IBS

NOL • Metazin   • 2007. augusztus 23.

A globalizáció sokak szerint a 20. század második felének terméke. A globalizációkutatás amerikai szaktekintélye legújabb könyvében amellett érvel, hogy a folyamat már sokkal korábban, az emberi társadalom kialakulásával elkezdődött.

A ’globalizáció’ kifejezés meglehetősen új keletű: 1961-ben használták először. Maga a globalizáció viszont már 50 000 éve elkezdődött, amikor egy kis afrikai törzs felkerekedett, és elhagyta a kontinenst. Az emberi közösségek bomlása és alakulása azóta tart. A mezőgazdaság megjelenése, vagyis a közösségek letelepedése sem vetett neki véget, hiszen a földművesek kereskednek. Az árucserével pedig nőtt az egymásrautaltság, és erősödött az embercsoportok közti kapcsolat. A mai világ lényegében az emberek közötti ilyen összefonódás, vagyis a széles értelemben vett globalizáció eredménye – mondta Nayan Chanda, a Yale Globalizációs Központjának elnöke egy júniusi konferencián.

Chanda nemrég megjelent Összekötve: Hogyan alakították a globalizációt a kereskedők, hittérítők, kalandorok és katonák? című könyvéről beszélt. Az anekdotákkal és történelmi párhuzamokkal átszőtt könyvben a szerző azt taglalja, hogy a globalizáció nem csak az elmúlt néhány évtized terméke.

A kereskedők már az ókorban kapcsolatot teremtettek a távoli kultúrák és társadalmak között: Európába selymet és fűszereket, az arab világba porcelánt és illatszereket vittek. A gyakran kontinenshatárokon átnyúló háborúk szintén a népesség és a kulturális szokások keveredésével jártak. A 17. századtól virágzott a rabszolga-kereskedelem is, amit akár a globális munkaerő-áramlás egy korai és embertelen formájának is tekinthetünk. A hittérítők a középkortól kezdve egészen napjainkig a világ távoli pontjaira exportálják vallási nézeteiket és hagyományaikat. A nemzetközi nem kormányzati szervezetek (NGO) is a hittérítők modern változatának tekinthetők. A turistaosztályok hátizsákos utazói pedig a nagy felfedezők – Vasco da Gama, Ibn Battuta és Marco Polo – örökösei.

Az elmúlt évtizedek annyiban hoztak csak újat, hogy a technikai fejlődés következtében felgyorsult a világ. A szamarat és a vitorlás lélekvesztőt teherhajók és sugárhajtású repülők, a lovas futárokat a telex, majd az e-mail váltotta, amitől a globalizáció sokkal látványosabb, mint korábban valaha.

Chanda elismeri, hogy a folyamatnak nem csak nyertesei vannak. Miközben a nyugati nagyvárosok egyre sokszínűbbek, számos kis nyelv és kultúra kihalófélben van. Egyre több thai, kínai, indiai és egyéb egzotikus étterem nyílik a fejlett világban, miközben az egzotikus országok mindinkább átveszik a nyugati kultúrát és fogyasztási szokásokat. A New York-i parkokban reggelente sokan végeznek tajcsi gyakorlatokat, Kínában a jobb módúak divatos nyugati cuccokat vásárolnak.

Az ellenállás viszont Chanda szerint teljesen felesleges volna. A kereskedelem, a gyarmatosítás és az emberek elvándorlása évszázadok alatt erősítette a globalizációs folyamatokat, amelyek mára visszafordíthatatlanná váltak. Ma már teljesen természetesnek vesszük, hogy Afrikában őshonos, de Dél-Amerikában termesztett kávé főzetét kortyolgatjuk. Ezért abban sincs semmi megbotránkoztató, ha az amerikai világmárkák áruit japán mérnökök tervei alapján és Tajvanban készített számítógépes programok segítségével Kínában gyártják.

From Economist.com

THE temperature is rising in the Arctic. As global warming causes the polar ice-caps to melt, natural resources and lucrative shipping routes are becoming more accessible. Russia's jaunty placing of a flag on the seabed near the North Pole was only one of several exploratory expeditions this summer. Norway, Denmark (through its sovereignty over Greenland), Russia, Canada and America could all claim a slice of the region. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, each country is entitled to a 200 nautical mile (370km) economic zone from its coast, plus any area which it can prove is connected to its own continental shelf.

