In reply to a post by therioman:

You've misunderstood what I mean - they don't need to necessarily broadcast a 2G signal to users, but 2G is still fundamental to things behind the scenes - there are various technologies to virtualise the functions of 2G networks to effectively emulate the behaviour and features, but it's absolutely crucial to a lot of backend networks still. It isn't about the radio network for 2G - it's about the backend.

My understanding is that you have the RAN (2G/3G/4G/5G) and the core, and there is the original circuit switched core for 2G extended with GPRS, and then updated for 3G/UMTS, and then the 'Evolved Packet Core' for 4G, and for the non-standalone version of 5G. When Standalone 5G launches, there will be a new core, no requirement for any of the legacy (and the corresponding improvement in performance).

There is an added reason to keep 2G around for devices too - but that isn't the operators reason to do so - it is however relatively "cheap" to keep a 2G service around for now since it already exists.

But a 2012 hardware 2G is vastly different to a 1993/1994 2G service, completely new hardware that is software defined keeping the legacy transmission going over new antenna panels and cabling, surely?

Comparisons with the US however aren't quite as straightforward as they've come from another world with some alternative technology transitions already so they haven't quite the level of embedded 2G service *and* they have very different geographical challenges.

The likes of Sprint and Verizon were completely different, no debate, CDMA, EV-DO etc are not GSM/GPRS or UMTS, but those are in the past, and the US has joined the LTE and NR future. T-mobile (before purchase of Sprint) and AT&T have been GSM/GRPS and UMTS for a very long time.

The recent switch off of UMTS on T-Mobile impacted quite a few UK roamers this summer, as the UK networks haven't completed their VoLTE (4G Calling) roaming agreements, forcing those whom needed to make traditional voice calls to use AT&T instead of T-mobile (where T-mobile's 2G coverage has already gone).

Edited by jchamier (Fri 30-Dec-22 19:02:37)

4G needs to be more reliable if they are turning off 3G, while most of the time I can get 4G fine, there are still places I go to where 3G takes over as it is better than 4G.

At least it will be years before they get rid of 4G as 5G is still hit and miss and a lot of places still don't have it, also loads of phones are still being produced that don't have 5G.
I understand the need to clear frequencies, but I wonder how many people still have phones that don't have 4G. Some of the older non-smart phones don't have 4G.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

4G needs to be more reliable if they are turning off 3G, while most of the time I can get 4G fine, there are still places I go to where 3G takes over as it is better than 4G.

You can't make such a generic statement, you also need to state which physical network you are using. The other 3 may have solved that problem in that area.

I understand the need to clear frequencies, but I wonder how many people still have phones that don't have 4G. Some of the older non-smart phones don't have 4G.

3G will go, but there will be a tiny amount of 2G left (of course not with 'three') for those people whom still need to use a 1994 Nokia.

There are feature phones available that can make 4G Calling phone calls and are not smart phones, and don't need 2G.