4 ms·

I have not been to Africa or India, but considering that it's easy to find areas of North America without cell phone coverage I find it very difficult to believ

I have not been to Africa or India, but considering that it's easy to find areas of North America without cell phone coverage I find it very difficult to believe your assertion about 90% coverage. Even in cities, it seems from the comments here that there is some appeal to communicating "off the grid" as it were.

ismail 12y ago
His assertion is true, i have traveled to 4+ countries in africa, and live in one. I have yet to be without signal in all my travels. You would need to go really remote to find a place without signal. Even sparsely populated areas, backwaters are covered. The reason is communication infrastructure was pretty bad here, hence we leap frogged and mobile is primary means of communication. You also have the other challenge of copper being stolen, hence in some areas the only way for you to get comms (internet/phone) is via mobile.
- com2kid 12y ago
  > I have yet to be without signal in all my travels. You would need to go really remote to find a place without signal. In contrast, I can travel ~20 minutes outside a major metropolitian area in the US (Seattle) and be without cell service. Heck I often am without cell service when I'm hiking. Then again I'm using a provider (T-Mobile) which is known to only work in metro areas!
  - somberi 12y ago
    I was going to write this part in my original email but wanted to stick to the main concern about use cases. I do live 3-4 months a year in NYC and in my pre-war building, T-mobile has spotty coverage. If I travel to Connecticut, 90 minutes away, there are many spots en-route where I do not get a signal.