On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:35:41 +0000, William Black
wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:05:07 +0000, William Black
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:30:32 +0000, Mike Lane
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Martin wrote on Oct 30, 2009:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:35:53 +0000, Mike Lane
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even where I live though, which is hilly rather than mountainous, you don't
>>>>>>> have to go far to lose mobile phone reception
>>>>>> Mobile phone coverage is really poor in N Yorkshire.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think there are probably a number of reasons for this. Partly it's the
>>>>> terrain, but also the fact that a lot of the area is designated a National
>>>>> Park where the building of mobile phone masts is not regarded
>>>>> sympathetically. I've found the same thing in Derbyshire in the Peak
>>>>> District.
>>>> I think it is because the population density is low.
>>> Certainly since they started putting phone aerials in petrol station
>>> signs and flying canopies there hasn't been a shortage of locations to
>>> put them that don't need planning permission.
>>>
>>> On holiday weekends in Scarborough it can take six hours for a text
>>> message to get through and a good ten minutes to get a mobile 'line'.
>>
>> All we have had is either no signal or a "normal" service.
>
>Well yes, 'no service' is what you get when all the local channels are
>full of someone else making a call.
It's also what you get when there is no signal.
It is very easy to distinguish between the two situations.
>
>There used to be only 8 channels serving the Helmsley area, but it is
>more now.
>
>But 'how many?' tends to be a question you can't get answered.
>
>Best coverage in the area is Vodafone.
We switched from Vodafone to O2 and found the coverage the same and costs lower.
--
Martin
|