World Standard around the corner

[npaladin2000]

None of this airport stuff has anything to do with how American and European governments differ on spectrum policies.

No but it's an example of corporate cultural mindset in different countries. American companies are sliding more and mre towards the eloquently-put "attitude that customers are theirs to abuse." And our lovely government is letting them get away with it by allowing roadblocks to competition and such. European governments, however are operating on the strange assumption that companies shouldn't be allowed to screw their customers and should compete fairly.

[samab]

No but it's an example of corporate cultural mindset in different countries. American companies are sliding more and mre towards the eloquently-put "attitude that customers are theirs to abuse." And our lovely government is letting them get away with it by allowing roadblocks to competition and such. European governments, however are operating on the strange assumption that companies shouldn't be allowed to screw their customers and should compete fairly.

No, you got it 100% wrong.

The US government's anti-trust view is what is best for consumers.

The EU's anti-trust view has been traditionally what's best for the home grown competitors, not what is best for ordinary European consumers.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...2/b3744039.htm

So, it all goes down to what is best for Nokia and Ericcson --- not what is best for European mobile users. It goes down to how to make Vodafone and T-Mobile the world's biggest mobile carriers --- not what is best for European mobile users. Those recent "strange" assumptions you just mentioned --- are corrections to their earlier flawed policies.

[npaladin2000]

No, you got it 100% wrong.

The US government's anti-trust view is what is best for consumers.

The EU's anti-trust view has been traditionally what's best for the home grown competitors, not what is best for ordinary European consumers.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...2/b3744039.htm

So, it all goes down to what is best for Nokia and Ericcson --- not what is best for European mobile users. It goes down to how to make Vodafone and T-Mobile the world's biggest mobile carriers --- not what is best for European mobile users. Those recent "strange" assumptions you just mentioned --- are corrections to their earlier flawed policies.

You see the date on that article right? That was 5 years ago. Fact is, the US government is no longer enforcing the anti-trust view of what is best for the consumer.

[samab]

You see the date on that article right? That was 5 years ago. Fact is, the US government is no longer enforcing the anti-trust view of what is best for the consumer.

Sure, the Bush administration is very friendly to big business.

But many European governments are still into producing national industrial winners --- at the cost of their own citizens. We may be worst off during the Bush administration, but we are still a lot better than our European counterparts.

Even with a Republican president, a Republican congress and a Republican senate --- AT&T and Verizon don't talk about VoIP blocking. You got Vodafone and T-Mobile talking about VoIP blocking in Europe.

[Junglizt1210]

Samab,
Many airports are now providing free WiFi for their customers. Unfortunately some airports seem to have the attitude that customers are theirs to abuse.

I know for sure WiFi at London Heathrow isn't free. It's a shame. It's not cheap either. Even the mini internet cafe that takes coins into the machine isn't cheap.

[polonius]

Don't blame the FCC. The airport owns a monopoly in what goes on inside their building. It means that you have to use their automatic bank teller that charges you $5 for a service charge. It means that cell phone carriers have to pay a king's ransom to install repeaters inside the airport.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._4/ai_94406944

It means that the airport can install their own pay phone and charge you an arm and a leg. Whatever the airport charges has nothing to do with this debate.

No, you look at the whole thing through ideological lens, not me.

The difference is that the demand-and-supply model ---- allows screw-ups in their model. If one carrier (i.e. NextWave) who went insane and spent themselves into bankruptcy --- that's part of the model. Or if another carrier overpaid and decided to leave the market --- that's also allow in the model. That is supply and demand.

However, if the Swedish government hand-picked 4 carriers through a beauty contest --- by looking at which carriers promise to spend more on infrastructure and hire more workers --- then if 2 carriers decided to leave the market (one carrier left before they ever started any deployment and vodafone decided to leave the market after their deployment) --- your beauty contest model doesn't allow this to happen.

That's the real difference. Failure is part of the supply-and-demand model. The insane European 3G auctions and its telecom bust --- can be explained as part of the model. My arguments CANNOT be ideological --- precisely because it's within the model. Failure is NOT part of the beauty contest model.

Do you really think that the European governments really care about municipal wifi? They are the same governments that allows mobile carriers to block VoIP-via-WiFi/Cellular.

Do you really think that the French government would ever allow Google to set up municipal wifi networks in their country? They hate everything Google. The french government is setting up their own version of search engine, their own version of book scanning, their own version of world map.

On the surface, sure European governments not stopping municipal wifi deployment. But if you look at the issue more deeply, they are even worst than the US government. QoS looks pretty good against the backdrop of draconian data blocking.

The french law on itunes --- a toothless tiger that was watered down beyond any usefulness.

