Please settle an argument I have with a friend. She wouldn't take my
word for it. I went hiking today, short hike, off road, away from
cities and towns, sometimes no cell service** even on parts of the
highway leadintg to the hike,, and there was no cellular service on the
trail.

My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
believe you.

Mean time, a week ago or more I asked for an app that would bee[ when
I'd lost cell service. I installedd this one that Andy found:
> *Cellular Connection Monitor* by Pavel Borzenkov (it has a 0 rating though)
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>

It didnt' work. So I'll go back and follow the other suggestsions.
What I didn't put 2 and 2 toegher before today was that the car radio
would tell me when the cell service failed, IF SERVICE EVEN ON THE
HIGHWAY WASN'T CONSTANT. aND It wasn't. The car radio uses the phone
to listen to android apps like Tunein. Of course audio is buffered aiui
so I don't know exactly when the signal is gone, but it was gone several
times.

The car radio also shows how much charge is in the phone's battery and
how strong the cell signal is, from the phone's pov.

And it was down to no bars some of the time. But during that time, I
had tried to run the app abovbe and could never get it to save the
start-up values on the first screen. Tried 4 or 5 times.

Turned out, no cell coveragein on any of this 2 mile hike, but this is a
popular one. When I got there at 2:30 there were 25 cars int he lot,
and even when I left at 3;45, there were 12. I need to make further
plans if I go somewhere more quiet, or I need to get started early.

micky wrote:

> But if you all vote, she'll
> believe you.

Didn't nospam _already_ answer that same question for you the last time?

HINT: It doesn't matter whether or not you have a SIM card in the phone.

micky wrote:

> Turned out, no cell coveragein on any of this 2 mile hike, but this is a
> popular one.

Look at this set of screenshots which can give you a map of imputed towers.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKFhMZtS/signal03.jpg?

To get that information, just install this free ad free app on your phone.
*Cellular-Z*, by JerseyHo, rated 4.0 out of 100K+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

That will show you a _lot_ of important stuff which you can't get otherwise.
"Cellular Z is a telecom signal quality and Wifi network info,
channel info software, the main functions are as follows:
1. Dual SIM mobile phone network information
(SIM card serving cell, serving cell signal quality,neighboring cells).
2. Wifi (connected, nearby Wifi list, Wifi channel 2.5 and 5 GHz).
3. Current location information GPS Satellites
4. Device information (battery, hardware, system).
5.speedtest.
6.Map track,indoor coverage."

The only disadvantage is it does NOT tell you the cellular signal or
neighboring cells of any cellular carrier other than that of the SIM.

micky wrote:

> Please settle an argument I have with a friend. She wouldn't take my
> word for it. I went hiking today, short hike, off road, away from
> cities and towns, sometimes no cell service** even on parts of the
> highway leadintg to the hike,, and there was no cellular service on
> the trail.

You used ** as though to reference a note, but you never explain the **
reference, so "cell service" is undefined. You might mean lack of
signal strenth to reach a cell tower or the tower is too far away, or
the reachable tower doesn't rent service to your choice of cellular
carrier. Does "cell service" mean connecting to the cell tower, or
reaching a cell tower that rents to your choice of carrier?

If you meant you had no signal strength to reach a tower, well, you
aren't making calls of any type, 911 or otherwise. If you meant there
were no cell towers close enough to your phone that rented service to
your choice of cellular carrier, 911 calls don't rely on using just your
carrier to complete. A tower that doesn't rent service to your carrier
will still route your 911 call.

> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
> telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
> don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses
> and thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
> believe you.

Federal law mandates that all cell towers handle 911 calls whether or
not they contract with your particular cellular provider for service at
their cell tower, and whether or not you have service with one of their
renting carriers. The FCC has regulations to ensure that 911 calls are
accepted by all carriers.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/9-1-1-and-e9-1-1-services

In other countries, you're may be screwed without a SIM card that is
active; i.e., inactive SIM card or no SIM card means no 911 calls. In
the USA, the FCC mandates all carriers support 911 calls through their
networks even by non-customers, and some towers don't bother with
carrier routing and instead have their own appliance for direct connects
to emergency services.

If you have a activated SIM card, your phone connects to the tower and
the tower attempts to use your carrier to make the 911 call even if you
have no quota or credit with that carrier. If your SIM is deactivated
(or never activated), the tower uses any carrier renting that tower
since all carriers are required to complete 911 calls whether for their
customers, for their customers with no credit, or for non-customers. If
your phone doesn't have a SIM card, the cell phone still uses its
antenna to connect to the cell tower (just as it does with a SIM card),
and the tower has to figure out how to route the 911 call which could be
through any network of any carrier renting their tower, or by on-site
appliances at the tower that directly connect the tower to a PSAP
(Public Safety Answering Point) operated by the local gov't.

Few cellular carriers own their own towers. They contract with the
towers to handle the carrier's network. That is, carriers rent access
from the towers. They share, and why a tower typically handles (rents
to) more than one carrier. Once you connect to the tower to make a 911
call, the tower can use your carrier (if they rent from that tower), any
other carrier (that rents from that tower), or using on-site appliances.

