chad evans wyatt escribió:
Exactly, Betty. "Why can't they get together?" We have propensity to deploy, with faux-entrepreneurial ideal, the same multiple-gauge railroads that bedeviled 19th century US commercial activity; that is our model, until it no longer can be driven forward. We have what? 4, or is it 5 wireless systems here? Each requiring its own tortured buildout (see Mr Sande's bill of particulars). Imagine putting all of that investment into one system. Oh, it's not hard, after all: the rest of the world is GSM,
I heard yesterday that the new commuter rail lines in the Baltimore [Red line light rail] - Washington [Purple line heavy rail] area use different technology for trains but the same kind of rails, which could make change in the style of transport less difficult.
Most of the world is exclusively GSM, with some CDMA holdouts in eastern Europe, east Asia, Africa, some Latin America, [only 500 million CDMA users worldwide vs over 2.5 billion with GSM]. There are multiple technology phones for those who use both networks. Most GSM smart[-er] phones also use the newer WCDMA/UMTS for data.
Without using the same telephone lines, MCI-WorldCom wouldn't have been able to slam us--twice. However without using the same infrastucture we wouldn't be able to switch services quickly either.
The problem with the lonely corporate business plan is that each company blindly does its own network without considering existing [but competing] infrastructure or the economy of shared networks. What a lonely way to waste both companies' and customers' money.
Does it really make any sense at all for there to be several mostly identical broadband networks anywhere when all that's needed is one good one?
************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
