[Edward Kirk]

There has been a lot of speculation that the business practices of US wireless companies has been crippling the industry, largely for the sake of squeezing a few extra bucks out of their customers. Apparently many other countries are not having this problem. Gizmodo's Jesus Diaz noted during a trip through the desert that his coverage was far better in the deserts of Dubai than it is in the farmlands of the US.

Despite the Arab Emirates being number 65 on the cellphone spending lists, and the US and UK being at the top, Dubai has far better networks. So how does a country with far fewer carriers and less money moving around in general have such superior service?

It might just be that companies like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. are just too greedy to spend money on improving their networks. In some European countries, governments impose strict laws stating that companies must set aside a set amount in infrastructure in order to keep their license. While this might seem extreme, communications is a very important service for a country to have working properly.

The question is if you think that governments should spend the extra money on communications infrastructure to give full coverage, or will tougher laws be enough to keep companies in line? Being that my entire house is a dead zone for cell coverage on every imaginable network, this one really hits home. It blows my mind that a barren wasteland has better coverage than my house.

[via Gizmodo]

I'm from Europe and have lived in the US intermittently for the last 20 years. I have always used 2 set of SIM cards, one for the US and another when I was in Europe. Phones were always Quad-bands. Different carriers as well. I can confirm that the coverage and quality of reception is superior in countries such as Germany, Austria, England and Spain. I could be in remote valley in the Alpes or on a Mediterranean island and would mostly get much better reception and connection than while living in LA and San Francisco or travelling through the US. If the average American would only know about this they would demand it. Personally, I would be happy to pay a little more and forfeit gazillion rollover family plan weekend gimmick plans if I could only use my phone everywhere without the fear of having to repeat half of my sentences and getting cut off. "Can you hear me? US telecommunication industry!"

[imagine engine]

Why would anyone be surprised to hear that the Arabian desert has better cellular coverage than living in countries such as the USA, Canada, etc? After all there are no structures to limit the reception between wireless towers. There are no skyscrapers, mountains, etc to block the signal.

I don't think you can automatically compare the infra-structure of Dubai and the US and come the conclusion that US companies are cheap $&%4s.

First Dubai is 1500 square miles. The US is 3,537,441 square miles. Do the math. How much investment will it require to create full coverage in 1500 vs 3,537,441 square miles? Answer, a lot less investment. Now if you tell me that in the outback of Australia you can make a call anywhere and never lose a signal, that would be impressive.

[FatBoy_Slim]

Originally Posted by *drb

I don't think you can automatically compare the infra-structure of Dubai and the US and come the conclusion that US companies are cheap $&%4s.

First Dubai is 1500 square miles. The US is 3,537,441 square miles. Do the math. How much investment will it require to create full coverage in 1500 vs 3,537,441 square miles? Answer, a lot less investment. Now if you tell me that in the outback of Australia you can make a call anywhere and never lose a signal, that would be impressive.

What about Saudi Arabia which is 830,000 square miles

and has 97% coverage....