not using this advantage?

      Also, satellite broadband is becomming increaingly popular with very high bandwidth:

      Germany and the Netherlands have excellent satellite services in place. France and the UK are not far behind.

      Related story:
      http://www.computerweekly.com/Arti
      • Satellite has very nice bandwidth, but it has horrible lag. This effects more than just gamers, it also hurts people using internet phones, terminal sessions, or anything else where interactivity is important. Besides, did you read the article on that satellite service? It's the pits. 1.6Mb/s down (great!), but a 500Mb/month limit and 64k up (ugh!). Forget grabbing the latest Debian ISO, that would barely get you through a month of Nimda attacks. It's not cheap either.
      • Well, the US *is* doing wireless stuff, but the critical population density that drives wireless adoption is present in very few places here. Averaging it over the entire population for your statistics will make it look as if the US is doing very little for wireless compared to Europe. But both statements are true, depending on how you look at the numbers. We both ARE and AREN'T pushing wireless.

        Some other factors: we probably aren't counting private internal corporate office wireless networks in the figur

  • wifi@SFO (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 )
    In September, while travelling between Bern(CH) and Frisco.
    I had the sweet surprise to see some Wifi logo in SFO.
    I then open my iBook and check for a network, which I find.
    I try to browse and find a web page which asks me to pay 25$.
    Bullshit!
    How do they believe they will sell such access, especially to people who need at most one hour accesses ???
    If you want such networks to develop, you will have to give the access for FREE (as in Beer).
    • Dude, have you ever been to Starbucks?

      Same deal, same ripoff.

      (And, yes, wifi 'wants' to be free)
    • If you want such networks to develop, you will have to give the access for FREE (as in Beer).

      Because everybody knows that developing such networks costs them nothing.
      Ok so $25 is a bit on the high side, but I don't see why they couldn't charge a small fee dor the service they provide.

      • Re:wifi@SFO (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mirko ( 198274 )
        If they just put a proxy in the middle that would add a top ad frame to the web pages I'd be browsing, I'd consider it more decent.
        Remember the wireless telephone boom only started when they began giving away phones with subscriptions.
        Here, it's the same deal : let people depend on these accesses and insert a decently sized ad in the pages they'll be browsing (this could BTW be an ad for one of the airport shops)...

        • Re:wifi@SFO (Score:4, Interesting)

          by 10Ghz ( 453478 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @09:06AM (#7376863)
          Remember the wireless telephone boom only started when they began giving away phones with subscriptions.


          Here (Finland) they NEVER gave away phones with subscriprions (in fact, tying the device with the service is illegal. You buy the service and the phone separately), and the usage of mobile-phones spread like wildfire.
      1. Spend thousands of dollars/pounds/swiss-francs installing WiFi hotspots and allow completely free access to them.
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

      How could this fail? Surely companies will be queuing up to invest money with no hope of every recouping it! It could herald a who new era of a financial planning ... mirkonomics.

    • Frisco :-( (Score:2, Funny)

      by IANAAC ( 692242 )
      It's because you called SF 'Frisco'. We automatically overcharge people that refer to our town as 'Frisco' *shudder*.

    • In September, while travelling between Bern(CH) and Frisco. I had the sweet surprise to see some Wifi logo in SFO. I then open my iBook and check for a network, which I find. I try to browse and find a web page which asks me to pay 25$. Bullshit! How do they believe they will sell such access, especially to people who need at most one hour accesses ???

      The Denver airport (passed through it each way between LAS and PHF recently) has big banners hanging in its gate areas touting wireless access. No mentio

  • Europe (Score:1, Troll)

    by bbtom ( 581232 )
    If it's growing so fast over here in Europe, why can I still not find a free wi-fi point outside of my University library?
    • Because availability does *not* mean *free*?
    • Because outside University is the real world. If someone goes to the trouble and expense of providing a service for you, they usually expect something in return.

      • Because outside University is the real world. If someone goes to the trouble and expense of providing a service for you, they usually expect something in return.

        Granted, University life doesn't always equate to "real life" but in the case of paying for services, University students pay for them. If you don't believe me, I have a $15,000+ (USD) tuition bill for this semester and a huge pile of student loans I can show you.

