1) General taxes and cross-subsides of a state are irrelevant is laws and allowances are different. We've seen reports before of how much it costs, the red tape involved, and how long it takes in the US to get a single tower in Dallas/Houston v SF/NYC so you can't make a blanket statement for an entire nation without knowing the specifics of the law.
2) Again, I've seen in Eastern Europe where cellular coverage was better than similar sized cities in the US a decade ago. Why would a much poorer, less-technologically advance nation have small cities that are superior to a US cities? My feeling is because prior to the mobile revolution they had a poor communications infrastructure so cell towers allowed them to move quickly to shore up their deficiencies. Would this sort of thing then get funded by the government? We've seen it before.
3) I never said we were good. As far my conversion here is concerned that was never in the mix until now.
Great to see some price competition. I bought an unlocked iPhone 5S and then made Wal-Mart's Straighttalk plan work on it. It's a clumsy solution as you have to use a special gadget to stamp a Micro sim into a nano sim to fit the iPhone 5S.
But it's unlimited everything for $45 and rides on AT&T. After 2.5 GB in any month, the speed can be throttled down.
1) General taxes and cross-subsides of a state are irrelevant is laws and allowances are different. We've seen reports before of how much it costs, the red tape involved, and how long it takes in the US to get a single tower in Dallas/Houston v SF/NYC so you can't make a blanket statement for an entire nation without knowing the specifics of the law.
2) Again, I've seen in Eastern Europe where cellular coverage was better than similar sized cities in the US a decade ago. Why would a much poorer, less-technologically advance nation have small cities that are superior to a US cities? My feeling is because prior to the mobile revolution they had a poor communications infrastructure so cell towers allowed them to move quickly to shore up their deficiencies. Would this sort of thing then get funded by the government? We've seen it before.
3) I never said we were good. As far my conversion here is concerned that was never in the mix until now.
I agree with your hypothesis (2). Cell phone technology now provides a much cheaper route to voice and data in less developed countries than investing in landline infrastructure.
Are you including palm trees as trees or grass because I recall there are plenty at Palm Walk alone. The internet says 111.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Aha… Are you outing yourself as a Sundevil?
We used to live in Wildcat country… And there are lots of Mesquite bosques in the area!
Yeah, I was a Sun Devil for one year. Did way too much partying and far too little going to class -- just wasn't ready to be a student, really. But I had a good time!
I agree with your hypothesis (2). Cell phone technology now provides a much cheaper route to voice and data in less developed countries than investing in landline infrastructure.
You're forgetting of course that cell sites work off a landline infrastructure.
....so you can't make a blanket statement for an entire nation without knowing the specifics of the law.
I was not making a blanket statement for an entire nation. I was specifically talking about high-population corridors such as Boston-DC and LA-SF (please take another look at my original post).
The point I was making -- apparently, not very successfully -- was somewhat different. I was not referring to the cost at all, but rather that the speed and quality of what we get even in densely populated places in the US is poor compared to some of the other countries out there.
I agree with your hypothesis (2). Cell phone technology now provides a much cheaper route to voice and data in less developed countries than investing in landline infrastructure.
You're forgetting of course that cell sites work off a landline infrastructure.
No I'm not forgetting that. Firstly, cell towers can use microwave for backhaul, but even with the trend towards more efficient optical links, it is still much cheaper to run optical fibers to a limited number of cell towers than to run fiber or cable to every property.
The point was made above that some US locales have too few cellular towers. (Probably not New Jersey, which is littered with the eyesores, even including the faux-tree towers.) But virtually every US town is populated by a vast number of utility poles--heck, we've deforested our mountains and re-forested our towns with their embalmed trunks. It is insane that these poles, which already carry both power and communication wiring, are not being utilized as mini-cell towers. They're already an eyesore, and adding another antenna on top would not make it much worse.
Why would the government break up a monopoly that they awarded in the first place? What's a reasonable level? Everyone is applauding T-Mobile but they just got the worst ratings. It's laughable that you don't want your phone manufacturer to get into a race to the bottom but you want your carrier to do just that.
So-called "ratings" of mobile service though will vary considerably by location, and which "ratings" are you referring to? It's well documented that T-Mobile has gaps in its rural network, but if you live in a metro area, the service is generally fine. And even though they're still catching up with filling out their LTE network, the performance from their more widely deployed HSPA+ network is fast enough for most smartphone uses (my neighborhood, which is out of T-Mobile's current LTE range, averages 6 Mbps download and 2.5 Mbps upload speed).
