4 ms·
It has to do with that the expense of setting up a cellular network is so expensive that it hasn't be done in large parts of the earth, much less another celest
by DataGata 6y ago
It has to do with that the expense of setting up a cellular network is so expensive that it hasn't be done in large parts of the earth, much less another celestial body.
- fsloth 6y agoThat's the business of network providers. To acquire the hardware, install them, and operate the service. That has nothing to do with Nasa or Nokia. I don't know why there are areas in US that lack service providers. Maybe someone here can explain it - I presume the reason has to do with something US specific about the business rather the overall cost since lots of low GDP areas globally can have good cellular coverage.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoI get 4G in Russia, on a mountain in a crevice that has a glacier and 4 goats. Jokes aside, you'd be surprised how good network coverage is in some remote areas that seemingly have very little economic value.
- cestith 6y agoIt's not so much average earnings per person as average people per square mile. The network providers only want to invest where the return on that investment meets or exceeds some floor. Parts of the US are so sparsely populated the phone contracts for cellular would be huge to justify building the towers and backhauling the signals.