Why Cell Phone Service Here Sucks

[Kris Kumar]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8753895/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8753895/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"A recent trip to Europe startled me in a number of ways. First, discounting the fact that the dollar isn’t worth all that much these days, there are a number of factors I encountered which prove that Americans should count their blessings -– and one glaring example where we are really far behind. For instance, I rented a car while traveling. It would be considered a small car by Americans but a good-sized car for Europeans. It was very roomy inside and it had a 4-cylinder diesel engine which averaged more than 30 miles per gallon at legal highway speeds up to 81 miles (130 km) per hour. That’s a good thing because diesel fuel averaged a little more than $5 per gallon. I noticed that gasoline prices are 20 per cent higher than diesel. Coming home to skyrocketing U.S. gas prices are a little more tolerable after paying $60-$90 each time I filled up my compact rental car."</i><br /><br />The article does not cover the topic in depth but it does make you step back and wonder, what would the cellular service be like in the U.S. if GSM had been chosen as the cellular standard? Would we have better cell phone service? Better rates? Better phones? :?

[gears]

We pay about 98p per litre for Diesel in Europe (well, in the Uk at least), which is about $1.77 a litre. Therefore every car HAS to be very efficient, so we're used to seeing 2 litre cars becoming incredibly efficient or producing higher BHP. The new Lexus IS 250 produces 225BHP for example. There's also a lot of Diesel cars now producing more BHP than a petrol - and doing more miles per gallon too.

As an example, I pay about £60 to fill my car (Lexus IS200) up now, which is $109. That lasts roughly a week because I do around 80 miles a day to work and back.

The USA needs cars to do more miles, and that's why in comparison your gas prices are lower to compensate.

At the current prices, cars need to become more efficient. We simply can't afford the 390bhp V8 monsters that some US residents drive because it'd cost too much to run, plus with our roads cornering and acceleration is more important than constant straight-road driving.

As far as his comments on phones are concerned - they're bang on. To us, when we travel across Europe - to holiday destinations like Ibiza or Italy or on business - it's almost inconcievable to lose a signal. When "roaming" there's always at least 3 other networks to automatically switch too and I doubt if anyone will remember the last time they didn't have a signal on their mobile phone in and around Europe.

So, if you could ship some petrol / gas over to us then it'd be much appreciated! :)

[Kris Kumar]

I thought we had the same choice of cars on both sides of the pond. The only difference was that over here people love V8s and SUVs - the gas guzzlers, and on your side people prefer smaller more fuel efficient cars. Unlike the cell phone service, people have a choice in this area. :? Okay now we may have two questions?

- First one, why does the cell phone service suck over here?
- Second one, why don't car manufacturers offer more fuel efficient cars over here?
:wink:

[Mike Temporale]

There's also a lot of Diesel cars now producing more BHP than a petrol - and doing more miles per gallon too.

Unfortunately, there are only a hand full of diesel cars in North America. Plenty of trucks and whatnot, but not passenger vehicles. You got the any of the VW's with the TDI engince, and ... :?

As an example, I pay about £60 to fill my car (Lexus IS200) up now, which is $109. That lasts roughly a week because I do around 80 miles a day to work and back.

Ouch! It's costing me about $50 (cdn) to fill my tank right now, and I'm not impressed. It used to cost $35. :(

As far as his comments on phones are concerned - they're bang on. To us, when we travel across Europe - to holiday destinations like Ibiza or Italy or on business - it's almost inconcievable to lose a signal. When "roaming" there's always at least 3 other networks to automatically switch too and I doubt if anyone will remember the last time they didn't have a signal on their mobile phone in and around Europe.

Wow! That would be like a dream come true over here. You can loose signal by turning your head the wrong way. Alright, maybe it's not that bad, but it seems like it at times. ;)

So, if you could ship some petrol / gas over to us then it'd be much appreciated! :)

Will do. Let me get a box... :lol:

[Mike Temporale]

I thought we had the same choice of cars on both sides of the pond. The only difference was that over here people love V8s and SUVs - the gas guzzlers, and on your side people prefer smaller more fuel efficient cars.

