Orange France boss confirms iPhone tidal wave, data surge, but happy to invest in infrastructure (AT&T?)

How do you mean the multiple carrier technologies would cause such effect?

Also, in order to make a just comparison, one would need to deduct 90% of Alaska and huge rural areas in Nebraska, Montana and similar places where very few people live. There's no equalent of that in France and no one would expect the US-companies to offer mobile broadband in arctic areas, deserts, Rocky mountains etc. 

If you would compare say California with a (size and population) comparable area in western Europe, you'd see that regardless of what operator we're speaking about, the US have a very poor service. Compared to a high tech country like Sweden, the service you guys pay MORE MONEY for, it complete stone age. In Sweden even rural areas with few people have the same 3G speed that is the fastest you'll get at the present (3 mbps). Every village with a few hundred inhabitants in Sweden have 7,2 mbps since ages and central Stockholm + some suburbs just got a fully functional 4G up and running (the first one in the world), with an initial speed of 50 mbps, to be raised to 100 mbps later this year and . The cost to have 4G?  Half of what you pay for your poor 3G service...

I'm not writing this to brag about Sweden, my main point is that if you divide the area of Sweden with the amount of inhabitants, you'll get a higher cost per customer than in the US. There are 4 major carriers in Sweden competing, just like in the US. So it is utter bullshit that no provider in the US can offer an acceptable service. In Sweden the companies go for it, in the US they rather try to milk the customers on the old infrastructure as long as possible first. 

Sorry, but this is a typical american ignorant comment about other countries. Really, no real socialist country would subside private companies like you suggest. The high taxes goes to free medicare, higher standard instrastructure etc. Not saying this is better or worse than your system, it's a matter of opinion.

And as for Sweden, the most technologically advanced country on the planet when it comes to telecom technlology, it is not a country ruled by socialist since 2006. What the goverment here did was that instead of selling licenses for the UMTS (3G) for a lot of money, they allowed any company to start using the technology in the country upon signing a treaty that they would cover 99% of the population with their network. Which was a very smart move as 75% of Sweden consists of rural areas. 

Now really, it is you who don't understand economics pal. NY, which is apparently known for the bad ATT coverage, has a bigger population that the entire Sweden, but is a much smaller area. Now, if 4 swedish providers can make good cash even having to invest in the wilderness, then it is total bullshit that a US providers wouldn't be able to make tons of cash out of a smaller area crowded with people. Fact is that if anyone lives in any major city in the US and get dropped calls and slow network, it is a sign of a degenerated capitalism where companies stagnate to develop and just suck out the blood of the customers who have no choice but sticking around. 

Sure the expenses is paid by the customer, who else??  But what you totally seem to miss is that ATT have too fat margins. They think short term and rather think about pleasing their present share holders rather than investing (enough) for the future. Since all US providers do that, they can get away with it. In Sweden there was one provider that started offering 3G years before you guys even heard about it and thus the rest had to follow in order to not become obsolete. Now THAT is a healthy capitalism in my eyes. And it benefits the customers who get a better service for less money.