> That's competitive with a lot of European markets, where its easier to break into considering the much smaller population/size.
Citation needed. A lot of the market entry barriers are political/regulatory. Also smaller populations make for smaller scales of economy. These together don't make it any easier to break into a smaller market. The total capital outlay may be smaller in a smaller market, but that does not mean it will be easier or more profitable.
The US market is not very competitive and the carriers do not compete as aggressively as European operators do. There are much more competitive European markets with three carriers that the US with four carriers.
> Heck, the entirety of Finland's population is about half the Chicagoland metro area.
And the point being? Finland is way larger than Chicagoland, has way lower popularion density and has far better and cheaper service.
> I don't see how someone with a budget plan in a highly dense country is going to be entitled to have the same economics roaming in countries with low desnity where the cost, per sq kilometer, for 3G/4G service is much, much higher.
You have gotten your assumptions completely wrong. Finland has the lowest popularion density inthe EU and the fifth largest land mass. Regardless of this Finland has the best and cheapest service in all of EU.
So, the question is more like this: Why shouldn't a user from a low density country be entitled to the same economics roaming in countries with high population density?
> A lot of the cost for US service is making sure people out in the boonies have service as well.
Citation needed.
> That comes at a higher cost than some of the more ultra dense European markets. Its subsidised nation-wide, which makes sense, but if you have a cheap Finnish plan because your tiny country is easy to wire up, well, don't expect those rates in rural Bulgaria or on a Greek island.
Citation needed. A lot of the market entry barriers are political/regulatory. Also smaller populations make for smaller scales of economy. These together don't make it any easier to break into a smaller market. The total capital outlay may be smaller in a smaller market, but that does not mean it will be easier or more profitable.
The US market is not very competitive and the carriers do not compete as aggressively as European operators do. There are much more competitive European markets with three carriers that the US with four carriers.
> Heck, the entirety of Finland's population is about half the Chicagoland metro area.
And the point being? Finland is way larger than Chicagoland, has way lower popularion density and has far better and cheaper service.
> I don't see how someone with a budget plan in a highly dense country is going to be entitled to have the same economics roaming in countries with low desnity where the cost, per sq kilometer, for 3G/4G service is much, much higher.
You have gotten your assumptions completely wrong. Finland has the lowest popularion density inthe EU and the fifth largest land mass. Regardless of this Finland has the best and cheapest service in all of EU.
So, the question is more like this: Why shouldn't a user from a low density country be entitled to the same economics roaming in countries with high population density?
> A lot of the cost for US service is making sure people out in the boonies have service as well.
Citation needed.
> That comes at a higher cost than some of the more ultra dense European markets. Its subsidised nation-wide, which makes sense, but if you have a cheap Finnish plan because your tiny country is easy to wire up, well, don't expect those rates in rural Bulgaria or on a Greek island.
See above comment. Put up or shut up.