BamaBelle
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 428
- Current Phone Model
- AT&T Samsung Galaxy S7
Since having switched from verizon to AT&T, I have been forced to learn more than I wanted to about signals and such.
But one subject keeps popping back into my mind.
If you don't already know, (everyone should since I have mentioned it so much) I get better reception running off 3g verses 4g.
Stats on bottom are on 4g, stats on top are on 3g.
My question is, is it necessary to keep creating more fragile signal receptions?
Now granted I live in the country, which means there is much more obstructions a cell phone signal has to clear verses the city.
In the city you have two benefits:
1: Reliable signal as long as there is a clear path to tower.
2: Wifi
4g was definitely not made with the country folk in mind.
Besides that, living in the city signal coverage isn't a priority since wifi is so readily available.
Remember when we only had 3g? Getting service inside a building wasn't so hard as it is now.
Why?
Think of a 3g signal as a big, muscular ox. He may not be fast, but he is steady and gets the job done. He can even pass through brick walls.
4g on the other hand, is like the avengers. They have all kinds of cool tricks and super powers, but if they lose those they are normal. Not even on a ox level anymore.
4g may be fast and can carry more data, but that also leaves room for a fragile frequency that is prone to losing more data if the signal path is not clear.
Fragile is a very good word to describe 4g. It is wonderful when it is in the right situation, but useless if it isn't.
I suppose the demand for bigger, better and faster belittles the use of 3g.
But for those of us in a galaxy far, far away, it is a lifesaver.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
But one subject keeps popping back into my mind.
If you don't already know, (everyone should since I have mentioned it so much) I get better reception running off 3g verses 4g.
Stats on bottom are on 4g, stats on top are on 3g.
My question is, is it necessary to keep creating more fragile signal receptions?
Now granted I live in the country, which means there is much more obstructions a cell phone signal has to clear verses the city.
In the city you have two benefits:
1: Reliable signal as long as there is a clear path to tower.
2: Wifi
4g was definitely not made with the country folk in mind.
Besides that, living in the city signal coverage isn't a priority since wifi is so readily available.
Remember when we only had 3g? Getting service inside a building wasn't so hard as it is now.
Why?
Think of a 3g signal as a big, muscular ox. He may not be fast, but he is steady and gets the job done. He can even pass through brick walls.
4g on the other hand, is like the avengers. They have all kinds of cool tricks and super powers, but if they lose those they are normal. Not even on a ox level anymore.
4g may be fast and can carry more data, but that also leaves room for a fragile frequency that is prone to losing more data if the signal path is not clear.
Fragile is a very good word to describe 4g. It is wonderful when it is in the right situation, but useless if it isn't.
I suppose the demand for bigger, better and faster belittles the use of 3g.
But for those of us in a galaxy far, far away, it is a lifesaver.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk