Some people go to great lengths to get away from it all, including climbing Everest. But now Swedish operator TeliaSonera and local player Ncell in Nepal have built a 3G base station at 5200 metres – well within altitude sickness territory. The goal is to serve climbers and residents of the Khumbu valley.

Here’s a vid of a climber talking about how useful 3G will be, compared to broadband satellite.

This does raise some issues though – with such thin atmosphere, will the signals travel for billions of miles? How do you get a steady power supply at that height? Will the snow impact performance? Will data roaming costs be sky high (ho ho), and most importantly, will excessive use of Foursquare and iPhone videoblogging from basecamp bring the network to a standstill? Answers please….

Britain lies in a lowly 20^th place in the European rankings of fibre to the home (FTTH), according to French analyst firm Idate and the Fibre to the Home Council Europe. And the picture is not improving – during 1H 2010, the UK ranked 26^th out of 36 countries for net additions to FTTH/FTTB, one place behind Andorra. Despite BT’s widespread publicity for its 21CN broadband transformation, it seems that Britain is still in a broadband backwater.

In Europe, Russia and France are the distinct market leaders in volume terms, with Lithuania forging ahead with 21% penetration.  In fact, it is the new member states (and Russia) who are making the quickest transformation, in part because of the poor standard of their copper networks which has not allowed DSL-based broadband to prosper as much as it has in Western Europe.

In absolute terms, the 36 EU countries have 3.2 million FTTH/FTTB subscribers, plus another 1.3 million in Russia, this is despite something like 25 million homes passed. (i.e the conversion rate from homes with fibre access to customers signing up is pretty feeble).

Europe does indeed appear to be in the slow lane when compared to 8.6 million FTTH subscribers in US and 43 million in Asia. However the conversion rate in Europe has improved. The homes passed increased by 6% in 1H 2010, but the subscriptions have improved by 51%.

Europe’s FTTH leader Lithuania is 5th in global ranking of penetration but pales in comparison to the 55% penetration in South Korea. Europe’s largest markets are doing very poorly in penetration terms. Italy and France are low, while Germany, UK and Spain don’t event make the Idate ranking.

BT has recently committed £2.5bn to fibre rollout, but compare this to the Australian government which is investing €30bn in its National Broadband Network. This equates to €1,428 per person.

What characterizes the deployment of FTTH in Europe so far is the number of players – Idate estimates that there are 260 FTTH projects, many of these driven by municipalities and utilities rather than incumbent telcos. Why? Incumbents have been resistant to investing heavily in national projects when faced with the threat of unbundling. But there is certainly an argument to suggest that widespread fibre deployment needs as many service providers as possible to share the load.

Why do we need more fibre in our broadband diet?

According to proponents, DSL and cable cannot deliver the speeds for game-changing broadband. Remote health care, intelligent power grid, high security network systems, personal TV, cloud apps are much more capable with pipes delivering 50mbps-1Gbps – and with this kind of bandwidth, we will be encouraged to work from home more. The FTTC Europe estimates that for 1 million fibre customers, you could save 1 million tones of CO2e emissions.

According to Ovum analyst Charlie Davies, there are demonstrable economic and cultural benefits to fibre broadband, as can be seen in this presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/ceobroadband/ftth-conference-2009-ovum-fibre-socio-economic-benefits, particularly in rural areas where it is costly to provide education, healthcare and public services.

So why can we not achieve this utilizing the copper pair in the last mile? Firstly there is the long-standing distance problem: signals degrade rapidly over copper.

Even in urban locations, copper cannot deliver the synchronous speeds necessary to facilitate a broadband economy. According to Chris Holden, president of the FTTH Council Europe, we will soon be demanding the same upload speeds as downloads. As more people want to upload HD video (such as blogs shot on Flips and Zi8s) or use HD videoconferencing from home, the need for faster upload speeds will be apparent.

