@jimbobs wrote:
In my case, what that actually means, is that in ~half the rooms at home, my connection to PM will simply go buh-bye, and if I move to the next room, it comes back. In the room I'm in right now, it can be connected, but sometimes if I move the phone a matter of 6" from where it often sits, it can lose the connection. Sometimes,
Sounds like a marginal Bell/Telus signal at best. Consulting a cell tower location website might cast more light on your situation. http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html
Been there, done that..... if you re-read my previous post, 4 posts above yours..... specifically the last sentence, in green, you'll see what I'm talking about. To better illustrate, here's a pic I posted quite a while ago, after using that cell tower map, and checking out the local area on Google street view - that tower right by the road, is the Rogers tower, and the Telus tower is in the background..... that small distance makes all the difference.
Telus+Bell network does have the most "coverage" overall. In terms of total area, total customers, most widespread 3G, most widespread (and most dense) 4G - or so they claim.
But Rogers network does have better "coverage" in some specific areas. And now 5G in certain core urban areas.
Each carrier has different hardware in different places (and different spectrum licenses). The ones with network sharing agreements can offer end-users a wider range of coverage options, even though the ones who don't share might have stronger (or exclusive) control over some areas. If you need to use your mobile device in an area which is only "covered" by one network then your choice is simple - you sign up with them or you don't have working service.
I'm mildly dismayed that the Canadian Cellular Towers Map shows the physical locations of cellular base stations but makes no distinction between large powerful radio towers, typical antenna masts, and streetlamp-mounted "distributed antenna systems" - each of these things provides coverage, but some can cover demand across half a city while others are little better than consumer WiFi routers barely able to cover the needs of a single large household.
"Coverage" has become a rubbery meaningless marketing term. Almost everyone almost everywhere across Canada has "coverage".
The question (of quality, reliability, and performance) is really about whether they're linked to the world through massive antenna arrays and datacenter hardware ... or if they're linked to the world through a wireless shoebox which is only marginally more capable than their own handset. And about how many other customers link to the network through the same hardware at the same time.
vs
