But yeah, seems like the US is gradually approaching Europe and Asian connectivity levels.
That's absolute nonsense. I travel all over the world. Broadband speeds in every place -- incl. in the famed Far East, Northern Europe -- stink. Period. This is in high-end hotels. I think a lot of you are drinking your own Kool-aid or simply believing the nonsense spewed by your telcos.
Is the US where it should or could be? No. But does it compare well in terms of coverage, access and speeds compared to just about any place in the world? By far.
That's absolute nonsense. I travel all over the world. Broadband speeds in every place -- incl. in the famed Far East, Northern Europe -- stink. Period. This is in high-end hotels. I think a lot of you are drinking your own Kool-aid or simply believing the nonsense spewed by your telcos.
Is the US where it should or could be? No. But does it compare well in terms of coverage, access and speeds compared to just about any place in the world? By far.
Cue the cherry picked countries, cities and/or services that prove you are wrong on a global scale.
From this population density graphic, it's rather obvious China invests mainly along it's Eastern sea board. ... Even this old map of the USSR shows that Russia's main population is packed in a small upper left corner of it's nation. ...
No offence, but posting these huge maps doesn't actually add anything to the argument. You could have done the same thing by simply saying "most countries have areas of high population and areas of low population."
Also, your map of the USSR (which is actually harder to find than a current map of Russia so I'm not sure what you're trying to do there ), is misleading and doesn't say what you think it does.
The "upper left corner" you refer to, and most of the western edge of the map, is actually not part of Russia. Excluding the Siberian wastelands (as most Russians actually do in their day to day lives), the population of Russia is more in the centre of Russia, around Moscow.
In any case, this data doesn't mean anything given that all countries are like this.
It doesn't matter how fast your network is if the signal doesn't exist. Such is the problem AT&T has.
Sucks to be you then. Where I am right now, and all the places I have traveled to (Florida, Maryland, Virginia, Nevada, California, Colorado, New Mexico) have had more than adequate coverage.
Just like in politics, all cellular coverage is local. To paint AT&T as overall bad is just as disingenuous as painting Verizon (or some other carrier) as universally superior. Since I don't travel in rural areas that often, I would much rather have AT&T's much better high speed data network - but again it depends are where you are and the coverage in the areas where you are the most.
Like I said, there's no excuse for places like San Francisco not to have better options.
Sure there is - no one has found it economically feasible to just support an area like San Francisco because there is no American that is going to buy a phone or technology that just works in one city.
That's kind of where your comparison to Hong Kong falls down. Just a little....
Sprint's customer service reps are horrible in my opinion. I've had nothing but bad experiences with Sprint in this regard.
I couldn't care less about Sprint, but I do find it interesting that Sprint features its competitors phone. I think that shows the appeal of the iPhone if nothing else.
I've seen a talk by Intel saying these speeds are only theoretical, and real world speeds are more like 6 to 12Mb per second. I don't know about you, but that's fast enough for me. If it's always 6Mb "at the least" than what's the issue?
While I am not disagreeing with you, one would have to say that is fast enough for you now.
Sort of a 2010 version of "128k is all you will ever need!"
Back in 2007 I ended up staying a few days at the Heathrow Hilton on my way back from India. I forget how much it was, but I recall the "High Speed Internet" fees as being outrageous and on top of that it was dead slow, slower than some of the places i stayed while traveling Asia. I love that they still advertise it as being "10x faster than dial up" in 2010.
Radnor Hotel in Radnor PA, best hotel I stay at for internet service. The internet was free and it was at least 5mbps, if not faster. Also they do a good cooked breakfast and Bombay Shappire with lemon/lime slices with tonic (breakfast and Bombay not together )
Glad my HQ is near that hotel, it will always get my business, when coming from Mumbai.
Radnor Hotel in Radnor PA, best hotel I stay at for internet service. The internet was free and it was at least 5mbps, if not faster. Also they do a good cooked breakfast and Bombay Shappire with lemon/lime slices with tonic (breakfast and Bombay not together )
Glad my HQ is near that hotel, it will always get my business, when coming from Mumbai.
I never got close to those speeds. The worst I had it was in Himachal Pradesh, but that could just have been my choice of hotels. I'm sure some place had good internet speeds.
The article was focusing on Sprint and Verizon's ad but that was the gist of the articlle.
I'd say, that most people, the 3G iPad will most likely be cheaper than anything Sprint of Verizon has offered to date with their MiFi options.
I think the lowest price is $60.00 for 5 devices connected to the mifi/overdrive. For me, AT&T will work just fine for my wifi+3g iPad. I'll try the $15.00 plan.
All this angst about ATT's network is crap. Those railing against ATT's network just don't know what they are talking about. It's obvious they have some other agenda/axe to grind.
Verizon's CDMA 3G is slower than molasses in the dead of winter, and that's when its performing at its best. T-Mobile's network is spotty. Sprint's network is much better than Verizon's, but they don't have coverage.
ATT HAD problems until about a year ago when a major network upgrade filled in gaps around the country and dramatically increased bandwidth in San Francisco, New York and Atlanta (the three major drop call areas).