Some folks will keep their old cell phones, or buy them used and cheap
at, say, Goodwill to toss into their car to make 911 calls. They don't
need to have a plans with any carrier. They don't need any quota or
credit with any carrier. They may not have a SIM card. But they can
still make 911 calls if they can reach a tower.

Make a 911 call?
- Phone has an activated SIM (with or without credit): Yes.
- Phone has a deactived or not-yet-activated SIM card: Yes.
- Phone has no SIM card: Yes, through any carrier renting at the tower,
or via on-site direct access appliance to PSAP at the tower.
- Phone cannot reach any tower: No (can't make any calls).

This is a North America (well, USA) mandate by the FCC. I don't know in
which country or region you live. In other countries, an activated SIM
card (without or without quota or credit with a carrier) may be
required. You'd have to check how the towers in a foreign country
operate to route 911 calls if you plan on traveling there.

I toss my old cell phones into my car's glove box or center console as
911-only phones. They still have their SIM card, because a new one for
a new phone costs only $1, and there's always the chance I want to use
an old cell phone with a carrier (i.e., have more than one active cell
phone). Those 911-only cell phones would still work to dial 911 if I
removed their SIM card to use in a new phone. Before I had any old
phones with which I didn't wany any carrier service, I got them super
cheap at Goodwill, and those usually had no SIM card.

On 2022-03-03 23:12, micky wrote:
> Please settle an argument I have with a friend. She wouldn't take my
> word for it. I went hiking today, short hike, off road, away from
> cities and towns, sometimes no cell service** even on parts of the
> highway leadintg to the hike,, and there was no cellular service on the
> trail.
>
> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
> telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
> don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
> thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
> believe you.

There has to be coverage from at least one company. If no company has
any coverage, you are stuck, isolated.

If one or more companies give coverage, then you "should" be able to
call emergencies on it. The trick to do it may vary. Change network on
your phone, try removing the sim... In some cases, no way, nothing works
except a sim of said company, according to some reports.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

VanguardLH wrote:

> Does "cell service" mean connecting to the cell tower, or
> reaching a cell tower that rents to your choice of carrier?

Decibels are everything.

Micky's question was answered quite a few times, so, while you answered it
thoroughly yet one more time, what really matters, IMHO, are decibels.

Hence, a better question might be at about what signal strength is a
reliable-enough connection to the tower at the break-off point?
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

On 3/3/2022 2:12 PM, micky wrote:

<snip>

> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
> telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
> don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
> thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
> believe you.

Of course you can't make a 911 call if there is no cell service by any
carrier.

> Mean time, a week ago or more I asked for an app that would bee[ when
> I'd lost cell service. I installedd this one that Andy found:
>> *Cellular Connection Monitor* by Pavel Borzenkov (it has a 0 rating though)
>> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>
works great on my Note 9. It has a 4 star rating. Don't know where you
saw a zero rating.

But whether or not it indicates when you have no service on your
carrier, or no service period (so no 911 calls either) is not clear.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> There has to be coverage from at least one company.
> If no company has any coverage, you are stuck, isolated.

To bring this thread up to an actual _adult_ level of detail...

While "coverage" is a broad term, and as such is correct, what really
matters most is the signal strength (although there are quality factors)
where the minimum signal strength also depends on the frequencies used
and a host of other typical conditions (such as weather & noise levels).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

> If one or more companies give coverage, then you "should" be able to
> call emergencies on it. The trick to do it may vary.

An _adult_ question might be what the signal/quality inflection point is.

*What is a Good Cell Phone Signal Strength?*
<https://www.accu-tech.com/accu-insider/what-is-a-good-cell-phone-signal-strength>
"Signal strengths can range from approximately -30 dBm to -110 dBm.
In general, anything better than -85 decibels is considered a
usable signal."

*What is Good Signal Strength for a Cell Phone?*
<https://www.wilsonpro.com/blog/what-is-a-good-cell-phone-signal-strength>
"Signals better than -85 decibels are considered usable and strong,
and you'll rarely see a signal stronger than -50 dBm.
At the other end of the spectrum, a signal that's weaker than -100 dBm
is likely too problematic to be useful - resulting in dropped calls
and incomplete data transmissions."

*What's considered "good" cell signal?*
<https://powerfulsignal.com/cell-signal-strength/>
"Excellent signal strength on the RSRP scale is anything stronger than
about −85 dBm; poor signal strength is anything less than −115 dBm.
If you're receiving less than −120 dBm RSRP, you'll probably have
difficulty making phone calls, sending or receiving text messages,
or using internet data.

Another factor to keep in mind is the quality of your cellular connection.
How much usable signal you are receiving vs. the amount of noise
(unwanted disturbances of the signal). There are ways to measure cellular
signal quality (RSRQ and SINR), but that's beyond the scope of this article.

Just be aware that you can have strong cellular signal but still have
slow data and dropped calls because your signal quality is poor."

