The FCC auctioned off or gave away a lot of prime spectrum to radio and TV providers back when it wasn't nearly as precious as it is today, and they adopted old, inefficient formats that need an enormous range of frequencies to transmit very little data. Do you know anyone who has used broadcast television over the past ten years? I don't, and I don't think I know very many people who have either. Yet we still use a whole lot of really good VHF space for wasteful analog communication. Meanwhile, the channels used for some of the most important things, like Wi-Fi, need to use some of the crappiest spectrum around, because everything else has been allocated already.
Things are improving, albeit slowly. The switch from analog to digital broadcast TV is opening up a whole lot of space, much of which is being used for WIMAX. But radio uses up even more space than TV did, and there are no plans on the horizon to change it at all.
a major issue that many people seem to miss is that all communication necessarily self-selects for people who can receive it. today, in what many people consider to be the "internet-age", those of us who use the internet tend to forget about those who do not (or simply miss them, if we do remember). and the people who don't tend to be those who are either disabled (because it is difficult for them to make use of the tech), or those who can't afford it.
while i'll definitely agree that we need to take another look at how we're allocating the spectrum, let's not forget as we do so that there are people who depend heavily on tech that is only obsolete for us personally, not for the world as a whole.
I dumped cable 2 years ago due to the high cost, and relish my broadcast television.
I do think Google does it more judiciously. Simplification can be a good thing.
Google does it more judiciously
Comparing the two, that's an understatement.
Building a 4g network across the entire US is a big deal.
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.
Or how about we look at their relative land areas (not counting Greenland) - California & New York only have 41% as much area as the Nordic Countries.
The fact that wireless sucks in the big cities of the US is indicative of crappy service, not technical challenges.
This makes Sweden, Norway and Finland roughly comparable in density to Colorado, Maine, and Oregon, which we tend to think of as relatively spacious states. By contrast, each is about the size of California, which has 5-6x the population density.
This should increase the meaningful population density, as there is little need to have high bandwidth in uninhabited areas.
I live in one of the largest cities in the USA. AT&T's 3G sucks here. If I go 15 miles west of here, it's suddenly way faster. This is entirely because AT&T doesn't invest in backhaul infrastructue. It's got nothing to do with the density the country, and everything to do with the lousy infrastructure investments of the wireless carriers.
Wireless in this country sucks cause we don't demand better. If it's socialist to want my government to go after these bloodsucking bastards and make them provide better service for the exorbitant fees they charge, I'm content to wear the red armband everywhere.
Contrast this with the network monopolies in the US where every (both!) carrier can just make up prices and there is nothing any customer can do about it. This is most certainly why prices are so high in the US and why carriers see little incentive to upgrade their infrastructure.
Careful reading of these  equations may yield you an answer. Flashbacks to college are an unintended side effect.
2) I don't think most people would notice faster network speeds if they came. They would notice better coverage, but would most of us be able to tell 50mps compared to 5mps? I have a feeling the speed my phone loads websites right now is limited by the cpu, not the network. And with 5gb caps (if we're lucky), we can't use our networks for anything more intensive like video streaming. What would be the point of a superfast network if it takes 20 minutes of downloading to use up my monthly alotment?
Both iPhones are a complete joke. To the point of rage WRT ATT service.
The tMobile, while not having 'H' coverage everywhere in SF, is LIGHTNING fast by comparison.
There are several other factors, aside from network, that play into this. The OS and HW on the iPhones are just slow and old by comparison. Where - even on my home wifi network pages are slow to render in the browser.
(Even simply launching the SMS app on the 3G iPhone takes as much as 10-ish seconds to display text)
The MYT4G also has no progress indicator on the sending of SMS - where the iPhone does -- and it does the classic "Load to 90% quickly, then pause forever, if sending at all"
Finally, I have had the iPhone since launch day, and have gone through 9 separate handsets in that time. On every single one of them - the 3G and signal bar indicator have been an utter lie. At times when it claims to be online - it has, over a large percentage of the time I have been a user, not been able to "activate cellular data network" for various reasons - or simply "call canceled" so many times I am fed up.
The "call canceled" sound is heard at least 3 times a day minimum.
In closing, if I could have apple and AT&T reps in the room - I would like to kick them in the balls.