Don't be fooled by clever maps (no I'm not an ATT employee - now or ever), the areas that don't show coverage are covered by ATT's Edge network which is just about as fast as Verizon's 3G network. And who cares about coverage when the populace where ATT doesn't have any coverage consists primarily of jackrabbits and hermits. ATT's 3G network covers nearly 98% of the populated areas of the US.
All this angst about ATT's network is crap. Those railing against ATT's network just don't know what they are talking about. It's obvious they have some other agenda/axe to grind.
The only agenda I have is that the network doesn't suck. Call dropout in NYC and SF...two of the biggest tech and media markets in the country; two of the richest cities in the country, with endless armies of hipster geeks that will pay exorbitant amounts of money for any tech garbage they can get their hands on...it leaves me speechless. How anyone cannot think of that as completely absurd is beyond me. There should never be a dropped call in SF or NYC. Never.
As an American expat who travels, I can safely say that just about the only places I go in the world with mobile service on par with AT&T are third-world countries....and back home for Christmas.
And as an aside, I find it absolutely astonishing that it's 2010 (!) and the NYC subway system still is not covered.
Appleinsider would do wisely not to carelessly reproduce the false and misleading rhetoric of American marketing in labeling Sprint's network a 4G (Fourth Generation) network.
What Sprint has rolled out is in Europe considered to be a lowly upgrade of the bandwidth of a 3G network. They claim that a measly 6 mbit/s is to be considered 4th generation bandwidth.
Well IN THE REST OF THE WORLD 4G refers at least to LTE technology, which promises to provide between 50 - 100 mbps on a mobile connection.
It is as easy as looking up the article on 4G in Wikipedia to verify this fact.
So Appleinsider please try to put a dampener on your US-centric, corporate suck up world view in the future in order to remain relevant to your European readership. Thank you.
In Canada what sucks is having to get a double data plan (one for iPhone, one for iPad) and not being able to tether between them for those areas you can't get WiFi (the cellphone companies here allow tethering). Can't even use account ID for separate device like iPad for WiFi hot spots that do take the iPhone. Guess its hold off on the iPad till we see how it shakes out up here.
Comments
But yeah, seems like the US is gradually approaching Europe and Asian connectivity levels.
That's absolute nonsense. I travel all over the world. Broadband speeds in every place -- incl. in the famed Far East, Northern Europe -- stink. Period. This is in high-end hotels. I think a lot of you are drinking your own Kool-aid or simply believing the nonsense spewed by your telcos.
Is the US where it should or could be? No. But does it compare well in terms of coverage, access and speeds compared to just about any place in the world? By far.
That's absolute nonsense. I travel all over the world. Broadband speeds in every place -- incl. in the famed Far East, Northern Europe -- stink. Period. This is in high-end hotels. I think a lot of you are drinking your own Kool-aid or simply believing the nonsense spewed by your telcos.
Is the US where it should or could be? No. But does it compare well in terms of coverage, access and speeds compared to just about any place in the world? By far.
Cue the cherry picked countries, cities and/or services that prove you are wrong on a global scale.
I'll start: TeliaSonera already has LTE up and running.
Seriously though, I can't wait to see what the handset offerings will be like.
From this population density graphic, it's rather obvious China invests mainly along it's Eastern sea board. ... Even this old map of the USSR shows that Russia's main population is packed in a small upper left corner of it's nation. ...
No offence, but posting these huge maps doesn't actually add anything to the argument. You could have done the same thing by simply saying "most countries have areas of high population and areas of low population."
Also, your map of the USSR (which is actually harder to find than a current map of Russia so I'm not sure what you're trying to do there
The "upper left corner" you refer to, and most of the western edge of the map, is actually not part of Russia. Excluding the Siberian wastelands (as most Russians actually do in their day to day lives), the population of Russia is more in the centre of Russia, around Moscow.
In any case, this data doesn't mean anything given that all countries are like this.
It doesn't matter how fast your network is if the signal doesn't exist. Such is the problem AT&T has.
Sucks to be you then. Where I am right now, and all the places I have traveled to (Florida, Maryland, Virginia, Nevada, California, Colorado, New Mexico) have had more than adequate coverage.
Just like in politics, all cellular coverage is local. To paint AT&T as overall bad is just as disingenuous as painting Verizon (or some other carrier) as universally superior. Since I don't travel in rural areas that often, I would much rather have AT&T's much better high speed data network - but again it depends are where you are and the coverage in the areas where you are the most.
Like I said, there's no excuse for places like San Francisco not to have better options.
Sure there is - no one has found it economically feasible to just support an area like San Francisco because there is no American that is going to buy a phone or technology that just works in one city.
That's kind of where your comparison to Hong Kong falls down. Just a little....
I couldn't care less about Sprint, but I do find it interesting that Sprint features its competitors phone. I think that shows the appeal of the iPhone if nothing else.
I've seen a talk by Intel saying these speeds are only theoretical, and real world speeds are more like 6 to 12Mb per second. I don't know about you, but that's fast enough for me. If it's always 6Mb "at the least" than what's the issue?
While I am not disagreeing with you, one would have to say that is fast enough for you now.
