By everyone thinking you can get 100% coverage across the Great Basin Desert? Yes. Yes I do think that the population density of Europe leads them to think everything is closer and easier than it is.
That one desert, of many, is about 190,000 miles in size. That's half the size of the whole of France.
Are you really saying covering that, with 100% coverage, with no dead spots at all, is a reasonable task to undertake?
That's a population distribution issue, not an area size issue (you yourself raised the size of Texas as a "problem").
FWiW the state I grew up in is 3x the area of Texas with cattle stations larger than those tiny Texas ranches.
~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5EQ1NZN6A
If you want to challenge the myth of coverage in Europe forget about size comparisons and look to some of the hard walking trails in remote areas; Via Dinarica Kosovo is known for it's beauty and harsh terrain, not for it's cell reception.
Elsewhere in the Balkans, Romania, et al you'll find blind spots.
The signal in the Kimberley's is shithouse, mate. Last time I was there, I went three days with zero signal, because I was in some more remote communities. That's not really an argument against what I was suggesting, is it?
> That's not really an argument against what I was suggesting, is it?
No, that's pretty much just a tangential straw interpretation of your own design as the signal quality in Kimberley, or lack thereof, has got three tenths of f'all to do with the issue being population distribution rather than size.
Both Europe and the US have low population regions with poor signal.
Upthread I suspect the anecdata about good quality signal in Europe came from somebody who had more exposure to the well trod higher population density parts of Europe and hadn't encounter less covered corners.
> I'm running LTE-only with zero problems for 2 years now without a single coverage gap. Even in the rural parts.
The anecdote, was suggesting that our vast and empty lands are trivial to cover. But as you know, that has nothing to do with reality. I'm so sorry I tried to convey it with a tinch of kindness to them. Next time I'll tell them to pull their fucking head in.
> Are you really saying covering that, with 100% coverage, with no dead spots at all, is a reasonable task to undertake?
Well, do people live in this desert? If not, then I wouldn't say that's reasonable.
But then I don't feel like your replies here are reasonable either and pretty disingenuous overall, so maybe lets just leave it at that, and you can continue believe your country is much bigger than it is.
This is not an uncommon setting in the US either. I'm sure there's a few unique paths like this in Europe, but honestly, are there that many? I once drove the majority of the US (I started in The South, so think 24 -> 70 -> 29 -> 80 -> 29 -> 90) and despite driving across almost all of America the biggest city I drove through was St Louis, which doesn't even have 300k people. I think if you counted all the people that were <5km distance from me over the subsequent several days and several thousand kilometers I doubt the number would add up to my stop in St Louis and would only have happened because I went through Sioux Falls (~200k at the time).
Yes, people do.
But no, I don't live in America. I live in the much, much, much less dense country of Australia. Where tourists frequently die, because they believe that they'll have cell signal everywhere.