Telstra and Optus will delay the planned closure of their 3G networks in order to conduct a final public safety awareness campaign amid concerns that emergency services calls could be affected.
This thing should be shelved indefinitely. We’re taking a massive chunk of the coverage area and scrapping it with 0 intention of applying a better solution here, all so people can get their twitter and email faster.
I don’t think anyone’s really suggesting we keep 3g in the metro areas. Almost the entirety of the greater Melbourne area has 4g, with a fair chunk having 5g, and I think most major cities in the country have almost complete 4g coverage.
But in the country, there’s so many places I’ve been through, even in the last few months, where I’ve only had 3g/H+, that I also don’t foresee them rolling out 4g to any time soon, let alone the any time this decade. 3g can travel further than 4g, and a lot further than 5g, which means it’s all well and good that they’ve converted all of their 3g towers to also have 4g dishes, but unless they actually build new 4g towers, it’s still a net downgrade.
The article points out that consumer phones aren’t an issue. Its things like lifts with a 3g fallback for emergencies, with non4g capabikitybthat is the issue.
That’s the issue. They havnt planned for anything except consumer devices. Android is now recommending 2g be disabled for security, also, so less devices will try to connect to older network infrastructure over time.
I dont see how the telco vsnt see what devices are connecting and where, given their Sims are linked tons customer when they ping a tower. Surely they can identify the devices if they wanted. It might be there are just too many.
Consumer phones in regional areas are still an issue.
As @baku said, 3G has better range than 4G (which has better range than 5G).
If someone in the middle of the bush, or on a country road needs to use their 5G phone, they may not have coverage.
I have a friend that had to drive 10km with a cracked skull, ribs and broken arm and leg because he didn’t have coverage on his farm. He now has 3G coverage, but not 4G.
Basically: if your phone is “4g” but you get told it’s gonna get cut off when they tank the 3g network, then that most likely means the phone doesn’t support Voice Over Long Term Evolution (volte) … it uses 3g for calls.
The issue is two fold. The first devices which don’t support 4g, and the second is the loss of coverage with the decommissioning of 3G. That’s what my last comment focussed on.
They are replacing 3g coverage with 4g equivalents (low frequency bands) so it shouldn’t get worse. And I don’t believe there is any other technical advantage to 3g over long distances but I’m no expert…
It was suggested to me that they have no intention of deploying old 3G resources to 4G. They will go straight to 5G which is why our 4G phones will no longer work.
They have been sending endless messages that I have to buy a new phone but refuse to say why.
Some 4G phones don’t support 4G calling correctly or with all networks.
Check whether your phone actually uses 4G (VoLTE) for calls – to sort-of test this, make a call while connected to mobile data and note whether the signal meter’s 4G indication drops to 3G(H+/HSPA) or something during the call.
A more insidious version of this issue is that some phones do VoLTE just fine, but only use 3G for 000 calls.
Some phones only support VoLTE with some networks. There’s a chance that an appropriate firmware upgrade could add support for some network/device combos.
Yep, this is me. Bought 1 yr vodafone prepaid, after getting reminded to enable VoLTE on my phone (a 2019 model), which I did. But, the phone doesn’t actually do VoLTE calls, so come Vodafone’s 3g shutdown weeks later I suddenly could no longer make or receive ANY phone calls. Internet/data works fine.
Ended up getting a cheap new phone just so I can make phone calls in an emergency.
Better allocation of spectrum is not just for social media. That’s like saying nbn was not needed as what we had before was fast enough for email.
Kind of disagree. NBN didnt cost network to deploy. Well, kind of but kind of not.
What does faster netflix mean to someone in a fringe 3g area when we upgrade their 5GN that they cant get anyway?
Wow, really, because my copper line with a dedicated power source to be always on is now gone from my house.
Irrespective of the nbn, dismissing bandwdth increases as unneeded as peoples internet use doesn’t meet your standards reeks of tony Abbott complaining about nbn as gamers would waste more time online.
I dont think you “get” it. I’m saying people are going to be cut off. 5g simply doesnt reach as far, its coverage range is greatly reduced compared to 3g or even 4g.
And there is no solution for that. the telcos sure as shit arnt gonna go out there and build a bunch more towers for no one except a koala or 2 to regularly use. We’re cutting the service to a not 0% of the population.
This might be fine in Europe, But not a large country like us.
get it. I dont think we should dismiss using more bandwith as pointless.
I also think its unreasonable to expect a private company maintain an unprofitable portion of the network. If we wanted coverage like that, it should be part of their licence to ensure its like for like. I dont know stats in Australia but I known in the USA which is more deregulated than here, they are building .ore towers to maintain coverage.
