After building a worldwide telecommunications network, Global Crossing collapsed before it could get to the finish line.

The failure of the Bermuda-based company is part of an ongoing industry shake-up. Revenues simply could not offset payment on the massive debt the company incurred while laying high-speed lines between 200 cities in 27 countries.

But whoever picks up this company will reap the benefits envisioned by its founders when the much-vaunted broadband revolution finally occurs.

The question is "when", not "if". There simply was not enough demand for high-speed or "broadband" Internet access services worldwide to justify Global Crossing's rapid growth. It was a risk, and a decent bet to make for those with the cash and guts to make. "Build it and they will come", was the company's philosophy.

The company attempted to run faster than anyone else, attempting to leapfrog ahead of other slower competitors in the heady days when the Internet technological revolution promised everything to everyone. It was a tough decision for a newcomer to make, on whether to proceed slowly by building half or quarter of a network and expand with the revenues, or to go whole hog.

Then came reality, and the crash and burn of many content and service providers.

It seems for now, that most people and small businesses are content with lower speeds, which are still good enough for most of them.

E-mail is, after all, the largest type of activity over the Internet.

Still, its difficult for me to understand the poor take-up rates given that broadband access in the US costs $45 a month, about double the cost for dial-up access, according to trade magazine Business2.com.

The magazine correctly identifies the issue of a lack of compelling broadband content as the main obstacle to higher take up rates.

Poor service by providers and failure rates also meant that many early adopters had horror stories to tell others keen on the technology, which promised instant movies, live TV streaming, and of course less time staring at a page waiting to load.

Copyright disputes have held back the distribution of music, movies and even radio shows over the Internet, and such issues seem bound to hold broadband content, and consequently demand, back for quite a while.

Still, Jupiter Media Matrix notes that in 2001 the broadband audience became more mainstream in the US. Jupiter estimated that 10 million US households had high-speed access by year-end 2001. Broadband users, including those at work, totalled 37.9 million32 percent of at-home and at-work Internet users.

IDC, another consultancy, predicts that streaming media will be hot on the Internet in 2002 as new standards come online and new services become available.

I am already hot on streaming media, using anything from Real Player, Windows Media Player, Quick Time, or WinAmp to access radio shows, mainly the BBC, which is the standard for Internet broadcasting, and old time radio shows such as Philip Marlowe, The Whistler, Suspense and the Lux Radio Theatre (check out www.knx1070.com for example).

Radio works well over the Internet, but I've already seen bolder attempts at giving access to movies, multi-media art and other high-bandwidth services on the market.

The evolution towards broadband is happening, but not fast enough for companies like Global Crossing, which ran out of cash on the cusp of its vision.

Bermuda's financial and e-commerce sector should note the European Commission's amendment of its attempt to impose strict standards on the exchange of personal data between companies in the EU area and those outside the EU.

The EC published on January 18 standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to processors (subcontractors) established in non-EU countries that are not recognised as offering an adequate level of data protection. The decision simplifies the process for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries, which would give overseas companies, including those in Bermuda some sort of safe harbour position.

There was fear that the EU's strict data protection directive, forged in an attempt to protect the individual's right to privacy, would stifle the ability to EU and non-EU businesses to transact with each other, especially in the Internet sector.

In the case of non-EU countries, Directive 95/46/EC requires member states to permit transfers of personal data only where there is "adequate protection" for such data, unless one of a limited number of specific exemptions applies.

So far the EC has only recognised Switzerland, Hungary and Canada as offering adequate protection under the EU's data laws and to US companies adhering to the "safe harbour" privacy principles issued by the US department of commerce.

Data may still be transferred to countries where the data protection regime is not adequate in cases where individuals have given their unambiguous consent for data to be transferred outside the EU and where the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract in the interest of the data subjects.

Still, the directive opened up a legal morass for many overseas companies that have operations in the EU or transact with EU companies. The standard contract eases the situation somewhat. The new standard contractual clauses outlines more clearly that an EU company exporting data should instruct its subcontractor to treat the data with full respect to the EU data protection requirements and should guarantee that appropriate technical and security measures are in place in the destination country.

Information on the data protection directive and the new model contract can be accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/.

Tech Tattle deals with topics relating to technology. You can contact Ahmed at editor@offshoreon.com or (33) 467901474.