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 roughchronological 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 Post
The big mistake the EU countries are continuing to make with respect toencouraging dot.com growth is not requiring telecom monopolies to provideflat-rate local call service to Internet dialup users. One simply doesn'tuse the Internet as much when there's a clock running. The "free" EUonline 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 EUpoliticians have their collective heads shoved up their asses just as faras John McCain does. (for non-US users, McCain is the Republican Partypresidential 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'dstart by *requiring* that flat-rate service be made available, followed bywhatever changes in tax laws are required to encourage investing privateventure capital in startup companies.
If they were suddenly to become geniuses, these new tax policies wouldprovide 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 technologyin 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, UStechnology boom, and wireless standards

Date: 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
  standards
Unfortunately, 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 technicalsuperiority for a product. One can travel throughout Europe and Asia withone telephone and always be connected. Travel to the US (or Japan) andyou are disconnected.
No matter how superior the US-based technology, the customer suffers fromthis lack of interoperability.
Even within the US, service is relatively poor, due to the multipletechnologies required to maintain national connectivity. (Nokia had toremove its infrared hardware in order to make room for the additionalanalog 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 was

surprised that Eli said something as naive as he did about Europeansuperiorityin cellphone standards, but -- as I QCOM stockholder since March 1999 -- Ifelt

obliged 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)