Politech mailing list archives
FC: Can Europe, Japan, Australia match US technology boom?
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:41:05 -0500
**********[The Washington Post article I forwarded (and my own comments I prepended) drew a lot of responses. Here's a representative selection, in rough chronological order. --Declan]
**********
From: "Yves Thiran" <yves.thiran () euronet be> To: <declan () well com> Subject: Re: Europe can't match US technology boom --Washington Post Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 19:28:28 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Dear Declan, May I suggest you subscribe, or suggest William Drozdiak to subscribe, to the Online Europe mailing-list. For sure, part of its content is all whining about how backwards-socialist-businessennemy nations we are, but on the whole it shows a very much more contrasted picture. Remember: nowhere is the potential market so huge, nowhere are the people so well educated. The Internet growth in Europe is steady. Cable access for the masses is the latest trend in Belgium - do you know that more than 90% of Belgian households have cable TV ? So: why the rush and the anxiety ? We take some extra time to digest the new technology and try to put it to its best use. We trade a few bucks for a few thoughts in the process indeed, but, thanks God, we're not fast-bucks-obsessed people yet. And I personally don't plan to be one soon. Thanks for your daily input, Yves Thiran RTBF Belgian TV News mailto:online-europe-subscribe () topica com
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 07:28:04 +1100
To: declan () well com From: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke () anu edu au> Subject: Re: FC: Europe can't match US technology boom / CDMA Cc: link () www anu edu au, "Ira Brodsky" <ibrodsky01 () earthlink net> G'day Declan Declan wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48376-2000Jan14.html Europe Can't Match U.S. Techno-Boom By William Drozdiak Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday , January 15, 2000 ; A1 >[I can't say this is surprising to me, at least. With due respect to non-US >politech subscribers, I don't see European countries, by and large, as >having the same cultural appreciation for garage entrepreneurs out to >change the world, and of course government regulations are considerably >more onerous. I would be interested in seeing a list of the dozens of dot >com billionaires in the US compared to the list in all of Europe. (Are >there any?) --Declan] Dozens of the "dozens of dot com billionaires in the US" have made their money through bandwagon effect, compounded by vast amounts of sheer brazenness mixed with moderate amounts of outright connery. That said, an Australian would agree entirely with Europe not having the US's "appreciation for garage entrepreneurs out to change the world", and would support to some degree your argument that in Europe "government regulations are considerably more onerous". That second part is qualified by our expectation that governments will govern. (We realise that a proportion of Americans have a strongly anti-government attitude). Our bitches about governments are not so much that they impose regulations, but that: (a) some regulatory schemes are designed in dull ways; (b) many regulatory schemes are administered by dullards; (c) most regulatory schemes are adapted far to slowly to changing circumstances; but especially (d) the objectives are too often so dominated by economic and fiscal considerations that the social and cultural needs that were the primary justification for the regulation in the first place get completely lost. On a different topic, I'd be interested to know how US politechers perceive Canada. Is it part of the US; part of Europe; still an outpost of Britain (except Quebec, which is of course an outpost of France); or part of the rest of the world? Australia is, in economic terms, about the size of Texas. Canada is somewhat bigger, is geographically close to the US, and has a lengthy land border with about 10 of the 50 States. Hence cross-border trade with the northern states of the US is presumably pretty significant. But is Canadian business culture perceived to be sufficiently closely related to that of the US for it to be included as an honorary State? (:-)} Regarding the follow-up posting from "Ira Brodsky" <ibrodsky01 () earthlink net> about CDMA, and in particular: >When Qualcomm began developing CDMA, Europe's mobile telephone experts >declared that CDMA was based on bad engineering and would never work. ... >while CDMA is a powerful technology, it is not easy to master. Firstly, it's interesting to see the US being nervous about Europe actually leading in something. But the more significant part of the argument is about mandation versus laissez-faire. While technologies are still developing, mandation is clearly a bad approach, because it inevitably involves early ossification; whereas the American approach of unfettered competition offers more rapid adaptation. Once technologies have matured, on the other hand, the American way is a poor choice. Microsoft provides multiple examples of de facto standards of abysmal quality: unfettered competition results in the winner of the power-game determining what the technical standard is. In some cases, the technical outcome is disappointing; and, in others, excrement floats to the top. In either case, the standards may not be published, they're subject to the whims of the winning juggernaut, and they're regarded as a weapon of competition rather than the underpinnings of infrastructure. CDMA is an advance on GSM in several ways, but it seems pretty clear that it's a poorly engineered product ("not easy to master" sounds like an American's way of saying "well, actually, the architecture is a complete schemozzle"). So: mandation has its advantages in relation to mature technologies. Along with many other aspects of IT, however, wireless technologies are a long, long way from maturity; ergo (in agreement with yourself and Ira) Europe's early use of mandation is likely to cost it in the race. Regards ... Roger Roger Clarke http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916 mailto:Roger.Clarke () xamax com au http://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Fellow Department of Computer Science The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA Information Sciences Building Room 211 Tel: +61 2 6249 3666