*What Is Strong And Weak Signal In DBm For 3G Vs. 4G?* (older)
<https://www.signalbooster.com/blogs/news/differences-between-3g-1x-vs-4g-lte-signal-strength-in-dbm>
Excellent: -70 dBm on 3G is considered excellent signal strength versus
-90 dBm on 4G or LTE network which is also considered excellent.
Good: -71to-85 dBm on 3G is considered good.
So is -91 to -105 dBm on 4G/LTE.
Fair: -86 to -100 dBm on 3G is fair and
-106 to -110 dBm on 4G/ LTE is also fair.
Poor: -101 to -109 dBm on 3G is poor and
-111 to -119 dBm on 4G is poor.
Dead Zone: -110 dBm on 3G network is practically a dead zone,
So is -120 dBm on 4G LTE network.
--
The job of a Usenet post is to add value each time we communicate.

sms wrote:

>>> *Cellular Connection Monitor* by Pavel Borzenkov (it has a 0 rating though)
>>> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>
>
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>
> works great on my Note 9. It has a 4 star rating. Don't know where you
> saw a zero rating.

While Steve kindly tested the suggested apps we each found for micky's
earlier question, we did discuss that discrepancy in ratings already.
*An app to tell me when I'm entering the no-signal-zone*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/mi80JxUj1x0>

Steve just missed that discussion for some reason.

*Anyone have an explanation for the discrepancy in GP client app ratings?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/yGVrK5nwzZc>
--
Usenet is purposefully helpful intelligent people helping each other.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Does "cell service" mean connecting to the cell tower, or
>> reaching a cell tower that rents to your choice of carrier?
>
> Decibels are everything.
>
> Micky's question was answered quite a few times, so, while you answered it
> thoroughly yet one more time, what really matters, IMHO, are decibels.
>
> Hence, a better question might be at about what signal strength is a
> reliable-enough connection to the tower at the break-off point?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

I can go into Android's Settings -> General -> About phone -> Network
and look at signal strength instead of using the coarse measure using
bars in the notification area showing signal strength. There is no
standard for what change in signal strength is represented by each bar,
and signal strength can change sufficiently regarding connectivity
without even changing a bar. Anything under -85 dBm is going to be
flaky to unusable.

In my basement in my house that is in a geographical dip next to a river
with towers up on cliffs (they don't work well in downward direction), I
get -112 dBm, and why cell calls are pretty unreliable -- and why I
connect wifi on my phone to my wifi hotspot (cable modem) to
make/receive calls. I could buy a signal booster for several hundred
dollars, but the wifi hotspot is already there to use inside and around
my house. However, 911 service is typically unusable over VOIP unless
you pay extra. Same for the Google Voice VOIP service via Obitalk 200
converter that I have at home on the cable modem: no 911 service.
That's why many wireless phones have settings for you to enter your
location (which is really of value at a fixed spot, like at home).

Rather than drill through the settings to find the phone's signal
strength reading, there are several apps to tell you that info. I also
have the Network Cell Info app which has a panel showing both cellular
and wifi signal strength, and even a map showing where is the tower to
which I'm currently connected.

I've seen some users of femtocell towers at home. Those are cellular
transceivers that let you connect a cell phone to the femtocell
appliance which then goes to your cable modem to connect to your
cellular carrier's service (cell phone -> cell tower -> Internet ->
carrier). I remember looking at those long ago until I realized wifi
from smartphone to cable modem and VOIP to Internet (which connects to
landline/POTS and cell phones) worked just fine.

For micky out on his trails, he won't have a nearby wifi hotspot to use,
but which probably won't have 911 service unless he pays extra. He
won't have a cellular booster to up signal strength (please don't go
off-target with those foil sheets put inside a phone claiming to up
signal strength). He'll just have his phone, a tower, and whatever he
gets with the trees, hills, and other obstructions for what signal
strength he can get between his phone and the tower. If his phone can
reach the tower (and connect to it), he can make 911 calls. If his
phone cannot reach the cell tower, he won't be able to make calls of any
type.

Wifi hotspots have far less range (100 ft for 5GHz, 300 ft for 2.4GHz)
than cell towers (22 to 45 miles). No app is going to magically give
him a wifi hotspot out of nowhere nor boost the signal strength,
especially the one micky mentioned which is just to notify when signal
strength gets too low (i.e., when you "device looses signal or
unregisters from cellular network"). Just what are you going to do when
out on the trail when the monitor app tells you that your phone cannot
connect to a cell tower? You'll know you're out of range, but that
won't change you're out of range. Seems just another noisemaker app.

VanguardLH wrote:

> I can go into Android's Settings -> General -> About phone -> Network
> and look at signal strength instead of using the coarse measure using
> bars in the notification area showing signal strength. There is no
> standard for what change in signal strength is represented by each bar,
> and signal strength can change sufficiently regarding connectivity
> without even changing a bar. Anything under -85 dBm is going to be
> flaky to unusable.

See my other posts in this thread which answer _both_ your issues above.
1. There are free apps that show the signal strength & quality perfectly.
2. The drop off point depends on the frequency but it's around -115 dBm.

"micky" <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote in message
news:4ke22hl5l28oh27fkjachr9drj382uenfh@4ax.com...
> Please settle an argument I have with a friend. She wouldn't take my
> word for it. I went hiking today, short hike, off road, away from
> cities and towns, sometimes no cell service** even on parts of the
> highway leadintg to the hike,, and there was no cellular service on the
> trail.
>
> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
> telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
> don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
> thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
> believe you.

