Live data from Hacker News

Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

nickvsnetworking.com

51–60 of 184 posts

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#52

Is there any reason to believe this mechanism is actually there to help carriers deceive users? To me this looks like it's intended to address some other issue, like perhaps "I have zero bars shown, what do you mean I'm still connected? That that clearly means I'm disconnected..." I feel like anything intended to lie to users would not be implemented in this manner.

Think about all the various policies, dishonesty, PR spin, marketing, price-gouging, hidden fees, elimination of lifetime programs, and yes, outright fraud you've become aware of over the years. Just sit quietly for a moment, let those ideas stew. And if after one minute of silence you still feel the need to bestow upon these companies the most generous interpretation of their conduct possible, well, I'll be slightly surprised but I suppose that would conclude our conversation.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also do, I'm Australian. I regularly experience both congestion caused by tower over-subscription as well as traveling waaaay out into the country where there's no reception, even on the Telstra network that boasts better coverage than everyone else by a mile.

Better coverage may be claimed. But as you know, Australia is a big place. The few farmers I know have a rough idea of the on-the-ground cell coverage. They say things like "this side of the hill/town" usually. I've seen them deliberately walk to the other side of a silo to make a call. I assume that the coverage maps are assumed cell-tower-coverage-if-shit-is-not-in-the-way. No surprise radios are common.

A Diné (Navajo) slang word for "cellphone" is "bił nijoobałí" which means "the thing you spin around with". Coverage on rez is not great you see, and in some places is so marginal that whether you get a usable signal depends not just on position but orientation...

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#54
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> taking mine to the same areas on the same carrier and doing a comparison Unfortunately I don't think it's that simple. I've seen one phone simultaneously show significantly different numbers of bars for two SIMs installed in it for the same exact network and operator . After a while they become similar... then differ again... etc. I have no clue how to explain it yet, but what I do know is that it literally makes n…

> I have no clue how to explain it yet Android is quiet lazy searching for towers.

As I read this comment on my iPhone 15, I have 1 bar of 5G signal on one esim and 3 bars of signal on the other.

This suggests that the issue is not related to Android.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#55

I implemented the same behavior in a different Google product. I remember the PM working on this feature showing us their research on how iPhones rendered bars across different versions. They had different spectrum ranges, one for each of maybe the last 3 iPhone versions at the time. And overlayed were lines that indicated the "breakpoints" where iPhones would show more bars. And you could clearly see that on every r…

Thats why I experienced 2 bars equals zero internet today?

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#56
post #7

I wonder if it’s more intuitive that way. Like what Apple does with stopwatch. https://lukashermann.dev/writing/why-the-iphone-timer-displa...

It is still tracking the actual time though.

This signal strength is straight up lying about the actual signal strength

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#57
post #5
post #2

You know, I don't recall ever seeing 1 bar of signal strength on a smartphone. And once it's down to 2 bars, it barely works, if at all. Human brains: wow, what a bunch of suckers. Damn. By the way, is it legal to be deceptive in this way?

> You know, I don't recall ever seeing 1 bar of signal strength on a smartphone. I do. I'm from Germany, land of perpetual EDGEing. Highest total GDP in the EU but can't build a mobile network for the life of it. Then again we somehow forgot how to run trains and build cars without cheating, so I guess it fits. Want to see a single bar? Come visit, our carriers aren't on the list with that inflate flag enabled. I gue…

> Highest total GDP in the EU but can't build a mobile network for the life of it.

GDP per capita (or GDP per square metre) would be a more useful indication here. Otherwise, you could throw a bunch of poor countries together--just for purposes of statistics, and expect a better mobile network?

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#58
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't hide from the pickaxe $ git log --oneline -SKEY_INFLATE_SIGNAL_STRENGTH_BOOL | tail gets us the commit [0] from 2020 where config_inflateSignalStrength was renamed to KEY_INFLATE_SIGNAL_STRENGTH_BOOL $ git log --oneline -Sconfig_inflateSignalStrength | tail gets us this commit [1] from 2017 where it was originally added: 43c14d198479 Add config to artificially inflate number of bars [0]: https://android.goo…

I'm surprised they even display the name and email of the person responsible for doing it. If I were forced to make such a change that I knew would be publicly displayed, I'd do everything possible to disclaim it (such as mentioning the one who actually requested it.)

"I only added the configuration option, I'm not the one enabling it"

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#59
post #12

IIRC this really took off with the antennagate fiasco on the iphone 4. I was working for Verizon at the time and this was also the first one we were able to sell. I forget who it was that did it but I believe it was Apple in response to people "holding their phone wrong" so they bumped everything up a bar so you couldn't tell. There was a lot of competition at the time but also all the androids had better margins so…

> but also all the androids had better margins That's not something I was expecting to hear

Makes sense that Apple offer lower margins for retailers as it is the stronger brand. Supply and demand. "Oh we wont sell Apple... yeah right!".

But then of course if you can push a customer one way or the other it will be to the higher margin product.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#60
post #21
post #2

You know, I don't recall ever seeing 1 bar of signal strength on a smartphone. And once it's down to 2 bars, it barely works, if at all. Human brains: wow, what a bunch of suckers. Damn. By the way, is it legal to be deceptive in this way?

Humans are strange indeed. I work with cellular BDA-DAS[1] gear sometimes, and I don't recall the last time I looked at the signal strength display on my phone. It has probably been years. For me: It either works, or it doesn't work. It is either fast-enough, or impossibly-slow. It's very binary, and the bar graph at the top never told me a damned thing about what I should expect. [1]: Bi-Directional Amplifier, Distr…

HN is the only website that works on 1 bar. If HN doesn’t load then nothing loads.
Post reply on HN