AFP

From The Economist print edition

The new financial order is undergoing its harshest test. It will not be pretty, but it is necessary

Illustration by Jon Berkeley

THE lifeguards had been scanning the horizon for an oil-price shock, a bankrupt buy-out or a terrorist attack. But when the big wave struck last week it surprised them by coming from inside the financial system and threatening to swamp an unlikely shore, the money markets where banks lend to each other to help cover their daily operations. Investors have been asking for years if the frantic innovation in finance, especially the securitisation of just about every form of debt into a tradable asset, was a way to spread risk efficiently, or whether this left the financial system prone to rare—but cataclysmic—failures. It looks as if investors are about to find out.

Over the past week central banks have lent tens of billions of dollars to restore confidence to the markets (see article). But it is already clear that this mess is about more than a bit of rash mortgage lending to Americans who were in the habit of falling behind with their monthly payments. Hedge funds and private-equity firms, kings of the boom, are nursing big losses. Debt markets that once handed out cash to all comers are tight or closed altogether. In almost every asset market, investors are scurrying to reprice risk—which mostly means to reduce it.

The gravest and most immediate threat is to the banking system. For the time being, banks no longer trust other banks enough to lend them money except on onerous terms; equally worryingly, they lack confidence that other banks will trust them if they want to borrow. It is alarming when the very outfits that exist to supply the economy with credit start to hoard it from each other. At best this tightens monetary policy; at worst, a shortage of cash will cripple the payments system and cause runs on otherwise solvent banks and businesses that cannot rapidly raise funds.

Underneath all the new technology and the fancy derivatives with strange acronyms is a dilemma as old as banking itself. Anyone who thinks that lending has been too loose—and many bankers do—should welcome a purge: better now than later when the imbalances would be bigger and the economy probably weaker. But if good banks fail and money for good companies dries up, the purge will wreak huge and wasteful damage on healthy parts of the economy. How likely is that?

Financial crises are always about the way people do business, and not just the deals they have struck. Yet this one goes deeper than most. The spreading panic has shown up weaknesses in some of the foundations of modern finance. The past 20 years have created untold wealth. As securities and markets have steadily taken the place of old-style bank managers, the number of potential investors has grown and the cost of capital has fallen. Much good has come of that.

But there is a price that is only now becoming apparent. Because lenders expected to be able to sell on the risk of default to someone else, they lent too easily. After all, they would not have to pick up the pieces. In theory, that risk should have been borne by the people best able to carry it. But with everybody having sold on the risk to everyone else—and the risk often being carved up, repackaged and sold again—nobody is sure where the losses are. The fear is that some risks ended up with those who least understood what they were getting into, and fear is a potent force in this disintermediated world. In the interbank market, every counterparty was potentially vulnerable. Even small amounts of bad credit can drive out good.

In theory, ratings agencies and mathematical models help investors price the risk they are taking on, even if the securities they are buying are scarcely traded. Yet when some supposedly good-quality assets proved to be worth little, people lost faith in the models and the ratings. Across the board, investors had failed to take account of how fast and how far asset prices fall when everyone wants to sell at the same time. Hard-to-sell long-term securities had been bought with short-lived debt, which left borrowers vulnerable to a change in sentiment every time the debt fell due. It does nothing to restore confidence when the biggest model-driven hedge funds had to get in new money. The people at Goldman Sachs lost a packet when something happened that their computers told them should occur only once every 100 millennia.

The retreat to a new level of risk was never going to be orderly or free of casualties. Neither should it be. Bankers and investors need to suffer precisely because the methods of modern finance have been found wanting. It sounds Darwinian, but the brutal demonstration that you pay for your sins is what leads the system to evolve. Markets learn from their mistakes. Only fear will spur investors to price risks better and get them to put more effort into monitoring their counterparties.