You need coverage from a mobile phone mast to make any sort of call. I think
the rules about making emergency calls differ from one country to another. I
*think* here in the UK you can make an emergency call even if the only
coverage is from a provider that is not your own. But away from a populated
area, you may find that there is no coverage from *any* mobile phone
network.

And being in a populated area is no guarantee of coverage. The local
supermarket was a completely dead zone for Vodafone coverage, which was a
bummer if my wife had given me a shopping list and I needed to phone her to
ask "they haven't got Brand X, will Brand Y do instead?". I had a most
frustrating set of phone calls when I tried to retrieve an item from an
Amazon locker that was just inside the supermarket. I had to go outside and
up the road to call them and report "this is what I've done, but the door
won't open"; they would suggest something else to try; the call would drop
as soon as I went back inside; I'd try what they suggested; I'd go outside
to phone them again to report what happened and ask for further help. Rinse
and repeat! Sadly, bringing faster and faster comms to the large towns and
cities is seen as more important than bringing at least voice comms and
slower internet to all the not-spots.

NY,

> I *think* here in the UK you can make an emergency call even if the only
> coverage is from a provider that is not your own.

AFAIK the OP is right : even when you do /not/ have a SIM card in the phone
you can still dial your countries emergency number. Its why you should not
let todlers/children play with phones.

> the call would drop as soon as I went back inside;

That sounds as the effect of a "Faraday cage" - which can happen when you
step inside any kind of building that is pretty-much a glorified metal box.

@OP:
> Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls

Ofcourse.

As mentioned here, simply being out-of-reach of any GSM tower will do it.
Being shielded from such towers will cause the same. A faraday cage is one
possibility. Standing in a vally with hills around a possible second (a
so-called "black hole"). Replace "hills" with "buildings" and you have a
possible third. And do not forget that some people/companies use so-called
GSM jammers.

I've seen a story of a restaurant which used such a jammer so their
coming-in-together guests would actually talk to each other and enjoy their
meals. They where found out as the jamming spilled over (far) outside the
establishment.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Mickey

> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls.
....
> She pauses and thinks, and then doesn't believe me.

One of /those/ users, eh ? Having heard something, not understanding how
that would-or-could work and than just religiously repeat it.

Emergency voice calls are exactly the same as any other voice call, with the
exception that the GSM tower has marked the target phone number as a "never
reject" one.

But for a GSM tower to "never reject" such a number it ofcourse has to be
able to receive the phones signal. When it can't ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

micky wrote:
| > Please settle an argument I have with a friend. She wouldn't take my
| > word for it. I went hiking today, short hike, off road, away from
| > cities and towns, sometimes no cell service** even on parts of the
| > highway leadintg to the hike,, and there was no cellular service on the
| > trail.
| >
| > My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
| > telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
| > don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
| > thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
| > believe you.
| | There has to be coverage from at least one company. If no company has
| any coverage, you are stuck, isolated.
|

That's what he's talking about. No coverage is common
in the US. I have a brother in New Hampshire who has no
cell service from home. Urban geeks believe the world lives
by cellphone, but the carriers have no interest in putting up
towers in areas of low population density.

I'm guessing Micky's friend is just one of those ninnies
who wears a helmet to go hiking and feels confident that
safety services are always at hand. Surely, wilderness is
illegal? This is the 21st century!

Mayayana wrote:

> No coverage is common in the US. I have a brother in
> New Hampshire who has no cell service from home.

Please do not listen to ignorant people like Mayayana proves to be.

I don't mind that ignorant racists like Mayayana exist; but what irks me is
that they're _always_ wrong as a result and yet, they're so confident in it.

As usual with Mayayana, he's absolutely unequivocally dead wrong. Again.

*Nobody in the US who has Internet is devoid of cellular signal at home*
Nobody.

All the major carriers give users, & in my experience for free, either a
cellular repeater and, more so lately, a femtocell (aka a microcell).

I personally have _both_ a cellular repeater & a femtocell in my house,
which my carrier gave me for free, and I've helped many others get them too.

For Mayana to always be this wrong is, I must say, bothersome to intelligent
well educated people because Mayana is always so very _confident_ in always
being so very wrong.

We've proven Mayayana is an opinionated racist in the past, but this
response has nothing to do with Mayayana's ignorant racism but his ignorance
alone.

Please understand that at home, _everyone_ in the US with Internet, has
cellular coverage since the carriers provide what is, in essence, a home
cell tower (I have two of them in my home alone, admittedly it's large).

> I'm guessing Micky's friend is just one of those ninnies
> who wears a helmet to go hiking and feels confident that
> safety services are always at hand. Surely, wilderness is
> illegal? This is the 21st century!

Again, Mayayana is, as always, being an ignorant opinionated uneducated
person who doesn't even realize _everything_ he claims is dead wrong.

What irks me isn't that such ignorant opinionated people exist, but that
they don't even realize that everything they claim is always dead wrong.

What micky wants, IMHO, based on me _understanding_ what his needs are, is
what _anyone_ would want (even me!) who hikes in the backcountry
(particularly if we have children and grandchildren who hike in the wild).

1. Anyone would want access to 911 emergency services when needed!
2. Anyone might want an audible signal when cell coverage is lost/restored.
2. Anyone might want to _queue_ up messages when cell coverage is spotty.

They just would.
For Mayayana to desperate what is perfectly reasonable exemplifies all that
is wrong with opinionated racists like we've proven Mayayana to be.

But what's worse isn't Mayayana's racism or ignorance - but that he's always
dead wrong in almost everything that he claims (as he was in his response).
--
I don't mind that ignorant racists like Mayayana exist; but what irks me is
that they're _always_ wrong as a result and yet, they're so confident in it.

Mayayana is not an iKook but he exhibits some of the first quartile traits
1. He's uneducated
2. He's of a rather low IQ
3. He holds a very strong (ignorant & racits) set of opinions
4. But he _never_ checks his facts

The fact Mayayana is _often_ dead wrong isn't a big deal as lots of people
are as ignorant as Mayayana; but he's always so _confident_ in being wrong.

That's first quartile DK.

Mayayana wrote:

> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> micky wrote:
>|> Please settle an argument I have with a friend. She wouldn't take my
>|> word for it. I went hiking today, short hike, off road, away from
>|> cities and towns, sometimes no cell service** even on parts of the
>|> highway leadintg to the hike,, and there was no cellular service on the
>|> trail.
>|>
>|> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
>|> telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
>|> don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
>|> thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
>|> believe you.
>|
>| There has to be coverage from at least one company. If no company has
>| any coverage, you are stuck, isolated.
>
> That's what he's talking about. No coverage is common in the US. I
> have a brother in New Hampshire who has no cell service from home.
> Urban geeks believe the world lives by cellphone, but the carriers
> have no interest in putting up towers in areas of low population
> density.
>
> I'm guessing Micky's friend is just one of those ninnies who wears a
> helmet to go hiking and feels confident that safety services are
> always at hand. Surely, wilderness is illegal? This is the 21st
> century!

Personally I have to wonder why micky is going off onto trails to go
hiking, but has his cell phone on. Isn't the point of venturing into
wilderness to get away from the din of civilization, not to have a phone
making noise and interrupting the experience?

Oh yes, there's the emergency feature of a phone to call when you need
help. Um, handholding you in the wilderness takes away from the risk of
you going there. What would be the point of bungie jumping if there
were a quater-mile square 100-ft high air pad below? If he really is
enjoying wilderness, and he is turning off his phone to use only for
emergencies (especially since the phone's battery is crucial for that
intended emergency-only use, not to blather to friends or family), why
would he need an app to tell him when he's out of tower range while his
phone is off?

When we go camping, and if any kids are attending, we say before leaving
that they either agree to keep their phones off their during the entire
trip, leave them at home, or they stay home. The only noise I want to
hear when camping or hiking are the birds screaming to wake me before
the sun rises. I don't even want the people on the trip talking since
the point is to be in nature, not yakking away which can be done back
home.

Just imagine how stupid it would be to go a scuba trip to suffer the
boobs that managed to use their phones underwater. Gee, how was the
trip? Oh, so-and-so texted me about their cat having kittens. Um, what
did that have to do with the scuba trip? Oh, I saw videos of the
Ukraine invasion. Um, did you see anything of the ocean when diving?

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> For Mayayana to desperate what is perfectly reasonable exemplifies all that
> is wrong with opinionated racists like we've proven Mayayana to be.

Spell checker typo.
Here is the sentence corrected.

For Mayayana to _disparage_ what is perfectly reasonable is what exemplifies
what is wrong with strongly opinionated people who can't understand others.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 17:50:32 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/3/2022 2:12 PM, micky wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
>> telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
>> don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
>> thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
>> believe you.
>
>Of course you can't make a 911 call if there is no cell service by any
>carrier.

Right, of course not. More generally, you can't make *any kind* of
cell phone call if there is no cell service by any carrier.

To make any kind of cell phone call, you need

A cell phone
Nothing broken that prevents the phone from working
A battery that's not run down in the phone
Cell phone service where you are. no 911 calls either) is not clear.
--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Mayayana wrote:
>
>> No coverage is common in the US. I have a brother in
>> New Hampshire who has no cell service from home.
>
> Please do not listen to ignorant people like Mayayana proves to be.
>
> I don't mind that ignorant racists like Mayayana exist; but what irks me is
> that they're _always_ wrong as a result and yet, they're so confident in it.
>
> As usual with Mayayana, he's absolutely unequivocally dead wrong. Again.
>
> *Nobody in the US who has Internet is devoid of cellular signal at home*
> Nobody.
>
> All the major carriers give users, & in my experience for free, either a
> cellular repeater and, more so lately, a femtocell (aka a microcell).
>
> I personally have _both_ a cellular repeater & a femtocell in my house,
> which my carrier gave me for free, and I've helped many others get them too.
>
> For Mayana to always be this wrong is, I must say, bothersome to intelligent
> well educated people because Mayana is always so very _confident_ in always
> being so very wrong.
>
> We've proven Mayayana is an opinionated racist in the past, but this
> response has nothing to do with Mayayana's ignorant racism but his ignorance
> alone.
>
> Please understand that at home, _everyone_ in the US with Internet, has
> cellular coverage since the carriers provide what is, in essence, a home
> cell tower (I have two of them in my home alone, admittedly it's large).
>
>> I'm guessing Micky's friend is just one of those ninnies
>> who wears a helmet to go hiking and feels confident that
>> safety services are always at hand. Surely, wilderness is
>> illegal? This is the 21st century!
>
> Again, Mayayana is, as always, being an ignorant opinionated uneducated
> person who doesn't even realize _everything_ he claims is dead wrong.
>
> What irks me isn't that such ignorant opinionated people exist, but that
> they don't even realize that everything they claim is always dead wrong.
>
> What micky wants, IMHO, based on me _understanding_ what his needs are, is
> what _anyone_ would want (even me!) who hikes in the backcountry
> (particularly if we have children and grandchildren who hike in the wild).
>
> 1. Anyone would want access to 911 emergency services when needed!
> 2. Anyone might want an audible signal when cell coverage is lost/restored.
> 2. Anyone might want to _queue_ up messages when cell coverage is spotty.
>
> They just would.
> For Mayayana to desperate what is perfectly reasonable exemplifies all that
> is wrong with opinionated racists like we've proven Mayayana to be.
>
> But what's worse isn't Mayayana's racism or ignorance - but that he's always
> dead wrong in almost everything that he claims (as he was in his response).