        University students DO pay for their access even though the charges for it might n

        • I agree totally with you, I actually deleted mentioning that student fees and in some cases the taxpayer subsidize University WiFi access from my post. I just got the impression the original poster was under the delusion that for some reason a company should provide services to him/her without expecting anything in return. Thats not SOP in the real world, or as you point out in the fantasy University land the original poster resides in.

    • Re:Europe (Score:5, Informative)

      by logic7 ( 462356 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @07:39AM (#7376604) Journal
      depends on what "free" means for you. i've been driving through my city (cologne, germany) last week with my notebook and i discovered lots and lots of private wlans. more than 30 access points in just a few minutes. most of them (about 85%) were totally unprotected and gave direct access to the internet and even to their windows shares...
      ok it might not be legal to use those, but you can get wireless internet access virtually everywhere in town. :-)
      • Or, just come home with your brand new laptop and find that your neighbour has a totally insecure WLAN, conveniently sited in his living room right under yours..:)

        Of course, his connection sucks - I checked his router (also VERY open), and it would seem that he has another visitor on his WLAN as well, using all the bandwidth (the rat!). So I've kept my wirefull ADSL.
      • Yes, heard the areas near the University (Barbarosaplatz?) had an open Wi Fi, particularly near the train station.

        [Rumoured, so take it with a pinch of salt. ;-) ]

  • At home, perhaps... (Score:5, Informative)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... .com minus punct> on Monday November 03, 2003 @07:27AM (#7376576) Journal
    Certainly in Belgium, the main ISP (ironically called "Skynet") is pushing wireless ADSL routers. It makes sense: home internet users are already so down on security that it's hard to imagine wireless making any difference.

    But for public access? Way too expensive, for one, and secondly there are really few people who trot around with their laptops, with the exception of air travellers, where wifi is a definite niche product with a future.

    There have been projects to create free acess wifi networks around European cities but these need a level of collaboration which Europeans don't seem able to give.

    Finally, Europe is _so_ wired. Why go wireless? For instance, in Brussels, there must be several hundred cybershops which offer internet at 1 Euro per hour.

  • Should we be suprised by this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @07:33AM (#7376591)
    Is there any reason to be suprised by this?

    The USA has been behind in the uptake of a lot of technologies recently - mobile, WiFi and broadband to make just three.

    Why is this? Many Americans that it is because of the USAs more disperse population, but personally I find that a very poor excuse considering, for instance, the places with the strongest usage of these technologies (Norway, Finland) are actually harsh environments with disperse populations.

    Personally I think the route cause may be fairly simple. It has become common in the USA to believe that a completely free market always comes up with the most efficient solution, and that which is best for the people. Perhaps this just isn't true in these situations.

    So for instance, the competing standards for the mobile phone networks in the USA, where as in Europe they agreed on a standard beforehand. Perhaps government regulation of this sort in Europe is actually a good, positive thing?

    It has also become worryingly popular in the USA of late to dismiss outright views that don't fit the neo-Con agenda, so I expect I am going to be mocked by some for even proposing that government regulation might be senisble in some situations, and that the European system might be better in this regard. It is interesting to note that the World Economics Forum recently identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective, despite it being a fully paid up member of the EU and the Euro currency.

    • Re:Should we be suprised by this? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It is interesting to note that the World Economics Forum recently identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective

      Dont worry, Finland can soon expect to be 'liberated' from their cruel and oppressive competitive overlords.
    • It has become common in the USA to believe that a completely free market always comes up with the most efficient solution, and that which is best for the people. Perhaps this just isn't true in these situations.

      No kidding. There isn't going to be a wifi network that spans the country because of a single company. You really just need the government for large-scale, for-the-public-good type of projects. Corps don't care about the public good, just the short term buck, so they lack a certain grandness of
    • Communism/socialism would be wrong even if it worked, because it entails a loss of individual freedom.

      In this case, the proper calculus is not limited to, "Which system or combination of systems produces the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people?" There are lots of other considerations as well, including, "Is it fair to confiscate someone's income to benefit someone else?" and "Is it right to command decisions that can be left to individual choice?"

