info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Maps to Compare AT&T, T-Mobile, US Cellular, & Verizon Mobile Coverage and US State of the Mobile Union 1H 2021
0 views
Skip to first unread message
sms
Oct 5, 2021, 4:05:41 PM10/5/21
to
There are now three (at least) maps that let you quickly compare
coverage between networks.
FCC Map:
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>
RootMetrics Map: <https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/en-US>
WhistleOut Map: <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>
US State of the Mobile Union 1H 2021; Carrier performance at national,
state, and metro levels:
<https://assets.ctfassets.net/ob7bbcsqy5m2/5RH6DcqWKrNjbfGDPkfWkb/677aec385a91e8f1859703242aff739e/RootMetrics_US_State-of-Mobile-Union-1H_2021-FINAL.pdf>
The coverage maps and analysis confirm my own experiences. Over the
years I've had cellular service from many different carriers: GTE
Mobilnet, Cellular One, AT&T (old), Pac Bell Wireless, Cingular, AT&T
(new), T-Mobile, Verizon, and several MVNOs or carrier-owned prepaid
services: Page Plus (Verizon), Consumer Cellular (AT&T), Cricket (AT&T),
and Total Wireless (Verizon).
Pac Bell Wireless was by far the worst. It was the first GSM network in
my area, and operated at 1900 MHz so in-building coverage was worse than
networks using 850 MHz bands. They offered very attractive pricing when
they launched, but were over-subscribed and unable to provide sufficient
capacity. Pac Bell Wireless was acquired by Cingular when SBC acquired
Pacific Bell, then sold to T-Mobile when Cingular bought AT&T.
T-Mobile was not good because of coverage issues in the western U.S.,
and the maps and the Rootmetrics report confirm that these coverage
issues still exist outside of urban areas.
Consumer Cellular and Cricket, both on AT&T worked fine but Consumer
Cellular, at the time, had no data plans with a sufficient amount of
data for family plans. Now Consumer Cellular is very expensive for plans
with sufficient quantities of data, plus they now limit the number of
lines on an account to only three.
Cricket worked fine but at the time did not offer hotspot, and also they
throttled data to 8Mb/s. Cricket now offers unlimited, unthrottled,
data, and includes 15GB of hotspot data per line, but the price has gone
up to $33 per line on a four line plan (they originally offered 5 lines
for $100, ($20 per line)).
I’m currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
$100 per month including taxes and fees. Downsides of Total Wireless are
a) no international roaming, not even to Canada and Mexico, b) no eSIM
support (most MVNOs lack eSIM support), and c) no Apple Watch support
(which requires eSIM support). Verizon is in the process of trying to
buy all the América Móvil brands in the U.S., including Total Wireless
<https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-to-broaden-out-prepaid-offerings/d/d-id/772053>.
coverage between networks.
FCC Map:
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>
RootMetrics Map: <https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/en-US>
WhistleOut Map: <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>
US State of the Mobile Union 1H 2021; Carrier performance at national,
state, and metro levels:
<https://assets.ctfassets.net/ob7bbcsqy5m2/5RH6DcqWKrNjbfGDPkfWkb/677aec385a91e8f1859703242aff739e/RootMetrics_US_State-of-Mobile-Union-1H_2021-FINAL.pdf>
The coverage maps and analysis confirm my own experiences. Over the
years I've had cellular service from many different carriers: GTE
Mobilnet, Cellular One, AT&T (old), Pac Bell Wireless, Cingular, AT&T
(new), T-Mobile, Verizon, and several MVNOs or carrier-owned prepaid
services: Page Plus (Verizon), Consumer Cellular (AT&T), Cricket (AT&T),
and Total Wireless (Verizon).
Pac Bell Wireless was by far the worst. It was the first GSM network in
my area, and operated at 1900 MHz so in-building coverage was worse than
networks using 850 MHz bands. They offered very attractive pricing when
they launched, but were over-subscribed and unable to provide sufficient
capacity. Pac Bell Wireless was acquired by Cingular when SBC acquired
Pacific Bell, then sold to T-Mobile when Cingular bought AT&T.
T-Mobile was not good because of coverage issues in the western U.S.,
and the maps and the Rootmetrics report confirm that these coverage
issues still exist outside of urban areas.
Consumer Cellular and Cricket, both on AT&T worked fine but Consumer
Cellular, at the time, had no data plans with a sufficient amount of
data for family plans. Now Consumer Cellular is very expensive for plans
with sufficient quantities of data, plus they now limit the number of
lines on an account to only three.
Cricket worked fine but at the time did not offer hotspot, and also they
throttled data to 8Mb/s. Cricket now offers unlimited, unthrottled,
data, and includes 15GB of hotspot data per line, but the price has gone
up to $33 per line on a four line plan (they originally offered 5 lines
for $100, ($20 per line)).
I’m currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
$100 per month including taxes and fees. Downsides of Total Wireless are
a) no international roaming, not even to Canada and Mexico, b) no eSIM
support (most MVNOs lack eSIM support), and c) no Apple Watch support
(which requires eSIM support). Verizon is in the process of trying to
buy all the América Móvil brands in the U.S., including Total Wireless
<https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-to-broaden-out-prepaid-offerings/d/d-id/772053>.
badgolferman
Oct 5, 2021, 4:53:00 PM10/5/21
to
game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
Joerg Lorenz
Oct 5, 2021, 5:01:25 PM10/5/21
to
Am 05.10.21 um 22:52 schrieb badgolferman:
the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G. It is simply a marketing stunt.
If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but there is no reason to buy a 5G
for 5G's sake.