We are a big country, but as much as the stereotyoe is bush, we have more people in urban areas. That doesn’t make us smaller to provide coverage but I’d be surprised if we aren’t building more towers too. Anybtine there ISNA switch in tech, there will be winners and losers. We need to ensure more winners than losers.
Dismissing the improvements as unnecessary or unhelpful doesn’t lead to constructive discussion.
While I agree that increased bandwidth is crucial, I’m not so sure about leaving so many people and remote areas cut off over this. Especially as each generation of technology has shorter range (and therefore more expensive to service). Each generation of technology will have more people cut off, and I think there are implicit fears that one day, it will be them.
Maybe those fears are wrong, but it seems you’re just as dismissive of these fears as people that dismiss future benefits from greater bandwidth.
Also, I don’t know about looking to the US for inspiration, they also have a very large digital divide, largely based on the wealth of the local area.
No, I think those feats are real and grounded too. I dont dismiss them. However, I look at the evidence and it says that more towers are needed and more are bing built.
We also now use WiFi for calling as a backup for phones. Reallocating spectrum leads to increased distance (even if less than 3g).
The reality is that remote towns will still be covered. Truly remote areas never were and will remain that way. We have in increasing amount of satellite coverage options opening up. Is it cheaper and more energy efficient tonusr that in the bush? Are repeaters rather than handsets viabke?
I’m not dismissing the points. I’m pointing out that there are two sides and that by saying one side is pointless, if it isn’t, is not arguing in good faith.
This thing should be shelved indefinitely. We’re taking a massive chunk of the coverage area and scrapping it with 0 intention of applying a better solution here, all so people can get their twitter and email faster.
Better allocation of spectrum is not just for social media. That’s like saying nbn was not needed as what we had before was fast enough for email.
While, we should not reduce coverage just to increase band with, we should not dismiss the imoirtnace of band with and the limited available spectrum.
Certainly in less populous areas where spectrum band with is not a problem, perhaps we could keep 3g coverage.
I don’t think anyone’s really suggesting we keep 3g in the metro areas. Almost the entirety of the greater Melbourne area has 4g, with a fair chunk having 5g, and I think most major cities in the country have almost complete 4g coverage.
But in the country, there’s so many places I’ve been through, even in the last few months, where I’ve only had 3g/H+, that I also don’t foresee them rolling out 4g to any time soon, let alone the any time this decade. 3g can travel further than 4g, and a lot further than 5g, which means it’s all well and good that they’ve converted all of their 3g towers to also have 4g dishes, but unless they actually build new 4g towers, it’s still a net downgrade.
The article points out that consumer phones aren’t an issue. Its things like lifts with a 3g fallback for emergencies, with non4g capabikitybthat is the issue.
That’s the issue. They havnt planned for anything except consumer devices. Android is now recommending 2g be disabled for security, also, so less devices will try to connect to older network infrastructure over time.
I dont see how the telco vsnt see what devices are connecting and where, given their Sims are linked tons customer when they ping a tower. Surely they can identify the devices if they wanted. It might be there are just too many.
Consumer phones in regional areas are still an issue. As @baku said, 3G has better range than 4G (which has better range than 5G). If someone in the middle of the bush, or on a country road needs to use their 5G phone, they may not have coverage.
I have a friend that had to drive 10km with a cracked skull, ribs and broken arm and leg because he didn’t have coverage on his farm. He now has 3G coverage, but not 4G.
@hitmyspot @Baku
I have a 4G phone. #Optus has been telling me for months it will no longer work when they switch 3G off.
They won’t tell me why though.
it aint LTE
@Taleya
How isn’t it?
Ask your manufacturer.
Basically: if your phone is “4g” but you get told it’s gonna get cut off when they tank the 3g network, then that most likely means the phone doesn’t support Voice Over Long Term Evolution (volte) … it uses 3g for calls.
@Taleya
The Apple Store told me the telcos would be unlikely to upgrade 4g and would probably redeploy the 3G resources to 5G.
My phone does support VoLTE but the Optus infrastructure is crap. It used to drop to 3G calls but no longer. Now it just drops out completely.
I guess it doesn’t matter now because the telcos have realised half of rural Australia would be left with no service and that would be very bad.
@Taleya do you mean like for people in the country where all the calls drop to 3G, and in the city dead zones?
No VoLTE, probably. A bunch of early 4G phones drop back to 3G to make voice calls.
The issue is two fold. The first devices which don’t support 4g, and the second is the loss of coverage with the decommissioning of 3G. That’s what my last comment focussed on.