Not true. Many car makers produce different models and different engines, for the European market. Ever seen a VW Polo in North America? It's smaller than the Golf. Chances are you haven't and that's because the car companies know that we're not as concerned with efficient cars - although that might finally be changing. ;)

[JuhaN]

As far as his comments on phones are concerned - they're bang on. To us, when we travel across Europe - to holiday destinations like Ibiza or Italy or on business - it's almost inconcievable to lose a signal. When "roaming" there's always at least 3 other networks to automatically switch too and I doubt if anyone will remember the last time they didn't have a signal on their mobile phone in and around Europe.

Wow! That would be like a dream come true over here. You can loose signal by turning your head the wrong way. Alright, maybe it's not that bad, but it seems like it at times. ;)
I love the good GSM coverage in the Europe! Especially I like the fact that I can have my smartphone in my pocket fetching emails every 10 minutes without having to worry if I have reception or not. It just works!

...but I don't like the fact that I can't get unlimited GPRS/EDGE/3G plan here in Finland. I pay almost 20 euros/month for first 100MB. After that the price/MB goes to the sky like a rocket! So I have to check my GPRS usage and I'm more than eager to switch to smartphone which has wifi. That way I could save GPRS MBs when I'm in home or at office...

=)juha

[possmann]

What do we use in the US again? 850 or 900 1800/1900 for GSM?

[Jerry Raia]

The answer is simple. It sucks because we are willing to pay for it the way it is. Didn't I read someplace that there are (or will be) more cell phone numbers than landline numbers? The only thing the carriers do is fight over is who customers choose. They can all have the same sucky service and it won't matter. We still pay.

[Mike Temporale]

What do we use in the US again? 850 or 900 1800/1900 for GSM?

I can never remember these. I just searched it out on Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/gsm-frequency-ranges) - I'm really starting to like that site! ;)

http://www.answers.com/topic/gsm-frequency-ranges
GSM frequency ranges are the radio spectrum frequencies that the GSM system for mobile phones operate under. There are four main versions used

- GSM-900 and GSM-1800 used in most of the world, excluding the United States and Canada. GSM-1800 is also called PCS in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom

- GSM-850 and GSM-1900 used in the United States and Canada. GSM-850 is also sometimes called GSM-800

[manywhere]

...but I don't like the fact that I can't get unlimited GPRS/EDGE/3G plan here in Finland. I pay almost 20 euros/month for first 100MB. After that the price/MB goes to the sky like a rocket! So I have to check my GPRS usage and I'm more than eager to switch to smartphone which has wifi. That way I could save GPRS MBs when I'm in home or at office...
Yeah, Dna Finland were amongst the first in the world with flat-rate GPRS but then decided to scrap it! :evil: Now there is no way of getting cheap GPRS anymore, and someone noted that the prices on GPRS/EDGE has in fact gone up in Finland - completely opposite of the rest of the world (while the phone costs have gone down - ironic?) :?

Maybe we should team up and start our own carrier company that uses one of the existing GSM networks here and has got flat-rate GPRS? ;)

[JuhaN]

Yeah, Dna Finland were amongst the first in the world with flat-rate GPRS but then decided to scrap it! :evil: Now there is no way of getting cheap GPRS anymore, and someone noted that the prices on GPRS/EDGE has in fact gone up in Finland - completely opposite of the rest of the world (while the phone costs have gone down - ironic?) :?

Maybe we should team up and start our own carrier company that uses one of the existing GSM networks here and has got flat-rate GPRS? ;)I still can remember those good old days...

I didn't have broadband at home so I emailed/surfed by DNA's GPRS at home with my PC (back then it was PC, now just a couple of Apples in the house :D ) and on the road with my PocketPC. Then people got greedy and used GPRS for P2P and other heavy traffic that caused networks to be over used... No more flatrate! :evil:

I'm still quite happy with my GPRS and I'm planning to invest on a new EDGE/3G+Wifi-phone so there should be no problems with my data plan... I use my phone to surf/rss/email at home and in the office quite lot so Wifi should help. I would still love to have a new wireless data operator if it was offering good old flatrate. Even if I had to pay a couple of euros more per month.