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> I’m currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
>> on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
>> $100 per month including taxes and fees. Downsides of Total Wireless are
>> a) no international roaming, not even to Canada and Mexico, b) no eSIM
>> support (most MVNOs lack eSIM support), and c) no Apple Watch support
>> (which requires eSIM support). Verizon is in the process of trying to
>> buy all the América Móvil brands in the U.S., including Total Wireless
>> <https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-to-broaden-out-prepaid-offerings/d/d-id/772053>.
>>
>
> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
There are simply no applications where private users in the wild need
>> I’m currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
>> on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
>> $100 per month including taxes and fees. Downsides of Total Wireless are
>> a) no international roaming, not even to Canada and Mexico, b) no eSIM
>> support (most MVNOs lack eSIM support), and c) no Apple Watch support
>> (which requires eSIM support). Verizon is in the process of trying to
>> buy all the América Móvil brands in the U.S., including Total Wireless
>> <https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-to-broaden-out-prepaid-offerings/d/d-id/772053>.
>>
>
> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G. It is simply a marketing stunt.
If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but there is no reason to buy a 5G
for 5G's sake.
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
VanguardLH
Oct 5, 2021, 5:18:55 PM10/5/21
to
peak level anywhere within, say, a square mile, that's the coverage they
show for all of that area. However, if you are in dip in geography,
along a river but the tower is atop a bluff on the other side, have
buildings or even lots of trees between you and the tower, you get
little or no signal. So, in that great coverage area claimed by the
carriers, it is not consistent coverage throughout that area.
I had an app (can't remember its name) that stayed loaded in background
and would poll the signal strength between your phone and to whatever
tower it was currently connected. It didn't just show the current
signal strength, but recorded it as you moved around. It let you map
out what was the actual signal strength in the areas you travelled. All
the carrier maps said I was in a red/excellent spot, but I knew better
due to the low signal strength I got, and the mapping app also showed
signal strength fell badly within a couple hundred feet around my house.
As I recall, the map data got uploaded and coalesced with that from
other users to provide a real map of coverage instead of relying on what
the carriers professed and were severely overgenerous in their ratings.
You can use some network apps, like Network Cell Info, to tell you what
is your current signal strength from the tower you are currently
connected along with other info, like the direction of the tower, and
its location on a map. However, it just measures. It doesn't record a
history of polling whatever tower you are connected for wherever you are
at the time (i.e., mapping signal strength). I think the signal mapping
app that I used before was OpenSignal available at:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.staircase3.opensignal
I don't remember why I uninstall it, but I don't have it now. I might
re-trial it again. Ooh, I just checked my Apps Drawer, and OpenSignal
is still installed. I have apps grouped together by function, so I'm
surprised OpenSignal wasn't in the Phone Tools folder. It is now. Yep,
their map shows I'm in a dead spot despite all the carriers showing I'm
in a red zone (high signal strength). LIARS!
Because this app polls for what is your signal strength several times
per day (100 times) to record as you move around, it has to remain
loaded to do that function. The data recording function requires you to
give permission for OpenSignal to upload the data, so they can comprise
a coverage map by multiple users of their app.
I think why I stopped using the app was because there just are not
enough users using the app. Unless someone has the app, leaves it
running as they move around, and has data collection enabled in the app,
nothing gets recorded for that area. I found several areas where there
too few or no users in an area, or didn't travel to an area, to provide
enough data to compile a coverage map. Just because their map shows
poor or no coverage might not be due to the carriers, but to a lack of
participants collected the signal strength data. Community driven data
collection isn't accurate unless there's sufficient community sending in
the data.
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 5, 2021, 5:47:29 PM10/5/21
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked
>> My phone is 5G capable. I don┤ care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
all 5G simply means that I can use "all the tower" they can give me.
Other than the teeny tiny "5G" symbol in the status bar, without running a
utility, I can't tell when I'm on 5G or when I'm on LTE (or even when I'm on
Wi-Fi for that matter) other than I've experienced high 5G speeds as has
badgolferman (where 5G speeds for badgolferman are twice the speeds I get).
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg>
There's something to be said for 200Mbps to 600Mbps speeds when you need it.
>> My phone is 5G capable. I don┤ care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
>
> There are simply no applications where private users in the wild need
> the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G. It is simply a marketing stunt.
> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but there is no reason to buy a 5G
> for 5G's sake.
I have the free 5G phones from T-Mobile where, to me, the fact that they're
>
> There are simply no applications where private users in the wild need
> the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G. It is simply a marketing stunt.
> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but there is no reason to buy a 5G
> for 5G's sake.
all 5G simply means that I can use "all the tower" they can give me.
Other than the teeny tiny "5G" symbol in the status bar, without running a
utility, I can't tell when I'm on 5G or when I'm on LTE (or even when I'm on
Wi-Fi for that matter) other than I've experienced high 5G speeds as has
badgolferman (where 5G speeds for badgolferman are twice the speeds I get).
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg>
There's something to be said for 200Mbps to 600Mbps speeds when you need it.
Wade Garrett
Oct 5, 2021, 6:31:52 PM10/5/21
to
Rod Speed
Oct 5, 2021, 6:36:41 PM10/5/21
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> badgolferman wrote
> It is simply a marketing stunt.
> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but
> there is no reason to buy a 5G for 5G's sake.
That remains to be seen with gaming.
> badgolferman wrote
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>> I’m currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
>>> on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
>>> $100 per month including taxes and fees. Downsides of Total Wireless are
>>> a) no international roaming, not even to Canada and Mexico, b) no eSIM
>>> support (most MVNOs lack eSIM support), and c) no Apple Watch support
>>> (which requires eSIM support). Verizon is in the process of trying to
>>> buy all the América Móvil brands in the U.S., including Total Wireless
>>> <https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-to-broaden-out-prepaid-offerings/d/d-id/772053>.
