Hi justone,
For the most part, I think you've got it about right. I especially enjoyed your analysis of the 8-4-2 timeframe on setting standards. And the view to how the auctions will allow a taxpayer-friendly upgrade to DoD gear was something that I'd vaguely considered and am glad you could articulate. We seem to have fallen slightly behind the Brits and the Germans in terms of filling the Treasury with telecom bond money. This directive should remedy that situation, eventually. <g>
Re: Thus in any discussion of Europe's wireless success while worrying about America falling behind, it is important to note that this is not due to any other reason than the business case hasn't been made for the services in America.
Absolutely correct, IMO. While Europe faced huge per minute land-line charges due to the coddling of the PTTs until very recently, we've been blessed with an extraordinary bargain in this country due to the rate structure for local phone service, almost unique in the world, in that it isn't metered by the minute.
As regards your view that the diverse standards in use in the US has driven innovation, I'm not quite certain that I find this to be the sort of innovation that I care for. To me, it is more of a tower-of-babel solution than anything else. Plenty of work for engineers, no doubt, sorting out translations of content from one standard to another. I'm far more inclined to the sort of innovation in the development of content and consumer services that I see occuring in Finland with the SMS or in Japan with i-Mode. The multiple standards game as played in the US seems to be more of a navel-gazing exercise among engineers that doesn't adequetely address the ultimate goal of providing innovative and inexpensive services to the customer.
Now, to shift gears to the current situation in Europe, I see the UMTS crowd in Europe taking a step back with the lastest round of auctions. What the vendors like Vodophone, DT, Orange, FT and others are going to be forced into is offering expensive premium services to an elite customer in order to justify the huge costs of licensing and infrastructure. I don't see the business case, at all. Currently, the WAP services that are on offer are cumbersome, slow and expensive. If this predicts what we can expect from 3G systems, we're in big trouble. A recent article in one trade publication brought out the "WAP is crap" argument convincingly. The writer, while experimenting with a WAP phone found that he was able to send an email and due to network sluggishness, was charged $4 for the effort. I'll guarantee you that there aren't enough customers on the face of the planet to sustain a service provider who is that far off the mark on efficiency and cost. I see a real Catch-22 coming for the 3G service providers, who need to cannibalize existing customers and get them to use a vastly more expensive service in order to pay for the service. Ain't gonna happen. We've all become far too spoiled by the Moore's Law model.
Just another opinion. :)
Best, Ray |
