Comment by userbinator

Comment by userbinator 2 days ago

10 replies

The days of GSM/3G were great. All you needed was a quad-band phone, of which plenty were available from numerous far-East companies but many based on the same or similar chipsets, and you'd have connectivity in the whole world.

The situation with LTE is far worse, with several dozen different bands and many opportunities to whitelist and effectively do user-agent discrimination. Even if you bought an unlocked device, if it doesn't have the bands in the area you want to use it and those your provider has cells for, you won't get any service.

a high-severity privilege escalation vulnerability

This is an extremely clear signal of how they think of the user --- as sheep to be corralled and controlled, not as individuals who have control over the devices they bought. The "security" propaganda they continue to spew has been going on for a while, long enough that increasingly more users are now aware of the truth.

To paraphrase the famous words of Linus: Google, fuck you!

martinald 2 days ago

Why is having so many bands a bad thing? Demand for data is so much higher now you need (ideally) hundreds of MHz of spectrum in dense areas. You need some way to partition that up as you can't just have one huge static block of spectrum per auction.

The issue with LTE isn't bands, it's the crappy way they have done VoLTE and also seemingly learnt nothing for VoNR.

They should have done something like GET volte.reserved/.well-known/volte-config (each carrier sets up their DNS to resolve volte.reserved to their ims server which provides config data to the phone). It would have given pretty much plug and play compatibility for all devices.

Instead the way it works is every phone has a (usually) hopelessly outdated lookup table of carriers and config files. Sort of works for Apple because they can push updates from one central place, but for Android it's a total mess.

  • toast0 2 days ago

    > Why is having so many bands a bad thing? Demand for data is so much higher now you need (ideally) hundreds of MHz of spectrum in dense areas. You need some way to partition that up as you can't just have one huge static block of spectrum per auction.

    Because different countries use different sets of bands. That was true for GSM too, but quad band phones were reasonably available. Many phones were at least tri band, so you would at least have half the bands if you imported a 'wrong region' tri-band.

    But now, you'll have a real tough time with coverage in the US if you import a EU or JP phone.

    • martinald 2 days ago

      With a "quad band" LTE phone of bands 2, 7, 20 and say 12 you would get pretty much worldwide coverage. It'd just be slower because you can't access other ones. Not sure what the issue is?

      • toast0 2 days ago

        The issue is the import phones I want to buy don't suppprt those bands. An example phone I might want (Xperia 10 IV) supports 12 bands for LTE, my carrier (US T-Mobile) supports 6, but the intersection is only 2 bands (the old GSM bands) and I know my carrier doesn't always have coverage on those bands. I've got enough dead zones without throwing out 4 bands.

    • jojobas 2 days ago

      Plenty of phones support all reasonable bands. The intentional 4G brokenness is much worse.

  • [removed] 2 days ago
    [deleted]
mananaysiempre 2 days ago

> LTE is far worse, with several dozen different bands

The national radio regulators are mostly to blame for that part, as far as I understand. So ultimately the national militaries, who hogged most of the relevant spectrum for radar(?) at a time when you couldn’t viably communicate over it, and will now never let go of it, at least not in a coordinated fashion (see: 5G rollout).

E.g. 2.4 GHz WiFi avoided the same problem by using a mostly-unregulated band, which as far as I can tell (but can’t reliably confirm) seems to have been essentially allocated for microwave ovens (a rotational absorption band of water molecules, which is why it’s difficult to heat up frozen things in a microwave).

tsimionescu 2 days ago

> This is an extremely clear signal of how they think of the user --- as sheep to be corralled and controlled, not as individuals who have control over the devices they bought. The "security" propaganda they continue to spew has been going on for a while, long enough that increasingly more users are now aware of the truth.

While labeling this a security vulnerability is a little weird, it is nevertheless a serious problem for Google, and potentially for the carriers which would allow Google phones. In general, carrier settings have to be enforced by phone manufacturers without relying on the good behavior of phone users, as otherwise the whole cell network can be affected. Now, in this particular case, the impact seems pretty small - though even here this is not 100% clear. For example, if enabling these settings could allow a phone to appear to work for normal use, while actually having major missing functionality such as not being able to receive national alerts or not being able to issue emergency calls, then this is a real risk to the consumer, and shouldn't be allowed.

  • djmips 2 days ago

    you're not going to be able to receive National alerts or make emergency calls if your phone can't make calls period...

    • tsimionescu 2 days ago

      Yes, which you'll be aware of, and likely buy a working phone. If your phone can do everything else, you'll think it's all good until an actual emergency happens.