>>>
>>
>> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
> There are simply no applications where private users in
> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
>>> I’m currently using Total Wireless with 100GB of shared data per month
>>> on four lines, with 10GB of hotspot data per line, for a little under
>>> $100 per month including taxes and fees. Downsides of Total Wireless are
>>> a) no international roaming, not even to Canada and Mexico, b) no eSIM
>>> support (most MVNOs lack eSIM support), and c) no Apple Watch support
>>> (which requires eSIM support). Verizon is in the process of trying to
>>> buy all the América Móvil brands in the U.S., including Total Wireless
>>> <https://www.lightreading.com/ossbsscx/verizon-to-broaden-out-prepaid-offerings/d/d-id/772053>.
>>>
>>
>> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
> There are simply no applications where private users in
> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
> It is simply a marketing stunt.
> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but
> there is no reason to buy a 5G for 5G's sake.
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 5, 2021, 6:44:04 PM10/5/21
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked
Every postpaid USA owner of a T-Mobile/Sprint plan was offered a free 5G
phone (and this offer is _still_ going on, at least until December 31st).
The free 5G phone model keeps changing though, as mine are Samsung Galaxy
A32 5G phones, but currently I think it's a Revvl 5G phone (AFAIK).
<https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone/t-mobile-revvl-5g>
--
If you add a line, the free 5G phone morphs to Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G,
but I don't consider "adding a line" the same as "free" in terms of cost.
> there is no reason to buy a 5G for 5G's sake.
*Why would I need to pay _money_ for a 5G phone when they're free?*
Every postpaid USA owner of a T-Mobile/Sprint plan was offered a free 5G
phone (and this offer is _still_ going on, at least until December 31st).
The free 5G phone model keeps changing though, as mine are Samsung Galaxy
A32 5G phones, but currently I think it's a Revvl 5G phone (AFAIK).
<https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone/t-mobile-revvl-5g>
--
If you add a line, the free 5G phone morphs to Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G,
but I don't consider "adding a line" the same as "free" in terms of cost.
sms
Oct 5, 2021, 8:14:47 PM10/5/21
to
On 10/5/2021 3:31 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
> On 10/5/21 4:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
<snip>
> On 10/5/21 4:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
>>
> Yup, just as long as you're downtown or along an interstate highway ;-)
of its 4G coverage, it's not like they have put in 5G only cells.
For most people _coverage_ is what matters most, not whether that
coverage is 5G averaging 71 Mb/s or 4G averaging 53.3 Mb/s. If that
difference in data speed is what matters to badgolferman, that's fine,
but he should have said "5G coverage which is what matters now _to me_."
Giving up significant geographic coverage in order to gain a small speed
increase is not something that a lot of people would be willing to accept.
nospam
Oct 5, 2021, 8:24:19 PM10/5/21
to
In article <sjippm$ko8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
using t-mobile, or at&t for that matter.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Giving up significant geographic coverage in order to gain a small speed
> increase is not something that a lot of people would be willing to accept.
there is no need to give up 'significant geographic coverage' when
> Giving up significant geographic coverage in order to gain a small speed
> increase is not something that a lot of people would be willing to accept.
using t-mobile, or at&t for that matter.
YK
Oct 5, 2021, 8:57:57 PM10/5/21
to
On 10/6/2021 1:24 PM, nospam wrote:
>> Giving up significant geographic coverage in order to gain a small speed
>> increase is not something that a lot of people would be willing to accept.
>
> there is no need to give up 'significant geographic coverage' when
> using t-mobile, or at&t for that matter.
Don't know about coverage but Verizon lost almost everywhere in speed.
>> Giving up significant geographic coverage in order to gain a small speed
>> increase is not something that a lot of people would be willing to accept.
>
> there is no need to give up 'significant geographic coverage' when
> using t-mobile, or at&t for that matter.
badgolferman
Oct 5, 2021, 10:47:41 PM10/5/21
to
great but I still have coverage and use.
A few months ago I drove from Naples, FL to Hampton, VA and had great
signal the whole way, including when I got off the interstate and took the
back roads as I entered Virginia.
Admittedly the signal suffers inside my own house since it’s brick but when
I had Verizon several years ago it was the same story. I had to buy a mini
cell tower to receive phone calls. When I switched to T-Mobile they gave me
one for free but I stopped using it since WiFi calling is enabled.
sms
Oct 6, 2021, 12:07:45 AM10/6/21
to
On 10/5/2021 5:58 PM, YK wrote:
<snip>
> Don't know about coverage but Verizon lost almost everywhere in speed.
Yes, in that survey. The reality is that the speed differences between
the different 5G providers are very small, see
<https://www.tomsguide.com/features/5g-vs-4g>, but the differences
between LTE speeds were more significant.
OTOH, the geographic coverage differences between the three U.S.
carriers are very large indeed, as every survey and study has clearly shown.
You can see the enormous differences by looking at the comparison maps:
FCC Map:
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>
RootMetrics Map: <https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/en-US>
WhistleOut Map: <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>
You can also read the Rootmetrics report on "US State of the Mobile
<https://assets.ctfassets.net/ob7bbcsqy5m2/5RH6DcqWKrNjbfGDPkfWkb/677aec385a91e8f1859703242aff739e/RootMetrics_US_State-of-Mobile-Union-1H_2021-FINAL.pdf>
The bottom line is that the geographic coverage differences are very
large, especially when you leave densely populated areas. Even in urban
areas like the Bay Area, where I live, you can see the large differences
in coverage when you go just a short distance away from the urban areas.
One area we spend a lot of time in is the Santa Cruz mountains and you
can see the vast coverage differences, and just how much more coverage
you get on AT&T and Verizon, versus on T-Mobile, see
<https://i.imgur.com/ER7Gv9p.png>. Another area we go to often is parts
of the Sierra Nevada, where there also are significant coverage
differences, see <https://i.imgur.com/jPmiGtR.png>.