      This last one IMO outweighs all other consid

      • Regulation != socialism (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poszi ( 698272 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @08:26AM (#7376715)
        I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.

        Yes, it would be better if everybody drove on the side of the road he wishes and the voltage in the plug was different in each town.

        It's not about state ownership. It's about regulation.

        • ...the flaw in this analogy?

          Driving on your own side of the road = clear and present danger to life.

          Using different wireless technologies on different bands = no such danger.

          Come on, you (the moderators) can do better than this.
        • Comparing apples to oranges. Mandating that one drives on one side of the road has nothing to do with the topic of mandating the use of one type of technology. If people could drive however they wanted, the roadways (and sidewalks!) would be a wholesale slaughter. How many people die because they use different types of cell phone tech? (ok, despite the cheapo exploding hand grenade type phones popping up which is more of a quality control issue).

          Voltage one is good though, however is it a government ma
          • Voltage one is good though, however is it a government mandated voltage? Or just industry standard
            I don't know, but until 15 years ago countries in the EU (then EC) still had slightly different voltages (e.g. Germany 220V, UK 240V), in the last 15 years the EU was gradually moving to a common standarf of 230V. And I would be quite suprised if this wouldn't have happened in compliance with some EU law ;). But I didn't find a link conforming this assumption.
        • Yes, it would be better if everybody drove on the side of the road he wishes and the voltage in the plug was different in each town.

          Nice try, but agreeing on the side of the road we drive on is a safety issue. Wireless phone protocols are not. As for the voltage thing, please show me the government regulation that sets the voltage. Can't find it? That's because the market decided upon a standard, but only after the early providers fought it out with incompatible systems. Don't you know the whole Tesla's

      • Finally, stop picking on "neo-Cons"

        I have no problem with the neo-Cons. What I do have a real big problem with is the aggressive way they to try to completely distort, dismiss or destroy any person/organisation that doesn't agree with them. That is extremely unhealthy from my point of view.

        Do you know, for instance, that Ashcroft is currently trying to use ancient and irrelevant laws to destroy Greenpeace in the USA [alternet.org]? Now, that kind of thing I really object to, and I will continue to "pick on" the neo-Con
      • I point to economic growth during the US's recessions rivaling Europe's times of normal productivity as evidence that the free market, despite all invective against it from the left in media and the academy, works incredibly well

        Maybe you should tell that to Ohio [guardian.co.uk], or is that just more left wing media invective?
      • Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.

        Interesting view - of course individuals would have the opportunity to use any technology they wished even though they may be unsupported by a network carrier. I can use a CDMA phone in the UK if I want, provided I want to use it as a paperweight. I don't not have the choice because of evil government interference but because
        • Standards are useful - think of everyone using their own version of HTML. Would the internet have grown so quickly if no-one could read anyone else's webpages?

          I don't remember the US Federal government mandating the use of HTML, do you? In fact, the evolution of HTML through competition by Microsoft and Netscape is a perfect example of how the free market works.

          Competition drives innovation.

      • Re:It's not just a matter of progress (Score:5, Informative)

        by cheeseflan ( 462270 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @09:46AM (#7377031) Homepage

        I feel I should reply to this as there are a few inaccuracies here:

        GSM wasn't "mandated". In summary most of Western Europe agreed that there should be a single, interoperable standard to replace the early analogue phone networks (i.e. "2G" replacing "1G"). The hardware and software vendors built their own common reference and then it was put out into a single standard. This is no different to everyone agreeing to Internet Protocol rather than a soup of protocols and interconnects. Remember that wasn't a free market choice either. Every vendor licences from the GSM group so it isn't "open" in the more modern sense but if you are a telco the licences are freely available for low fees.

        Remember in Europe there is a much greater sense that we, the voters, own the commons (such as radio spectrum or fishing rights) so that corporations have to be good citizens or we'll withdraw their franchise (i.e. the citizens will regulate them out of existence). We are often much more bemused by the adherence to free market principles that don't make sense - such as the Californian Electricity Regulation (it is not de-regulation, just a different regime) that is based almost exactly on the UK's original privatisation model. Note that the UK changed the model rapidly once we realised the problems inherent in the risks and rewards of such a setup - but California ignored the issues until recently. Your politicians really don't act in your interests!

