| Author |
America? |
SonyBoy
Joined: Aug 31, 2002
Posts: 84
From: NY, USA
PM |
I found myself thinking of many issues about the US telecommunication progress, and mostly comparing to London or Europe. How come everything there (US) takes so long ? How come there are no 3G plans for the near future ? how come the networks there are still CDMA and TDMA ??? and only recently they've discovered the GSM? (T-mobile, etc). How come they've never heard of plans such as the "Virgin" plan in the UK, or the "Orange" plan in Israel, (u dont pay if u dont talk, but its not a PrePaid and the tariffs are great). How come the P900 is not yet officially out there, only by private retailers? (except for expansys.us which is a UK company and they sell UK units in the US) and thats after it's been officially out in Europe for few monthes now.
And how come they pay for INCOMING calls on their mobiles???
Correct me if I'm wrong- is the US far behind Europe by far? And are they gonna close the gaps some day ?
GSM 1900.. ye right  |
|
|
tranquil
Joined: Dec 15, 2001
Posts: > 500
From: Oslo, Norway
PM |
The US has allways been a bit behind on these mobile telecom issues.
Unfortenatly  US has been well behind the rest of the world as well.
I don't know the reason for this but it seems to be the sad fackt that this is noe a prioritised area for neigther manufacturers or network suppliers.
|
Vlammetje
Joined: Mar 01, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Den Haag
PM, WWW
|
GSM 1900 was an unfortunate necessity as 1800 simply is not available in the US.
As for being behind, I agree. However as far as 3G is concerned and some WCMDA based services, I think it's not impossible USA may catch up 
Check out what Qualcomm is doing, hve a look at how many asian mobiles are said to be coming to the US.
|
SonyBoy
Joined: Aug 31, 2002
Posts: 84
From: NY, USA
PM |
But what do you think about the quality ? Asian imports- Yes. but P900 not yet officially imported ?
WCMDA is very advanced, but why do they have to ignore the largest network in the world - GSM?? (I know they have it by now, but still far behind EU). Finally - INCOMING CALLS CHARGES ? the system is totally behind Europe and even Israel where I live which I thought wasnt advanced enough until I realized the situation in the US. |
amagab
Joined: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-01-19 04:30:15, SonyBoy wrote:
I found myself thinking of many issues about the US telecommunication progress, and mostly comparing to London or Europe. How come everything there (US) takes so long ? How come there are no 3G plans for the near future ? how come the networks there are still CDMA and TDMA ??? and only recently they've discovered the GSM? (T-mobile, etc). How come they've never heard of plans such as the "Virgin" plan in the UK, or the "Orange" plan in Israel, (u dont pay if u dont talk, but its not a PrePaid and the tariffs are great). How come the P900 is not yet officially out there, only by private retailers? (except for expansys.us which is a UK company and they sell UK units in the US) and thats after it's been officially out in Europe for few monthes now.
And how come they pay for INCOMING calls on their mobiles???
Correct me if I'm wrong- is the US far behind Europe by far? And are they gonna close the gaps some day ?
GSM 1900.. ye right
|
|
I will try to answer your questions.
Virgin is on the market here in the US, for about 2 years now, having an agreement using the Sprint network. Unfortunately, Spring uses the CDMA technology.
3G is actually alive and kicking for the last 2 years but again, unfortunately it is on the CDMA networks.
The GSM providers are very slow with implementing the WCDMA technology because of the costs but they are working on it. At the moment, they have instead rolled out the EDGE technology which is somewhere inbetween 2.5G and 3G. My personal opinion is that EDGE works pretty good, faster than GPRS I've been using before.
The reason we pay for incoming calls (actually it is deducted from the tons of free minutes you get from you provider) is because there is now difference between landline and cellular numbers here and local landline phone calls are FREE so they had to get their revenue from somewhere.
The reason the providers are slow with getting new phones to the market is that they promise their customers 100% support on the phones they sell. Therefore, they first need to educate their reps about the new phones and customize them to their own needs.
Hope this answered most of your questions.
|
porterg
Joined: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 45
From: North Carolina
PM |
Big reason is that the vast majority of customers want coverage. You will never see them in this forum or any forum like it. Without being to derogatory towards them, sms is usually beyond what they want. Those of us here use the stuff. Sms, mms, GPRS, etc. I just got my AOL chat set up (course it is free for me, sorry). I am a technology type person, but not sure if I would want to pay for these things, or use them, if didn't work in the wireless industry.
