Is there any reason to believe this mechanism is actually there to help carriers deceive users? To me this looks like it's intended to address some other issue, like perhaps "I have zero bars shown, what do you mean I'm still connected? That that clearly means I'm disconnected..." I feel like anything intended to lie to users would not be implemented in this manner.

▲

userbinator 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is it more common to complain to the carrier about unexpected reception, or unexpected lack thereof?

▲

Maxious 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AT&T sold themselves on More Bars https://www.wired.com/2007/08/att-more-bars-i/

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Think about all the various policies, dishonesty, PR spin, marketing, price-gouging, hidden fees, elimination of lifetime programs, and yes, outright fraud you've become aware of over the years. Just sit quietly for a moment, let those ideas stew. And if after one minute of silence you still feel the need to bestow upon these companies the most generous interpretation of their conduct possible, well, I'll be slightly surprised but I suppose that would conclude our conversation.

	▲	dataflow 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think you missed important nuance in my comment. Note in my comment I was asking about this mechanism. I'm not suggesting the companies involved wouldn't deceive users. I merely question whether this is how they would do it. It feels way too simple, coarse, obvious/public, and inflexible if the goal is to trick users.