<snip>
> Don't know about coverage but Verizon lost almost everywhere in speed.
the different 5G providers are very small, see
<https://www.tomsguide.com/features/5g-vs-4g>, but the differences
between LTE speeds were more significant.
OTOH, the geographic coverage differences between the three U.S.
carriers are very large indeed, as every survey and study has clearly shown.
You can see the enormous differences by looking at the comparison maps:
FCC Map:
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>
RootMetrics Map: <https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/en-US>
WhistleOut Map: <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>
Union 1H 2021; Carrier performance at national, state, and metro levels"
at:
<https://assets.ctfassets.net/ob7bbcsqy5m2/5RH6DcqWKrNjbfGDPkfWkb/677aec385a91e8f1859703242aff739e/RootMetrics_US_State-of-Mobile-Union-1H_2021-FINAL.pdf>
The bottom line is that the geographic coverage differences are very
large, especially when you leave densely populated areas. Even in urban
areas like the Bay Area, where I live, you can see the large differences
in coverage when you go just a short distance away from the urban areas.
One area we spend a lot of time in is the Santa Cruz mountains and you
can see the vast coverage differences, and just how much more coverage
you get on AT&T and Verizon, versus on T-Mobile, see
<https://i.imgur.com/ER7Gv9p.png>. Another area we go to often is parts
of the Sierra Nevada, where there also are significant coverage
differences, see <https://i.imgur.com/jPmiGtR.png>.
Ant
Oct 6, 2021, 12:37:19 AM10/6/21
to
In comp.mobile.android badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Admittedly the signal suffers inside my own house since it???s brick but when
outside get "No Service" in my iPhone 12 mini. :(
--
Sucky Monday for Facebook. Slammy Tuesday for Ant. So many leaks (liquid & digital types), sneezes, itches, pains, videos, spams, issues, software updates, games, etc. Also, BUSY & tired! :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
...
> Admittedly the signal suffers inside my own house since it???s brick but when
> I had Verizon several years ago it was the same story. I had to buy a mini
> cell tower to receive phone calls. When I switched to T-Mobile they gave me
> one for free but I stopped using it since WiFi calling is enabled.
Which mini cell tower did you get for Verizon Wireless? For me, even
> cell tower to receive phone calls. When I switched to T-Mobile they gave me
> one for free but I stopped using it since WiFi calling is enabled.
outside get "No Service" in my iPhone 12 mini. :(
--
Sucky Monday for Facebook. Slammy Tuesday for Ant. So many leaks (liquid & digital types), sneezes, itches, pains, videos, spams, issues, software updates, games, etc. Also, BUSY & tired! :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
Joerg Lorenz
Oct 6, 2021, 1:04:45 AM10/6/21
to
Am 06.10.21 um 00:36 schrieb Rod Speed:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>> It is simply a marketing stunt.
>> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but
>> there is no reason to buy a 5G for 5G's sake.
>
> That remains to be seen with gaming
There is no application that needs the speed of 5G. Full stop. Learn to
read and learn to understand what you read.
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>> There are simply no applications where private users in
>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>
> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
You have no clue: With LTE it is even possible to watch hd-tv.
>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>
> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
>> It is simply a marketing stunt.
>> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but
>> there is no reason to buy a 5G for 5G's sake.
>
> That remains to be seen with gaming
read and learn to understand what you read.
Joerg Lorenz
Oct 6, 2021, 1:09:11 AM10/6/21
to
Am 06.10.21 um 02:14 schrieb sms:
5G-cells are much smaller than 4G-cells.
> On 10/5/2021 3:31 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
>> On 10/5/21 4:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
>>>
>> Yup, just as long as you're downtown or along an interstate highway ;-)
>
> Hopefully badgolferman realizes that T-Mobile's 5G coverage is a subset
> of its 4G coverage, it's not like they have put in 5G only cells.
In very many places they must have done exactely that. Technically
>> On 10/5/21 4:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
>>>
>> Yup, just as long as you're downtown or along an interstate highway ;-)
>
> Hopefully badgolferman realizes that T-Mobile's 5G coverage is a subset
> of its 4G coverage, it's not like they have put in 5G only cells.
5G-cells are much smaller than 4G-cells.
Joerg Lorenz
Oct 6, 2021, 1:50:04 AM10/6/21
to
Am 06.10.21 um 04:47 schrieb badgolferman:
is fairly often the case.
> A few months ago I drove from Naples, FL to Hampton, VA and had great
> signal the whole way, including when I got off the interstate and took the
> back roads as I entered Virginia.
And what should tell us that? Thats the bare minimum you can expect for
a mobile service in such densely populated areas along traffic routes.
> Wade Garrett <Wa...@cooler.net> wrote:
>> On 10/5/21 4:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>>> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
>>>
>> Yup, just as long as you're downtown or along an interstate highway ;-)
>>
>
> Not true. I get excellent 5G signal wherever I go. Speeds are not always
> great but I still have coverage and use.
Your iPhone uses 4G as fallback. And what you wrote here suggests that
>> On 10/5/21 4:52 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>>> My phone is 5G capable. I don’t care about LTE. T-Mobile is ahead of the
>>> game with 5G coverage which is what matters now.
>>>
>> Yup, just as long as you're downtown or along an interstate highway ;-)
>>
>
> Not true. I get excellent 5G signal wherever I go. Speeds are not always
> great but I still have coverage and use.
is fairly often the case.
> A few months ago I drove from Naples, FL to Hampton, VA and had great
> signal the whole way, including when I got off the interstate and took the
> back roads as I entered Virginia.
a mobile service in such densely populated areas along traffic routes.
Rod Speed
Oct 6, 2021, 2:10:08 AM10/6/21
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
> With LTE it is even possible to watch hd-tv.
Which isn't possible with 3G, stupid.
