QUOTE (Karoline @ Nov 25 2009, 07:59 PM)

The main problem with cellphone reliability is the number of towers in an area. But putting up more towers is expensive, so why should a company bother doing so? It works fine as is 99% of the time, so why spend millions for that 1% of the time when emergencies happen?
As long as we're speculating, I think probably by 2070 we're going to have complete, high-bandwidth coverage over most of the Earth's land surface, by one means or another; that's perhaps optimistic, but with technology, it usually pays to bet big. Certainly, we're not going to be using the current cell phone infrastructure, with its current range, capacity, frequency, and bandwidth limitations. And the commlink range limitations of SR4 will almost certainly appear laughable in 2070, as they do today.
The incentive for greater coverage and bandwidth is perhaps nowhere made more clear than in the recent Verizon vs ATT "There's a map for that" controversy. The trend is certainly upward in terms of capacity, range, and bandwidth, and that trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Yes, rural coverage is problematic, and will always lag behind urban coverage [and services], because, as you say, of customer density issues. But if you look at coverage 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today, I think it's clear that coverage in 50 years will be extraordinary. And considering SR4's mesh network and miniaturization, rural communities could be serviced by a network of millions of low-range wireless routers built into roadside reflectors or installed atop telephone poles, with photovoltaic power. [Although in real life, I don't think that's quite the solution we'll be using.]
QUOTE (Mercer @ Nov 25 2009, 08:08 PM)

Cellphones are a relatively new technology. I would say the difference between phone technology today and 2050 should be roughly anagolous to the difference phone technology in 1960 and today. They probably won't work "like magic" but significant improvements don't seem unreasonable, especially since other technology (electronics, cybernetics and so on) have all advanced.
In fact, the growth of technology is exponential, for precisely the reason you mention: because other technology also advances. The advancement in telecommunications in the last 50 years will be utterly dwarfed by those we will see in the next 50. The limiting factor will be resources available to pursue the technologies we develop; as more people achieve the first world's current level of technology, the resources our technology is founded on will be stretched increasingly thin. The ideal solution, from many perspectives, would be VITAS, although a much higher death toll would probably be extremely helpful.