Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

comparedial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#111

Post by odiroot »

richjdsmith wrote: post #9

Has 4G/5G improved? When I lived in the UK (Midlands until 2019) it was entirely unreliable. I'd wager 75% of my connection was on 3G as soon as I was more than 3Km from a town's high street. I can say with confidence that the shift from 4G/LTE to 5G where I live now in British Columbia (Canada) mountains is not fun. It's significantly less reliable. I understand that its 10x faster, but I'd much prefer reliable over…

When I still lived in south Hampshire, I couldn't get any Internet via 4G. 5G barely chugged. Now in Berkshire both 4G and 5G work quite well. I'm on Vodafone network though so YMMV.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#112

Post by dukeyukey »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #87
wcoenen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine if Apple or Google were retroactively removing a feature. The shitstorm would be outrageous. Is this sarcasm? Just in case it is not: https://killedby.tech/google/

Are any of those examples of removing a feature from a hardware device, which to me seemed to be the point of the parent. They're comparing car entertainment/GPS systems with phones. Maybe 12 years ago, I had a device with sideloading that allowed me to run Plex (genuinely used for photo viewing). NowTV removed side-loading via a forced update and thus removed the principle reason I bought that device rather than ano…

They've definitely bricked hardware before (e.g. Stadia, likely Jamboard).

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#113

Post by dukeyukey »

crtasm wrote: post #109
palmfacehn wrote: post #74

Don't we get enough Internet on the desktop?

What's a desktop? (that is to say, majority of people only have a phone these days)

I really, extremely doubt that's the case (at least in Western countries). Practically everyone I know (including elderly relatives) at least have a laptop as well as a phone, and quite a few have a dedicated desktop. And that's only counting personal devices.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#114

Post by arp242 »

walthamstow wrote: post #58
peebeebee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Belgium, most (big) banks are downscaling physical servicepoints so much it sometimes is almost impossible for people to choose to do business in person. In think in 10 years you will have almost no real bank tellers anymore. That's no problem for most of the people, but I don't think that the right thing to do in the broader sense. There are lots of (technology) illiterate people that needs some kind of physical…

Technology illiteracy, absenting a learning difficulty or other mental condition, should be inexcusable in 2034 and we should not force the state or businesses to cope with it. Part of me thinks it's inexcusable now for people under a certain age. If you're 70 today in a developed country, you've had the internet for 20 years and a smartphone for at least 10. That's plenty of time.

I think people should be able to live without internet, if that's what they choose. Just as people can live without a TV. There's tons of reasons why someone might not have internet (permanently or temporarily) ranging from financials to personal choice.

And it's not about "illiteracy" as far as I'm concerned, it's about wanting to talk to an actual human being, which is becoming harder and harder. My bank card doesn't work. No idea why. I went to the office: they told me they can't help me and to ring a number. I've rung that number a bunch of times: no one answers. I guess they're busy... I have a workaround by being able to transfer money to a friend's bank account (at the in-store kiosk, because internet banking also doesn't work) and withdrawing it from that, but pff...

And yes, I'll change banks when I can, but I'm not sure it really better anywhere else. Overall, adding more tech to these kind of things tends to make it worse once you're outside of the standard happy path. I also wasn't able to get one of those "COVID passport" thingies a few years ago: I moved back to my home country to get the vaccine, but then I wasn't registered correctly, so couldn't use the app, in spite of having the proof that I got when I got the shot. I was a teeny bit outside the "happy path" and ... sucks to be you.

There's tons of exceptional situations; someone might lose their phone and lose access to their bank account that way, and they may not have the money to buy a new phone right that minute. Simple fool-proof backup solutions are needed unless you're okay with excluding a lot of people (often people already in less-than-ideal circumstances – i.e. not the people typically posting here).

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#115

Post by hedora »

richjdsmith wrote: post #9

Has 4G/5G improved? When I lived in the UK (Midlands until 2019) it was entirely unreliable. I'd wager 75% of my connection was on 3G as soon as I was more than 3Km from a town's high street. I can say with confidence that the shift from 4G/LTE to 5G where I live now in British Columbia (Canada) mountains is not fun. It's significantly less reliable. I understand that its 10x faster, but I'd much prefer reliable over…

My iPhone 13 mini burns a percent of the battery every few minutes in areas with poor cell reception. That was the first year with 5G support if I remember right. Locking to 4G doesn't seem to make a huge difference. Maybe the new modems don't suck?

