On Tue, 19 May 2015 14:35:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I can drive all over Europe and have constant access to modern
communications. I can move around in rural India, in northern Africa,
in rural Peru, and never lose contact.

You are comparing apples with oranges. The US is one of the least densely populated places in the world, yet with a very large population to serve.

The comparison is fair. The U.S. has a mish-mash of competing,
mutually incompatible systems which are selectively deployed in high
density population areas. Most of the rest of the world has not
allowed that. Has not privatized spectrum. Has not allowed cherry
picking. Has properly treated the infrastructure as a public utility.
And they still have thriving private telecommunications industries.
And people have inexpensive access no matter where they are.


In the U.S., I'm regularly unable to use modern communication tools,
just driving around moderately populated areas.

If you look at a coverage map, you will note coverage in the US is better in populated AND unpopulated areas than in similar areas in Europe. India has coverage along roads and in large cities, but not so good in remote areas.

I've been all over India. Even in the mountains, in the jungle, I have
coverage. I've never lost a connection in Europe, even in rural
mountains. Coverage in Europe is essentially 100%. Coverage in India
is better than in the U.S. Considerably better. All the more so
because it doesn't depend on the company you buy service from.

Our communication system is not very good, and in comparison to the
rest of the world is getting worse all the time- even in comparison to
very undeveloped parts of the world. Mainly because it is overly
privatized and underregulated.

That just means that resources are allocated properly. If you dislike the cell service where you live, move.

Or, I can advocate for public ownership of spectrum and a mandate that
providers cover all areas. Like the phone system was structured. And
I'm not just talking about phones here.