In my average EU country 4G has also great coverage, but for USA that is still a challenge: there are many low density rural areas that are too expensive to cover, so nobody does it. That is why getting 4G coverage there would be more relevant than going for 5G in a few cities.
Just adding to this by mentioning the situation is similar in distant parts of Europe; there's a lot of areas that aren't served by anything but 2G/3G and where you can't even get dial-up.
I think 4G doesn't tell the whole story, especially in several businesses that target users in specific conditions (e.g. tourism, where your users have poor unstable 4g) or specific markets withpoor avera8ge mobile connections.
Yes but I'm not sure if that's where the author would like to go. 4G coverage will likely be weaker (making it harder to code on the go) and with fewer camper vans you'll not meet as many people. Security can also be a concern, as can be political influences (esp in Turkey at the moment).
4G is more than enough for what I need (I'm going to assume now that anywhere at all populated in these countries already have decent 4G or will have within the foreseeable future). This is the case already in e.g. Northern rural Sweden. It's far far less densely populated than anywhere in Italy.
The article already countered #2 by pointing out that countries who "lost the race" ended up with faster, cheaper and more widespread access to 4g. And despite these countries having much better networks than the US, most companies did not just drop everything and move.
Same experience here, also from AA. Most of the countryside has also good 3G. Some websites are unreachable though. I am not inclined to comment on the political situation.
reply