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:31:59 -0800 To: declan () well com From: "A.Lizard" <alizard () ecis com> Subject: Re: FC: Europe can't match US technology boom --Washington PostThe big mistake the EU countries are continuing to make with respect to encouraging dot.com growth is not requiring telecom monopolies to provide flat-rate local call service to Internet dialup users. One simply doesn't use the Internet as much when there's a clock running. The "free" EU online services are helpful, but not the answer.It's also the easiest to correct.Their blaming this on their industry subsidy policies simply show that EU politicians have their collective heads shoved up their asses just as far as John McCain does. (for non-US users, McCain is the Republican Party presidential candidate who appears to have the best chance of success. He's running on a "CENSOR THE NET" platform.)If they were suddenly to grow brains and decide to grow the Net, they'd start by *requiring* that flat-rate service be made available, followed by whatever changes in tax laws are required to encourage investing private venture capital in startup companies.If they were suddenly to become geniuses, these new tax policies would provide the most encouragement to investments in the earliest-stage companies.Since the above is unlikely to happen any time in the foreseeable future, the best advice to give someone who has creating a new Internet technology in mind is "Go West, young man."... as in Northern California.A.Lizard
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:40:53 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <cp () sedona net> To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> Cc: politech () vorlon mit edu Subject: Re: FC: Europe can't match US technology boom --Washington Post As a former European, I am acutely aware that business and dealmaking are uniquely American talents at the present time. In my homeland, Great Britain, a similar voracious entrepreneur spirit existed 100 years ago, when audacious engineers built the steam ships, trains, military and industrial equipment that helped to sustain an empire. Two world wars, however, changed the nation's ambitious, expansionist mindset. Possibly a similar change occurred in other European nations. It's hard to be enterprising when you've been beaten, in effect, to a bloody pulp. Of course two new generations have emerged since 1945, but caution and defeatism are persistent traits. This was a major reason for my relocation in the United States.
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 02:16:40 +0900 To: declan () well com, ibrodsky () datacommresearch com From: Ted Nelson <ted () xanadu net> Subject: HUH? What about Nokia?? (wuz Re: FC: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standards Cc: ted () xanadu net, marlene () xanadu net I'm not getting something here. Europe is Way Behind in cellphones? I was just in Finland, and everybody seemed to have a cellphone with full keyboard and Web browser. Nokia is riding high. Happy users tell me they can go anywhere in Europe and stay connected. Not like the USA. Is this really just a Qualcomm press release in disguise? TN
From: "Ira Brodsky" <ibrodsky01 () earthlink net> To: "Ted Nelson" <ted () xanadu net> Cc: <declan () well com>Subject: Re: HUH? What about Nokia?? (wuz Re: FC: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standardsDate: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:42:09 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 * The cell phone microbrowser was invented by a U.S. firm: Phone.com (previously Unwired Planet). * I can go anywhere in the U.S. and stay connected. Which service are you using? However, I did not mean to imply that CDMA is ahead of GSM in terms of deployment. There are more than 4 times as many GSM users worldwide. Europe did seize an early lead in converting to digital wireless. Partly, it was because they opened up new spectrum for digital first, but mostly it was because GSM brought competition to countries that had been served by monopoly mobile phone operators. I don't see how you can read my comments as a press release for Qualcomm. The growth from zero to 50 million CDMA users in 4 years is not an opinion. Nor is Europe's selection of W-CDMA as its next generation solution a coincidence. Ira Brodsky Datacomm Research Company Chesterfield, Missouri Tel: 314-514-9750 Fax: 314-514-9793 E-mail: ibrodsky () datacommresearch com Web site: www.datacommresearch.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:58:59 -0800
To: declan () well com From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com> Subject: Re: FC: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standardsUnfortunately, most of the press sees GSM's success as proof that government-mandated standards are the way to go. A Time Magazine article of August 23, 1999 entitled "Why Your Cell Phone Stinks" suggested the U.S.'s competing technology standards have resulted in an expensive but pointless marketing war, spreading confusion among consumers.Consumer benefit is more complicated than just a question of technical superiority for a product. One can travel throughout Europe and Asia with one telephone and always be connected. Travel to the US (or Japan) and you are disconnected.No matter how superior the US-based technology, the customer suffers from this lack of interoperability.Even within the US, service is relatively poor, due to the multiple technologies required to maintain national connectivity. (Nokia had to remove its infrared hardware in order to make room for the additional analog support, in the US.)d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com> Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
