Hacker News Reader

> That would be like Verizon rolling out screaming fast 4g only in California, and leaving the rest of the country on 3g. That just wouldn't work.

Well if that were the case, shouldn't they have rolled out 4G at least in California & New York? Ironically, those are the places with the worst cell service.

View on HN

well.. not the best example. California and New York combined have 3-4 times the population of all the Nordic Countries.

Actually, California & New York have 2.2 times the population[0] while having 2.1 times the GDP[1], so I really don't see how that's all that relevant.

Or how about we look at their relative land areas[2] (not counting Greenland) - California & New York only have 41% as much area as the Nordic Countries.

0: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((california+population...

1: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(california+%2B+new+yor...

2: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((california+state+area...)

Exactly. It should be easier AND cheaper to roll out the better wireless where there are more, wealthier people and where there is greater density.

The fact that wireless sucks in the big cities of the US is indicative of crappy service, not technical challenges.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com