If these lessons are to sink in, central bankers must stand back—as, by and large, they have done. Every intervention now will be taken as a sign of what the regulators will do next time. If they bail out banks that have mispriced risk, the mispricing will continue. And when the central banks do step in, it should not be to save the financiers. The cost of intervention is warranted only to save the rest of the economy from the financiers' folly. By that test, central banks were right to lend money to the banks in recent days, because it ensured that a liquidity crisis did not become a solvency crisis. They may yet have to take over a failed bank, though only if that is needed to stop a run. It is still far too soon to cut interest rates.

Because this crisis taps so deeply into the newly devised structures of finance, anyone who says the worst is definitely over is either a fool or someone with a position to protect. As risk has become bewilderingly dispersed, so too has information. Nobody yet knows who will bear what losses from mortgages—because nobody can be sure what those loans are really worth. Nobody knows if tighter lending standards will oblige borrowers to raise more capital, triggering more sales in stockmarkets and more pain. Nobody knows how messy the inevitable bankruptcies will turn out to be. What markets need now is time to piece that information back together. Time before the next wave strikes.

Aug 15th 2007

From Economist.com

A software firm goes to market

AP

TIME to dust off the dotcom party hats again? Investors drove up shares in VMware, a Silicon Valley software-maker, by 76% on its first day of trading on Tuesday August 14th. Diane Greene (in our picture, being shown around the New York Stock Exchange), the boss of VMware, was suitably pleased on the day of the launch. The excitement sparked recollections of the much-hyped technology initial public offerings (IPOs) of the first internet boom. But the chances that this foreshadows Bubble 2.0, let alone Bust 2.0, are slim—at least when it comes to stockmarket listings of internet firms.

To be sure, technology firms are back in favour with investors, almost worryingly so. This mood even extends to internet start-ups. Some have been scooped up for large sums of money by bigger companies. The most notable example is YouTube, a video-sharing service, snapped up by Google in November last year. The internet giant used $1.65 billion-worth of its own shares to secure the deal.

Venture capitalists are again pouring money into the sector, particularly into next-generation internet start-ups that boast the label Web 2.0. In the second quarter of 2007 American venture-capital firms invested nearly $1 billion in information-services companies—an increase of more than 50% compared with the second quarter of last year.

Yet VMware is a prime example of what has changed. It was able to go public despite the shaky financial markets because it actually has a real business. The firm dominates the market for virtualisation programs, which separate software from hardware. This means, for instance, that one server computer can do the job of many, allowing data centres to be run much more efficiently and so stretching IT budgets further. In the first half of 2007 VMware’s revenues and net income doubled, reaching $556m and over $70m respectively.

Except for the likes of Facebook, a hugely popular social-networking site, most Web 2.0 start-ups can only dream of making such substantial sums—and will never go public. In fact, Silicon Valley feels a bit like it did in 1999 these days: many new firms are developing me-too sites that merely copy other ideas and do not have a sustainable business model. Their one hope is that there will be enough advertising dollars to go around for them to make some money eventually.

There is another reason why many new internet start-ups will never make it to the trading floor but must rest their hopes on getting bought by a bigger firm. There is just not enough capital involved. Compared with 1999, developing a new web service is cheap; it sometimes cost only $100,000 compared with a few million back then. Thanks to low-cost hardware, free open-source software, powerful programming tools and new marketing techniques the sums of money involved are not as eye-watering as in the other dotcom boom. Some venture capitalists are already wondering whether making the small investments that these firms need are really worth bothering with.

This is also why, compared to the first internet bust, the economic impact will not be big if venture capitalists really lose interest in internet start-ups. And since the costs of building Web 2.0 services are still coming down, people will keep coming up with new ones—even if they do not make a lot of money and appeal only to a smallish audience. Perhaps, as some predict, this bubble really does have a “long tail”. But even beyond the jargoneers of Web 2.0 there are many who believe it may indeed offer something for everyone and it will never burst.

TESTED: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander LS

WHAT IS IT? Compact crossover sport utility wagon.

HOW MUCH? Base ES, $21,995; LS as tested, $26,135.

WHAT DRIVES IT? 3-liter V-6; six-speed automatic; all-wheel drive. (Front drive also available.)

IS IT SAFE? All Outlanders have six air bags, including head-protection curtains. In seven-passenger models, the side curtains extend to cover the third row. Also standard are antilock brakes, tire-pressure monitors and electronic stability control.

