Linked by robojerk on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:09 UTC
Permalink for comment 455192
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-26
The difference is a lack of legal enforcement of a single technology, not a technical deficiency.
Countries like NZ have been able to pick and choose from technologies developed and tested in the US. Given the layout of the current cell infrastructure of the US requiring a single system would be costly. If the US only needed to cover an area the size of NZ changing the existing system would be much easier.
Cell phone companies have been able to compete with landlines that operate on cost as public trusts so I'm not convinced consumers are at a significant disadvantage with the current system. Last I checked cell bills in the US are comparable to France and Norway.