From: james_lucier () prusec com X-Lotus-Fromdomain: PRUDENTIAL To: declan () well com Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:21:55 -0500 Subject: Re: FC: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standards Japan is another cautionary tale. Japan's most famous technology entrepreneur, Masayoshi Son, is an ethnic Korean who like many other Koreans in Japan had to adopt a Japanese name in order to secure residency. Berkeley-educated, perhaps the fourth or fifth richest man in the world, Son is still very much the outsider in Japanese business circles. Who's Son's rival? A 34-year old college dropout named Yasumitsu Shigeta, a college dropout and who founded his comapny with $8,000 he earned as a waiter. He's now worth $25 billion on a good day, five times what he was worth last year in Japan's booming cell phone business. Japan needs a lot more people like this. And fortunately, they are just beginning to appear. But the sysem still penalizes them greatly. And speaking of penalties, how about a 91% percent tax on stock options that turn out to be valuable? That's the French approach to encouraging technology, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal, which is why the number of French people working in Silicon Valley has at least quadrupled of late and the number of French working in the less taxed financial centers of London is enormous. As Forbes Magazine note below, little wonder that US Infotech firms launched since 1980 are worth more than Japan's entire industry. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1130/6212122s1.htm Breakout strategy By Neil Weinberg WHY DIDN'T JAPAN capture the computer business the way it captured the consumer electronics business? Because Japan fought the wrong battle and ended up losing the war, according to Jason Dedrick and Kenneth Kraemer, professors at University of California, Irvine's Center for Research on Information Technology & Organizations, and authors of a new book, Asia's Computer Challenge. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1130/6212122chart1.htm Japanese firms struggled like mad to win the mainframe market away from IBM. They began to succeed ójust in time to watch big-iron sales fall by a third between 1990 and 1995. The action had shifted to PCs, servers, software and services. In the information technology business, speed and innovation count for more than girth. Little wonder that U.S. info-tech firms founded since 1980 are now worth more than Japan's entire industry. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/99/1213/6414068a.htm The Web Phone Evangelist The marriage of the cellular telephone to the Internet will give rise to new fountains of wealth. A young entrepreneur in Japan saw this early and has grabbed $25 billion.
From: markus2 () gsmag com Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 05:43:20 +0100 To: declan () well com Subject: Re: Europe can't match US technology boom -- Washington Post Declan, it is a bit of a pity that Ira seems to jump the bandwagon of the Washington Post publication for quite obvious purposes. The commercial success of mobile telephony in Europe and elsewhere (currently, over 200 million users use cell phones working under the GSM standard, including in the U.S.) has mainly been a function of one area where government regulation has worked better than total market economy. In Europe, to most cell phone users, the idea of paying for incoming calls will be strange at best. Reason: Strong regulators have settled the question of interconnect costs between networks very early on in the process. For the rest, the battle of words between members of the CDMA-camp and the GSM-camp is tiring at best. At the heart of the problem of a technology gap between the U.S. and Europe lies mentality: Germans, the French and Italians love an institution some Germans appropriately dub "Breakfast Directors". Those are the people who have made a career through the political establishment, mostly Law graduates, who seem to have a problem in discerning between being allowed to talk about all subjects by an all-to-indulgent public and the ability to do so. Friedbert Pflueger, quoted in the Wahington Post, is a typical example. Summa cum laude graduate in Political Science, long time assistant to a German President assigned a chiefly ceremonial constitutional role, author of frown-inciting books with hypotheses slightly remote from practical life, Chairman of parliamentary comittees. Little is bound to change in Europe, and the U.S. will not have to fear competition: In his chef d'oevre "De la Democratie en Amerique", Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835: "In Europe political parties see their role as one of national legislative and executive guardians [of a nation] which cannot make its own voice heard; departing from this self understanding they act and command. In America, where they represent a minority from everyone's viewpoint, they negotiate and woo." While America offers enough room for different universes (European style elitism New England Style, Californian entrepreneurialism, and a Washington State style mixture), Europe seems to cater only for different incarnations of the same European disease. While geography in the U.S. combined with the conquest of a continent could have lead to a near automatical selection between those who would take things literally one step further and those content on what they had reached in the New World, Europe has developed comparable political systems in 30-something national micro-universes in parallel. What is a huge problem for a political establishment that depends on successfully mimicing the Grand Innovator to the international public while carefully guarding privileges they can only preserve in an old system, chances for American investment seems limitless. Countless small startup companies like my own have risk-averse bankers and all-embracing regulatory systems literally tying their hands. While "Breakfast Directors" and the regulatory framework they bring along look like they're here to stay for at least another 165 years, investors who have no talent left to buy for the buck in California could tap into rich European talent. It could be a good idea for venture capitalists to establish European offices. Except for the Pfluegers, it's the most beneficial scenario for all. Markus Schlegel GSMag International Publishing and Software Development Mettmann, Germany T: +49 2104 15270 F: +49 2104 13272 markus () gsmag com http://www.gsmag.com
