Service levels woefully poor - at wits end

[sebbelcher]

I don't know where to turn with this.  We are with Vodafone because they are the only provider that has ANY coverage in our area (see below).  We have the WiFi Calling service enabled but it is inredibly unreliable and we are constantly bombarded with texts/messages from friends, family and work colleagues saying "I tried calling but it went straight to voicemail" or "I can't get through to you I tried X times" on a daily basis.  When we make outbound calls we often have to try 3 or 4 times before the call will go through, calls are then often dropped mid-call, which is incredibly frustrating when you've waited 20 minutes on hold to speak to someone already.

The problem seems to be that the phones will occasionally latch on to the tiny bit of 3G coverage we have (single bar) and when they do this they drop off WiFi Calling and try to use the mobile network.  We know from experience however that this signal is not good enough to make a call, if you try to start a call when it's connected to the cell network the call will not go through.  So I think what is happening is that as we move around to different areas of the house sometimes the phone is swtiching back to the cell network, which essentally makes us uncontactable via voice calling.

The only solution I've seen suggested is that we have to manually switch mobile network off when we are at home but this is not a sustainable solution, because when we do this we become uncontactable as soon as we leave the house, unless we always, every single time, remeber to go into settings and turn mobile signal on/off the moment we step in or out of the house.

I feel like the only solution now is to move to a network that actually has ZERO signal in our house so that the Wifi Calling stays permanently connected.

We only live 3 miles from a city, where there is full 5G coverage.  It shouldn't be this hard to use a mobile phone in 2024.  Any other ideas?

[DaveCr]

Hi, thanks for that Japitts. Networks are indeed criticised for lack of coverage, but 99.9% of the complaints come from people.  No-one has ever criticised the lack of 4G coverage in these uninhabited wildernesses, miles from any road or building. (999 calls don't use 4G).  I don't believe the networks want to build masts there; they are being forced to by Ofcom and DSTI. They call it 'market failure' but it looks to me like market success: resources following the demand. Opposition to TNS masts isn't NIBYism, it's a desire to get MORE good quality coverage where its absence it causing complaints

[japitts]

---

@DaveCr wrote:999 calls don't use 4G

---

Utter & complete nonsense - do you really believe this?

---

@DaveCr wrote:I don't believe the networks want to build masts there;

---

There is a competitive advantage to be gained by being the first/only operator to cover remote areas. That is only achieved by building new sites in those areas.

Your statement about 999 calls not using 4G does rather destroy any credibility you may otherwise have had.

[DaveCr]

hi japitts, it is helpful to talk to someone with more domain knowledge that myself.

I got the bit about 999 calls being handled by 2G here, but it could be wrong, or I could have have misinterpreted it. Can you explain? Thanks

Switching off 2G and 3G in the UK  House of Commons research briefing  https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9959/

"Calls to the emergency services currently use the 2G network. Unlike other calls they can utilise any available MNO’s network, rather than just the customer’s own MNO. MNOs will need to enable emergency calling and roaming via 4G before the 2G network is switched off."

[japitts]

There is no differential between 999/112 calls and any other call, in which radio technology they use. 4G is a far more capable tech than 2G, but the relative coverage patterns between 2G/3G/4G are often dictated by operator-specific design choices.

[DaveCr]

japiits: yes, 4G radio technology could do 999 calls, but is true that in the UK "MNOs will need to enable emergency calling and roaming via 4G "? Can you give a slum dunk reference to show that the House of Commons briefing note is wrong? I am not trying to prove I am right, I am trying to find out what is true.

Ta

[cellman882]

The House of Commons note is absolutely incorrect; for a start Three has no 2G network meaning their customers would have no way of contacting the Emergency Services if it was 2G only. Secondly new masts provided by the Shared Rural Network scheme only transmit 4G only so again customers in the most remote areas served by these masts would be unable to make emergency calls. Thirdly small cells deployed in cities are 4G only, customers connected to those wouldn't be able to contact the emergency services either.  

[japitts]

---

@cellman882 wrote:

Secondly new masts provided by the Shared Rural Network scheme only transmit 4G only so again customers in the most remote areas served by these masts would be unable to make emergency calls. Thirdly small cells deployed in cities are 4G only,

---

None of this is true. Each network has a design input into the actively shared elements, which allows for 2G.

The primary intention is to rollout 4G, yes.

[DaveCr]

thanks japitts and cellman.

The bit I really want to know is this:

If 4G coverage is added to an area with good current 2G coverage, will 999 calls be improved now. Or will this new 4G coverage only make a difference to 999 calls if or when 2G is switched off.

[japitts]

The impact does vary between all 4 networks, due to various design & config differences.