Does the US have the worst mobile service in the developed world?

[notposting]

I'm sort of with the OP. If a country in Eastern Europe like Poland can give me excellent service in a giant swamp for pennies per day it makes me wonder why the US system is so bad. I can go 7 miles out of Fort Collins -a city of 160k - and get "No service" on AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint (Verizon is ok though... At least in that one area) and I pay $50 per month after taxes and congratulate myself on the deal that I have (Straighttalk).

Verizon is about the only one that historically has made the effort. If you look up the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, it's basically populated with trees and snow. I have been ouuuuuuut there in the bottom of a ravine with the sides going up, creek at my feet, the largest town of a few hundred a good 10-15 miles away, and pulling full reception.

I know it varies market to market, but at least here they are just silly good when it comes to that.

(not that I'm completely defending our archaic and completely bribe ran system, but it's too late to start ranting about that)

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

California population 38 million, Japan population 127 million. Indiana population 6.5 million, South Korea population 50 million. These countries are much more densely populated (less towers, more people use them). If you go to a sparsely populated part of Japan (Kyushu), you will notice the service isn't that great as well.

Right, but this doesn't explain why major metropolitan centers like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco still suck balls in terms of coverage and congestion.

Don't even get me started on Las Vegas. CES every year is a nightmare. Hell, every weekend on the Strip is a nightmare. Something like sub 1mbps speeds even on "LTE" on both Verizon and AT&T. I've been going to Vegas 4+ times a year to know that its been like this since the iPhone came out.

Back on topic though... in terms of coverage, the US is ok, but in terms of how the system works? We're in the dark ages. Now we've come a long way since pre iPhone where the only phones the people in the US knew were carrier branded US only phones. No one knew about Nokia's N-Series. No one knew about Sony Ericsson's featurephones. When tethering first came, we just accepted that carriers could charge us. When GPS came on phones, we accepted that we had to pay for services like AT&T Navigator. It took Google to change that so that people understood GPS is a phone hardware feature, not some sort of carrier gimmick.

And it took many years after the iPhone til people to realize that we want that same Galaxy phone the rest of the world wants. Even now, with the GS4 unified across the US carriers, the solution isn't perfect. There's still carrier specific models, with Verizon logos, and what not. Locked bootloaders still exist. CDMA still exists (ugh). People still think that spending more than $199 on a phone is ridiculous.

Yeah we're pretty bad, but we've at least improved.

Isn't that because of the desire to minimize technological disturbance to a National Park. I suspect a lot of people prefer it that way.

Yeah I don't think complaining about Yosemite makes sense. Las Vegas gets 10x that number (40 million) a year and the coverage still sucks ass on the Strip. Good luck trying to get any meaningful download speeds.

 

[randomrogue]

Las Vegas shouldn't have problems. Even with all the tourists it does not have more people than other large cities with functional service. How many people could the city have with tourists? 700,000? It's just another example of poor infrastructure. The strip is 5 miles long. How hard could it be to cover that with meaningful bandwidth and service?

 

[soccerballtux]

Straight Talk / Tracfone is definitely inferior to "regular" AT&T service.

how so? pretty hapy with mine

 

[mikeymikec]

this.

and data caps glorious data caps...

1gb cap for a month?

where in the civilized world is that enough?

My peak month usage was recorded at 21MB a few months ago.

 

[biostud]

the US is vast. there is no way carriers will blanket the entire US with coverages. the equipment is ridiculously expensive to cover every square inch. in some small countries like japan, they can easily upgrade the whole system overnight.

so why not just focus on big cities where most people live in NYC and LA right? well, in big cities, you got another problem... too many people and again...not enough equipment to handle the demand. everyone is walking around holding onto their phone and checking stupid facebook.

this

 

[Anubis]

My peak month usage was recorded at 21MB a few months ago.

D: I used 21 MB in the past 10 min

 

[mikeymikec]

D: I used 21 MB in the past 10 min

The only need I can understand for vast data allowances on mobile networks is for those who are using mobile tethering in order to work wherever they are, even then I would expect someone to hop on say the hotel wifi when they can.

For me, I'm either:

1 - At home. Therefore I use wifi/my desktop (mostly the latter).
2 - I'm travelling, therefore my only mobile network usage is on occasion for using my phone as a satnav.
3 - I'm at work. Therefore I'm using the customers' wifi on my phone if at all.
4 - I'm somewhere that isn't work or home, in which case I have better things to do than browse the Internet (or I'm stuck in a clothes shop with my wife, waiting for the end, whichever end that is).

Point 4 includes a few exception scenarios, like looking up something shopping related or some sort of miscellaneous query, but unless that query can only be satisfied by downloading an entire film in HD on my phone (in which case, I think it can wait until I return home), I'm mystified as to how people go through so much mobile data

That 21MB figure was the old peak, surpassed when I went on holiday to Ireland and used my phone as a satnav there. I think it hit about 56MB then, but that's not an official figure from my mobile provider.