HOW THIRSTY? The E.P.A. rates the all-wheel-drive model at 19 m.p.g. in town, 26 on the highway.

ALTERNATIVES: Ford Escape, $26,005; Toyota RAV4 $25,630; Hyundai Santa Fe $25,845. (All similarly equipped.)

AFTER spending years as a bench warmer among compact crossover utilities, the Mitsubishi Outlander is finally making a serious bid for the A-team.

Redesigned for 2007, the Outlander combines carlike dynamics, S.U.V.-lite styling and a reasonable price tag — as long as you don’t get carried away with big-ticket option packages.

Gone are the awkward looks and underpowered four-cylinder engine of the first-generation Outlander. The redesigned version comes in three trim levels: ES, LS and XLS. The ES comes only with front-wheel drive, but the LS and the XLS can be had with all-wheel drive as well. Standard on all versions is a 220-horsepower 3-liter V-6 and a six-speed automatic transmission.

The Outlander is based on the Mitsubishi Lancer sedan, the same architecture found under the Jeep Compass and Patriot and the Dodge Caliber. In Europe, PSA Peugeot Citroën even sells rebadged versions of the Outlander as the Peugeot 4007 and Citroën C-Crosser.

While it lacked a chic French label, my LS test vehicle looked good in eye-catching aqua metallic paint, atop chunky 16-inch alloy wheels. The clear taillight covers are a trendy touch, copying a similar design on the much more expensive Lexus RX 350.

Air-conditioning, power windows and locks, cruise control and a 140-watt 6-speaker audio system are all standard on the LS. The 5-year, 60,000-mile basic warranty is coupled with a limited powertrain warranty of 10 years or 100,000 miles. The test model’s only significant option was the $1,740 Sun and Sound package, which includes a power glass sunroof, a six-month subscription to Sirius Satellite Radio and a bass-thumping Rockford Fosgate stereo with nine speakers and a 10-inch subwoofer. Many popular options, including a navigation system, come in similarly expensive packages.

The Outlander casts roughly the same shadow as other crossovers that have grown larger lately, including the Toyota RAV4 and Hyundai Santa Fe. But if you have a tight garage, note that the Outlander, at 182.7 inches, is about six inches longer than the Ford Escape.

Reverse-challenged drivers should note that the Outlander lacks rear back-up sensors.

On quiet suburban streets, or on the busy highways of northern New Jersey, the Outlander delivered a refined ride along with carlike manners. It is among the more nimble vehicles in its class, though the steering can sometimes seem a bit lifeless.

The optional all-wheel-drive system is controlled by a dial on the center console. In fuel-saving 2WD mode, all power is sent to the front wheels. Clicking the dial to 4WD Auto sends 15 percent of torque to the rear at all times, and up to 60 percent when needed. In 4WD Lock, the front and rear axles split the power 50-50 for extra grip.

In the XLS, the driver is free to shift gears using magnesium paddles behind the steering wheel. The XLS, which starts around $24,500, also has a Bluetooth cellphone link, automatic climate control and leather seats.

Mitsubishi has somehow squeezed a third row of seats into the XLS, but the rearmost bench works only for children (or adults you dislike), and when in use it eats up all but 15 cubic feet of cargo space. (When the third row is folded into the floor, the cargo hold jumps to 36 cubic feet.) A clamshell-style tailgate enhances the Outlander’s utility. The lower half extends well into the rear bumper, making it easier to load heavy luggage.

The Outlander’s interior is straightforward, and you don’t need a master’s in hieroglyphics to operate the knobs that control heating and air-conditioning. But some of the plastics in the cabin, especially the door panels, look cheap. Rear air vents were also noticeably absent — and especially missed during several extremely hot summer days.

The small crossover segment has boomed since the first — and thoroughly forgettable — Outlander came out. The new version is hardly a superstar, but it is definitely in the game.

WERE F. Scott Fitzgerald alive today, he might be surprised to learn that the very rich are not always so different from you and me, at least in how they pay for their cars.

As it turns out, some people wealthy enough to pay cash for the most expensive vehicles on the planet sometimes choose to lease rather than buy them outright. It’s not that these customers are short of cash: for the cars they are acquiring, the down payment is more than the mortgage on many homes.