=)juha

[Janak Parekh]

As far as his comments on phones are concerned - they're bang on. To us, when we travel across Europe - to holiday destinations like Ibiza or Italy or on business - it's almost inconcievable to lose a signal. When "roaming" there's always at least 3 other networks to automatically switch too and I doubt if anyone will remember the last time they didn't have a signal on their mobile phone in and around Europe.
In our defense, with a good national network it's fairly rare to drop signals. The US also has substantially different population densities -- it's hard to cover the US uniformly with digital service.

First one, why does the cell phone service suck over here?
While we're nowhere near Europe, I disagree with this comment. ;) The service is actually quite good. I can easily get unlimited broadband-level service at somewhat reasonable rates. In Europe, finding unlimited GPRS is hard as per other comments, whereas unlimited GPRS is cheap here. I've also heard that per-minute costs are generally cheaper here, although I haven't verified this and, as we don't have Calling Party Pays, we end up using more minutes. What I do have a problem with is the carriers' policy towards phone adoption. That drives me nuts. :evil:

What do we use in the US again? 850 or 900 1800/1900 for GSM?
North America uses 850/1900. Europe/Asia use 900/1800. This is true for both CDMA and GSM. (Well, Europe doesn't have CDMA, but you know what I mean.) Unfortunately, this will get worse in the next 10 years -- 2100 is being deployed in Europe for wCDMA, and we'll eventually see 700MHz frequencies here.

--janak

[AdamaDBrown]

That’s a good thing because diesel fuel averaged a little more than $5 per gallon. I noticed that gasoline prices are 20 per cent higher than diesel.

Damn. And I thought that $2.55 a gallon sucked. Man, I miss 1999. My local station had gas for $0.98 a gallon.

On the phone question, I agree with Janak. We have a LOT more territory over here to cover.

[ricksfiona]

North America uses 850/1900. Europe/Asia use 900/1800. This is true for both CDMA and GSM. (Well, Europe doesn't have CDMA, but you know what I mean.) Unfortunately, this will get worse in the next 10 years -- 2100 is being deployed in Europe for wCDMA, and we'll eventually see 700MHz frequencies here.

--janak

What's the reason behind getting more frequencies. Is it a capacity issue? Meaning the more cell phone users, the more frequencies we need to handle the capacity?

[AdamaDBrown]

North America uses 850/1900. Europe/Asia use 900/1800. This is true for both CDMA and GSM. (Well, Europe doesn't have CDMA, but you know what I mean.) Unfortunately, this will get worse in the next 10 years -- 2100 is being deployed in Europe for wCDMA, and we'll eventually see 700MHz frequencies here.

--janak

What's the reason behind getting more frequencies. Is it a capacity issue? Meaning the more cell phone users, the more frequencies we need to handle the capacity?

I believe 2100 is also being considered here in the US, isn't it?

Part of the reason for more frequencies is capacity, part of it is new technology. Each carrier buys a license for a specific chunk of spectrum, i.e. 10 MHz of radio space, in a given market. A carrier can own a number of chunks like this in a market, and premium spectrum, like in New York City, can sell for many millions of dollars.

That spectrum is bandwidth, just like an internet connection. You can run so much information through it. You can run a lot of cell phone users, and a decent amount of data service. But more users are coming online, and new high-speed technologies like 3G need more space. There currently isn't enough licensed spectrum in the 850 and 1900 ranges to allow all the carriers room to grow, at least in major cities. It isn't a problem now, but it will be once more companies start deploying things like 3G data.

[Kris Kumar]

Unfortunately, this will get worse in the next 10 years -- 2100 is being deployed in Europe for wCDMA, and we'll eventually see 700MHz frequencies here.

Just when I thought that Quad band phones are becoming common and that I will have a true GSM roaming phone. Sigh...soon we will be cribbing about Hex band phones! :(

[Kris Kumar]

In our defense, with a good national network it's fairly rare to drop signals. The US also has substantially different population densities -- it's hard to cover the US uniformly with digital service.


I know it's hard to cover the entire length and breadth of the US.