So LTE is very useful for private users.
>>> It is simply a marketing stunt.
>>> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but
>>> there is no reason to buy a 5G for 5G's sake.
>> That remains to be seen with gaming
> There is no application that needs the speed of 5G.
That remains to be seen with gaming
> Full stop.
There is no full stop with that particular question.
> Learn to read and learn to understand what you read.
You are the one that can't manage to do
that with your stupid claim about LTE.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>>> There are simply no applications where private users in
>>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
> You have no clue:
We'll see...
>>> There are simply no applications where private users in
>>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
> You have no clue:
> With LTE it is even possible to watch hd-tv.
So LTE is very useful for private users.
>>> It is simply a marketing stunt.
>>> If you have a phone with 5G it is ok but
>>> there is no reason to buy a 5G for 5G's sake.
>> That remains to be seen with gaming
> There is no application that needs the speed of 5G.
That remains to be seen with gaming
There is no full stop with that particular question.
> Learn to read and learn to understand what you read.
that with your stupid claim about LTE.
Joerg Lorenz
Oct 6, 2021, 4:00:40 AM10/6/21
to
Am 06.10.21 um 08:10 schrieb Rod Speed:
> So LTE is very useful for private users.
Nobody said anything else, dear.
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>
>>>> There are simply no applications where private users in
>>>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>
>>> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
>
>> You have no clue:
>
> We'll see...
>
>> With LTE it is even possible to watch hd-tv.
>
> Which isn't possible with 3G, stupid.
Nobody talked about 3G in this thread.
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>
>>>> There are simply no applications where private users in
>>>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>
>>> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
>
>> You have no clue:
>
> We'll see...
>
>> With LTE it is even possible to watch hd-tv.
>
> Which isn't possible with 3G, stupid.
> So LTE is very useful for private users.
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 6, 2021, 4:21:04 AM10/6/21
to
Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> asked
If you get a repeater from Verizon, you need "some" signal to amplify; but
if you get a cell tower, the tower connects to your router so you should
never get "no service" when you're inside your own home no matter how large
your home happens to be.
To Ant and badgolferman, neither of whom are apologists, given we can get to
the level of a normal conversation with nuance of detail, IMHO, also you
should never have to _pay_ for those cell towers for inside your own home.
My point of view to the carriers is...
1. You pay for service in your home
2. You should _get_ that service in your home
3. It's not your fault if their tower is miles away from your home
4. And they _know_ that
5. So it's up to _them_ to make your signal fantastic in your home
Normally, you can "improve" the signal in your own home 3 ways
a. Wi-Fi calling (this is de rigueur as I don't know of any downsides)
b. Cellular towers (these connect to your router and are the most common)
c. Cellular amplifiers (these have two units - a receiver & a repeater)
You know I speak facts when I tell you I have all three in my home (which is
small for the neighborhood where many homes are over 10,000 square feet).
If you have a large home you need more cellular towers inside the house.
But even a small home may need at least one cell tower inside the home.
Just as I have a lot of experience setting up WISP to obtain our Wi-Fi from
miles away due to the peculiar geography of living in mountains far away
from civilization, I've often helped neighbors on all three carriers (AT&T,
T-Mobile, & Verizon) with that five-point argument above, where they
_always_ give them to you for free if you are persistent with them.
It's getting harder to get them for free though...
For example, I told neighbors they could get them for free and one neighbor
asked me to help her so we called T-Mobile together from her phone for her
rather large house (hers is about 12,000 sq feet with a lot of chimneys).
T-Mobile told me during that joint call they no longer give out the cellular
repeaters but now they only give people the mini cellular towers (which
connect to the router).
I'm sure it's hard for you to believe I'm persistent (LOL), but T-Mobile
told her she couldn't have the cell tower for free, and I got on the phone
asking to speak to a supervisor - in the end - after speaking to the
supervisor - they agreed to give her the tower for a $25 deposit on her
credit card where she would get an instant $25 credit on her bill, which was
the best deal I could get for her.
Another neighbor, about 3 months or so ago, on Verizon, had to argue with
them not to charge shipping, but again, they did it for free. I haven't done
AT&T for a while but I suspect they're similar - you just have to be
persistent that it's their fault if you don't have perfect signal, not
yours.
As you know, on an iPhone it's not easy to tell whether you're using the
repeater or the cellular tower inside your home (or if you're using a
cellular tower outside your home), but on Android I can easily tell exactly
which tower is being used (as each has a unique ID), where most of the time
I'm using the femtocell (the phone will use the repeater when the Internet
is down and when I'm in the basement where the repeater unit is located).
>> Admittedly the signal suffers inside my own house since it???s brick but when
>> I had Verizon several years ago it was the same story. I had to buy a mini
>> cell tower to receive phone calls. When I switched to T-Mobile they gave me
>> one for free but I stopped using it since WiFi calling is enabled.
>
> Which mini cell tower did you get for Verizon Wireless? For me, even
> outside get "No Service" in my iPhone 12 mini. :(
Hi Ant,
>> I had Verizon several years ago it was the same story. I had to buy a mini
>> cell tower to receive phone calls. When I switched to T-Mobile they gave me
>> one for free but I stopped using it since WiFi calling is enabled.
>
> Which mini cell tower did you get for Verizon Wireless? For me, even
> outside get "No Service" in my iPhone 12 mini. :(
If you get a repeater from Verizon, you need "some" signal to amplify; but
if you get a cell tower, the tower connects to your router so you should
never get "no service" when you're inside your own home no matter how large
your home happens to be.
To Ant and badgolferman, neither of whom are apologists, given we can get to
the level of a normal conversation with nuance of detail, IMHO, also you
should never have to _pay_ for those cell towers for inside your own home.
My point of view to the carriers is...