Timothy S. Durham, a financier with a 45-space garage at his home near Indianapolis, said he put down about $400,000 on his latest acquisition, a black-on-silver Bugatti Veyron that sells for more than $1.5 million. His monthly payments on the five-year lease, he said, would approach $20,000 — or, about enough to buy a new Honda Accord every 30 days.

Why would a multimillionaire submit to the paperwork and other obligations of leasing when he could simply write a check for the full amount?

In Mr. Durham’s case, there were two important benefits: he had other uses for the money and, by stretching the payments over several years, he could put off paying some of the sales tax. For a car in this price bracket, taxes alone can run to $130,000 or more, depending on where the deal is struck.

“One of the biggest things is you’re deferring your tax because the sales tax is getting stretched over some period of time,” said Mr. Durham, whose investment firm, Obsidian Enterprises, controls several industrial companies as well as National Lampoon.

Although he expects to buy the Bugatti by the end of the five-year lease term — at an additional cost of several hundred thousand dollars — Mr. Durham said he would rather invest the difference in the meantime. He also said he expected that in coming years the Bugatti would be worth more than he has agreed to pay for it.

“If you think you can make more on your money than the cost of the lease, then you ought to lease, especially on an appreciating asset like the Bugatti,” Mr. Durham said in late July, as he prepared to drive the 1,001-horsepower Veyron in the Great American Run, a coast-to-coast rally.

Mr. Durham said his collection of more than 70 cars was filled with models that had sentimental value to him, including an Aston Martin DB5 like the one James Bond drove in “Goldfinger.”

But he still drives a sharp bargain when it comes to acquiring them: he had a lease lined up for the Veyron with a company that specializes in financing Ferraris and other expensive cars when a competing offer landed. The deal he finally agreed to reduced his down payment by about $300,000 and came with an interest rate about 0.5 percent lower, he said.

Donald Fort, a collector in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., said leasing his acquisitions had allowed him to build his collection twice as fast. Mr. Fort, 60, said that for the first dozen years, he paid cash for his cars, starting with a 1948 Ford woody station wagon. His collection now includes rare American sports cars like a 1963 Corvette Z06.

About seven years ago, he connected with Putnam Leasing, a finance company based in Stamford, Conn., Mr. Fort said. Since then, he has leased cars like a Shelby Cobra over five years, then bought them at the end of the lease, he said. Typically, the down payment is 20 percent to 25 percent of the purchase price.

“We’ve got much better resources for our money,” Mr. Fort, a developer of commercial real estate in Florida and Georgia, said. He added that he expected the models in his 20-car collection, including the latest addition, a 1953 Corvette, to appreciate.

But Steven Posner, chief executive of Putnam, said that many of his company’s first-time customers leased for the opposite reason.

“Why invest so much money in a depreciating asset?” Mr. Posner said, referring to the possibility that the exotic brands on which Putnam built its business do not always gain value, especially when first introduced.

About two-thirds of the people leasing a new Ferrari do not keep it until the end of the lease, Mr. Posner said. Many of them decide to trade up to a newer or more expensive model, he said, while some others decide that they have had their fling with hot Italian models.

“You’ll get a young man in his 20s on Wall Street” who leases a Ferrari 355, Mr. Posner said. “As he makes more money, he will trade that in for a 360. In the interim, he’ll get on a list for a 430.

“Within two years, you’ll see a guy go from one car to the next to the next,” he said.

To accommodate capricious enthusiasts, Putnam allows its customers to trade out of one car into another under the same lease, charging no penalty, just the difference between the wholesale value of the first car at the time and Putnam’s price for the new one, Mr. Posner said.

But leasing a superluxury item like a Bentley or a Bugatti would be too pretentious for most people in some regions of the country, said Mitch Katz, chief executive of Premier Financial Services, a finance company based in Woodbury, Conn.

“They feel that to own a toy like this, if they can’t write the check, they shouldn’t own it,” Mr. Katz said, “That’s more the prevailing feeling in the Midwest and New England.”