But where the cell phone service is present or is claimed to be present by the carrier, why is it choppy? Why is it poor inside the buildings? Why do we run into dead spots when driving thru the city? Why can't they have more towers? Why do they have to try to cover the maximum area and not worry about quality?

[Jerry Raia]

why is it choppy? Why is it poor inside the buildings? Why do we run into dead spots when driving thru the city? Why can't they have more towers? Why do they have to try to cover the maximum area and not worry about quality?

Because no matter what we keep paying for what they give us.

[Janak Parekh]

But where the cell phone service is present or is claimed to be present by the carrier, why is it choppy? Why is it poor inside the buildings?
Several reasons.

1. Penetration of different frequencies differs. If you're using Sprint or T-Mobile (or select areas for Verizon/Cingular), you're running on 1900MHz. 1900MHz penetrates buildings much more poorly than 800MHz. The effect is magnified if you're in a steel building, which acts like a RF cage. The workaround for this, which is common in Europe, is to install repeaters in large buildings, like shopping centers.

2. Some carriers are flat-out better than others in antenna coverage and technology. I'll get to this in more detail below...

Why do we run into dead spots when driving thru the city? Why can't they have more towers? Why do they have to try to cover the maximum area and not worry about quality?
Biggest reason is NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). It's a huge problem in the US. Not sure about Europe, but since I've not heard many NIMBY complaints from there I suspect it's much bigger here.

In fact, it adds to the discrepancy between services. Verizon and Cingular have a leg up on the situation: their networks have existed since the early 80s in places (Verizon was Bell Atlantic Mobile, which was CellularOne in the Northeast; Cingular was AT&amp;T), and they managed to install antennas well before people started freaking about them. T-Mobile (formerly Voicestream, formerly Omnipoint) and Sprint started much later in the game and have much more trouble adding new towers. Now, note that this is not uniform throughout the US; different carriers have different maturity in different areas. My area of expertise, unsurprisingly, is the metro NY area. ;)

The newness of certain networks combined with NIMBY leads to the spottiness by design. The general goal of carriers has been to get breadth before depth, that is, cover areas in general and then slowly fill in the holes as they fight local groups who don't understand RF technology. This is also the most common strategy in a country where the population centers are so spread out, and one that jives well with the marketing of companies. Unfortunately, it's frustrating for end-users. The good news in this regard is that they do eventually fill in the holes. I can count several places in Long Island where T-Mobile and Sprint have filled in holes. Even better, T-Mobile now has a detailed coverage locator that tells you very clearly where their good spots and bad spots are. I hope other carriers follow that model soon, as it makes it easier to choose service.

Now, our European friends do have an advantage in this regard, because they can always roam onto another carrier that has good coverage in a spot as the technology is the same. We can do so, but much less, since T-Mobile can only roam onto Cingular (and vice-versa), and Sprint and Verizon can roam on each other. Furthermore, business interests/competition limit the roaming that you can do. The good news is at least we're consolidating technologies. In the old days, we had TDMA, iDEN, GSM, CDMA, analog. Now, we're rapidly converging to just GSM and CDMA (with Nextel's iDEN slowly being swallowed up by Sprint). Plus, our mature CDMA rollout enables us to have 3G technologies (e.g., EVDO) pretty damn quickly.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to say is it's not nearly as simple as the original author suggested. Uniform GSM in Europe has certainly helped in coverage, but it isn't the only reason that we've got coverage issues; there are several unique North American factors in play as well; plus, we've got our advantages. The key for everyone is to pick a carrier that covers them well. I'm very happy with Verizon's coverage. Now, as I mentioned before, phone selection is another problem.

--janak

[Jerry Raia]

Guys please. This all sounds wonderful and technical but when you get right down to it the consumer drives this now. The carriers will give us no more than we demand. You can go on about bands and mountains and cells and all of it. What we settle for is what we get. Not a penny more.

[Janak Parekh]

Guys please. This all sounds wonderful and technical but when you get right down to it the consumer drives this now.
You're justifiably cynical about it, but it really isn't just that. I can't tell you the number of times I've read articles about groups in Brooklyn challenging Sprint's attempts to put up cell phone towers.