Nice you decided to pay an actual carrier for cellular service, and that
carrier gave you a repeater (booster) and femtocell for free. That's
not true in many cases. To get a booster means the carrier has to
qualify you are in a low-coverage area. To get a femtocell means you
have to get the one your carrier provides, and not all do. Those using
MVNOs (e.g., Tracfone) are *not* customers of the actual carrier to
which the MVNO user is assigned, so they don't qualify for free, or even
paid, boosters or femtocells. Your experience does not dictate what is
available or usable to all cellular users.

When did this mutate into a discussion about cellular coverage at home?
Micky "lives" on the trails he treks? How is micky going to use a
booster or femtocell on the trails? What you have available, and what
you got for free, depends on to whom you are a customer, and what you
have at home is irrelevant to the discussion of cellular coverage for
micky on the wilderness trails.

Either you intended to diverge the discussion to what may be available
and usable at home (free or not), or you forgot the focus of the
discussion of micky's predicament. Seems you were more interested in
your stalking of Mayayana.

In article <5re42hli914ium2hjh95injm1k3oqj51jc@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> >Of course you can't make a 911 call if there is no cell service by any
> >carrier.
>
>
> Right, of course not. More generally, you can't make *any kind* of
> cell phone call if there is no cell service by any carrier.

you can via wifi calling, which is intended for areas with weak or no
cell coverage.

voip apps can be used on smartphones, also via wifi.

On 3/4/2022 6:24 AM, Mayayana wrote:

<snip>

> That's what he's talking about. No coverage is common
> in the US. I have a brother in New Hampshire who has no
> cell service from home. Urban geeks believe the world lives
> by cellphone, but the carriers have no interest in putting up
> towers in areas of low population density.

While there certainly are rural areas of New Hampshire with "no
coverage" it's not quite accurate to call it "common."

Look at the FCC maps of coverage at
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>.

I captured the maps for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, see
<https://i.imgur.com/PmHNPYb.png>. The coverage differences between
carriers are very large, but there are definitely some areas with no
coverage by any carrier. AT&T and Verizon provide pretty good coverage
in the northern New England states, but T-Mobile does not since they are
not really into providing rural coverage.

I was up in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont last September. There was
one place in New Hampshire's White Mountains, near the base of Mount
Washington, where we had no data coverage on Verizon. Again, you can see
the big differences in coverage on the FCC Map, here is a comparison
<https://i.imgur.com/56vVARA.png>.

What people in some rural areas do, if they have broadband service, is
to install a micro-cell in their house. Of course this is less necessary
than in the past since most every carrier and MVNO provides Wi-Fi
calling. I told my neighbor, who is on T-Mobile, to install a micro-cell
and that T-Mobile would provide, see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/4g-lte-cellspot>. But instead
he's changing to a Verizon MVNO.

VanguardLH wrote:

> Nice you decided to pay an actual carrier for cellular service, and that
> carrier gave you a repeater (booster) and femtocell for free.

I'm well aware that you're one of the very few people on this ng who has the
capacity to handle detail, so I won't spare that detail for you below.

However, my main observation remains the same as it was, assessed by me as:
*If you have any Internet, you have _fantastic_ coverage in your US home!*

Every major carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) in the USA, to my knowledge
and experience, will give you a repeater and/or a cell tower for free.

For example, here is my cellular repeater (aka booster) in the pool shed.
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg> Repeater (booster)

And here is my Ooma & femtocell connected to an old router in a side office.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QCNqss9T/femto-ooma-switch.jpg>

I have both, but my house is unusual in some ways as it's built to survive
an earthquake (given the fault line is very close indeed); but I still do
very much agree with you that you must pay at least one of the major
carriers for the basic service first and foremost, as you duly noted.

But you can't have much _less_ public infrastructure where you live than I.

Where I live the government doesn't want any more people living here, so
they limit our land to 40 acres, which means that anyone with under 80 acres
can only put a single house on the lot. It goes without saying that we don't
have the concept of public water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, or even
cable.