Sort of a 2010 version of "128k is all you will ever need!"
While I am not disagreeing with you, one would have to say that is fast enough for you now.
Sort of a 2010 version of "128k is all you will ever need!"
I think we can always assume that "for now" is implied.
BTW, did Gates actually say that or is that one of those things pulled apart and twisted around like Gore saying he invented the internet.
Back in 2007 I ended up staying a few days at the Heathrow Hilton on my way back from India. I forget how much it was, but I recall the "High Speed Internet" fees as being outrageous and on top of that it was dead slow, slower than some of the places i stayed while traveling Asia. I love that they still advertise it as being "10x faster than dial up" in 2010.
Radnor Hotel in Radnor PA, best hotel I stay at for internet service. The internet was free and it was at least 5mbps, if not faster. Also they do a good cooked breakfast and Bombay Shappire with lemon/lime slices with tonic (breakfast and Bombay not together
Glad my HQ is near that hotel, it will always get my business, when coming from Mumbai.
Radnor Hotel in Radnor PA, best hotel I stay at for internet service. The internet was free and it was at least 5mbps, if not faster. Also they do a good cooked breakfast and Bombay Shappire with lemon/lime slices with tonic (breakfast and Bombay not together
Glad my HQ is near that hotel, it will always get my business, when coming from Mumbai.
I never got close to those speeds. The worst I had it was in Himachal Pradesh, but that could just have been my choice of hotels. I'm sure some place had good internet speeds.
It doesn't matter how fast your network is if the signal doesn't exist. Such is the problem AT&T has.
I'm trying to figure out where Sprint has this service....Uh. Kansas? It's not exactly available. Their presentation is different.
Nor is Wi-max (Clearwire, What Sprint Uses) true 4g. 5-6Mbs per second....Not Quite
You can buy a $499 iPad.
You can pay AT&T *NOTHING* for voice.. data... text.
You can buy a Sprint hotspot and have high-speed data on your iPad.
Shouldn't AppleInsider mention obvious things like:
You can buy a $499 iPad.
You can pay AT&T *NOTHING* for voice.. data... text.
You can buy a Sprint hotspot and have high-speed data on your iPad.
The article was focusing on Sprint and Verizon's ad but that was the gist of the article.
Verizon salespeople were asked to convince customers to buy a Wi-Fi-only version of the iPad and connect it to the Verizon 3G network with a MiFi.
I'd say, that most people, the 3G iPad will most likely be cheaper than anything Sprint of Verizon has offered to date with their MiFi options.
...and keep it in my dam pocket?
keeps the water from rushing out of your pants, does it?
The article was focusing on Sprint and Verizon's ad but that was the gist of the articlle.
I'd say, that most people, the 3G iPad will most likely be cheaper than anything Sprint of Verizon has offered to date with their MiFi options.
I think the lowest price is $60.00 for 5 devices connected to the mifi/overdrive. For me, AT&T will work just fine for my wifi+3g iPad. I'll try the $15.00 plan.
Verizon's CDMA 3G is slower than molasses in the dead of winter, and that's when its performing at its best. T-Mobile's network is spotty. Sprint's network is much better than Verizon's, but they don't have coverage.
ATT HAD problems until about a year ago when a major network upgrade filled in gaps around the country and dramatically increased bandwidth in San Francisco, New York and Atlanta (the three major drop call areas).
Don't be fooled by clever maps (no I'm not an ATT employee - now or ever), the areas that don't show coverage are covered by ATT's Edge network which is just about as fast as Verizon's 3G network. And who cares about coverage when the populace where ATT doesn't have any coverage consists primarily of jackrabbits and hermits. ATT's 3G network covers nearly 98% of the populated areas of the US.
All this angst about ATT's network is crap. Those railing against ATT's network just don't know what they are talking about. It's obvious they have some other agenda/axe to grind.
The only agenda I have is that the network doesn't suck. Call dropout in NYC and SF...two of the biggest tech and media markets in the country; two of the richest cities in the country, with endless armies of hipster geeks that will pay exorbitant amounts of money for any tech garbage they can get their hands on...it leaves me speechless. How anyone cannot think of that as completely absurd is beyond me. There should never be a dropped call in SF or NYC. Never.
As an American expat who travels, I can safely say that just about the only places I go in the world with mobile service on par with AT&T are third-world countries....and back home for Christmas.
And as an aside, I find it absolutely astonishing that it's 2010 (!) and the NYC subway system still is not covered.
Appleinsider would do wisely not to carelessly reproduce the false and misleading rhetoric of American marketing in labeling Sprint's network a 4G (Fourth Generation) network.
What Sprint has rolled out is in Europe considered to be a lowly upgrade of the bandwidth of a 3G network. They claim that a measly 6 mbit/s is to be considered 4th generation bandwidth.
Well IN THE REST OF THE WORLD 4G refers at least to LTE technology, which promises to provide between 50 - 100 mbps on a mobile connection.
It is as easy as looking up the article on 4G in Wikipedia to verify this fact.
So Appleinsider please try to put a dampener on your US-centric, corporate suck up world view in the future in order to remain relevant to your European readership. Thank you.
I like this response the best.