3G On The Top Of Everest......

[dave111223]

Perhaps because you were using 3. There are only good for 3G.

I'm not going to argue with your experiences. I simply have not experienced them....which is perhaps why the 'UK people' don't complain. People purchase the network apt for their location.

"purchase the network apt for their location"... meaning each network has outages in certain areas? Which in itself seems to support the argument that there is overall poor coverage if a certain sim card is only valid within certain areas in the country.

Let assume that 3 is just a poor service (it might be i don't know). How would you explain the Vodafone outages at the same time on my friends phone?

When i say that people in the UK don't seem to complain I don't mean that they don't experience coverage problems. I mean that the friends i talked with seemed to have signal issues but didn't think it odd or unacceptable, they just seemed to accept it as the norm.

Whereas in Thailand in a remote location it doesn't matter if you have a DTAC or AIS etc...sim card you're still going get coverage. You just pop in any sim card and you're good to go.

[Jiu-Jitsu]

Perhaps because you were using 3. There are only good for 3G.

I'm not going to argue with your experiences. I simply have not experienced them....which is perhaps why the 'UK people' don't complain. People purchase the network apt for their location.

"purchase the network apt for their location"... meaning each network has outages in certain areas? Which in itself seems to support the argument that there is overall poor coverage if a certain sim card is only valid within certain areas in the country.

Let assume that 3 is just a poor service (it might be i don't know). How would you explain the Vodafone outages at the same time on my friends phone?

When i say that people in the UK don't seem to complain I don't mean that they don't experience coverage problems. I mean that the friends i talked with seemed to have signal issues but didn't think it odd or unacceptable, they just seemed to accept it as the norm.

Whereas in Thailand in a remote location it doesn't matter if you have a DTAC or AIS etc...sim card you're still going get coverage. You just pop in any sim card and you're good to go.

Yes, some networks have better coverages in some areas. In other words, their mast may be closer to your home than others. Perhaps something to do with wanting to preserve the countryside.

So yes it is prudent to check for coverage in your area before deciding on a network.

Perhaps problems on a shared mast.

Again another generalised and inaccurate statement. In Thailand too you will have places where you will get a low to no signal.

Next time, I suggest you complete you due diligence. Site Finder

[dave111223]

Yes, some networks have better coverages in some areas. In other words, their mast may be closer to your home than others. Perhaps something to do with wanting to preserve the countryside.

So yes it is prudent to check for coverage in your area before deciding on a network.

Perhaps problems on a shared mast.

Next time, I suggest you complete you due diligence. Site Finder

This only seem to reinforce the argument that overall cell signal coverage in the UK is poor. I would consider "Good Coverage" in a country to be where i can just stick any sim card it my phone it gets full bars everywhere and just works.

I would consider "Poor Coverage" to be where you have to do "due diligence" and trace your travel routes though a cell tower map and buy a series of sim cards in order to suit the various locations that you may be in.

And i don't see how you can make both arguments of:

- In the UK we like to preserve the countryside by limiting cell towers.

AND

- In UK there is a good cell coverage

Which is it? Limited cell towers and lower coverage, or great coverage and lots of towers? Please make up your mind you seem to be claiming both?

Again another generalised and inaccurate statement. In Thailand too you will have places where you will get a low to no signal.

I'm sure there are places in Thailand that do get low coverage, but in my experience there are far more places in the UK that get low coverage than in Thailand (getting back to my original post).

For example i was not able to get signal in places such as:

- Parts of Fleet, Hants. (as previous mentioned)

- Many semi-rural stretches along the Basingstoke to London rail line

- Many rural/semi-rural stretches along the Basingstoke to Manchester rail line

- Large portions of the M4 and M5 towards Exeter

But i cannot think of any places off the top of my head where i have not had coverage in Thailand (except "tunnels" obviously as you previously mentioned); maybe you can list a larger area of non-coverage areas in Thailand, but i would doubt it?

My original point is that in Thailand there is poor 3G and this gets pointed out and ragged on every day. Meanwhile the general cell coverage in the UK is poor and yet seems to exempt from review. I think people have a habit of moving to Thailand and fondly remembering their homeland as some kind of perfect higher place where everything works properly.

[Jiu-Jitsu]

Yes, some networks have better coverages in some areas. In other words, their mast may be closer to your home than others. Perhaps something to do with wanting to preserve the countryside.

So yes it is prudent to check for coverage in your area before deciding on a network.

Perhaps problems on a shared mast.

Next time, I suggest you complete you due diligence. Site Finder

This only seem to reinforce the argument that overall cell signal coverage in the UK is poor. I would consider "Good Coverage" in a country to be where i can just stick any sim card it my phone it gets full bars everywhere and just works.

I would consider "Poor Coverage" to be where you have to do "due diligence" and trace your travel routes though a cell tower map and buy a series of sim cards in order to suit the various locations that you may be in.

And i don't see how you can make both arguments of:

- In the UK we like to preserve the countryside by limiting cell towers.

AND

- In UK there is a good cell coverage

Which is it? Limited cell towers and lower coverage, or great coverage and lots of towers? Please make up your mind you seem to be claiming both?

Again another generalised and inaccurate statement. In Thailand too you will have places where you will get a low to no signal.

I'm sure there are places in Thailand that do get low coverage, but in my experience there are far more places in the UK that get low coverage than in Thailand (getting back to my original post).

For example i was not able to get signal in places such as:

- Parts of Fleet, Hants. (as previous mentioned)

- Many semi-rural stretches along the Basingstoke to London rail line

- Many rural/semi-rural stretches along the Basingstoke to Manchester rail line

- Large portions of the M4 and M5 towards Exeter

But i cannot think of any places off the top of my head where i have not had coverage in Thailand (except "tunnels" obviously as you previously mentioned); maybe you can list a larger area of non-coverage areas in Thailand, but i would doubt it?

My original point is that in Thailand there is poor 3G and this gets pointed out and ragged on every day. Meanwhile the general cell coverage in the UK is poor and yet seems to exempt from review. I think people have a habit of moving to Thailand and fondly remembering their homeland as some kind of perfect higher place where everything works properly.

I can make that argument by writing that at certain locations networks have to share masts. The local councils decide as to whether a mast can go up. The networks publish coverage maps to let you know where they have coverage.

3 is not known for their quality voice call service.

As I wrote before, you need to your research. Just as I would have to if I went to the USA. You clearly didn't.