34 ms·
This is all accurate, but people still expect reception and speed when travelling between those dense population centres by road or rail. Much like Australia,
by dbetteridge 6y ago
This is all accurate, but people still expect reception and speed when travelling between those dense population centres by road or rail.
Much like Australia, this means providers build the infrastructure to supply those areas but then the cost is recovered from the dense population areas.
Theres also some capatilism nonsense oligopolies thrown in there, but that's the core issue.
- gruez 6y ago> This is all accurate, but people still expect reception and speed when travelling between those dense population centres by road or rail. Why doesn't the consumer have a choice? I'd be willing to sacrifice coverage in rural areas in exchange for 50-80% discounted tariffs, for instance.
- ludston 6y agoBecause you don't want to increase the class divide between rural and non-rural areas. Or maybe you do, but most of us don't, and you have to conform to our values if you want to live with the benefits that a society of those values have produced.
- bleepblorp 6y agoThere is no evidence that cutting coverage in rural areas will reduce prices elsewhere. The Canadian situation is bad-to-zero coverage in rural areas and the world's most expensive cell phone service (think of plans that charge $10 CAD per GB of data) in developed regions. The money that Canada's two cell phone networks didn't spend covering rural areas didn't reduce prices; it disappeared into shareholder pockets.
- 908B64B197 6y agoIsn't more than half the population something like < 100 miles from the US border? I've always wondered why no big international player tried to enter that market, it's ripe for disruption, and the local operators sound like they are far behind.