1. You pay for service in your home
2. You should _get_ that service in your home
3. It's not your fault if their tower is miles away from your home
4. And they _know_ that
5. So it's up to _them_ to make your signal fantastic in your home
Normally, you can "improve" the signal in your own home 3 ways
a. Wi-Fi calling (this is de rigueur as I don't know of any downsides)
b. Cellular towers (these connect to your router and are the most common)
c. Cellular amplifiers (these have two units - a receiver & a repeater)
You know I speak facts when I tell you I have all three in my home (which is
small for the neighborhood where many homes are over 10,000 square feet).
If you have a large home you need more cellular towers inside the house.
But even a small home may need at least one cell tower inside the home.
Just as I have a lot of experience setting up WISP to obtain our Wi-Fi from
miles away due to the peculiar geography of living in mountains far away
from civilization, I've often helped neighbors on all three carriers (AT&T,
T-Mobile, & Verizon) with that five-point argument above, where they
_always_ give them to you for free if you are persistent with them.
It's getting harder to get them for free though...
For example, I told neighbors they could get them for free and one neighbor
asked me to help her so we called T-Mobile together from her phone for her
rather large house (hers is about 12,000 sq feet with a lot of chimneys).
T-Mobile told me during that joint call they no longer give out the cellular
repeaters but now they only give people the mini cellular towers (which
connect to the router).
I'm sure it's hard for you to believe I'm persistent (LOL), but T-Mobile
told her she couldn't have the cell tower for free, and I got on the phone
asking to speak to a supervisor - in the end - after speaking to the
supervisor - they agreed to give her the tower for a $25 deposit on her
credit card where she would get an instant $25 credit on her bill, which was
the best deal I could get for her.
Another neighbor, about 3 months or so ago, on Verizon, had to argue with
them not to charge shipping, but again, they did it for free. I haven't done
AT&T for a while but I suspect they're similar - you just have to be
persistent that it's their fault if you don't have perfect signal, not
yours.
As you know, on an iPhone it's not easy to tell whether you're using the
repeater or the cellular tower inside your home (or if you're using a
cellular tower outside your home), but on Android I can easily tell exactly
which tower is being used (as each has a unique ID), where most of the time
I'm using the femtocell (the phone will use the repeater when the Internet
is down and when I'm in the basement where the repeater unit is located).
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 6, 2021, 4:34:34 AM10/6/21
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked
While you may not _need_ 100Mbps to 600Mbps speeds, to get those speeds for
free (all my Android 5G phones were free, for example), is not a bad thing.
My only "complaint" is all the cellular towers inside my house are 4G so I
actually "can" get better speeds now outside my house (with 5G) than inside.
Up until 5G, it used to be the other way around.
--
In my experience, all three carriers give you a home cell tower for free.
> Your iPhone uses 4G as fallback. And what you wrote here suggests that
> is fairly often the case.
I find it kind of amazing that Joerg is repeatedly arguing _against_ speed.
> is fairly often the case.
While you may not _need_ 100Mbps to 600Mbps speeds, to get those speeds for
free (all my Android 5G phones were free, for example), is not a bad thing.
My only "complaint" is all the cellular towers inside my house are 4G so I
actually "can" get better speeds now outside my house (with 5G) than inside.
Up until 5G, it used to be the other way around.
--
In my experience, all three carriers give you a home cell tower for free.
Rod Speed
Oct 6, 2021, 4:51:59 AM10/6/21
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>>>>> There are simply no applications where private users in
>>>>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>>>> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
>>> You have no clue:
>> We'll see...
>>> With LTE it is even possible to watch hd-tv.
>> Which isn't possible with 3G, stupid.
> Nobody talked about 3G in this thread.
You stupidly claimed that no private user needs LTE.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
>>>>> There are simply no applications where private users in
>>>>> the wild need the speed neither of LTE (4G) nor of 5G.
>>>> That’s bullshit with video streaming and LTE.
>>> You have no clue:
>> We'll see...
>>> With LTE it is even possible to watch hd-tv.
>> Which isn't possible with 3G, stupid.
> Nobody talked about 3G in this thread.
>> So LTE is very useful for private users.
> Nobody said anything else, dear.
Wade Garrett
Oct 6, 2021, 7:27:02 AM10/6/21
to
half-second for a complex page to load on Verizon. A real loser, they
are ;-)
--
As much as Pooh missed Piglet, he really did enjoy that pulled pork
sandwich.
sms
Oct 6, 2021, 10:42:56 AM10/6/21
to
On 10/6/2021 1:34 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked
>> Your iPhone uses 4G as fallback. And what you wrote here suggests that
>> is fairly often the case.
>
> I find it kind of amazing that Joerg is repeatedly arguing _against_ speed.
>
> While you may not _need_ 100Mbps to 600Mbps speeds, to get those speeds for
> free (all my Android 5G phones were free, for example), is not a bad thing.
>
> My only "complaint" is all the cellular towers inside my house are 4G so I
> actually "can" get better speeds now outside my house (with 5G) than inside.
>
> Up until 5G, it used to be the other way around.
Yes, that's a big issue with T-Mobile int he Santa Cruz mountains. You
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> asked
>> Your iPhone uses 4G as fallback. And what you wrote here suggests that
>> is fairly often the case.
>
> I find it kind of amazing that Joerg is repeatedly arguing _against_ speed.
>
> While you may not _need_ 100Mbps to 600Mbps speeds, to get those speeds for
> free (all my Android 5G phones were free, for example), is not a bad thing.
>
> My only "complaint" is all the cellular towers inside my house are 4G so I
> actually "can" get better speeds now outside my house (with 5G) than inside.
>
> Up until 5G, it used to be the other way around.
need your own "towers" connected to your home broadband to get coverage
in many rural parts of the Bay Area if you have T-Mobile. The maps
clearly show this.