The US wireless industry is based on mobility: coverage goes to roads first, then spreads. I answer questions almost every day about why a person has crap for coverage at home. This is slowly changing. Many of the towers that my company has put up have filled in gaps in residential areas. But most have been along more rural, but used, roads. The more people who use a tower, the more money it generates. Why put up a tower that is going to lose money? Heck, the FCC ruled that analog towers could be turned off in, I believe it is July 2006. Trust me, those that do not make money will be cut off asap, reducing some very rural coverage. |
amagab
Joined: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
I agree, the US is a big country and it is expensive for the providers to cover it all. That is why countries like Japan, Korea, and smaller European countries were so far ahead with their mobility because they didn't need to put up many towers to cover an area.
Sweden has the same problem with the analog system. Scandinavia were the first one's implementing the analog system NMT and is still used in the northern rural areas. A few years ago the providers gave them GSM phones for FREE and offered them free calling but that didn't help them a bit because the coverage sucked. They still use their NMT phones even though they have to pay for it.
|
sybercouch88
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Posts: 81
From: South Central Los Angeles
PM |
The wireless carriers in the US have this problem of give away low end handsets to new subscribers. This has created subscribers that care only what free phones they can get from a company. Also what to charge for services American users have be come thrifty in all the wrong places if you know what I mean.That translate lower income for the carriers and slow growth. |
Bjerkebanen
Joined: Feb 26, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: El culo del mundo! OSLO NORUEG
PM, WWW
|
how come a country like Norway with a population of 4.5 milion people have coverage on deserted mountains and practicaly anywere in the country. Wile in NewYork the reception dissapeer after 4 steps down the stairs to the subway????
That a country is big and have few people living init still makes it in the gsm world.
So why cant like the city NYC that have more citizeens than the entire Norway. Manage to build a superb gsm coverage? |
d_a_r_k_n_e_z_z
Joined: Jun 15, 2002
Posts: 186
From: My Crypt in L.A.
PM |
why all the complaining about america? be happy and content that your respective countries are ahead of them. then again, if your countries are as big or bigger than the USA i think your telcos would have the same dilemma the USA is having. most americans are content with free low end phones that makes and recieves calls, that's it. they favor practicality most do not need the over stuff that high end phones can do. practicality is one of the reasons america is prospherous and still people from your countries come here to search for a better life. |
porterg
Joined: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 45
From: North Carolina
PM |
Bingo. Coverage costs money. Margins on return are low for wireless companies (can believe that or not, but I have seen the figures). Everyone wants coverage, but no one wants the tower in sight. Why would a carrier put up a tower that has a low rate of usage up? That is a loss of money. And that is what it comes down to. $$$$.
|
z200user
Joined: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 19
From: new york city
PM |
One of the things that impressed me while I was living in Hong Kong is the difference in competitiveness between mobile providers in the US and Asia. Over there, you buy your phone unlocked, and if you are not happy with one provider's service, you can pull out your SIM and go subscribe to another. This keeps the various providers on their toes and extremely customer-focussed.
Back in the US, it's a different matter. The business model is to deeply discount phones, which are then locked so the customer can't easily switch. There are contracts with high penalties for breaking. This makes it harder for the consumer to switch if he isn't getting good service. |
701
Joined: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Romania
PM, WWW
|
One big reason that gsm sucks in the US is the fact that the landline(fixed) telecom penetration is around 104% , thus the request for mobile comunication is lower than in other countries.These days in Europa is easier to get a mobile phone, than a fixed one.
Another reason is the fact that u guys put up the analogic network in the whole US in the last 20 years and now times caught up with u ..digital era came for u sooner than expected.They've tried to improve the analogic netws with TDMA and PCS (which are digitals) but then GSM came and they have abandoned the ideea and switched to 1900 mhz and now the 850mhz.
Also u have the problem(in my opinon) with the obsolete CDMA networks which r the most established netws in the States.They r behind a bit comparing to GSM but they put up the CDMA2000 mode, which is better and up to par with GSM but requires an upgrade..which i guess some of the carriers r doing.
But u do fine, gsm spereads more and more and in time, u'll get coverage. For the other questions, some of the guys in here already replied.
" They say i'm sick; they`re right, it's called 'Terminal Boredom!' " Follow me on twitter.com/bogramaRead my Symbian UIQ 3.0 reviews at Juvo's |
amagab
Joined: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
I would disagree with your opinion regarding CDMA. CDMA is actually ahead of GSM in most places. 3G technology has been available on the US CDMA network for more than a year now which means US is one of the few countries where 3G is available.
|
porterg
Joined: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 45
From: North Carolina
PM |
But how much 3G is actually available? Not much. But, then again, those in the USaren't that interested in it. Yet. Willbe years before really becomes a more general want. |
|
|
Posted: 2004-01-19 04:30
