Kitz Forum
Computers & Hardware => Other Technologies & Hardware => Topic started by: JGO on August 14, 2015, 10:05:21 AM
-
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/mobile-coverage
-
Found this a few weeks ago but it was fiction.
I get awful reception at home yet I am told all is well.
Even 3 have admitted that my local tower needs to be improved and the power output increased.
Waiting to find out if the 3/O2 merger will encourage them to do this sooner rather than later. ;D
-
Looks terribly innacurate to me. I see that Ofcom gets the data from the mobile networks themselves which would explain that.
I think Ofcom should get the data themselves and then we could actually get an accurate look at coverage...
-
It's wrong in both directions. For example, it decided that there's no 3G at my house for the Three network.
-
I can only get a rather poor O2 signal, and no signal at all on the other networks, but that document says I'm good for all of them.
-
What is the point of producing something that is so inaccurate.?
It has taken money and peoples time & efforts, to what end ?
Who defines the scope of these projects and how do they measure success at the end of the day ?
Who is this aimed at & what problem is it solving ? (bear in mind it is not accurate.)
More wasted money which we are all paying for. !!! >:(
Yours,
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. ;) ;D
-
@Aardvark -absolutely. Our money down the drain for no purpose.
It's just like an example ten yrs back, concerning all the crap the bbc has taken upon itself to start authoring for schools on its website. I sent in a load of angry complaints about nonsense they had written concerning a Celtic Studies topic that was factually inaccurate, teaching children complete lies. So I sent in a load of references, email addresses of Celtic studies professors whom I know personally who could refute the lies. The BBC said in the end that they had asked someone (the guilty party probably) and he agreed with the BBC, they never opened a textbook or asked anyone prestigious, even though I handheld them.
I believe there was another case some years ago where the government put out a ridiculously inaccurate leaflet about British History, meant for foreigners or something.
-
Very entertaining article in 'The Register'.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/14/ofcom_coverage_map_710_must_try_harder/?page=1 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/14/ofcom_coverage_map_710_must_try_harder/?page=1) [(Note to burakkucat: I remembered this time to paste the link ;D ]
The accuracy has been noticed ...... by its absence ;D ;D ;D
A quoted 'expert' (Not OFCOM) in the article (Mobile measurement guru Dr Paul Carter) struggles to find a positive spin for the site and its data.
'Quelle Surprise' there then !!! :D
-
Very entertaining article in 'The Register'.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/14/ofcom_coverage_map_710_must_try_harder/?page=1 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/14/ofcom_coverage_map_710_must_try_harder/?page=1) [(Note to burakkucat: I remembered this time to paste the link ;D ]
Purrfect! :angel:
-
I had a look at mine and it showed signal at sea but none around here. :D
Someone posted a very good link a couple of weeks ago and it actually shows where all their masts are located and which operator.
-
That's the sitefinder: http://sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/search
This does appear to work properly.
-
The Sitefinder website hasn't been updated since 2005 in some cases, so it really isn't a very accurate way of getting an idea of mobile coverage in your area.
-
I didn't realise that. OFCOM are wonderful, aren't they? ::)
-
http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,13017.msg245766.html#msg245766
:hmm: