Is there a reason why Google and Apple wouldn't turn 2G downgrade off by default? Even the setting itself says "emergency calls over 2G are still allowed" so what is the reasoning behind leaving people exposed to this?
Is there a reason why Google and Apple wouldn't turn 2G downgrade off by default? Even the setting itself says "emergency calls over 2G are still allowed" so what is the reasoning behind leaving people exposed to this?
My recent experience when roaming was that calls only worked on 2G even though 4G and 5G were avaliable. After a call, phone would sometimes stay stuck on 2G which meant internet was not working. I had to disable 2G to force the phone to switch to 5G. But if I forgot to enable 2G again, calls didn't work. I checked this with multiple people and they all had the same issue.
Then your carrier has a shitty roaming agreement where you were roaming. Enabling the 4G and 5G bearers is an option they can choose to enable (and pay for) their customers — or not.
This is totally speculative but I bet 2G is more reliable and has longer range. If your reception is bad, it may be necessary to downgrade to get any connection at all.
LTE/5G is available on the low bands (700/800MHz) in Europe for a long long time now.
I'm running LTE-only with zero problems for 2 years now without a single coverage gap. Even in the rural parts.
Europe's size may not lead you to comprehending the US' size.
East to west, Texas is larger than most European nations. Meaning it has rural areas larger than some European nations.
Whilst there probably are other complaints to add to build the explanation, scale isn't one. The US does have vast and empty spaces.
Enabling newer 3GPP releases on low frequency bands is not a solution that only Europe can provide; they can do it in Texas, too, if they want to.
> Europe's size may not lead you to comprehending the US' size.
Why not?
Europe seems to be about 10 million km2 in land size, and the USA 9 million km2. Are you trying to say that because Europe has bigger land size, it's hard for Europeans to imagine individual states' sizes?
Size can mean multiple things.
Here's some quick facts comparing population and area
Most of the US population is in the East and West coasts. With far more in the east. Most of the US is just empty, but also the land is not nearly as nice as in Europe.I don't think it is hard for Europeans to imagine individual state sizes, but likely won't imagine how empty it is. Hell, even Americans aren't good at that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_Europea...
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.
Likely due to areas that still have only 2g coverage. Still a lot of that in rural usa
Is that still true? Even 3G support was largely torn down in the US some years back.
https://www.eseye.com/resources/blogs/2g-3g-network-status-u...
https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/the-3g-shutdown-how-will-it-aff...
What areas are those? From some quick research, the only carrier left that provides 2G coverage is T-Mobile but they're phasing that out this year.
Just because the map shows you can get 5G (or 4G) does not mean you'll actually be able to use that network. It's tricky and telecom companies like to play these bullshit games. It's pretty similar to how they'll advertise "up to X MBPS" internet speeds but the average speed is far lower.
You'll actually have these experiences in congested cities. Ever go to a concert and realize you don't actually have cell service? That's because the tower is fully occupied. Unfortunately phones might not report this to you and might not report the downgrade. Making Android and Apple complacent...