Like _everyone_ else in the USA, we do have telephone lines & electrical
power lines (but don't get me started on why virtually everyone installed
built-in propane gas generators due to PG&E unreliability & quite a few are
dropping off the grid entirely, via solar & batteries, as PG&E is unreliable
(we've had an outage a month for a day each for the past six years where
last summer we had three power outages a week on average for the entire
summer, consistently).

My point in explaining that is our infrastructure is likely almost as bad as
any others in the US due to intentional rules and unintentional neglect.

Given all of us have generators and that it's a given the telephone
connection is too far away for DSL, most of us dropped telephone long ago
(where I dropped Verizon because the taxes were half the total charges).

So all we have is Internet - and even that comes from 20 miles away by road,
but only about 6 miles as the crow flies given we are all on WISP radios.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMNv5FBC/typical-range-ptp.jpg> Typical WISP range

My point is if I have _fantastic_ cellular service inside my house, given if
I turn off my repeater (aka booster), I _only_ have the femtocell tower
inside the house, why can't anyone in the USA who pays a postpaid bill to
any of the three carriers have the same as I do.

I'm not special. I am simply miles away from the nearest cellular tower.

> That's
> not true in many cases. To get a booster means the carrier has to
> qualify you are in a low-coverage area.

I agree with you that they're not gonna give you your own booster or cell
tower inside your house if you _already_ have good signal. That's a given.

Although, I must mention that I _used_ to have crappy cellular signal until
T-Mobile gave me a set of half-price 5G iPhones and free 5G Android phones.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone

Now my 5G signals _outside_ the house are fantastic as shown in these shots.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps* 5G speeds at home

But those fantastic 250Mbps speeds only happened with the advent of 5G tech.

Even so, 5G doesn't penetrate the house well (which is also solar protected
so signals bounce off the windows & doors which all have a metal haze
deposited on them, which is required by local code, I'm told).

Inside the house I use the femtocell tower & the cellular repeater signal,
along with a variety of powerful transceivers acting as APs and as bridges.
<https://i.postimg.cc/4xgmTTgm/wifi01.jpg> Multiple access points

> To get a femtocell means you
> have to get the one your carrier provides, and not all do.

I wrote about this _many_ times so it's irksome to have to repeat but they
_all_ do and I know this because I help the neighbors, most if not all of
whom are elderly, and many are widowed, where I make the phone calls for
them.

Yes. For example, I called Verizon about a year ago (and I wrote it up at
the time) for one neighbor where Verizon tried to charge her a shipping and
handling fee and I was emphatic she should get it for free, and they gave it
to her for free.

On AT&T on another call they wanted a $400 deposit and I told AT&T that the
customer was theirs for a long time and wasn't going anywhere, so the
supervisor waived the fee.

Most recently for another neighbor, she called T-Mobile and they gave her a
hard time and she patched me in and they told me they no longer provide the
free wi-fi routers or the free boosters (aka repeaters), but they still
provide the femtocell tower, but at a $25 one-time charge. I was livid with
them, and after asking them to check with a supervisor I got T-Mobile to
credit her $25 for the $25 charge that they now charge - so she had to give
them her credit card, but they credited her bill the same amount so it was a
wash. (To T-Mo's credit, they did a similar $20 charge-credit for me when I
replaced my free Samsung under warranty just a few weeks ago, and I wrote
about that too - so that everyone benefits from knowing what they will do.)

I wrote _all_ of this up in the past so it's irksome to have to repeat it.

My experience is the following:
a. The three carriers all provide free femtocells if you have bad signal.
b. They probably no longer provide free wi-fi routers or free repeaters.
c. They may ask for a deposit or a S&H charge but you can have them waive it

If you're using an MVNO, I don't know what they will do, as I don't know
anyone in the flesh who uses them (although I'm aware Steve uses them so ask
him).

> Those using
> MVNOs (e.g., Tracfone) are *not* customers of the actual carrier to
> which the MVNO user is assigned, so they don't qualify for free, or even
> paid, boosters or femtocells. Your experience does not dictate what is
> available or usable to all cellular users.

I get four lines from T-Mo with unlimited almost everything, including
unlimited data, unlimited text, unlimited MMS, unlimited USA calls, etc.
(the only things limited is the 5GB/month/line of hotspotting & tethering)
for $25/month/line. I even get two iPads with 200MB/month free SIM service.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

You never get what you pay for, by the way, as stupid people get less than
what they pay for and only intelligent people get what they pay for. (Don't
even get me started on Apple's ungodly profits if I need to prove that
point.)

Stupid people will make stupid decisions, Vanguard; but my point was that if
you know what I know, then you have no business complaining about coverage.

If you have Internet in the USA, you have _fantastic_ coverage in your home!

While I'm all for saving money, I don't know _anyone_ who uses an MVNO, but
as I said, Steve, who always shills for Verizon but doesn't actually pay
them, is an expert in MVNOs and so you should be asking him what they
provide as I can't tell you what they provide.

However, if the MVNO has crappy signal, and if they won't give you a free
cellular tower for your home, my suggestion would be to change MVNOs as I'm
a believer that lousy service is a tax on the stupid, not on smart people.

Your point that stupid people buy crappy service is fine, but don't blame
the crappy service since I have experience with all three major providers.

VanguardLH wrote:

> When did this mutate into a discussion about cellular coverage at home?

