Cell phones forum: Poll: When your cell phone has poor or no reception, who do you blame?

All I can say is what did people do before cell phones?
If you are traveling anywhere you should have a CB for emergency service and not rely entirely on a cell phone.
I feel bad for the couple died as they depended too much on a cell phone.

simple take away all the hype that the phone can do this or that if the provider cant reach the area the phone cant work. they care about one thing and one thing only the god almighty dollar there sales people will tell anyone any thing to get the sale to keep there jobs.in this case look how close they were to there home and it didnt work does it take a rocket expert to tell you the provider failed and cost people there lives

I hope that you never have to face the lies companies tell people to get there business and then short change them every chance they get.

if it wasnt PLEASE TELL WHAT WASNT, if i was why did you post that reply because you have the big company M there not to worry never any mroe replies

In a remote area, my cell phone has no reception because no cell tower available. That is understandable.

However, I'm puzzling why, right in the heart of the city limit and only 1/2 mile from a regional hospital, whenever I enter this particular stucco 2-story townhouse, built in 1975, I do not get the signal of an incoming call or cannot hear the caller voice while the caller can hear me clearly. I have to step outside this townhouse to get an incoming call signal or to make an outgoing call. I have repeatedly experienced this blockage.

This stucco townhouse is almost completely soundproof. Once inside I could hardy hear any nearby noise from outside.

The point is it does not necessary mean that a cell phone can always work inside a building of certain structure even if there is a cell tower in the vicinity.

My phone is Samsung and the provider is AT &T.

You have a well-constructed and insulated home!
I'd also rather live in such a building than have the great cell phone coverage.

I do not know whether I would " blame " anyone in such a case but there are certain issues which need attention.
While nobody( reasonable) expects to have cellular coverage everywhere- try to cover whole rural Alaska- the very fact is that providing rural coverage is not on the top of the list of major carriers any more. Most of the existing rural coverage is the result of efforts of rural carriers many of which were taken over by the big carriers. The big guys do not want to spend any money on it, they rather spend money on gimmicks for urban dwellers.As a matter of fact, some carriers actually decreased their coverage by eliminating some roaming agreements. I think that here is a regulatory task for the government .
One issue where the government is to be blamed is the chaos of incompatible systems where you can be in an area with strong signal however your carrier happens to operate a different system and you are stuck. US should have joined the GSM standard and also make sure that any 4G systems are compatible.
The other problem where the government should have stepped up is the issue of limited coverage on most prepaid plans- only few carriers offer the same prepaid and post paid coverage and most users are not even aware of that till they find out the hard way. Similarly, it is hard to understand why there is no obligation to provide emergency access( and the obligation to show that on the phone indicator) in the case that there is a signal from another carrier with compatible system available.

Like any technology, it can be great, but it has its limitations. Seriously, one cannot expect that there is coverage in any remote area or in areas with blockage (eg. in an underground garage, or elevator). The newer phones will have better reception and penetrate deeper even in to blocked areas. You can't expect that technology is omni-potent and omni-present. In the case cited the poor connection could have been one of 3 things or a combination of all 3 things: (a) out of cell tower range (due to blockage or distance),
(b) cell phone type (newer phone versus older technology),
(c) battery charge level.

How could the situation be improved?
- Make phones larger or with appendage antennas to improve signal strength (not convenient)
- Increase power output of phones and cell towers (this will have the environmental authorities and health fanatics up in arms due to RF interference and radiation levels on your ear).
- If you really would want total global coverage you have to get a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite phone such as the IRIDIUM phone (the only one of its kind), a system which uses 66 satellites that fly in circular polar orbits (11 satellites in 6 quasi equally spaced orbits, about 30 deg. longitude apart). Except for political regulations, this system can afford you virtually complete global coverage at sea, on land, on north and south poles, in the remotest areas. However, this system also has its local limitations since you have to be in direct view of one of it satellites, that is in mountainous regions you may experience more frequent drop outs and the penetration into buildings and into vehicles may less effective.
Final thought: Technology is great if used within its realm of operation, but there are always limitations that every user ought to know and understand. This is the real world were the users understanding also has its limitations...

....satellite phones like Iridum ??? Those devices and the monthly service are insanely expensive.

There are special phones especially made for Seniors that are not designed for texting. They are just basic phones without all the frills. One is called Jitterbug and I can't think of the names of the other ones. So perhaps that was the case. I know on mine I have disabled texting as it costs for this service and I never use it anyway.

I live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (da UP, eh?). Cell phone coverage is reliable only around population centers, of which there are very few, so I know of what I speak. Simply put, don't rely on a cell phone for ensuring your safety. The deaths of the elderly couple were tragic, and my sympathies go out to their families, but as a society we are becoming too reliant on technology for our basic survival.

The one observation I have to make is that in the US we have "cell phones", roughly meaning that your phone only works in areas that your provider has, or chooses to have coverage. That is, their cell of operation. Whereas in Europe and most of Asia they have " Mobile Phones", which is exactly what they are. Our system is inherently different predicated on our capitalistic system of commerce. Like it or not.

I wouldn't blame anyone. If it doesn't work in certain areas, that's the way it goes!
Don't count on it working in these areas.
What would you do if you didn't have a cell phone?

From the European perspective, this story is almost unbelievable. FCC has not done a super job in the past 20-25 years at all. Here, it was also difficult to agree on the rural coverage, but it was solved long ago. Hey, it was not easy to agree on a single digital standard, either (GSM), but governments and operators together pulled it off, too.

Back in the mid to late 1990s I was treavelling w/ friends. The car broke down in a remote area between Houston & the LA border. 3 people in the car had cell phones, all with different carriers. The cell service ranged from acceptable, spotty to non-existant. It was the Sprint phone that allowed us to make contact & receive callbacks from AAA service. After that weekend the other 2 eventually switched to Sprint & when I finally got a phone it was also with Sprint. Over a decade later during a tropical storm my car got stuck in high water... I was able to call for help.

I do feel that this is a multiple issue & the government needs to be involved... we need towers that service EVERYONE scattered throughout the USA, both rural & suburban. There needs to be research into "deadspots" & the cause. Shaky service out in the middle of nowhere I can understand, in the middle of a major city - I cannot!