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.
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).
The USA is amazingly backward, given its wealth, in so many ways.
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.
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.
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.
Sysop: | DaiTengu |
---|---|
Location: | Appleton, WI |
Users: | 1,064 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 146:20:48 |
Calls: | 13,691 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 186,935 |
D/L today: |
22 files (1,452K bytes) |
Messages: | 2,410,869 |