Now, about phone coverage... or selective Bluetooth support... or the number of Smartphone devices on the market... you might have a point. But do you really expect the average consumer to know the difference anyway? Blaming the consumers is a dead-end argument, as 90% of the consumers will probably never know better, unless you have a plan to change that.

--janak

[Jerry Raia]

I'm saying the market drives this. There is no incentive for a carrier to improve anything if the consumer doesn't expect it. We settle for what we get is what I am saying. It is not better because we don't demand better. The average user doesn't know why their calls drop but what do they do when a call drops? Nothing! When your landline doesn't work what do you do? You are on the phone asking for service! When your cell call flops what do you do? Redial. Do you call and complain? NO.

[gears]

I forgot to mention, even though in Europe we have GSM, most... well, nearly all phones sold here are tri or quad band because of the travelling across countries that europeans do. I think, if I remember the stats right, that only 30% of US citizens have a passport and only about 10% have gone abroad in the last year. Again, to us that's inconcievable and everyone has a passport - partally because we've got tonnes of different countries on our doorstep, partially because more people go further afield on their holidays (like the Caribbean, USA etc) and partially because our countries just aren't as big, so we do have different frequencies cropping up more.

However.. we DON'T have flat rate data, which I would love!

[Kris Kumar]

Anyway, the point I'm trying to say is it's not nearly as simple as the original author suggested. Uniform GSM in Europe has certainly helped in coverage, but it isn't the only reason that we've got coverage issues; there are several unique North American factors in play as well; plus, we've got our advantages. The key for everyone is to pick a carrier that covers them well. I'm very happy with Verizon's coverage. Now, as I mentioned before, phone selection is another problem.

Convincing explanation. :) Thanks Janak.

But I do have to agree with Jerry also, I guess we are tolerant towards crappy service. I know T-Mobile has a web page to submit dead spot locations. But I have visited it only once. :oops: Even though I know more dead spots in my area.

[Jerry Raia]

I guess we are tolerant towards crappy service. I know T-Mobile has a web page to submit dead spot locations. But I have visited it only once. :oops: Even though I know more dead spots in my area.

I am not saying the technical reasons aren't correct. I'm saying we tolerate them. If the millions of us got on the phone to complain once a day about our dropped calls like we would if the landline behaved like this I bet we would see improvement.

[Janak Parekh]

I'm saying the market drives this. There is no incentive for a carrier to improve anything if the consumer doesn't expect it.
That's not entirely true. As I've said, I've personally noticed holes being filled in around the areas which I live. Of course, it might be due to consumer complaints.

Anyway, let's go with the argument that lack of consumer complaints is the problem. How should we further educate consumers to be more verbose at the carriers?

--janak

[Jerry Raia]

Anyway, let's go with the argument that lack of consumer complaints is the problem. How should we further educate consumers to be more verbose at the carriers?

That is an excellent question and I think goes to the heart of the matter. First I looked in the mirror. I don't complain either knowing it might help. Why? because it's a pain! Get on the phone get on hold sit there waiting. Who wants to do that? It's easier to just redial! I have called to complain when service has been spotty in certain areas and eventually (like where I live now) the service did improve! In the real world though even if everybody who read this forum complained about dropped calls for example I doubt the carriers would even notice. They are dealing with millions of customers. I would be surprised if a few thousand calls would stir them too much. Still if we don't do it what will motivate them to make it better? Next time you are sitting in traffic and and the call you are in drops, dial 611 and tell them. Your bigger question of how to get the masses to do this is really the key.

[maxnix]

The article does not cover the topic in depth but it does make you step back and wonder, what would the cellular service be like in the U.S. if GSM had been chosen as the cellular standard? Would we have better cell phone service? Better rates? Better phones? :?

It would be worse. The last time I checked, EV-DO was the fastest cellphone wireless data network on the planet. GSM is an ancient technology based on TDMA. CDMA is a far superior technology, and I am glad we have the choice.

Remember how superior Japanese analog HDTV was? Competition in a free market is always better than government mandated tehcnology standards. The worst connectivity in the US is reported on the GSM networks T-Mobile and Cingular, not the CDMA ones Sprint and Verizon. If you think GSM is so superior, in this market, you have the choice to use it.