What you refer to as a "race to the bottom" with mobile carriers, I refer to as choice and transparency and competition. As nice as smartphones are, I didn't even consider purchasing one until the service plans became more "reasonable" -- not only with the pricing, but with the service terms as well. I did not want a contract and I wanted to stay in the iOS ecosystem (already own an iPod touch and a cellular-enabled iPad), so I stayed on the sidelines so long as service plans required a contract or a high-priced plan to use an iPhone.
Consumers applaud T-Mobile because they expanded real choice in the market. Once T-Mobile expanded their prepaid and contract-free options, they addressed something that a large number of consumers clearly wanted. The network coverage and maximum data speed are not high priorities for me. So, I don't care to pay the higher base plan rates, puny data allotments, and overage charges associated with those carriers such as Verizon that have broader coverage. This is a totally separate issue from the "race to the bottom" occurring with smartphones (not made by Apple). I'm fine with paying more to get more. I just happened to see more value in a premium smartphone than premium cell service.
From what I've read that US leads in LTE deployment. In concentrated areas like NYC, Chicago, SF and Dallas that have large deployment, they have poor performance because the infrastructure can't handle the load. Apparently, the CEO of Verizon recently said that Verizon is at capacity in these areas -- and cannot add additional bandwidth.
What a selfish pov. Not to mention, you don't have to live in the "sticks" to get poor reception. Plenty of times I've been in downtown Seattle, Portland, SF and get horrendous coverage.
From what I've read that US leads in LTE deployment. In concentrated areas like NYC, Chicago, SF and Dallas that have large deployment, they have poor performance because the infrastructure can't handle the load. Apparently, the CEO of Verizon recently said that Verizon is at capacity in these areas -- and cannot add additional bandwidth.
How to define deployment? The article I posted starts off by showing nations and carriers with the most coverage, but I would imagine the size and spreadoutedness of the US would mean it probably has deployed a lot more LTE towers than any other nation.
What a selfish pov. Not to mention, you don't have to live in the "sticks" to get poor reception. Plenty of times I've been in downtown Seattle, Portland, SF and get horrendous coverage.
I was being facetious, I visit the 'sticks' often, and get good service there as well.
Comments
1) General taxes and cross-subsides of a state are irrelevant is laws and allowances are different. We've seen reports before of how much it costs, the red tape involved, and how long it takes in the US to get a single tower in Dallas/Houston v SF/NYC so you can't make a blanket statement for an entire nation without knowing the specifics of the law.
2) Again, I've seen in Eastern Europe where cellular coverage was better than similar sized cities in the US a decade ago. Why would a much poorer, less-technologically advance nation have small cities that are superior to a US cities? My feeling is because prior to the mobile revolution they had a poor communications infrastructure so cell towers allowed them to move quickly to shore up their deficiencies. Would this sort of thing then get funded by the government? We've seen it before.
3) I never said we were good. As far my conversion here is concerned that was never in the mix until now.
You would know if you had seen it:
You pick 'em:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=desert+in+bloom&qpvt=desert+in+bloom&FORM=IGRE
Wow! I definitely haven't seen that.
Great to see some price competition. I bought an unlocked iPhone 5S and then made Wal-Mart's Straighttalk plan work on it. It's a clumsy solution as you have to use a special gadget to stamp a Micro sim into a nano sim to fit the iPhone 5S.
But it's unlimited everything for $45 and rides on AT&T. After 2.5 GB in any month, the speed can be throttled down.
I think you're totally missing the point. Taxes and cross-subsidies are much higher in Europe.
Perhaps the truth is as simple as, we're not as good as we think we are. On a related point, see this: http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow
1) General taxes and cross-subsides of a state are irrelevant is laws and allowances are different. We've seen reports before of how much it costs, the red tape involved, and how long it takes in the US to get a single tower in Dallas/Houston v SF/NYC so you can't make a blanket statement for an entire nation without knowing the specifics of the law.
2) Again, I've seen in Eastern Europe where cellular coverage was better than similar sized cities in the US a decade ago. Why would a much poorer, less-technologically advance nation have small cities that are superior to a US cities? My feeling is because prior to the mobile revolution they had a poor communications infrastructure so cell towers allowed them to move quickly to shore up their deficiencies. Would this sort of thing then get funded by the government? We've seen it before.
3) I never said we were good. As far my conversion here is concerned that was never in the mix until now.
I agree with your hypothesis (2). Cell phone technology now provides a much cheaper route to voice and data in less developed countries than investing in landline infrastructure.
But it's unlimited everything for $45 and rides on AT&T.
And you buy the iPhone FROM Straight Talk, it uses Verizon’s CDMA+LTE.
Yeah, that’s sure unlimited, then.
At least no overages.
Are you including palm trees as trees or grass because I recall there are plenty at Palm Walk alone. The internet says 111.
Aha… Are you outing yourself as a Sundevil?