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 02:54:01 -0500 From: "Thomas W. Hazlett" <hazlett () primal ucdavis edu> To: declan () well com Subject: Re: FC: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standards Declan-- Excellent point by Brodsky, one which I attempted to make to Eli Noam at the American Economics Association panel we were on last week in Boston. I wassurprised that Eli said something as naive as he did about European superiority in cellphone standards, but -- as I QCOM stockholder since March 1999 -- I feltobliged to set him straight. Cheers, Tom Hazlett
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:16:38 +0000 To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> From: "Charles Arthur, The Independent" <carthur () independent co uk> Subject: Re: FC: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standards Cc: "Ira Brodsky" <ibrodsky () datacommresearch com> Hi Declan... (Noted the earlier politech post about difference betw Euro and US entrepreneurs - for which one likely cause is different bankruptcy laws: going bust hounds you in Europe, whereas in the US it seems to be easier to split business failings from affecting your personal life. UK government is looking at changing the UK bankruptcy laws with that in mind.) However - on mobile phones, this research is wayy off beam. Predictions, very confidently made, are that wireless Internet is going to be huge, and very soon, in Europe. At 5:07 pm +0000 on 15/1/00, Ira B wrote: >>.. Now that CDMA is a >>commercial success (with approx. 50 million users), European mobile >>telephone experts claim that they, and not Qualcomm, are the leaders in >this >>new technology -- even though there is not a single CDMA mobile phone >>network operating in Europe. >> A Time Magazine article >of >>August 23, 1999 entitled "Why Your Cell Phone Stinks" suggested the U.S.'s >>competing technology standards have resulted in an expensive but pointless >>marketing war, spreading confusion among consumers. In the UK, four out of ten people has a mobile phone. In Finland, penetration is even higher. My phone will work in any of, I dunno, stacks of countries - including the US, if I choose to get it turned on for roaming there (at pds2/min; maybe not). >>Two of the hottest areas of development now in the U.S. are wireless data >>and, more specifically, wireless e-commerce. Within 2 years, affordable 64 >>kb/s and faster wireless data services will be available throughout the >U.S. That's LAUGHABLE! Four years ago I went to Morocco on a story; my photographer had a GSM phone and could call the newsdesk to update them, and send his digital pictures direct. Later this year Britain will get third-generation networks involving CDMA which will give 2Mbps packet-switched connections. Video mail and links have already been demonstrated. The phones are being built by Nokia, Ericsson (who just rang to invite me to a press conf on Friday where they'll demo some of the phones). The WAP (Wireless Appllications Protocol) conference happens next month. Wireless Internet is coming like the fastest of fast trains to Europe. We're readying and rewriting Web pages in expectation. >>The Europeans will still be constrained to sending short messages. The >>policy of government-mandated standards is going to blow up in their faces >>when they try to bring their "better" flavor of CDMA to market, because >>while CDMA is a powerful technology, it is not easy to master. I think you're wrong, and writing from the wrong side of the Atlantic to know what is really happenning. As I recall, too, the Qualcomm deal announced recently was some sort of cross-licensing row over patents which got resolved. Qualcomm got kudos, but it's Europe which is reaping the benefits. 64kbps in 2 years. Excuse me while I laugh: I could buy a phone off the shelf for pds50 right now which could have that data throughput. I wouldn't have to sign a contract for it, even: there's no ID check at all. The "pay-as-you-go" model means that nobody even has to know who I am when I buy it. Add a subscription-free Net account - there are more than 100 providers - and you begin to realise that (1) Britain has the cheapest Net access in the world and (2) Britain is actually the place for truly anonymous Net access. Charles ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Independent newspaper on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk/ It's even better on paper
From: "Matthew Postgate" <adb48 () dial pipex com>
To: <declan () well com> Cc: <ibrodsky01 () earthlink net> Subject: Re: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standards Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:20:26 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Dear Declan, I often enjoy politech and it is a shame to contact you only in the event of my disappointment. The post below falls well below the normal standard in its accuracy, insight and objectivity. A counter argument would suggest that the US is falling into her old habit of trying to impose its business model on the world rather than adapting to local conditions. The most powerful mobile phone technology is the one that people use - the internet is much larger than the worldwide web - the world is a big diverse place. Incidently, the earliest adopters of mobile internet were the Japanese with i-mode. By focussing on the concept rather than the technology (helped by having a liberalisation process which left the incumbent telco, NTTdocomo, with a lot of power, a condition both the US and the EU opposed) the japanese have already learnt a great deal about the way in which wireless internet will impact their society. It looks like the squabling children on both sides of the Atlantic have a fair ammount of homework to do.