This may be an issue for a minority of users at present, but it will impact the rest of us somewhere down the line. If a new consumer gadget delivers the capability to do something, but the network cannot facilitate it, we love the gadget (e.g. iphone) and vilify the network (eg. AT&T)

I’m not sure I am 100% behind this sentiment, and I believe there is life left in copper, as Nokia Siemens Networks has demonstrated by pushing VDSL to 825Mbps with phantom circuits.

But investment in broadband infrastructure – whether pure fibre or a fibre/copper/mobile mix – is high on Europe’s political agenda. The EU2020 strategy document proposes that government targets 100% of households with access to 30Mbps broadband by 2020, and 50% of which should have access to 100Mbps synchronous speeds.

It has been said time and again that the column inches devoted to the iPhone are disproportionate to the actual number of owners. As a proportion of the world’s most common electronic device (yes, mobiles are even more common than toasters and tv’s), the iPhone accounts for about 2% of the global mobile device market.

Here’s is an excellent illustration of just where the iPhone stands in the sales rankings, produced by Billshrink.com

Finding controversy in social media is like shooting fish in a barrel. This month’s firestorm concerns Malcolm Gladwell’s article on using social media for activism. The renowned pop science author argued in the New Yorker that social media was an inappropriate tool for activism and that ‘the revolution will not be tweeted’.

This provoked heated responses from social media luminaries, including Twitter co-founder Ev Williams, who argued that “Anyone who’s claiming that sending a tweet by itself is activism, that’s ludicrous — but no one’s claiming that, at least no one that’s credible. If you can’t organise you can’t activate.”

Perhaps. But that doesn’t undermine Gladwell’s core argument – that the messy, loosely-coupled nature of social networks makes it difficult to drive through change. The problem, he said, was that painful social changes such as the racial civil rights movement in the US need top-down hierarchies to be effective. Conversely, social media networks are flat matrices of chatterers that say lots, and do little that could be considered cohesive. No one changed the world by typing ‘nom nom nom’ into a status bar.

Making use of an organised mess

Nevertheless, in certain situations, such as inside the enterprise, the messy, disorganised nature of social networks could be advantageous. A CEO may not want to use a social network to organise the workforce towards a common goal (such as increasing top line revenues by 2%). But they may want to leverage such networks to encourage bottom-up thinking.

Top-down hierarchies are good for organising people around a central idea (such as civil rights reform, for example). They de-emphasise the idea of thinking for yourself beyond preset parameters. This is how many things work, from seminal protest movements through to the military film sets and commercial kitchens are organised this way. A central taskmaster delegates to others, who may delegate further, creating a tightly-organised chain of command.

Conversely, social networks are particularly good at two things: social capital, and emergent behaviour. They give people the chance to promote themselves and their ideas. Thinking outside the box is encouraged.

In an enterprise setting, hierarchical structures work when disseminating a leader’s vision and getting employees on board, but it is difficult to use them for two-way communication. For an organisation wanting to squeeze tacit knowledge out of its employee base, or to give people the opportunity to put innovative ideas in play, social networks may be more appropriate.

An employee with a passion for, say, a new product line or a way to remove half the steps from a convoluted corporate process that they know intimately may find it difficult to make themselves heard in a hierarchical structure. But given the chance to develop and run with the idea in an online corporate social network, that employee may gather supporters who discuss and evolve the concept to the point where they represent a significant movement in the company.

This is how loosely coupled groups known as ‘communities of practice’ are developed. Think of them as groups gathering around a digital water cooler, discussing possibilities for aspects of their company that they are close to, and passionate about. Groups such as these can sow the seeds for new lines of revenue, and groundbreaking efficiency measures.

Perhaps social networks are not the ideal tool for top-down activism, but they can still be used to effect radical change. Such developments could be highly valuable for a management courageous enough to give employees this sort of voice – and the technology to make themselves heard. Let’s hope, then, that management is willing to listen.