        You are right, CDMA is better - but that's simply due to the relative ages of the designs. So much more is known now that CDMA looks poor compared to the much-later 3G designs - and I'm sure that future schemes will produce even better connectivity.

        Which needless restrictions are you mentioning? Such as the interoperability requirements, transparent interconnection and billing? Number portability (you've finally caught up with that only 20 years later...:-)

        There are several, competing reasons why the US falls behind at technologies it should be leading the world in... (especially when you consider the discrepancies in R&D spends).

        The US regulatory regime hinders mobile uptake. Mobiles aren't easily identifiable as such - most GSM-using countries push their phones onto a separate area code for ease-of-identification (e.g. UK has 01... for all landline area codes and 07... for all cellular). "Caller-Pays" isn't evenly implemented in the US - so not only do you not know if you are calling a mobile, you aren't sure if you'll pay to receive calls too! This principle makes phone service in many countries much more transparent - and hence more likely to be used. I know if I call a landline I'll pay 3-7 cents and a mobile will cost 20-50 U.S. cents per minute, but to receive I'll pay nothing - ever. As a mobile user that makes me much more likely to leave the phone on compared to my American friends. In every GSM country all providers must interoperate with each other. This is true for voice in the US, but not for all the extras such as SMS texting. Please note that this is responsible for up to 50% of the profits of GSM providers! Also, one number finds me anywhere in the world. No other system offers that.

        The proliferation of wireless technologies has stopped you buying one phone and using it with any provider - increasing your costs.

        It has also stopped you from having an open market in more modern phones - only "approved" phones are available from your telco - so they maximise profits by providing you with older-generation phones with crappy features for high prices - hence the US/rest-of-world split when it comes to deciding that Bluetooth is dead. We see the benefits with our newer generation handsets, but you struggle to get a limited range. Try Nokia.co.uk and see the number of phones you can buy!

        Vendor lock-in has really reduced your choice and increased your prices. It's only a free market for the Telco - certainly not you.

        Finally, you are comparing apples to oranges.

        • Re:It's not just a matter of progress (Score:4, Interesting)

          by squarooticus ( 5092 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @10:50AM (#7377366) Homepage
          Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

          "Caller-Pays" isn't evenly implemented in the US - so not only do you not know if you are calling a mobile, you aren't sure if you'll pay to receive calls too!


          I don't want "caller pays." I want people to be able to call me without them stopping to think whether the call is going to cost them a fortune or not. If it's a choice, that's fine, but in Europe (AFAIK) there is not even a choice for receiver-pays.

          Besides which, if receiving calls costing a lot is really a problem, make the first 30 seconds free, so the receiver has the right to hang up if he doesn't want to pay for the call. Me, I don't care: I have 300 minutes/month during the day, and 3000 minutes/month nights and weekends, neither of which I even come close to using up.

          One-size-fits-all SUCKS.
          • I want people to be able to call me without them stopping to think whether the call is going to cost them a fortune or not. If it's a choice, that's fine, but in Europe (AFAIK) there is not even a choice for receiver-pays.

            Sigh, I more and more get the impression that you're either a troll or some sort of a free market fanatic of the take no prisoner sort.

            Anyway, here's the plan to follow if you want to pay for incoming phone calls in Europe, doesn't matter if from a cell phone or a land line (with the ex

        • The US regulatory regime hinders mobile uptake. Mobiles aren't easily identifiable as such - most GSM-using countries push their phones onto a separate area code for ease-of-identification (e.g. UK has 01... for all landline area codes and 07... for all cellular). "Caller-Pays" isn't evenly implemented in the US - so not only do you not know if you are calling a mobile, you aren't sure if you'll pay to receive calls too! This principle makes phone service in many countries much more transparent - and hence
      • This last one IMO outweighs all other considerations in this particular case: e.g., I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.

        Well, even though CDMA is apparently so much better (I hear this line a lot, but frankly I care about usability and n

      • >> I point to economic growth during the US's recessions rivaling Europe's times of normal productivity as evidence that the free market, despite all invective against it from the left in media and the academy, works incredibly well.