I recall, many years ago, when T-Mobile could roam onto AT&T in the
Santa Cruz mountains. Then those roaming agreements expired and that
coverage went away. When AMPS was turned off, AT&T also lost a lot of
coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains. The seven year roaming agreement
that AT&T agreed to, as part of the failed acquisition of T-Mobile in
2011, had expired, but in any case it did not appear to have helped
T-Mobile in the Santa Cruz Mountains when it was in effect. I had
T-Mobile for a short time when that roaming agreement was in place and
had no coverage in much of that area and quickly switched back to AT&T
(I had gotten T-Mobile prior to a trip to England and Ireland in order
to get the included foreign SMS, the 20¢ per minute calling, and the
included low speed data, though the data was so slow that it was not
usable for much). You can still see the large coverage differences in
the Santa Cruz mountains by looking at the maps
<https://i.imgur.com/ER7Gv9p.png> though T-Mobile has been adding
service in that region.
I recall when T-Mobile ran to the FCC complaining about the cost of
roaming onto AT&T. In 2011 the FCC mandated that carriers allow
competing carriers to roam on their data networks at "fair prices," but
didn't define what "fair" is
<https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=14234>. No doubt AT&T
and Verizon feel that since they spent large amounts of capital to
expand their coverage into rural areas, including by buying smaller
carriers, that it would be "fair" for them to be able to recoup some of
that Cap-Ex. What really infuriated T-Mobile was that AT&T and Verizon
were charging MVNOs less for data than they were charging T-Mobile for
data. But the MVNOs were buying all of their data from AT&T and Verizon,
not just buying data for roaming.
People complain that Verizon is too expensive, but Verizon has their own
version of the law of supply and demand--"We have all the supply so we
can demand whatever the f%$k we want." We travel a lot, throughout
California, including to less populated areas. The Sierras are a prime
example of how Verizon benefited by buying a smaller carrier, Golden
State Cellular, which had spent a lot of money putting in towers in
sparsely populated areas. It's very evident if you look at the maps
<https://i.imgur.com/jPmiGtR.png>.
nospam
Oct 6, 2021, 11:00:22 AM10/6/21
to
In article <sjkcle$vf0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
spotty, no matter what carrier.
> but Verizon has their own
> version of the law
yep. they paid off ajit ź so that they could do whatever they wanted
without being punished.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Yes, that's a big issue with T-Mobile int he Santa Cruz mountains. You
> need your own "towers" connected to your home broadband to get coverage
> in many rural parts of the Bay Area if you have T-Mobile. The maps
> clearly show this.
same for at&t and verizon. coverage in the santa cruz mountains is very
> Yes, that's a big issue with T-Mobile int he Santa Cruz mountains. You
> need your own "towers" connected to your home broadband to get coverage
> in many rural parts of the Bay Area if you have T-Mobile. The maps
> clearly show this.
spotty, no matter what carrier.
> but Verizon has their own
> version of the law
without being punished.
sms
Oct 6, 2021, 11:58:10 AM10/6/21
to
On 10/6/2021 4:27 AM, Wade Garrett wrote:
> On 10/5/21 8:58 PM, YK wrote:
>> On 10/6/2021 1:24 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> Giving up significant geographic coverage in order to gain a small
>>>> speed increase is not something that a lot of people would be
>>>> willing to accept.
>>>
>>> there is no need to give up 'significant geographic coverage' when
>>> using t-mobile, or at&t for that matter.
>>
>> Don't know about coverage but Verizon lost almost everywhere in speed.
>
> Yeah, it's really annoying having to wait that extra quarter or
> half-second for a complex page to load on Verizon. A real loser, they
> are ;-)
LOL, also remember that only a small fraction of wireless users even
> On 10/5/21 8:58 PM, YK wrote:
>> On 10/6/2021 1:24 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> Giving up significant geographic coverage in order to gain a small
>>>> speed increase is not something that a lot of people would be
>>>> willing to accept.
>>>
>>> there is no need to give up 'significant geographic coverage' when
>>> using t-mobile, or at&t for that matter.
>>
>> Don't know about coverage but Verizon lost almost everywhere in speed.
>
> Yeah, it's really annoying having to wait that extra quarter or
> half-second for a complex page to load on Verizon. A real loser, they
> are ;-)
have 5G phones yet, and Verizon has consistently had the fastest LTE speeds.
I like the PC Magazine survey row for "% above 25Mb/s" since below that
is where you begin to actually notice speed differences on a phone. AT&T
was at 78%, T-Mobile was at 72%, and Verizon was at 71%.
Is anyone really going to trade significantly poorer T-Mobile coverage
in exchange for 1% fewer places where the data speed was 25Mb/s or
greater?! Unlikely. Also note that Verizon had a maximum download speed
of around 2x that of AT&T or T-Mobile, no doubt because of mmWave 5G.
Verizon's philosophy has been that having the fastest LTE speeds, and
concentrating their Capex on mmWave 5G for home broadband and IOT is a
more efficient use of their resources, especially, because unlike AT&T,
Verizon has limited FTTH (except in areas with FIOS). T-Mobile's
philosophy has been to add low-band 5G to existing LTE sites, since
T-Mobile's LTE speeds were so slow. It's relatively inexpensive to add
5G to an existing LTE tower, and it also gives T-Mobile the ability to
claim that they have the most 5G. T-Mobile has said that it is
interested in home broadband but that requires mmWave 5G, their low-band
5G and LTE home broadband shows about 40Mb/s in independent tests
<https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/t-mobile-5g-home-internet-review/>.
It's also no bargain; I can get AT&T fiber, at 300Mb/s for about the
same price ($35 + $10 equipment fee + taxes and fees).
