• Re: Minor Update - ATT Wireless Internet - SOME Issues Solved

    From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.misc on Tue Aug 19 02:41:15 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

    On 29 Jul 2025 09:14:02 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

    Out in the cow-farms of Australia It's lucky to get any G since they
    turned 3G off. 4G is bloody useless for coverage, and the telcos
    just openly lie about the fact.

    I don’t see why, if it’s using the same frequency bands. Frequency is the primary determinant of physical radio signal range (given the same amount
    of power), after all.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.misc on Tue Aug 19 02:42:49 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

    On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:15:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

    Many places in Africa have gone directly to wireless technology.
    They never deployed copper. The infrastructure is cheaper. Or way
    too expensive with copper (or fibre).

    And many places don’t have a good electricity grid supply, either. Which
    has given rise to an interesting kind of business, namely the mobile solar-powered charging station.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.misc on Tue Aug 19 02:46:34 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

    On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 13:18:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    The USA is amazingly backward, given its wealth, in so many ways.

    The wealth is great, but not uniformly distributed. Because attempts at
    fixing the gross inequalities tend to be seen as “socialist”. So you have big bandwidth-heavy Internet businesses based in the US and making money
    hand over fist, while ordinary users trying to access those services end
    up with limited, low-quality and expensive choices for connections at
    their end.

    Talk about a populace brainwashed into believing Government propaganda ...
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From not@not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) to comp.os.linux.misc on Thu Aug 21 07:48:25 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On 29 Jul 2025 09:14:02 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
    Out in the cow-farms of Australia It's lucky to get any G since they
    turned 3G off. 4G is bloody useless for coverage, and the telcos
    just openly lie about the fact.

    I don't see why, if it's using the same frequency bands. Frequency is the primary determinant of physical radio signal range (given the same amount
    of power), after all.

    Unfortunately anyone with the time and documents to understand
    exactly how it all works in is the employ of a company selling 4G
    tech, so nobody's explaining the full details. But obviously there
    are lots of technical changes which can counter that basic
    assumption when applied to 4G, using multiple radios/antennas,
    error correction, whatever equates to the minimum baud rate
    (especially for what can handle digital voice data).

    I noticed the same when 2G was turned off reception got worse too.
    My old 2G/3G mobile broadband modem no longer got reception except
    near the windows in my house (granted 2G speed was slow enough that
    I did want it near a window anyway). Phone calls still worked
    inside on 3G though, but even against the windows is dodgy on 4G -
    I have to go outside now (when my landline's not working). It's not
    even as reliable as 3G for making calls outdoors.
    --
    __ __
    #_ < |\| |< _#
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From c186282@c186282@nnada.net to comp.os.linux.misc on Thu Aug 21 03:50:41 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

    On 8/20/25 5:48 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On 29 Jul 2025 09:14:02 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
    Out in the cow-farms of Australia It's lucky to get any G since they
    turned 3G off. 4G is bloody useless for coverage, and the telcos
    just openly lie about the fact.

    I don't see why, if it's using the same frequency bands. Frequency is the
    primary determinant of physical radio signal range (given the same amount
    of power), after all.

    Unfortunately anyone with the time and documents to understand
    exactly how it all works in is the employ of a company selling 4G
    tech, so nobody's explaining the full details. But obviously there
    are lots of technical changes which can counter that basic
    assumption when applied to 4G, using multiple radios/antennas,
    error correction, whatever equates to the minimum baud rate
    (especially for what can handle digital voice data).

    I noticed the same when 2G was turned off reception got worse too.
    My old 2G/3G mobile broadband modem no longer got reception except
    near the windows in my house (granted 2G speed was slow enough that
    I did want it near a window anyway). Phone calls still worked
    inside on 3G though, but even against the windows is dodgy on 4G -
    I have to go outside now (when my landline's not working). It's not
    even as reliable as 3G for making calls outdoors.

    Every "G" uses higher freqs and tighter encoding.

    Higher freqs do NOT penetrate obstacles - even
    just trees or little hills - as well. More
    "RF shadows".

    Encoding ... 'tighter' CAN mean 'more vulnerable
    to errors'. Just a dropped bit here and there and
    you can't extract the real data.

    5-G is now over much of the USA. My new ATT crap
    box is 5-G ... but the TOWER is kind of a long
    way off. Between that and an old concrete house
    with metal roof ... lucky to ever see two bars.
    Mid-day, heavy use, even see the ONE bar drop out
    sometimes. They promised 90+ ... almost NEVER see
    better than 20. On the plus, it's half the price
    of my old wired service - which I can't get back.

    In-house ... I still use 2.4 wifi for everything.
    It goes through walls better than 5.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From not@not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) to comp.os.linux.misc on Fri Aug 22 09:10:23 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

    c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
    On 8/20/25 5:48 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On 29 Jul 2025 09:14:02 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
    Out in the cow-farms of Australia It's lucky to get any G since they
    turned 3G off. 4G is bloody useless for coverage, and the telcos
    just openly lie about the fact.

    I don't see why, if it's using the same frequency bands. Frequency is the >>> primary determinant of physical radio signal range (given the same amount >>> of power), after all.

    Unfortunately anyone with the time and documents to understand
    exactly how it all works in is the employ of a company selling 4G
    tech, so nobody's explaining the full details. But obviously there
    are lots of technical changes which can counter that basic
    assumption when applied to 4G, using multiple radios/antennas,
    error correction, whatever equates to the minimum baud rate
    (especially for what can handle digital voice data).

    I noticed the same when 2G was turned off reception got worse too.
    My old 2G/3G mobile broadband modem no longer got reception except
    near the windows in my house (granted 2G speed was slow enough that
    I did want it near a window anyway). Phone calls still worked
    inside on 3G though, but even against the windows is dodgy on 4G -
    I have to go outside now (when my landline's not working). It's not
    even as reliable as 3G for making calls outdoors.

    Every "G" uses higher freqs and tighter encoding.

    Higher freqs do NOT penetrate obstacles - even
    just trees or little hills - as well. More
    "RF shadows".

    That was originally the case, but the Telcos in Aus introduced a
    new 700MHz band before the 3G switch-off. Older devices didn't
    support it, yet I checked _really_ hard through the specs for the
    phones I bought and those others people I know tried that they
    supported the new band. Still bloody hopeless. 3G was 850MHz, so
    higher frequency, but it worked where 700MHz 4G phones (some
    branded "4GX") don't! Telcos still say the problem is fixed though,
    so off goes 3G and they just ignore the complaints.

    Before 3G was turned off new phones would favour 4G and they were
    much less reliable unless set not to use 4G at all. Telcos said the
    reception on 4G would improve after 3G was turned off (with no real explaination why). More lies, it's just as bad as before, without
    the choice to turn it off.

    Telcos have completely lost any grain of trust I still had in them
    since all this.

    Encoding ... 'tighter' CAN mean 'more vulnerable
    to errors'. Just a dropped bit here and there and
    you can't extract the real data.

    5-G is now over much of the USA.

    I haven't got my hands on anything 5G yet so I haven't looked into
    coverage. I did look into 5G mobiles to see if I could find one
    which would be usable after the inevitable 4G turn-off. Of course
    that's a separate standard to VoLTE, "VoNR" or "Vo5G", and just
    like VoLTE lots of phones with 5G support _don't_ do VoNR so will
    be as useless as all the 4G-but-not-VoLTE phones which went in the
    bin when 3G was turned off. But the cheap "feature phones" I'm
    looking at are miles away from having any sort of 5G support
    anyway.
    --
    __ __
    #_ < |\| |< _#
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2