What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
68 Comments
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 10/02/2008, -0/+44This is why America is so far behind when it comes to technology. It seriously pisses me off. How the hell do we stay competitive in the global market when they insist that we use second rate technologies. By the time they get around to constructing a 4g network there might be 5g or possibly even 6g. ***** pisses me off.
- bjgpp, on 10/03/2008, -2/+35Work on putting 3G everywhere before starting with 4G.
- inactive, on 10/03/2008, -0/+27at&t in no rush to build out 3G network either.
- DarkerMaster, on 10/03/2008, -1/+22BIG ***** SUPRISE!
- riggs32, on 10/03/2008, -1/+21last year we had a foreign exchange student from finland at our school. he had a kickass nokia phone that is impossible to get in the states. when i asked him what kind of network they had in finland he just said "broadband". He laughed when i asked if he meant 3g
america is seriously so far behind in technology, and is only going to fall farther behind if we don't put a stop to it soon. - aywwts4, on 10/03/2008, -0/+13So am I right in assuming this means ATT has no plans for using the wireless spectrum they purchased the majority of, which is coming available in a few months, for 3 years or more?
- kloche, on 10/03/2008, -1/+12No wonder America is in such a mess. Even our American companies, no longer have the desire to compete, keep up with innovation or be world leaders in their respective industries. This feels like another long-term "GM killing the electric car" mistake
But on the other hand, AT&T is more than happy to keep on charging customers high rates for sub par service. - inactive, on 10/03/2008, -0/+11Still don't even have 3g in iowa.
- philodygmn, on 10/02/2008, -3/+12Retrograde, moneygrubbing bastards.
- pimpofpixels, on 10/03/2008, -0/+8The networks in the united states are terrible.
I worked for a company making wireless apps for a while. We'd have an idea for a cool applications, and the carries would just kind of look dumbfounded and skirt past the fact that the infrastructure is garbage. Our wireless carriers are just so big that it's basically to a monopoly. These companies are already so profitable that they've no real incentive to make progress. The fact that we don't even have consistent inter-carrier video messaging is just pathetic. We're around 3 to 4 years behind the rest of the modern world.
We were like 5 years late in inter-carrier text messaging too.
Pretty weak. - Radan, on 10/03/2008, -1/+9Something similar happened to me too actually. I can't remember what the discussion really was about, but I briefly mentioned that most of Sweden has access to 3 - 7.2 Mbit/sec 3G networks. Then I got laughed at because "I obviously meant WiFi to my cable modem".
Good god. - roodammy44, on 10/03/2008, -1/+8Why would you bother competing when you have a monopoly?
- HolyChimp, on 10/03/2008, -1/+8Who the hell dugg this guy up? Texas is 268,820 sq miles, Europe is 3,930,000 sq miles. So yes, they're almost the same size, if you ignore 3 million square miles.
The reason your 3G network sucks is because your providers can't be bothered to upgrade it. - brett717, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7OK Competitors, That's Your Cue!
- HarChim, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6It's because of the lack of competition. They don't need to work harder because they aren't going to be losing any money if they don't.
- DiscoUnderpants, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6@LocalDocal
Hes talking about 3G broadband speed. - madvibe, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5They probably bought so no one else would have it and don't have any pressure to compete with it.
- roodammy44, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Britain is not further behind than america.
3.2Mbps covers practically the whole country.
Trials of 7Mbps are being carried out. - jollyroger814, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5I'm perfectly fine with 3G. It's a ***** phone. How fast does it have to be? That is what I own a computer for.
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2There are lots of reasons for this. The US being much bigger is an excuse that I'm not going to buy. There are plenty of independent contractors that could install the network if they wanted to stay up to speed, but the real reason is the laws. Publicly traded companies are by law required to turn a profit for the shareholders. Dropping 3/4 of their profits to stay on the cutting edge is not one the 51% of the shareholders are willing to take, they would rather pocket the cash.
51% of the shareholders = the board members which is about 12 people usually. Then the other 49% of the shares are what you can buy on the stock market. - AgmLauncher, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2And the state also controls the guns/tanks/planes/nukes and therefore is NOT fully accountable to the public ;)
Go ahead and start a rebellion against the state, see how far you get ;)
And agreed with ThinkOutTheBox. That attitude of "nah, it's good enough" is why America is falling behind everywhere. You have to be looking ahead 10-15 years in advance ALL THE TIME in order to stay competitive. It's the old adage of the tortoise and the hare tbh.
I'll use a simple example: The F22 Raptor vs the F15 Eagle. Opponents of the F22 replacing the F15 said "the F15 is the currently the best fighter in the world, it has a proven track record, why replace it?" The obvious answer of course is that it's only CURRENTLY the best, but will be outdated in 15-20 years. By building the Raptor now, we can maintain our edge that much longer, and if we use that extra time to make a 6th gen fighter, we can make it more thoroughly and cheaply than if it were hastily built in response to a competitor.
America COULD have revolutionized the energy industry with wind turbines and solar that could have built a massive export industry for us. But nope, coal and nuclear was good enough.
Lack of forward thinking is really, really bad for this country. Luckily our military doesn't have that problem, but only because it has gobs and gobs of money that results from our strong economy that is getting comparatively weaker every day :/ - jaypdub, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Something to take into account is the fact that the US is much, much bigger than England or Japan (or many of the countries ahead of us in the network races), so it takes a lot longer to roll out a new network and cover the whole country. Which is apparent with the slow expansion of the 3G network.