My wife's mobile data usage is somewhat higher because she likes to tweet and do FB pretty much wherever she is.

 

[Insomniator]

Service is great and fast as long as don't live in the middle of nowhere and don't use some ghetto boost mobile type of carrier.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Las Vegas shouldn't have problems. Even with all the tourists it does not have more people than other large cities with functional service. How many people could the city have with tourists? 700,000? It's just another example of poor infrastructure. The strip is 5 miles long. How hard could it be to cover that with meaningful bandwidth and service?

Yup exactly. Its not like the strip is as dense in population as areas in Asian cities like Tokyo or Hong Kong.

 

[Sheep]

Las Vegas shouldn't have problems. Even with all the tourists it does not have more people than other large cities with functional service. How many people could the city have with tourists? 700,000? It's just another example of poor infrastructure. The strip is 5 miles long. How hard could it be to cover that with meaningful bandwidth and service?

I imagine the problem in Vegas on the Strip is that you're in the middle of a giant concrete building much of the time and building penetration is probably garbage on most or all carriers. When I was with Sprint, I had extremely spotty signal walking around the Venetian; I've since switched to Cricket/AIO so I'm curious to see if it's any better.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I imagine the problem in Vegas on the Strip is that you're in the middle of a giant concrete building much of the time and building penetration is probably garbage on most or all carriers. When I was with Sprint, I had extremely spotty signal walking around the Venetian; I've since switched to Cricket/AIO so I'm curious to see if it's any better.

Its not just the weak signal. Most buildings have repeaters inside. But once again, this would be the same issue in Hong Kong where there are the most skyscrapers in the world. The issue is that even with a full 4 bars, on LTE sometimes the data is at a complete standstill. I had to use 3G HSPA to get through my last trip, and even then it was like 1mbps at best.

 

[randomrogue]

I imagine the problem in Vegas on the Strip is that you're in the middle of a giant concrete building much of the time and building penetration is probably garbage on most or all carriers. When I was with Sprint, I had extremely spotty signal walking around the Venetian; I've since switched to Cricket/AIO so I'm curious to see if it's any better.

I haven't been to Vegas in years so I'm curious as well. However why do I get near perfect cell phone coverage in other parts of the world including in tunnels? It seems to me that in places like Europe the only place they don't have coverage is near Roma (gypsy) camps. Probably to deter them from living there. So if I'm on a long rail line there will be coverage the whole way and only interrupt as we pass their tents and shanty town. Yet here I can't even get service in the middle of cities or on freeways. There has been a deadzone on the 101 for as long as I've owned a cell phone. It's a small quarter mile zone between two cities and the carriers have apparently decided it's not worth it. In Africa everyone has a blackberry and at least some kind of service. I brought a cell phone up into the Himalayas (Annapurna circuit) and had service every time I looked at least. I was on Borneo and some girl was using very slow service through her Kindle to at least get us all on facebook and our email.

 

[Anubis]

The only need I can understand for vast data allowances on mobile networks is for those who are using mobile tethering in order to work wherever they are, even then I would expect someone to hop on say the hotel wifi when they can.

For me, I'm either:

1 - At home. Therefore I use wifi/my desktop (mostly the latter).
2 - I'm travelling, therefore my only mobile network usage is on occasion for using my phone as a satnav.
3 - I'm at work. Therefore I'm using the customers' wifi on my phone if at all.
4 - I'm somewhere that isn't work or home, in which case I have better things to do than browse the Internet (or I'm stuck in a clothes shop with my wife, waiting for the end, whichever end that is).

Point 4 includes a few exception scenarios, like looking up something shopping related or some sort of miscellaneous query, but unless that query can only be satisfied by downloading an entire film in HD on my phone (in which case, I think it can wait until I return home), I'm mystified as to how people go through so much mobile data

That 21MB figure was the old peak, surpassed when I went on holiday to Ireland and used my phone as a satnav there. I think it hit about 56MB then, but that's not an official figure from my mobile provider.

My wife's mobile data usage is somewhat higher because she likes to tweet and do FB pretty much wherever she is.

1) im at work and stream music all day

 

[herm0016]

When I was working in wyoming, some of the lowest pop densities in the country. I was still was able to find a spot of service on verizion. Our network is not bad. Considering our space and propensity for ground based travel.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I haven't been to Vegas in years so I'm curious as well. However why do I get near perfect cell phone coverage in other parts of the world including in tunnels? It seems to me that in places like Europe the only place they don't have coverage is near Roma (gypsy) camps. Probably to deter them from living there. So if I'm on a long rail line there will be coverage the whole way and only interrupt as we pass their tents and shanty town. Yet here I can't even get service in the middle of cities or on freeways. There has been a deadzone on the 101 for as long as I've owned a cell phone. It's a small quarter mile zone between two cities and the carriers have apparently decided it's not worth it. In Africa everyone has a blackberry and at least some kind of service. I brought a cell phone up into the Himalayas (Annapurna circuit) and had service every time I looked at least. I was on Borneo and some girl was using very slow service through her Kindle to at least get us all on facebook and our email.