        Please explain to me how any economy, even the US economy, can grow during a recession? The definition of a recession is an economic contraction (usually for 2 successive quarters). Anyway let's examine the truth of this statement by looking at the last US recession, in 2

      • Communism/socialism would be wrong even if it worked, because it entails a loss of individual freedom.

        Why are you dragging in Communism?
        The above poster mentioned Finaland and Norway, they are social-democratic countries with a market economy but also with some governmental regulations. Finland is a EU and Euro member, Norway is a EEC member. Both have massive amounts of their incomes from trade with other countries.

        When you lump socialism together with communism you are degrading the difference betwe

    • "identified Finland as being the most competitive country in the world from a business perspective, despite it being a fully paid up member of the EU and the Euro currency"

      Why "despite" it being a member of the EU and Euro? One of the reasons for the EU and the Euro is to create a single European trade block, and as everyone knows, the larger the block and the less barriers to free trade exist, the more competition there is within the block.
    • "I expect I am going to be mocked by some for even proposing ... that the European system might be better in this regard"

      Not by me - here's [philippelegrain.com] is an interesting article that compares the economies of the EU and the USA, and dispells the myths that the American economic model is better:

      According to the International Monetary Fund, an institution more often accused of imposing Washington's ways than of knocking them, Europe's has. Over the past three years, living standards, as measured by GDP per person, hav

      • Over the past three years, living standards, as measured by GDP per person, have risen by 5.8 percent in the European Union but by only 1 percent in the United States.

        And if your per capita GDP goes from $1 per year up to $2 a year, you'll have a 100% increase in your standard of living, making those Europeans look like a gang of lazy bums - of course, the elephant in the living room in such a case is that your absolute standard of living is still abysmal by comparison. And then the follow-up question is

      • I'll bet that they didn't factoring in the recent 7.2% increase.
  • I'm heading to UK on Wednesday and worry about net access. I was hoping to leech off of some open (read: hence public) wifi hotspots here and there.

    Dial up access sucks in UK since one has to pay per-minute phone rates, even local calls. Worse, it looks like my poor ole trusty ISP that I've had an account on since 1982* (no lie) that I kept around for worldwide access (compuserve classic) is dropping local numbers. In England they now only have a national number (and it ain't toll free of course).

    Any hi

    • yeah a penny a minute with a 5p connection fee sucks... 60p (just over a dollar) an hour extortionate!

    • You have to sign up to an ISP package to get free calls.

      I remember hearing that there's a pub in St Albans which offers WiFi access. Ok just found the info:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28381.ht ml

      Anyway, if you can swallow your pride then use AOL, they have a long trial period in their latest pack, free calls included.
    • you should go to consume.net and check by postcode to see all free as in beer wireless broadband points in the area. It is the uk national free wireless network set up by volunteers... just contact the people who are operating the nearest node to where you are staying and check that they have open access or get the keys/info from them.
    • I'm in a similar situation, in that I'm visiting Japan for a week in a short while. I'm going to be staying somewhere with a phone line, but no Internet connection. Does anyone know of a free ISP in Japan I can dial into? I'm taking my PowerBook with me, which has a built-in modem.
    • If you are in central london, there are *many* free points. Just walk down Oxford street, and you will find tons of open networks. There is a really good one outside Selfridges.

      Edgware Road is the same. Ditto goes for the Kings Cross area.

      The biggest problem you will encounter is how to use your laptop without getting soaked.
    • We do have unmetered dialup, usually costing around 12 a month - but this is tied to a particular landline. If you manage to get your hands on an AOL CD (harder than you think when you actually want on) you can sign up for unlimited access via an 0800 number (1-800) which'll allow you to dialup from any line. Better still they usually give you a free months trial so that's a free month for each credit card you own.

  • $44 billion in 2008??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wifi is nice, but it gross overestimation that people are willing to spend that much just to surf the net while they are walking in driving.

    The "problem" is that most people who need net daily already have connection at home and at work. Thus they would use Wifi only if it's cheap.

  • Makes sense... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Population spread in Europe is much denser than in the US, it's not inconceivable that WiFi successors to 802.11a and g could quite happily link on a city to city basis. I mean, in Europe, distances are tens of miles rather than hundreds of miles.