- russ3, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2then drive to it
- Hawke, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Build out? AT&T still does not have good coverage in my area with Edge. Ha ha ha...
- pentiumii, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2no and no and no yet again Wimax is not 4g
3g as we call it is actually only mean 3 generation but when talking about mobile network when we says 3g we r commonly referring to gsm serves broadband network
wimax is be introduce by sprint a cdma company a different type of network hence evdo and by the way for all u people crying about America being behind evdo is way fast and far more wide spread then thats of att or any 3g network only in the u.s though
Lte would be gsm 4g
and competitor to Wimax i guess but as Wimax is already being rolled out and att saying there going to wait 3 years i say u all on gsm services mite never see Lte as Wimax could just take over
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/151 link to a nice article about diff between gsm and cdma
going by the comets some of u need to read this - adriantr, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2This is very true. But American wireless carriers make up for the extra area that needs covering by charging a lot more for the service, giving them higher profit margins. These could then be used to upgrade the network faster without making the company go bust. Instead they pocket the money and charge you more, for more things.
- mooninite, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Yes, their 3G network coverage is pathetic. They only increased coverage about 10% in the last year. That's not very fast. I'm laughing at the ads they're putting on about how you can find internet "anywhere" and how it's 3G, etc. etc.
- FearNLoathing, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2All of these posts are ridiculous. There IS room for 3G to scale up beyond what AT&T is using now. HSDPA can scale up to (theoretically) 14.4mbit/sec. Why would they invest in yet another technology when they already have a huge HSDPA deployment that can ramp up way beyond what they provide now? It doesn't make sense.
- KMartSheriff, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1AT&T isn't the only telecommunications company that feels that way.
- Tudor00, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2it probably costs a lot more to upgrade networks in the us, thus att is slower in building broadband networks. theres a lot of ground to cover. it still sucks though.
- scottp22192, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah look at the size of say Finland vs the US, I'm sure it's a helluva lot easier and cheaper to upgrade their infrastructure and stay on top of technology.
- inactive, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Remember this is the same thought used in how they view deploying residential broadband. Folks its all about bitching seriosuly. If you hate the service complain and let your $$$ speak. Nothing drives companies to innovation faster than negative $$$ flow.
- Tudor00, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1I just moved from iowa to southern california, i was thrilled about finally being able to use the 3g. turns out my apartment building is made out of solid concrete, so i get one bar inside, if i'm lucky. screwed either way.
- saboola, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Same here. As I stare into my "No Service" iphone. I switched from Verizon for this?
- keithloughnane, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1They allready said they were doing this. If you want a better connection the websites are going to have to pay for a fast lane. Keeping the connections bad only helps them get what they want, and when they do they'll say "See now that we control the internet you have fast lanes".
if you devide the internet you just have networks, not an internet - webkami, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1It would have been easy if it did not had that very long tail.
- kloche, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1When these companies (like ATT) and their monopolies do this, they are really stiffling the growth of the mobile web and other related cottage industries. Related industries that help drive up product and service demand.
Small business innovators, boutique web and app design firms and freelancers are also being affected. And there are so many good ideas & forward thinking innovations, that aren't reaching the market. This is primarily due to the fact that either the technology (eg 4G) is not domestically available to support them or the price of access to that technology (eg iPhone v.1) is so cost prohibitive for the the mass market.
AT&T needs to start thinking long term again instead trying to grab cash just for today. - Bodhinature, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1This is the end result of concentrated capital. Just as full state control is purported to stifle innovation, full private unaccountability always stifles innovation because it is a threat to profit. The state (in general) is a impersonal and (supposedly) fully accountable to the public.
- Scott2, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2slow news day.
- adriantr, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1The "theoretical" limit of USB2.0 is 480mbit/sec, but tell me when do you get near that fast when transferring files?
- vdogg89, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1but what if you dont have your laptop with you? say, in the car.
- bassfanatik, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Places they say have 3G I can only get on edge (I have an iPhone 3G, what a surprise). The coverage maps are bullsh*t.
- bassfanatik, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, how about we get halfway decent 3G coverage first?
- one2gamble, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1They dont even have 3G everywhere yet....
- akatsuki, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Doesn't surprise me at all. People want to make excuses about covering land area, but having lived in NYC, we don't get 4G and super-fast broadband. The problem is that we always have competing standards, so we not only have to cover the country, but we have to do it TWICE. Europe and Asia would rather settle on a standard (be it GSM, HSPDA or whichever of the 4Gs LTE or WiMax) and require everyone to use it. Also,we use frequencies that are different than the rest of the world so phones have to often be made specifically for our market.
Sure CDMA might be technically superior to GSM, but the cost of doing everything twice definitely outweighs the miniscule technological advantage, and we would have been better off to adopt the European standard for 2G and 3G. For 4G, with LTE and WiMax still sorting things out, who really cares until a standard is adopted? - formfactor, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Oh come on... they act like ATT has sufficient 3G coverage. Take a look at the 3G coverage map for Iowa. Not a single 3G tower for the entire state. I cant imagine Iowa being the only state with this problem.
- kelchm, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2Well, I mean it is Iowa...
- russ3, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1Wait for 5g
- GhostFreeman, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Working on it
- cgruber, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1What does WiMax have to do with 3G? They are competing technologies.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is