The UK is way behind the US on the sheer quantity of towers and consequent unbroken blanket high signal coverage, in my experience of several months spent in NJ and NY over the last couple of years anyway. It may be different in Hicksville of course, but I never have anything less than full signal where I go (PA, CT, MD etc also). Over here in the UK, not so much. Which is why US automakers can be planning Internet radio in cars, whereas here it would be a complete joke. Networks are primarily fixated on offering the highest headline speeds in the big cities, without concerning themselves with the fact that outside of those areas, coverage and speeds can be awful.
I dont understand your post. I would also welcome full bars everywhere but the bit i dont understand is why this would be beneficial.
My speeds seem the same wether i have 2 bars or 5 bars. I still get 20Mbps + on three. I was in the sticks, south Devon recently and had no issues get 20Mbps, recently in North Wales too, near Anglesey and had the same speed, around 7Mbps on 1 bar or 4 bars depending on where i sat in the lodge.
I think the better coverage serves only to load balance capacity and where there is a lot of demand in built up areas.
Outside the city the capacity requirements diminish. I agree there are pockets where the cell towers backhaul needs upgrading or indeed towns that need more masts.
Overall since moving from o2 i've been very happy with three's coverage. I've had no coverage at all twice and i've been quite a few places. The amount of times my wife who is still on o2 has had no 3G when i have during this time i couldn't count of 2 hands.
I do feel o2 is perhaps slightly more reliable on the voice side but other than that three are great and coverage has been great for me too.