Vanguard,
Stop that crap. Just stop it. Stop it right now.

If you can't even _see_ where the thread "mutated" then I can't help you.
Suffice to say that Mayayana said this (and I quote verbatim for you!).
"That's what he's talking about. No coverage is common
in the US. I have a brother in New Hampshire who has no
cell service from home. Urban geeks believe the world lives
by cellphone, but the carriers have no interest in putting
up towers in areas of low population density."

Every time Mayayana posts, it's always dead wrong because it's based on
ignornace, but it has nothing to do with Mayayana as if nospam said the same
thing, or if you did, I'd call the facts as they are.

I don't mince words, Vanguard, when people as stupid as Mayayana is post.

The fact you even asked that question is bothersome to me because it means
you're like the iKooks who don't check a damn thing before they deny it.

> Micky "lives" on the trails he treks? How is micky going to use a
> booster or femtocell on the trails?

Stop it Vanguard.
Stop acting just like the iKooks do.
Nobody said anything like what you're claiming.

Stop it.
Why do you waste our time with silly games Vanguard?

You don't seem to _understand_ what micky asked for; but I do.
What he asks for is reasonable, despite Mayayana's claims to the contrary.
a. He wants to call 911
b. He wants an audible sound when cellular drops below about -115 dBm
c. It would be nice if messages could "queue up" when signal is too low

Unlike nospam who claims nobody could possibly want what plenty of people
want, I fully and completely understand why micky would want that stuff.

I'd want it too.

I and my family probably hike trails with no service as much as anyone,
given where I live there is nothing but trails, as exemplified by this
recent thread which shows what the backcountry is like out here.
*USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta*
*involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles*
*and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints*
<https://groups.google.com/g/sci.geo.satellite-nav/c/KDtny69KRvg>

When you backcountry hike, you need to be intelligent about not only your
cellular signal and your incoming/outgoing communications, but also your
ability to accurate map, track, and navigate without access to the net.

> What you have available, and what
> you got for free, depends on to whom you are a customer, and what you
> have at home is irrelevant to the discussion of cellular coverage for
> micky on the wilderness trails.

See above. Tell it to Mayayana who brought up home cellular signal.
Not me.

I simply refuted the ignorant statements by Mayayana.

If you are an adult, you'll either tell it to Mayayana, or, if you think my
statements are in any way in error, then tell it to me.

I'm _always_ willing to tell you what I know and what I do not know.
I'm not afraid of facts, Vanguard.

If you think I got a _single_ fact wrong, for example, tell it to me.
But don't bullshit me.
Just don't.

I have no patience for bullshit.
I didn't succeed at the toughest startups in Silicon Valley by bullshit.

> Either you intended to diverge the discussion to what may be available
> and usable at home (free or not), or you forgot the focus of the
> discussion of micky's predicament. Seems you were more interested in
> your stalking of Mayayana.

Stop it Vanguard.
Just stop it.

If you do NOT tell that to Mayayana, then it's _you_ who is doing exactly
what you just accused me of doing.

If you're ignorant that Mayayana is who diverged, then you should
_apologize_ to me right now, and _then_ you should direct your comments to
Mayayana.

But it's childish of you to be completely ignorant that it's Mayayana who
diverged this into home coverage, and then berate me for correcting him.

It's childish of you Vanguard.
Stop it.

Act like an adult.
a. Either write an apology _and_ berate Mayayana, or,
b. Don't communicate with me ever again as all you did was waste our time.

Stop playing childish games Vanguard.
Just stop it.

You're wasting our valuable time which could be spent helping people.
--
I don't mind people like Vanguard and Mayayana exist, but _everything_ they
post is filled to the brim with such ignorance that they waste our time.

sms wrote:

> While there certainly are rural areas of New Hampshire with "no
> coverage" it's not quite accurate to call it "common."
>
> Look at the FCC maps of coverage at

To bring this conversation back to the _adult_ level, be advised:
1. Steve shills for Verizon but he _lies_ about the coverage differences.
2. AFAIK, the FCC maps are only 4G coverage (unless they changed recently).
3. Many carriers have _extensive_ 5G coverage (see my 5G screenshot below).
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> *130Mbps* to *255Mbps*

Those were speedtests though, but what we want is cellular signal strength:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

I'm not sure if 911 calls go out on the same frequencies as do your cell
phone calls, but if they do, then fundamentally, when hiking, depending on
the cellular frequencies employed, when I looked this up it seems you need
at least about -110 dBm to about -115 dBm or so of cellular signal (among
other factors) just to reliably connect to a cellular tower to make that
emergency 911 call.

What micky seems to want, which I understand and agree with is something
like this, which I would think _everyone_ would want when off the trail.
1. Ability to call 911 to any tower with >-110 (or so) signal strength
2. An audible signal when signal strength inflects at about -110 dBm.
3. A method to queue up incoming/outgoing communications (if possible).

That's what _I_ would want, and I suspect almost everyone would want it.
We should spend our energy trying to obtain those three things, where one of
them, of course, we already have, which is #1, because it doesn't matter who
your carrier is for 911.

However... with the shutdown of 3G signal in the works, it "might" matter
which cellphone you use, doesn't it?
--
Each post to Usenet should flesh out the answer and provide unique value.