The CDG payphone I used was NOT a monopoly -- I made the mistake of unknowingly choosing a phone operated by an American company. A few meters away I found a FT phone and made my call for €0,12/minute. I didn't get ripped off because I work in the industry and know the ins and outs, but 98% of the consumers don't work in the industry, and regulators should protect them from predatory companies.

I've already addressed the inaccuracies of your claims about the Swedish market. Vodafone did not "pull out," they sold out to Telenor, just as they sold out of Japan to Softbank, just as BellSouth sold out of New Zealand to Vodafone and Latin America to America Movil, just as Orascom sold out of Jordan to MTS, just as Vivendi sold out Poland to T-Mobile, just as AT&T sold out of the Czech Republic to Telefonica, just as Craig McCaw sold out of CellularOne to AT&T, just as Western Wireless sold out of Croatia, and TIW sold of Czech Republic to Vodafone and out of Italy to Wind. Companies buy and sell operating units for a variety of strategic reasons, and Vodafone's decision to pull of Sweden had nothing to do with Sweden's approach to licensing, so stop trying to twist facts to support your misguided ideas. Telenor is pleased with their acquisition and it continues to be a successful player in the Swedish market.

As for WiFi, I wasn't referring to some mild "QoS" standards -- I was referring to the partially successful efforts by US carriers to arm-twist legislators into making it completely illegal for cities to build such networks. European cities are actively building out these networks, and I'd challenge you to name one that is engaging in "draconian data blocking".

[polonius]

It's not a matter of whether VoIP-over-cellular will catch on. Nobody is going to develop new generations of ansi cores and map cores anymore, so the mobile carriers will have to migrate to VoIP-over-cellular sooner or later.

Have you seen Vonage stock price today? It closed at $7.87 today --- it has lost 54% of its value since its IPO. There is no viable business model for 3rd party VoIP services yet.

It is not really free, isn't it? Many airport doesn't allow individual airlines to deploy their own wifi system and requires individual airlines to use the airport's own wifi system (at a king's ransom).

And then your airline ticket has a $10 landing fee, $15 administration fee, another $10 for 9/11 security. Then you have to pay $20 for parking, $5 for automatic bank teller machine and god know how much to use their public payphone.

None of this airport stuff has anything to do with how American and European governments differ on spectrum policies.

Vonage's problem is that it doesn't own the infrastructure. To succeed (long term) at VoIP, you have to at least have a double play (like Comcast), if not ideally a quadruple play (like Orange and D.T.).

As for "none of this airport stuff" having any relevance to spectrum policy, it is yet another facet of the same issue, specifically how actively governments protect consumers. Bank machine surcharges are a case in point -- banks started introducing these at the end of the 1990s. Most European governments responded by forbidding them, and the banks in turn responded by whining about the result would mean harm to the consumer because unless they could charge, they wouldn't have any incentive to provide more machines. 8, 10 years later you can't turn around anywhere in Europe without bumping into a bank machine, despite the fact that not one of them is permitted to charge you extra (they still make money charging the home bank for the transaction). In the USA, I can't find a machine anywhere, in the airport or otherwise that doesn't charge at least 2$ for the transaction.

[samab]

The CDG payphone I used was NOT a monopoly -- I made the mistake of unknowingly choosing a phone operated by an American company. A few meters away I found a FT phone and made my call for €0,12/minute. I didn't get ripped off because I work in the industry and know the ins and outs, but 98% of the consumers don't work in the industry, and regulators should protect them from predatory companies.

I've already addressed the inaccuracies of your claims about the Swedish market. Vodafone did not "pull out," they sold out to Telenor... Companies buy and sell operating units for a variety of strategic reasons, and Vodafone's decision to pull of Sweden had nothing to do with Sweden's approach to licensing, so stop trying to twist facts to support your misguided ideas. Telenor is pleased with their acquisition and it continues to be a successful player in the Swedish market.

European cities are actively building out these networks, and I'd challenge you to name one that is engaging in "draconian data blocking".

It is precisely because you work for the industry --- that you should know that any operator assisted long distance phone call would cost a lot more and you shouldn't compare two distinct services directly. No way you are getting operator assisted long distance phone call for €0,12/minute.

All the carriers in a beauty contest promise to hire a lot of workers, spend a lot of money on infrastructure and stay in the country for a long time (presumably for the entire duration of the 3G license). Now if Vodafone decides to sell their Swedish operation within 2-3 years of a 15-20 year license --- that's a failure for the beauty contest model. It is a good thing that they need locally-hired Swedish-speaking CS staff, otherwise Vodafone might have switch their CS staff to India.

If a carrier decides to "flip" a spectrum license for a profit in the supply-and-demand model --- that's not a failure at all.

Of course, European cities don't data block. It's their national governments that permit the mobile carriers to block voip calls. It's their national governments (especially the French) that basically want Google out of their country.

