Linked by snydeq on Wed 6th Jan 2010 20:08 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 403030
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Actually you're missing it!
by ba1l on Thu 7th Jan 2010 18:05
in reply to "RE: Actually you're missing it!"
It's tough to be first. It's antiquated because of very early progress and that it's so expensive to replace equipment over such a vast nation. Tell me that roughly 4000 km east to west is not huge.
We have the same excuse over here in Australia. Our mobile phone networks still suck less than the US ones.
RE[3]: Actually you're missing it!
by nt_jerkface on Fri 8th Jan 2010 21:20
in reply to "RE[2]: Actually you're missing it!"
"It's tough to be first. It's antiquated because of very early progress and that it's so expensive to replace equipment over such a vast nation. Tell me that roughly 4000 km east to west is not huge.
We have the same excuse over here in Australia. Our mobile phone networks still suck less than the US ones. "
That's not a fair comparison because Australia's population is mostly clustered around its eastern coast. America has a ton of people living in the boons and in small towns. Population density is only part of the equation.
RE[2]: Actually you're missing it!
by Ikshaar on Thu 7th Jan 2010 21:40
in reply to "RE: Actually you're missing it!"
I suspect the lack of AT&T-compatible 3G frequencies had to do with a squabble, rather than anything else.
Mostly becuase the 850/1900 3G band of AT&T is only use in the Americas and by few operators. Almost all Europe/Asia/Africa is 2100. So this phone will work wonders in many countries, just not in the fragmented market that is US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UMTS_networks
Edited 2010-01-07 21:43 UTC
RE[2]: Actually you're missing it!
by nt_jerkface on Fri 8th Jan 2010 20:09
in reply to "RE: Actually you're missing it!"
I suspect the lack of AT&T-compatible 3G frequencies had to do with a squabble, rather than anything else.
I agree that it likely isn't technical.
Verizon wants a competitor to the iphone and Google probably took advantage of this and made a deal with them to help bring the cost down.




Member since:
2006-01-23
It's tough to be first. It's antiquated because of very early progress and that it's so expensive to replace equipment over such a vast nation. Tell me that roughly 4000 km east to west is not huge.
Google should have gone with one of Qualcomm's new chipsets that has both GSM and CDMA and related technologies as part of the phone to make sure the phone would work everywhere. That is, if they were really expecting to sell many.
I suspect the lack of AT&T-compatible 3G frequencies had to do with a squabble, rather than anything else.