    Ergo, Europe is likely to have more WiFi access than the US - basically because the scale of WiFi fits the geographical scale more closely...

  • reasons for the faster grow in europe... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jlemmerer ( 242376 ) <xcom123.yahoo@com> on Monday November 03, 2003 @08:33AM (#7376739) Homepage
    there are a few good reasons for the faster growth rate in europe. first of all europe's countrys are smaller, and so a single provider can cover a whole country's hotspots without going bancrupt because of hardware costs. here in austria the largest cellular carrier is planing to launch WLAN. as far as i know they are using the antennas they use for gsm transmission also as wlan hotspots. this makes sense especially in cities where the antenna density is quite high. in my opinion customers will prefer that they receive access from a single provider instead of having to make a subscription in every major city. since coverage of all american city's by a single provider is almost not feasible the people will be more sceptical about the WLAN.
    so, to sum it up: Europe's average small country size is the main reason for the faster spreading of WiFi technology

  • Wifi profits (Score:2, Insightful)

    by philbowman ( 707419 )
    As with many useful things (Free software included) there's the split between increase in use of a technology because it's useful (e.g. I have a Wireless Router in my house so I can use my laptop in the garden, etc) and businesses trying to expand technology to make money out of it.

    I see WiFi hardware being sold to places that want easy access available for their own purposes - homes, workplaces as well as cafes etc, but whether commercial/subscription access will be as big is less convincing.

  • I'd have hoped the /. crowd would know better (Score:3, Informative)

    by ThinWhiteDuke ( 464916 ) on Monday November 03, 2003 @09:47AM (#7377038)
    C'mon! There's this "research" paper claiming some figures for WiFi spending in 2008 in Europe and the US. And everybody and his brother goes with his insightful explanation, as if it was a fact.

    Last time I checked, 2008 was in the future. And AFAIK, nobody knows the future. It's not like we never experienced that. The Internet bubble is not so old that we forgot its lessons. Do you remember the 2004 projections for internet advertising or 3G mobile data consumption back in 2000?

    No, the US are not lagging behind because of the neo-cons, population density or consumer culture or whatever. The US ARE not lagging behind, period. The ONLY fact we can comment is that some (unknown) guy pretends that they WILL in 5 years.
    • In April of 2001, some authority or other stated that "Bluetooth To Work In Nearly 1Bil Devices By 2005."

      At the time, there were approximately 0Bil Bluetooth devices in existance. Frankly, that number was pulled straight out of someone's ass and is just another reason I consider such forcasts to be irresponsibly bogus.

      --Richard
    • You are right no one knows the future but we all attempt to predict it via certain methods (magic 8 ball, tea leaves, simulations, past experience). It's like saying heavier than air flying machines by 1910.

      What most ppl are bringing up are points to consider, usually referred to as a discussion.

      Note that the paper references previous trends and then uses these trends to model future behaviour. Just in case you are wondering yes the US is lagging behind, cell phone use has been taken up in other count
  • Well, as long as the still US has the majority of high-tech jobs then I won't mind too much (India is more of a threat than Europe is). Wi-fi networks will be available here where they are useful, and they certainly shouldn't be subsidized just so that we can say that our Wi-Fi networks are growing faster than Europe.
  • Considering that Europe is light years ahead of the US in wireless phone ownership. When a 'study' reports that Europe will lead the US in WiFi deployment, all I can say is

    No Duh!
  • what is the point of massive public wirelesss if none of the companies allow interconnect. Europe has always been ahead of the US in corp sharing, their governments demand it. Here our's forbids it :) Heck I still cant sms people half the people becuase they are on a different service, that only support their own system. The upside is we do not adopt early so sometimes we get a better transport method when the LAME ass companies suddenly discover that there is money to be made in a market they have been den

  • These projections look like those of an economist, not someone in the biz. I'm sincerely hoping that in 4 years WIFI will be near dead and we'll be up to one of the other standards being developed with 10 mile ranges and faster speed. Longer ranges would better fit the footprint of the existing cell towers and allow us to reuse infrastructure. And the faster speed would keep me from needing to plug into the wall during meetings because the speed of the office WIFI network sucks.

    Perhaps though, I'm speak

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close