Only about one-fourth of these very expensive cars are leased, Mr. Katz estimated. About half are bought for cash and the rest are purchased with the help of a bank loan, he said. About half of the leases are held in the names of corporations, whose owners have found a way to claim some or all of the cost as a business expense, he added.

Mr. Katz said his company sent representatives to major auctions of collector cars, offering financing to successful bidders. The biggest lease Premier has extended was for a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO with a value of $8 million, he said.

Location is also an important factor in the financing because many states allow leaseholders to pay sales tax month by month. New York and New Jersey are two that do not, Mr. Posner said. For example, a customer who lives in Manhattan and registers his car there pays 8.375 percent tax on the entire lease value upfront; that would come to more than $130,000 on Mr. Durham’s Bugatti (and there is no credit if the lease is broken early). But Mr. Durham, the Indianapolis financier, can pay that state’s 6 percent tax with each lease payment.

Still, Indiana does have its disadvantages for a collector who likes to take his prized possessions out for a regular spin.

“Of course, I drive a different one every day,” Mr. Durham said. “Unless it’s snowing. Then, I drive a Hummer.”

Vámosi Gergő
2007. 08. 15., 8:45Utolsó módosítás: 2007. 08. 15., 8:46eszközök:

Azt szeretné a főváros, hogy wifizni lehessen egész Pesten. A móka 4-5 milliárdba kerülne, amit a rendszert kiépítő cégekkel fizettetnének meg. Ők fizetős felhasználókban reménykedhetnek, mi pedig abban, hogy több lesz az ingyenes szolgáltatás, mint a fizetős. Az önkormányzat még maga sem tudja, mi lesz az álmokból, de a nagy sebsességre már esküszik.

A főváros önkormányzata már egy éve tervezi, hogy vezeték nélküli internettel fedi le Budapestet. Az elképzelés lényege, hogy a budapesti közterületeken - utcákon, tereken, parkokba - ingyen lehessen internetezni a villanyoszlopokra szerelt wifi-jeladók segítségével. A város egész területét lefednék, de úgy, hogy ez egy fillér közpénzbe se kerüljön: a hálózatot a tendert megpályázó internetszolgáltatók építenék ki és üzemeltetnék, a főváros csak a helyet és a hotspotok működtetéséhez szükséges áramellátást biztosítaná számukra a kandelábereken.

Mi lesz ingyen?

A tendert megpályázó cégeknek az ingyen wifi mellett nyújtott fizetős szolgáltatásból lenne bevételük, vagyis ebből kellene kitermelniük a hotspotok telepítésének és üzemeltetésének költségeit. Azt azonban még nem tudjuk, hogy pontosan mire lesz jó az ingyenes net, és miért kell már fizetni. Az önkormányzat a tervek szerint a közérdekű információkhoz, tömegközlekedési menetrendekhez és az e-ügyintézéshez szabad hozzáférést biztosít majd a felhasználóknak, ezen felül a városháza dönti majd el, hogy milyen oldalakat lehet ingyenesen letölteni.

Ikvai-Szabó Imre városfejlesztésért felelős főpolgármester-helyettes határozott igennel válaszolt arra a kérdésünkre, hogy a wifi-hálózat kiépítése után ingyenesen lehet-e majd internetezni a városban. A tervet elővezető politikus szerint a fizetős szolgáltatások elsősorban tartalomszolgáltatást jelentenek, de ezzel kapcsolatban egyelőre nem árult el többet, viszont azt is hozzátette, hogy az ingyenes netezés idejét vagy sebességét semmiképpen nem szeretnék korlátozni - mint ahogy azt sok szolgáltató teszi, aki pénzért árulja a gyorsabb, tetszőleges ideig használható wifi-kapcsolatot.

Telefon helyett is használná az önkormányzat

Az utca emberének nyújtott szolgáltatás mellett az önkormányzat is használná a várost lefedő wifit, mégpedig a "digitális városüzemeltetéshez". Ez azt jelenti, hogy a közigazgatásban, az önkormányzati szerveknél dolgozók kommunikálhatnának rajta keresztül, de alkalmas lehet közlekedési és forgalomirányítási információk, vagy akár térfigyelő, rendszámtábla-figyelő kamerák képeinek továbbítására.