We used to live in Wildcat country… And there are lots of Mesquite bosques in the area!
Yeah, I was a Sun Devil for one year. Did way too much partying and far too little going to class -- just wasn't ready to be a student, really. But I had a good time!
As to palm trees ...
I think the USA cell phone use could become as advanced as Europe and Japan if the carriers would allow it.
Advanced? The US is much further along on LTE deployment than anywhere else. I think that qualifies as being more advanced than Europe and Japan.
Is this good for Apple?
You're forgetting of course that cell sites work off a landline infrastructure.
This article disagrees with you: http://www.zdnet.com/the-state-of-lte-4g-networks-worldwide-in-2014-and-the-poor-performance-of-the-us-7000026594/
I was not making a blanket statement for an entire nation. I was specifically talking about high-population corridors such as Boston-DC and LA-SF (please take another look at my original post).
The point I was making -- apparently, not very successfully -- was somewhat different. I was not referring to the cost at all, but rather that the speed and quality of what we get even in densely populated places in the US is poor compared to some of the other countries out there.
I agree with your hypothesis (2). Cell phone technology now provides a much cheaper route to voice and data in less developed countries than investing in landline infrastructure.
You're forgetting of course that cell sites work off a landline infrastructure.
No I'm not forgetting that. Firstly, cell towers can use microwave for backhaul, but even with the trend towards more efficient optical links, it is still much cheaper to run optical fibers to a limited number of cell towers than to run fiber or cable to every property.
The point was made above that some US locales have too few cellular towers. (Probably not New Jersey, which is littered with the eyesores, even including the faux-tree towers.) But virtually every US town is populated by a vast number of utility poles--heck, we've deforested our mountains and re-forested our towns with their embalmed trunks. It is insane that these poles, which already carry both power and communication wiring, are not being utilized as mini-cell towers. They're already an eyesore, and adding another antenna on top would not make it much worse.
Why would the government break up a monopoly that they awarded in the first place? What's a reasonable level? Everyone is applauding T-Mobile but they just got the worst ratings. It's laughable that you don't want your phone manufacturer to get into a race to the bottom but you want your carrier to do just that.
So-called "ratings" of mobile service though will vary considerably by location, and which "ratings" are you referring to? It's well documented that T-Mobile has gaps in its rural network, but if you live in a metro area, the service is generally fine. And even though they're still catching up with filling out their LTE network, the performance from their more widely deployed HSPA+ network is fast enough for most smartphone uses (my neighborhood, which is out of T-Mobile's current LTE range, averages 6 Mbps download and 2.5 Mbps upload speed).
What you refer to as a "race to the bottom" with mobile carriers, I refer to as choice and transparency and competition. As nice as smartphones are, I didn't even consider purchasing one until the service plans became more "reasonable" -- not only with the pricing, but with the service terms as well. I did not want a contract and I wanted to stay in the iOS ecosystem (already own an iPod touch and a cellular-enabled iPad), so I stayed on the sidelines so long as service plans required a contract or a high-priced plan to use an iPhone.
Consumers applaud T-Mobile because they expanded real choice in the market. Once T-Mobile expanded their prepaid and contract-free options, they addressed something that a large number of consumers clearly wanted. The network coverage and maximum data speed are not high priorities for me. So, I don't care to pay the higher base plan rates, puny data allotments, and overage charges associated with those carriers such as Verizon that have broader coverage. This is a totally separate issue from the "race to the bottom" occurring with smartphones (not made by Apple). I'm fine with paying more to get more. I just happened to see more value in a premium smartphone than premium cell service.
Isn't that performance rather than deployment?
From what I've read that US leads in LTE deployment. In concentrated areas like NYC, Chicago, SF and Dallas that have large deployment, they have poor performance because the infrastructure can't handle the load. Apparently, the CEO of Verizon recently said that Verizon is at capacity in these areas -- and cannot add additional bandwidth.
This at 14:20 to 16:30:
[VIDEO]
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=steve+perlman+columbia+video&FORM=VIRE7#view=detail&mid=0A29E4931F3435BB5E610A29E4931F3435BB5E61
And this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57604368-94/verizon-ceo-unlimited-data-plans-just-arent-sustainable/
Move out of the sticks. I get great service.
What a selfish pov. Not to mention, you don't have to live in the "sticks" to get poor reception. Plenty of times I've been in downtown Seattle, Portland, SF and get horrendous coverage.
How to define deployment? The article I posted starts off by showing nations and carriers with the most coverage, but I would imagine the size and spreadoutedness
I was being facetious, I visit the 'sticks' often, and get good service there as well.
I was being facetious, I visit the 'sticks' often, and get good service there as well.
Hah... I'm sick, sarcasm escapes me right now. Sorry