[samab]

Vonage's problem is that it doesn't own the infrastructure. To succeed (long term) at VoIP, you have to at least have a double play (like Comcast), if not ideally a quadruple play (like Orange and D.T.).

Most European governments responded by forbidding them, and the banks in turn responded by whining about the result would mean harm to the consumer because unless they could charge, they wouldn't have any incentive to provide more machines. 8, 10 years later you can't turn around anywhere in Europe without bumping into a bank machine, despite the fact that not one of them is permitted to charge you extra (they still make money charging the home bank for the transaction). In the USA, I can't find a machine anywhere, in the airport or otherwise that doesn't charge at least 2$ for the transaction.

That was my point, isn't it. I was responding to the comment from Bugwart about how he thinks that carrier's own VoIP won't catch on.

European banks found other ways of charging bank fees. In many ways, European bank customers are worse off than us --- because the fees are hidden by the retailers. Of course, the retailers just add the hidden cost back to their regular price.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-...2&in_page_id=9

[polonius]

Sure, the Bush administration is very friendly to big business.

But many European governments are still into producing national industrial winners --- at the cost of their own citizens. We may be worst off during the Bush administration, but we are still a lot better than our European counterparts.

Even with a Republican president, a Republican congress and a Republican senate --- AT&T and Verizon don't talk about VoIP blocking. You got Vodafone and T-Mobile talking about VoIP blocking in Europe.

Typical of your slanted views. European governments produce "national industrial winners at the cost of their own citizens", yet Qualcomm running around the world, with the US Commerce Department at its beck and call, twisting the arms of regulators, legislators, kings and prime ministers to get them to create special breaks for CDMA and put up barriers to GSM (not to mention the truckloads of money they spent trying to bar GSM from entering the US market) is all part of fair competition that is somehow good for the consumer. Similarly, you believe a beauty contest awarded licence that is sold is somehow a sign of failure, but an auction-awarded licence trading hands is just more evidence that auctions work. ***

[samab]

Typical of your slanted views. European governments produce "national industrial winners at the cost of their own citizens", yet Qualcomm running around the world, with the US Commerce Department at its beck and call, twisting the arms of regulators, legislators, kings and prime ministers to get them to create special breaks for CDMA and put up barriers to GSM (not to mention the truckloads of money they spent trying to bar GSM from entering the US market) is all part of fair competition that is somehow good for the consumer. Similarly, you believe a beauty contest awarded licence that is sold is somehow a sign of failure, but an auction-awarded licence trading hands is just more evidence that auctions work. ***

I do think you have really crossed the line with your last comment.

The whole theory for supply-and-demand --- is that allocation of scarce resources is maximized in the long run. So if someone overpaid in the short term, then various market forces will adjust the price and the optimal allocation is restored in the long run.

The whole theory for beauty contest --- is that the government can look at a bunch of paper proposals and come up with the winners. The problem is that they are just paper proposals. Anyone can promise that they will hire so many local workers, spend so many infrastructure dollars and stay the entire duration of the 3G license.

Sure the US government promotes CDMA abroad --- but it didn't affect cellular plan pricing to the American consumers. We enjoy much better mobile voice pricing.

[polonius]

Sure the US government promotes CDMA abroad --- but it didn't affect cellular plan pricing to the American consumers. We enjoy much better mobile voice pricing.

It promotes it in the USA as well -- it was Qualcomm's lobbyists who prevented the 900MHz band from being opened up to mobile. That has hurt American consumers a lot, all to benefit one company.

Don't expect me to keep pointing out the flaws in the US pricing model, which can result in rates of over 100 dollars a minute.

[samab]

Don't expect me to keep pointing out the flaws in the US pricing model, which can result in rates of over 100 dollars a minute.

A lot of "can's" --- sure everything is possible. But look at the actual prices Americans are paying --- it's a very different matter.

[polonius]

A lot of "can's" --- sure everything is possible. But look at the actual prices Americans are paying --- it's a very different matter.

You obviously haven't heard a Cingular of T-Mobile USA exec cackle with glee when they explain about how their pricing plans enable them to fool consumers into overpaying for their airtime. "BUWAAAHAHAHA! BUWAAH! BUWAHAHAHAAHAAA!", if I recall correctly, was the exact quote.

[samab]

You obviously haven't heard a Cingular of T-Mobile USA exec cackle with glee when they explain about how their pricing plans enable them to fool consumers into overpaying for their airtime. "BUWAAAHAHAHA! BUWAAH! BUWAHAHAHAAHAAA!", if I recall correctly, was the exact quote.

Nothing compare to "we will pay x dollars in anti-trust fines, but we admit no guilt" in Europe and in Korea.