They are replacing 3g coverage with 4g equivalents (low frequency bands) so it shouldn’t get worse. And I don’t believe there is any other technical advantage to 3g over long distances but I’m no expert…
@vividspecter @Baku
It was suggested to me that they have no intention of deploying old 3G resources to 4G. They will go straight to 5G which is why our 4G phones will no longer work.
They have been sending endless messages that I have to buy a new phone but refuse to say why.
Some 4G phones don’t support 4G calling correctly or with all networks.
Check whether your phone actually uses 4G (VoLTE) for calls – to sort-of test this, make a call while connected to mobile data and note whether the signal meter’s 4G indication drops to 3G(H+/HSPA) or something during the call.
A more insidious version of this issue is that some phones do VoLTE just fine, but only use 3G for 000 calls.
Some phones only support VoLTE with some networks. There’s a chance that an appropriate firmware upgrade could add support for some network/device combos.
I’ll add that some Xiaomi phones need a dialer code in order to enable VoLTE support. It’s only with the stock OS (custom ROMs shouldn’t be affected).
Yep, this is me. Bought 1 yr vodafone prepaid, after getting reminded to enable VoLTE on my phone (a 2019 model), which I did. But, the phone doesn’t actually do VoLTE calls, so come Vodafone’s 3g shutdown weeks later I suddenly could no longer make or receive ANY phone calls. Internet/data works fine.
Ended up getting a cheap new phone just so I can make phone calls in an emergency.
Kind of disagree. NBN didnt cost network to deploy. Well, kind of but kind of not. What does faster netflix mean to someone in a fringe 3g area when we upgrade their 5GN that they cant get anyway?
Wow, really, because my copper line with a dedicated power source to be always on is now gone from my house.
Irrespective of the nbn, dismissing bandwdth increases as unneeded as peoples internet use doesn’t meet your standards reeks of tony Abbott complaining about nbn as gamers would waste more time online.
I dont think you “get” it. I’m saying people are going to be cut off. 5g simply doesnt reach as far, its coverage range is greatly reduced compared to 3g or even 4g. And there is no solution for that. the telcos sure as shit arnt gonna go out there and build a bunch more towers for no one except a koala or 2 to regularly use. We’re cutting the service to a not 0% of the population.
This might be fine in Europe, But not a large country like us.
get it. I dont think we should dismiss using more bandwith as pointless.
I also think its unreasonable to expect a private company maintain an unprofitable portion of the network. If we wanted coverage like that, it should be part of their licence to ensure its like for like. I dont know stats in Australia but I known in the USA which is more deregulated than here, they are building .ore towers to maintain coverage.
We are a big country, but as much as the stereotyoe is bush, we have more people in urban areas. That doesn’t make us smaller to provide coverage but I’d be surprised if we aren’t building more towers too. Anybtine there ISNA switch in tech, there will be winners and losers. We need to ensure more winners than losers.
Dismissing the improvements as unnecessary or unhelpful doesn’t lead to constructive discussion.
While I agree that increased bandwidth is crucial, I’m not so sure about leaving so many people and remote areas cut off over this. Especially as each generation of technology has shorter range (and therefore more expensive to service). Each generation of technology will have more people cut off, and I think there are implicit fears that one day, it will be them.
Maybe those fears are wrong, but it seems you’re just as dismissive of these fears as people that dismiss future benefits from greater bandwidth.
Also, I don’t know about looking to the US for inspiration, they also have a very large digital divide, largely based on the wealth of the local area.
No, I think those feats are real and grounded too. I dont dismiss them. However, I look at the evidence and it says that more towers are needed and more are bing built.
We also now use WiFi for calling as a backup for phones. Reallocating spectrum leads to increased distance (even if less than 3g).
The reality is that remote towns will still be covered. Truly remote areas never were and will remain that way. We have in increasing amount of satellite coverage options opening up. Is it cheaper and more energy efficient tonusr that in the bush? Are repeaters rather than handsets viabke?
I’m not dismissing the points. I’m pointing out that there are two sides and that by saying one side is pointless, if it isn’t, is not arguing in good faith.
Ah, I must have misunderstood, sorry. Rereading your first reply to TinyBreak I see that now.
So you’re not an Aussie? Cool ok so you’ve got no idea what this country is like. That makes sense.
Lol, no. Like most if this country, I live in a metro area.
Unlike the USA which has a higher percent living rural or in low population density areas. Its juatbthat we alsonhave a lot of empty space.
Even if I wasnt Australian, my point would still stand, so all youre doing is showing the weakness of yours.
deleted by creator