It'll last a day or two with good cell reception; longer in airplane mode.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#116

Post by ubercow13 »

Longhanks wrote: post #19
thorum wrote: post #11

> Furthermore, the study also reveals 21% of those with a 3G handset aren’t willing to upgrade, and will simply continue to use their phone without internet connectivity. Seems reasonable. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

Imagine if Apple or Google were retroactively removing a feature. The shitstorm would be outrageous. Where I'm from, the same discussion appears every two years, when the government tries once more to shutdown FM radio. Luckily, they always get shut down by the people. Maybe don't try to shut down public services that millions of people actually rely on.

But that is not the same because radio spectrum is a very limited resource and those old uses are preventing newer uses. So the very limited bands of RF can only gain new uses say once per generation, as old FM radio users die out? Is that really a good trade-off?

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#117

Post by vel0city »

sheepscreek wrote: post #100

It’s a positive thing, tbh. I wish the number was bigger. Our desire to switch to the hottest new thing has a significant environmental impact. People don’t need the fastest available mobile internet for checking mails or streaming videos at 1 Mbps. They don’t need the fastest PCs for using Google docs. We don’t need massive pickup trucks for doing grocery runs or even hauling passengers around. It’s fair for anyone…

Operating slower RF equipment isn't just affecting the single end user though. That user is affecting everyone else wanting to share that spectrum.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#118

Post by lxgr »

I wonder why some countries are shutting down 3G but are keeping 2G around for several more years (UK, Germany), while others do the opposite, and yet others can get away with turning off both and going 4G/5G only (like the US).

Maybe it's a function of what type of M2M devices were rolled out most commonly in a country? For example, parking meters and vending machines often communciate via SMS in Germany; that works on 2G, so they might not even have a 3G modem.

On the other hand, I've seen a mobile payment terminal with a built-in 3G modem (but no LTE) that basically became obsolete with the 3G shutdown, since it falls back to GPRS which is hopelessly overloaded and/or just too slow for applications not geared towards it.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#119

Post by lxgr »

ubercow13 wrote: post #116
Longhanks wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if Apple or Google were retroactively removing a feature. The shitstorm would be outrageous. Where I'm from, the same discussion appears every two years, when the government tries once more to shutdown FM radio. Luckily, they always get shut down by the people. Maybe don't try to shut down public services that millions of people actually rely on.

But that is not the same because radio spectrum is a very limited resource and those old uses are preventing newer uses. So the very limited bands of RF can only gain new uses say once per generation, as old FM radio users die out? Is that really a good trade-off?

FM radios are built into cars, hi-fi receivers etc. – things that people sometimes use for decades and more. Unlike for TVs, you also can't just add a set-top box to a car, for example.

That said, I don't understand what's so hard about just running both digital and analog in parallel for 20 or even 30 years. This would create an incentive to upgrade to the new, digital standard (better quality, more programming etc.) without outright cutting millions of people and their legacy devices off.

The US arguably did a better job transitioning to digital radio by using a digital system (HD radio) that seamlessly falls back to an analog AM or FM signal, and they have more constraints in terms of broadcast licensing restrictions than most other countries.

Re: 2.7M Brits still use a 3G only handset

#120

Post by vel0city »

frakkingcylons wrote: post #40
peebeebee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Belgium, most (big) banks are downscaling physical servicepoints so much it sometimes is almost impossible for people to choose to do business in person. In think in 10 years you will have almost no real bank tellers anymore. That's no problem for most of the people, but I don't think that the right thing to do in the broader sense. There are lots of (technology) illiterate people that needs some kind of physical…

Having a physical presence is a competitive advantage. It's the reason some people stick with Chase or their local credit union in lieu of someone else who is online-only with a higher interest rate. Perhaps in a while most banks will decide it's just not worth the expense anymore, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

I've never even been inside a brach of any bank I actually bank at. I've been in a bank to actually do banking like twice in my life, both times to get large bill withdrawals for in person cash vehicle purchases. And I'd just prefer there to be ATMs near me that support bills larger than 20s, why wait until the bank opens and stand in line.

I truly don't understand why a regular person would bother going in to a bank in-person. It just seems like a worse experience compared to doing your banking whenever, wherever.

I understand business banking and what not gets more complicated and it can be helpful having a team to talk to, but a normal person banking is almost always pretty dang basic.

Post reply on HN