A városházán jelenleg egy wifis telefonszolgáltatást tesztelnek, amely a drágább, vonalas- vagy mobiltelefonokat válthatná ki (legalábbis részben). Ez az a szolgáltatás, amit az üzemeltetők fizetős extraként is nyújthatnának: Nyugat-Európában létező modell, hogy az arra alkalmas készülékkel - wifis mobillal, PDA-val vagy laptoppal - a felhasználó a rendes netelérés díjánál olcsóbban Skype-olhat, ami még az esetleges fizetős netes telefonhívások díjával együtt is kevesebbe kerül, mint a mobilozás.

Milliárdokba kerülhet a város lefedése

A legnagyobb kérdés, hogy a szolgáltatóknak megéri-e belevágni a főváros által elképzelt projektbe, vagyis lesz-e vevő az ingyenes wifi mellett a fizetős változatra, amelynek az egész beruházást el kell majd tartania. Ikvai-Szabó szerint a szolgáltatásra "nagy igény van", és sok beruházó érdeklődik a tender iránt - beleértve olyanokat is, akik még nincsenek jelen a hazai piacon. A Magyarországon 300 hotspotot üzemeltető Wiera szerint akár egymillió forintba is kerülhet egyetlen kandeláberes jeladó, a teljes hálózat kiépítésének költségeit pedig a Világgazdaság 4-5 milliárd forintra becsülte.

Egy ilyen beruházás megtérüléséhez legalább 5-7 évre van szükség - mondta az [origo]-nak Strelisky Ádám, a Budapesten közterületi hotspotokat is működtető Ace Telecom ügyvezető igazgatója. A cégvezető becslései szerint is elérheti akár a 7-800 ezer forintot egy olyan, akkumulátorról működtetett hotspot, amelyet a közvilágításnak szánt éjszakai áramról töltenek fel, nem is beszélve arról, hogy az akkukat egy-másfél évente cserélni kell. Emellett az engedélyeztetési adminisztráció miatt is igen bonyolult lehet a vezetékes internet elvezetése az azt rádióhullámok formájában továbbító hotspotig.

Hotspotért a magyar nem fizet

Strelisky saját tapasztalataik alapján azt állította, lehet igény az utcai wifire, bár wifis ügyfeleik legtöbbje jelenleg csak a cég időkorlátos ingyenes szolgáltatását veszi igénybe. A magyar wifizők közösségét tömörítő HuWiCo képviselője, Türk István viszont már szkeptikusabb a tervvel kapcsolatban: szerinte az ingyen wifire csak a belvárosban, a turisták és üzletemberek által sűrűn látogatott területeken van igény, ahol egyébként is vannak hotspotok, és fizetős szolgáltatást a magyar felhasználóknak szinte lehetetlen eladni. A társaság pár hónappal ezelőtti kérdőíves felmérése szerint Magyarországon még mindig csak egy szűk réteg használja a nyilvános hotspotokat, és ők sem nagyon hajlandók fizetni ezért: inkább az ingyenes lehetőségekre vadásznak.

Ráadásul az önkormányzati ingyenwifi-tervének konkurenciája lehet a Fonera-mozgalom is: a spanyol kezdeményezéshez csatlakozó felhasználók egymással osztják meg a vezeték nélküli internetet. Igaz, ezt a megoldást a szolgáltatói szerződések tiltják, és sok Fon-tag arra sem figyel, hogy a routerének jelerőssége az utcán is elég jó legyen, ne csak nála, a lakásban.

Kevés a nemzetközi tapasztalat

A budapestihez hasonló, nagy területet lefedő önkormányzati wifi-szolgáltatás több nagyvárosban működik, de rendszerint a város turisztikai vagy üzleti szempontból kiemelten fontos negyedeiben. Londonban háromféle megoldás létezik: a metropolisz pénzügyi központjában, a Cityben egy fizetős rendszer szolgálja ki az üzletembereket, a turisták a Temze partján reklámokért cserébe wifizhetnek ingyen, Islingtonban pedig a főutcát rakták tele hotspotokkal, és számítógépeket is osztottak az ott lakóknak, hogy élénkítsék az e-gazdaságot.