Everytime I take BART and it hits a tunnel, I shake my head and mutter "third world country." I've been surfing 3G on the Taipei Metro since 2007 and I've NEVER ever thought about service issues. The only issues there are congestion during rush hours, but its not like there just isn't coverage.

Its now 2014 and even the NYC Subway is spotted and it depends on which service provider you're on.

I get this excuse of the US being a vast location, but it really doesn't help when the cities have terrible coverage too. Throw on the fact that places like Taiwan and Hong Kong have unlimited or more generous data limits compared to the US, and it really makes the US look like a 3rd world country.

As for Vegas, its been like this FOREVER. I remember in 2011 when I went, my gf needed to send an attachment over email, and the hotel wifi was shit. I said "Don't worry I'll tether you." Yeah on 300kbps 3G or so. It was even worse.

Forward to 2014. I was just there during EDC weekend and even at 6am in the morning, the data sucks. I'll report back how it is in July when I return, this time staying at the Bellagio. I'm thinking with AT&T there's some major backhaul and spectrum issues. There's no way a high enough density of people in Las Vegas compared to say NYC downtown or SF downtown that causes this kind of congestion. Even though we're talking hundreds of thousands of tourists on a 5 mile stretch, the casinos are so massive compared to the skyscrapers of downtowns that people are actually pretty spread out.

 

[ElFenix]

Sprint I have had problems with-- I'm not sure why in 2014 they haven't managed to fix their PRLs. I would be next to a tower with 4-5 bars of service and 3G and it would regularly decide to switch to one with 2 bars and hop to 1xRTT.
Changing the phone icon to always be 3G was bad for them-- people see it and say, well their 3G must suck. In actuality, on 3G I regularly got 100kBps, which was more than enough for whatever I needed (streaming audio + browsing web at same time), the problem was in spite of coverage I was on 1xRTT half the time. I got fed up with fighting it and just went to ST-ATT

1xRTT is 3G. one of the earliest, but still 3G.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

1xRTT is 3G. one of the earliest, but still 3G.

True. Isn't Edge technically 3G too under IMT-2000 definitions as well? Heh.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The USA has very good coverage except in the sparsely populated places like the desert south west. What is does have that many other places like Poland does not is a large number of heavy data users in a small location like NYC. For DLeRium to suggest the NYC has bad COVERAGE is ridiculous ... it does, however, have a shit ton of smartphone totting people in a few square miles so that the network can not handle the traffic. It's the combination of the number of people and the amount of data they're trying to use and the number of towers that are available to service them.

NYC, like many other high density areas, simply can't add more towers as they've already put them about as close as they can and still there's too many people demanding too much data. A 1 inch copper pipe may comfortably provide water to 20 people, it might limp along with upwards of 100 people, so long as they spread out there demand, but expecting a 1 inch pipe to comfortably service 1000 people each wanting to fill there swimming pool at the same time -- not gonna happen.

What part of this is hard to understand?


Brian

 

[BarkingGhostar]

So you use two countries and think that explains it all away? What about all the countries in Europe? I can understand if LTE wasn't as widespread but even that's better in many places and my gripe is when there is NOTHING. I'm not in the middle of the Amazon Jungle when I'm around Yosemite. 4 million visitors a year and the service is awful there. That's just one example. More relevant would be not getting service in the middle of the bay area though. "Yeah, sorry, I know we're 20 minutes from Silicon Valley but our phones don't work in this area despite there being 10,000 people here". Where I live we barely get a signal with an additional microcell in the house. I live in a nice area with big houses so the population density is apparently not high enough for them to build any towers nearby. I have to go down the hill before things work properly. I'm stuck with a house phone because of this just in case of an emergency.

I was up in the arctic circle last winter and I got service. I think there were more reindeer there than people but they managed to get a functional mobile network setup.

You gotta understand. I'm not asking for 100% LTE coverage. Some kind of perfection. I'm asking for the US to get at least to the level of the rest of the developed world. Yeah they're not going to have Tokyo level coverage in all 50 states. However how about no dropped calls and 3G in areas where millions of people live? I don't have 4 neighbors. I have like 12,000. Why do we not have a tower?

As far as straight talk not being the same as ATT that might be the case but I haven't noticed a difference in coverage compared to my family who has ATT contracts. If there are no towers, there are no towers.

It is funny that when I read North Americans on vacations to Europe complaining about how worse it is over there.

But does it matter at all? NO! Why? Because the cellular industry in the USA is making a ton of money over land-line services because people want what they can get. If you don't like it, you can leave or learn to live with it. Personally, I dare you to live without it while over here.

 

[soccerballtux]

1xRTT is 3G. one of the earliest, but still 3G.

That's a technicality. It requires a point to point connection to comms. Each tunnel takes 3+ seconds to set up. Sorry, that's not 3G.

I was under the impression most considered it 2.5g.