You're missing three points. First, the US has a high population density in only a few, small widely separated areas.
But the majority of the customers reside in these densely populated areas. Therefore it should not be a problem to build profitable networks on a common standard within these areas.
Third, AMPS was deployed before there was any digital standards, and CDMA and TDMA systems were being installed while GSM was still being developed. Sure, it's a no-brainer to decide which system to install now.
It's too bad you weren't around when they were installing the first cell phone systems. You could have tell them what to install and saved everyone a lot of time and money.
It's a shame that you do not know more about the history of mobile phone technology. The US is not the only country that had an analogue cellular network installed in the pre digital days. (They were not even the first.) The NMT and TACS were in widespread use in European countries throughout the 1980's and that fact has not hindered but rather promoted the adoption of GSM as a national and international standard.
Blaming the problems of the shortcomings of digital networks in the US on the legacy from AMPS is just not on.
You could not be more wrong. The US has a high population density. This makes it cheap to cover a lot of customers with a small footprint. Thus a lot of revenues with minimal expenses on infrastructure.
Nobody cares about covering a few million people living in a vast countryside when there are a couple hundred million living in urban areas.
There are numerous examples of countries with less population density than the US which have managed to build a much more homogenous network infrastructure.
The fact that the US were early adopters of cellular technology does not have anything to do with the current market situation. In fact, those countries that were the first to launch commercial cellular networks were also among the first to adopt the GSM standard. Today they are among (if not THE) most advanced markets in the world as far as technology goes as well as services offered. Of course I am talking about Scandinavia. The NMT network was commercially launched already in 1981. The UK is similar to Scandinavia in this respect, although they have tended to lag behind by a year or two.
The size of the country is completely irrelevant. In order to get a good idea of how easy it is to cover a certain area one has to look at the demographics as well as topography. The US is large yes, BUT a good majority of the people and businesses are located in urban areas. This makes it easy to cover a lot of customers with a small footprint. In contrast to this the Scandinavian countries are less densely populated and requires a more expensive radio access network to cover a majority of the customers. In addition to this the landscape is rugged which again increases the problems of building a network with good coverage.
How can it be that Scandinavia with all its problems and disadvantages have managed to excel in building networks with good coverage and a rich selection of services while a country like the US with all its benefits has failed so miserably? The answer lies in the role of the government. In Scandinavia the governments have had an active role in deciding on standards and dictating coverage goals for the operators since the days of early analogue cellphones. As a result we have a market with high penetration in the population and common standards that allow real competition between the operators. This drives the development of better services for the public. In the US the government has been less avtive. No common standards have been established and there is little real nationwide competition. As a result the market is fragmented and there is a lack of complex end-user services.
In summary: To claim that the reason that the US market is less advanced than European counterparts because the country has inherent demographical, geographical or topographical disadvantages is absolute horse sh*t!! Get your head out of the sand and take look around you! The real reason lies in the US government's reluctance to take a stand and establish a nationwide standard. Not everything can be left for the free market to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
But the majority of the customers reside in these densely populated areas. Therefore it should not be a problem to build profitable networks on a common standard within these areas.
Third, AMPS was deployed before there was any digital standards, and CDMA and TDMA systems were being installed while GSM was still being developed. Sure, it's a no-brainer to decide which system to install now.
It's too bad you weren't around when they were installing the first cell phone systems. You could have tell them what to install and saved everyone a lot of time and money.
It's a shame that you do not know more about the history of mobile phone technology. The US is not the only country that had an analogue cellular network installed in the pre digital days. (They were not even the first.) The NMT and TACS were in widespread use in European countries throughout the 1980's and that fact has not hindered but rather promoted the adoption of GSM as a national and international standard.
Blaming the problems of the shortcomings of digital networks in the US on the legacy from AMPS is just not on.
You could not be more wrong. The US has a high population density. This makes it cheap to cover a lot of customers with a small footprint. Thus a lot of revenues with minimal expenses on infrastructure.
Nobody cares about covering a few million people living in a vast countryside when there are a couple hundred million living in urban areas.
There are numerous examples of countries with less population density than the US which have managed to build a much more homogenous network infrastructure.
The fact that the US were early adopters of cellular technology does not have anything to do with the current market situation. In fact, those countries that were the first to launch commercial cellular networks were also among the first to adopt the GSM standard. Today they are among (if not THE) most advanced markets in the world as far as technology goes as well as services offered. Of course I am talking about Scandinavia. The NMT network was commercially launched already in 1981. The UK is similar to Scandinavia in this respect, although they have tended to lag behind by a year or two. The size of the country is completely irrelevant. In order to get a good idea of how easy it is to cover a certain area one has to look at the demographics as well as topography. The US is large yes, BUT a good majority of the people and businesses are located in urban areas. This makes it easy to cover a lot of customers with a small footprint. In contrast to this the Scandinavian countries are less densely populated and requires a more expensive radio access network to cover a majority of the customers. In addition to this the landscape is rugged which again increases the problems of building a network with good coverage. How can it be that Scandinavia with all its problems and disadvantages have managed to excel in building networks with good coverage and a rich selection of services while a country like the US with all its benefits has failed so miserably? The answer lies in the role of the government. In Scandinavia the governments have had an active role in deciding on standards and dictating coverage goals for the operators since the days of early analogue cellphones. As a result we have a market with high penetration in the population and common standards that allow real competition between the operators. This drives the development of better services for the public. In the US the government has been less avtive. No common standards have been established and there is little real nationwide competition. As a result the market is fragmented and there is a lack of complex end-user services. In summary: To claim that the reason that the US market is less advanced than European counterparts because the country has inherent demographical, geographical or topographical disadvantages is absolute horse sh*t!! Get your head out of the sand and take look around you! The real reason lies in the US government's reluctance to take a stand and establish a nationwide standard. Not everything can be left for the free market to decide.