Part 1 of 2 articles: the second covers cellular data in Europe

Last updated: 5 September 2009

To many Americans, staying in touch with a cell phone while in Europe can seem difficult and expensive. But savvy travelers know it doesn’t have to be. Having a phone while you’re there can be a major time saver and convenience. Friends and family can reach you easily. You can spontaneously pull out the guidebook, pick a restaurant and call to see if they can accommodate you before jumping into a car or taxi. This article tells you how to stay in touch and save money.

Advanced mobile wireless use in Lucca, Italy

Why don’t US cell phones “just work” in Europe? For various reasons, the United States developed and deployed wireless technologies that were incompatible with those deployed in the Rest Of the World, which went with a standard called GSM (“Global System for Mobiles” – this is one of the reasons why Europeans use the term “mobile” and not “cell phone”).

This meant that for many years, the only option for US travelers to Europe was to rent a GSM phone, which was expensive and inconvenient. No one could reach you on your US cell phone number; you had the hassle and expense of receiving and returning the phone, and both handset rental and calls were astonishingly expensive.

GSM comes to America

Today, you can buy US mobile phones that use the GSM system from AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile. So why don’t these phones “just work” in Europe? Although they use GSM, they work on different radio frequencies. To function in Europe, a GSM phone must operate (at the very least) on the 1800MHz frequency; to get the best European coverage it must operate on both 900MHz and 1800MHz.

US carriers were given the 1900MHz band by the FCC, and are now expanding their wireless coverage on the 850MHz frequency band. So you won’t get the best coverage in the USA with a 900/1800/1900 tri-band phone. Thus you now need a quad-band GSM phone in order to get good coverage world-wide (850/900/1800/1900Mhz). There are more and more quad-band GSM phones coming on to the market every month, so the good news is that it’s now a lot easier to find a good international phone.

(more…)

Judging by the comments on photography sites, many people have yet to upgrade Adobe Photoshop CS3 to CS4, or Lightroom 1.x to 2.x. Adobe doesn’t update the Camera Raw plug-in for older versions of Photoshop, which is a problem because updates are the only way to get support for new camera models. The same problem exists for Lightroom, where a new version of the program is required.

The Canon 50D isn’t supported in Lightroom 1.4 — only version 2.x. While the 50D is supported in Camera Raw 4.6, which means you can use it with Photoshop CS3, owners of the 5D Mark II are not so lucky: no support in Lightroom 1.4 and no support in Photoshop CS3 either; it’s supported in Camera Raw 5.2 which only works with Photoshop CS4.

To solve this problem, use the latest version of Adobe’s free DNG (Digital NeGative) converter to translate the RAW files from newer cameras into .DNG files. Lightroom 1.4 and Photoshop CS3 can open any DNG file, regardless of the original camera type. The DNG converter can be found here, and there are PC and Mac variants. It is updated at the same time as the Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop when new camera support is added.

It works in batch mode — you point it at a directory (folder) full of RAW files and it grinds away creating DNGs in another directory. Taking the long view, DNG is probably a better file format for archiving images because it is open, unlike the proprietary camera-makers’ RAW file formats.

I’m a fan of not paying for rental car CDW (Collision Damage Waiver) insurance, because it’s usually unnecessary and expensive when many credit cards already offer coverage. I’ve written before about positive experiences with American Express’ rental car insurance, but a recent trip highlighted the importance of re-reading the small print.

Francesca, one half of LodgePhoto, had rented a car at London Heathrow, and was pleased to get a free upgrade to a Jaguar, which is this rental car company’s standard intermediate model. Now, there are Jaguars and Jaguars, and this was one of the former — i.e. at the low end of the range, nothing exotic, but a pleasant step up from the more typical Ford or Peugot. At the end of the rental, there was a small chip in the windshield, which American Express explained would not be covered “because Jaguars are exotic cars”… which, if true (there’s some doubt, see below), means that she’d been driving around without insurance for a few days.

Some digging on the Amex website revealed the small print of Amex’s rental car insurance (it is hard to find — it took two failed searches before following a series of links). There are some fairly substantial limitations in the current rules:

1. Exotic cars: anything by Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini (and other supercar makers). Also listed is the Jaguar XJS, which is not what Francesca rented. Also the Mercedes E320, which I would not consider remotely exotic. Check the document for the full list.
2. Expensive cars: an MSRP greater than $50,000. This can be a really tough one to figure out when renting overseas — is that the price of the car when purchased in the US, or the price of the car in purchased in Europe converted to dollars? How would you know either price when presented with a particular car at the rental counter? Is that price at the current dollar exchange rate, or when it was purchased?
3. Full sized SUVs and Vans: Chevy Suburban, Ford Expedition, Chevy Van etc. If you have a lot of stuff and/or a large family, this might also be a surprise. In Europe I always recommend getting more, smaller cars vs. one huge one, if that is possible, as smaller cars are easier to drive and park on narrow European roads (especially in medieval cities).

This is not the full list of limitations, by the way, just some edited highlights.

So, it’s not clear if the windshield chip is covered or not, since Francesca wasn’t driving an expensive or exotic car per the small print. We’ll find out.

The take-away from all this: re-read the small print. Even if you read it before. It might have changed!