Apple
Recent Stories on 9to5 Mac
- PCAudioLabs 160GB FireWire External Hard Drive for $70 + free shipping
- PCAudioLabs 160GB FireWire External Hard Drive for $70 + free shipping
- Hoggy for iPhone / iPod touch downloads for free
- Apple iMac Core i3 3.06GHz 22″ w/ 8GB RAM, AppleCare for $1,397 + $17 s&h
- Ye Olde AppleTVs aren’t getting updated capabilities (by Apple)
For goodness sake, get off the 02 slagging.
O2 wasn’t making an “excuse” as you claimed in a previous article. They were explaining that they were taken by surprise by the actual volume of demand on their data networks due to the iPhone.
Just like Orange, they are working on expanding the network, and O2 has done a great job with the iPhone, all on plans that are way more affordable than what AT&T offers to American iPhone users.
“iPhones flying out of Orange doors…” I lol’d.
Last I checked, the US is 15x bigger than France.
In what way is the US 15x bigger than France? And why does it matter?
Population wise, US is 5x France. Thats the way AT&T likes to say it. AT&T coverages lots of people in the US, but very little area with 3G. Area wise, I wouldn’t be surprised if Orange coverage more area with 3G than AT&T does in the US. To come up with 15x you probably included Alaska which has practically no 3G coverage area wise.
Costs for the wireless industry are mostly in the industry accounting category called “BSUF”, meaning Base Station Utilization Factor.
As you say, the US has 5x the population in 15x the area. That means the US, compared to France, need 3x the base station infrastruture to provide the same level of wireless service. And given the multiple carrier technologies in the USA, the BSUF for American carriers is actually about 5x that of France.
How do you mean the multiple carrier technologies would cause such effect?
Also, in order to make a just comparison, one would need to deduct 90% of Alaska and huge rural areas in Nebraska, Montana and similar places where very few people live. There’s no equalent of that in France and no one would expect the US-companies to offer mobile broadband in arctic areas, deserts, Rocky mountains etc.
If you would compare say California with a (size and population) comparable area in western Europe, you’d see that regardless of what operator we’re speaking about, the US have a very poor service. Compared to a high tech country like Sweden, the service you guys pay MORE MONEY for, it complete stone age. In Sweden even rural areas with few people have the same 3G speed that is the fastest you’ll get at the present (3 mbps). Every village with a few hundred inhabitants in Sweden have 7,2 mbps since ages and central Stockholm + some suburbs just got a fully functional 4G up and running (the first one in the world), with an initial speed of 50 mbps, to be raised to 100 mbps later this year and . The cost to have 4G? Half of what you pay for your poor 3G service…
I’m not writing this to brag about Sweden, my main point is that if you divide the area of Sweden with the amount of inhabitants, you’ll get a higher cost per customer than in the US. There are 4 major carriers in Sweden competing, just like in the US. So it is utter bullshit that no provider in the US can offer an acceptable service. In Sweden the companies go for it, in the US they rather try to milk the customers on the old infrastructure as long as possible first.
Certain telephone company networks are unprepared to provide the expected and desired services of iPhone users. Add to this mix the added informational burden of supplying digital happiness to Apple’s prospective tablet owners and witness total melt down.
Apple has single handedly forced communications firms world wide to review how and when to remodel or restructure their networks. Some may invest. Others may demand Apple share in the cost of restructuring the networks. Some may defer and not provide service to Apple products. Bottom line is that Apple consumers will have to pay more to get the services that they want.
And this deduction is made from what? I understand that this may be the case in the US where the iPhone and perhaps any future slate/tablet device is tied to a single carrier (AT&T), but where the iPhone is available on all networks, such as here in Australia (its sold with 5 major mobile networks), the increased cost you talk about is simply untrue. What the iPhone has done, is decrease the cost of data packages for all smartphones and in many cases, resulted in free data being bundled with a plan rather than at an additional cost as was the case previously. The iPhone, Android and other smartphones simply highlight telcos that are unprepared for the 21st century.
It seems that economics is not a subject understood in Australia. Simply put, if a telecommunications company must invest capital to improve their communications network someone has to pay for it. You guess it, it’s the consumer. Unless, of course, you live in a socialist utopia where the government subsidizes the private company by rising citizens’ taxes. I hope that this helps answer your question.
Sorry, but this is a typical american ignorant comment about other countries. Really, no real socialist country would subside private companies like you suggest. The high taxes goes to free medicare, higher standard instrastructure etc. Not saying this is better or worse than your system, it’s a matter of opinion.
And as for Sweden, the most technologically advanced country on the planet when it comes to telecom technlology, it is not a country ruled by socialist since 2006. What the goverment here did was that instead of selling licenses for the UMTS (3G) for a lot of money, they allowed any company to start using the technology in the country upon signing a treaty that they would cover 99% of the population with their network. Which was a very smart move as 75% of Sweden consists of rural areas.
Now really, it is you who don’t understand economics pal. NY, which is apparently known for the bad ATT coverage, has a bigger population that the entire Sweden, but is a much smaller area. Now, if 4 swedish providers can make good cash even having to invest in the wilderness, then it is total bullshit that a US providers wouldn’t be able to make tons of cash out of a smaller area crowded with people. Fact is that if anyone lives in any major city in the US and get dropped calls and slow network, it is a sign of a degenerated capitalism where companies stagnate to develop and just suck out the blood of the customers who have no choice but sticking around.
Sure the expenses is paid by the customer, who else?? But what you totally seem to miss is that ATT have too fat margins. They think short term and rather think about pleasing their present share holders rather than investing (enough) for the future. Since all US providers do that, they can get away with it. In Sweden there was one provider that started offering 3G years before you guys even heard about it and thus the rest had to follow in order to not become obsolete. Now THAT is a healthy capitalism in my eyes. And it benefits the customers who get a better service for less money.
Sorry, but this is a typical american ignorant comment about other countries. Really, no real socialist country would subside private companies like you suggest. The high taxes goes to free medicare, higher standard instrastructure etc. Not saying this is better or worse than your system, it’s a matter of opinion.
And as for Sweden, the most technologically advanced country on the planet when it comes to telecom technlology, it is not a country ruled by socialist since 2006. What the goverment here did was that instead of selling licenses for the UMTS (3G) for a lot of money, they allowed any company to start using the technology in the country upon signing a treaty that they would cover 99% of the population with their network. Which was a very smart move as 75% of Sweden consists of rural areas.
Now really, it is you who don’t understand economics pal. NY, which is apparently known for the bad ATT coverage, has a bigger population that the entire Sweden, but is a much smaller area. Now, if 4 swedish providers can make good cash even having to invest in the wilderness, then it is total bullshit that a US providers wouldn’t be able to make tons of cash out of a smaller area crowded with people. Fact is that if anyone lives in any major city in the US and get dropped calls and slow network, it is a sign of a degenerated capitalism where companies stagnate to develop and just suck out the blood of the customers who have no choice but sticking around.
Sure the expenses is paid by the customer, who else?? But what you totally seem to miss is that ATT have too fat margins. They think short term and rather think about pleasing their present share holders rather than investing (enough) for the future. Since all US providers do that, they can get away with it. In Sweden there was one provider that started offering 3G years before you guys even heard about it and thus the rest had to follow in order to not become obsolete. Now THAT is a healthy capitalism in my eyes. And it benefits the customers who get a better service for less money.