Az ingyen wifis városok sorában ott van még Madrid, Frankfurt, Párizs, Stockholm és Helsinki is, nem is beszélve San Franciscóról és több amerikai nagyvárosról, de mindezek a kezdeményezések még túl fiatalok ahhoz, hogy megalapozott következtetéseket lehessen levonni az eredményeikről. Arról pedig ősszel tudhatunk meg többet, hogy nálunk egyáltalán mi valósulhat meg a nagyszabású tervekből, amikor a tenderkiírást nyilvánosságra hozza az önkormányzat.

[origo]

Aug 14th 2007

From Economist.com

Don't hold your breath waiting for one to be invented

Getty Images

SPENDING time at London’s Heathrow airport in August is generally a miserable experience. So the protesters who are passing several days there in order to make a point might be considered heroic in their disregard for personal comfort. On Monday August 13th a small bunch of campaigners against climate-change set up camp at the perimeter of the world’s busiest international airport. Organisers say over 2,000 will take part in a “day of action” later this week. For beleaguered travellers this could mean another of Heathrow’s famous days of inaction.

It is not hard to bring Heathrow to a stop. Strikers, terrorists and bad weather have all done so before. The campaigners hope that by disrupting an airport that serves some 200,000 flyers a day they will further their cause. “Plane Stupid”, an anti-flying group, gives a flavour what the protesters want, demanding “airport expansion plans scrapped, a tax on aviation fuel and an end to short-haul flights”.

Specifically, the campaigners object to plans for a third runway at the airport to accommodate growing numbers of passengers. And Heathrow is not alone. Many airports in Britain and elsewhere have plans to expand.

Airports want to grow because more people want to fly. Last year passengers took some two billion trips on scheduled airlines. In 2010 that number is forecast to have risen by a quarter. Much of the recent growth is attributable to short-haul low-cost airline travel. But cheap flying has come with costs attached. By most measures aviation generates 2-3% of man-made emissions of carbon-dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

The contribution to global warming could be more severe. Jet engines also pump out nitrogen oxides, soot and water vapour at high altitude. Scientists disagree about the added consequences but a recent report commissioned by the British government suggests that this might double the warming effects of carbon-dioxide emissions from planes.

Most environmentalists think that the only solution is to stop people flying. Making air travel more expensive, say through hefty fuel taxes, would put off price-sensitive leisure flyers. Airlines are accused of having a free ride in terms of air pollution because they pay no tax on the fuel used for international flights. But airlines say that protesters have it in for them because they are an easy target. In fact, they say, the airline industry produces far more benefits than ills. Some studies suggest that aviation contributes as much as 8% to global GDP by transporting tourists, business travellers and cargo around the globe.

Planemakers also point out that they are greener than they used to be. Better technology means that planes are around a third more fuel efficient than they were 40 years ago. And that trend is continuing, driven by airlines’ demands for planes that are cheaper to run. Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, set to enter service next year, uses composite materials to keep weight down. But aircraft fleet will be updated to cleaner models only slowly.

Airlines are using planes more efficiently too. The 787 is a smaller plane that can fly directly between smaller airports rather then taking passengers to hubs for onward flights. Fewer onward flights means fewer fuel guzzling take-offs and landings. On the other hand, Airbus’s giant A380, which enters service this year, takes many more people between hubs than previous aircraft, using less fuel per passenger than smaller planes. Plane and engine developments that cut carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other emissions are set to continue.

But improvements will be small, incremental and relatively expensive compared with those possible in other sectors of economies where changes might come more cheaply and easily. There is no alternative fuel to kerosene. Aircraft can make small savings by changing how they operate, such as being towed to and from runways rather than taxiing under jet power. Making airports bigger will lessen the need for keeping planes aloft in holding patterns at busy times.

Governments and international bodies are intent on encouraging the industry to make greater efforts. A global emissions-trading scheme, drawn up under UN auspices, is set for consideration later this year. The European Commission plans to introduce trading in 2011 for all carriers based in the European Union. Later the scheme might, possibly, extend to all airlines operating there. The introduction of carbon-trading is a welcome step by governments that are not yet willing to consider a carbon tax. The air-travel industry should have to stump up for the pollution it causes. And anyone priced out of a cheap holiday in Spain might like to consider a week-long camping break near Heathrow.