Reply-To: "Ira Brodsky" <ibrodsky () datacommresearch com> From: "Ira Brodsky" <ibrodsky01 () earthlink net> To: "Matthew Postgate" <adb48 () dial pipex com> Cc: <declan () well com> Subject: Re: More on Europe, US technology boom, and wireless standards Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:33:49 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Dear Mr. Postgate, I'd like to offer a couple of comments in the spirit of friendly debate. You complain that the U.S. may be trying to "impose its business model on the world." Please note that in the U.S. there are US TDMA, CDMA, and GSM wireless mobile telephone networks. Please also note that in Europe there are only GSM networks. I don't know how the U.S. could "impose" its business model on Europe, but I do know that government-mandated standards are used to impose one solution and exclude, by force of law, others. I'm not sure when I-mode was made available, but I had wireless Internet access long before the Web. More important, it was even before there were any digital mobile phone networks (around 1992), so I'm pretty sure that means it was before I-mode. It was called RadioMail and ran over Mobitex (yes, invented in Sweden) and Datatac networks in the U.S. My point is that government-mandated standards inhibit innovation. As best I can tell, Europe and Japan are both making a lot of noise about next-gen wireless and wireless Internet, but the technologies they are depending on were born in U.S. garage shops. Ira Brodsky Datacomm Research Company Chesterfield, Missouri Tel: 314-514-9750 Fax: 314-514-9793 E-mail: ibrodsky () datacommresearch com Web site: www.datacommresearch.com
From: "Ira Brodsky" <ibrodsky01 () earthlink net> To: <declan () well com> Subject: where is the truth? Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:04:07 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Dear Declan, I've spent years researching and studying this issue. I've been in Ericsson's labs in Stockholm, visited NTT in Japan, and debated cdmaOne-haters for years. Yeah, the Europeans claim they will lead in wireless Internet, using Wireless Application Protocol and CDMA, both invented in the U.S. The only European vendor that can make commercially-viable CDMA infrastructure today is Ericsson -- using Qualcomm chips and engineers at the facility in San Diego they bought from Qualcomm. Had they not made that deal, Europe would have had to scrap its 3G plans, because Qualcomm owns crucial IP. I debated Bill Frezza & friends re: CDMA for two years. He publicly surrendered in his Network Computing column. Our debate was spotlighted in Forbes ASAP by George Gilder. The last year or so of the debate is archived at: http://cmpweb-media0.web.cerf.net/scripts/WebX?NWC-13@^3851@.ee6b2b2 (Unfortunately, CMP removed the anti-CDMA camps' most embarrassing early posts, in which they confidently asserted CDMA was an attempt to "violate the laws of physics.") CDMA has taken a modest lead over GSM in wireless data/Internet, despite what a few of your readers say. That lead will only grow. The fact that Europeans are in denial doesn't change the facts. Ira Brodsky Datacomm Research Company Chesterfield, Missouri Tel: 314-514-9750 Fax: 314-514-9793 E-mail: ibrodsky () datacommresearch com Web site: www.datacommresearch.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: Can Europe, Japan, Australia match US technology boom? Declan McCullagh (Jan 17)