The problem with T-Mobile's approach is that it doesn't help them
penetrate the government and corporate markets, markets that require
more ubiquitous coverage, and where T-Mobile has less than 10% market
share. Even in my own small city, we have outlying areas where the only
coverage is on Verizon, so efforts by the other carriers to get our City
to change, even at significant cost savings, have been unsuccessful. The
differences are small, and only show up in the fringes, but they are
important, especially since those fringe areas tend to have more
public-safety issues.
nospam
Oct 6, 2021, 12:03:24 PM10/6/21
to
In article <sjkh2h$tjk$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> and Verizon has consistently had the fastest LTE speeds.
not according to several surveys, which have been previously linked,
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> LOL, also remember that only a small fraction of wireless users even
> have 5G phones yet,
quite a few do
> LOL, also remember that only a small fraction of wireless users even
> have 5G phones yet,
> and Verizon has consistently had the fastest LTE speeds.
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 6, 2021, 1:14:55 PM10/6/21
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
I have no reason to shill for any carrier, whether Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mo.
Up here, there isn't even cable so we get even our Wi-Fi from miles away.
While Snit and Jolly Roger don't know the difference between megabits per
second versus decibels, I do, where these are my numbers on T-Mobile.
With my in-home cellular towers and in-home cellular repeater turned off...
My speed is 100 Mbps to 300 Mpbs on T-Mobile in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
My signal Strength is -90 to -100 decibels (RSRP) in the same mountains.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
What's important to note is that a lot of my neighbors are on AT&T and
Verizon in addition to T-Mobile where _all_ have in-home cellular towers.
More to the point, we know _exactly_ where the cellular towers are (they
don't hide them you know) where the closest ones are all clustered together.
What sms is claiming doesn't make sense and I _live_ in those SC Mountains.
How does Verizon "magically" get signal without any nearby towers doing it?
From a satellite?
> same for at&t and verizon. coverage in the santa cruz mountains is very
> spotty, no matter what carrier.
I agree with nospam and I _live_ in the Santa Cruz Mountains so I'd know.
> spotty, no matter what carrier.
I have no reason to shill for any carrier, whether Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mo.
Up here, there isn't even cable so we get even our Wi-Fi from miles away.
While Snit and Jolly Roger don't know the difference between megabits per
second versus decibels, I do, where these are my numbers on T-Mobile.
With my in-home cellular towers and in-home cellular repeater turned off...
My speed is 100 Mbps to 300 Mpbs on T-Mobile in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
My signal Strength is -90 to -100 decibels (RSRP) in the same mountains.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
What's important to note is that a lot of my neighbors are on AT&T and
Verizon in addition to T-Mobile where _all_ have in-home cellular towers.
More to the point, we know _exactly_ where the cellular towers are (they
don't hide them you know) where the closest ones are all clustered together.
What sms is claiming doesn't make sense and I _live_ in those SC Mountains.
How does Verizon "magically" get signal without any nearby towers doing it?
From a satellite?
badgolferman
Oct 6, 2021, 1:56:26 PM10/6/21
to
Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>> same for at&t and verizon. coverage in the santa cruz mountains is
>>very spotty, no matter what carrier.
>
>I agree with nospam and I live in the Santa Cruz Mountains so I'd
>nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>> same for at&t and verizon. coverage in the santa cruz mountains is
>>very spotty, no matter what carrier.
>
>know. I have no reason to shill for any carrier, whether Verizon,
>AT&T, or T-Mo.
>
>Up here, there isn't even cable so we get even our Wi-Fi from miles
>away.
>
>While Snit and Jolly Roger don't know the difference between megabits
>per second versus decibels, I do, where these are my numbers on
>T-Mobile.
>
>With my in-home cellular towers and in-home cellular repeater turned
>off...
>
>My speed is 100 Mbps to 300 Mpbs on T-Mobile in the Santa Cruz
>Mountains. <https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
>
>My signal Strength is -90 to -100 decibels (RSRP) in the same
>mountains. <https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
>
>What's important to note is that a lot of my neighbors are on AT&T and
>Verizon in addition to T-Mobile where all have in-home cellular
>AT&T, or T-Mo.
>
>Up here, there isn't even cable so we get even our Wi-Fi from miles
>away.
>
>While Snit and Jolly Roger don't know the difference between megabits
>per second versus decibels, I do, where these are my numbers on
>T-Mobile.
>
>With my in-home cellular towers and in-home cellular repeater turned
>off...
>
>My speed is 100 Mbps to 300 Mpbs on T-Mobile in the Santa Cruz
>Mountains. <https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
>
>My signal Strength is -90 to -100 decibels (RSRP) in the same
>mountains. <https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
>
>What's important to note is that a lot of my neighbors are on AT&T and
>towers.
>
>More to the point, we know exactly where the cellular towers are (they
>don't hide them you know) where the closest ones are all clustered
>together.
>
>What sms is claiming doesn't make sense and I live in those SC
>together.
>
>Mountains.
>
>How does Verizon "magically" get signal without any nearby towers
>doing it? From a satellite?
I don't think sms cares what your T-Mobile 5G signal looks like because
>
>How does Verizon "magically" get signal without any nearby towers
>doing it? From a satellite?
it's not Verizon LTE.
sms
Oct 6, 2021, 2:26:59 PM10/6/21
to
On 10/6/2021 10:56 AM, badgolferman wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think sms cares what your T-Mobile 5G signal looks like because
> it's not Verizon LTE.
You're right, it doesn't matter what one person's 5G signal, in one
location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
You can trust the FCC coverage web site to show coverage differences
between carriers. The differences are clear, despite the efforts of some
fanbois to deny them.
Even the maps provided by the carriers are clear about where they lack
coverage, see <https://i.imgur.com/3tVlGdm.png>.
<snip>
> I don't think sms cares what your T-Mobile 5G signal looks like because
> it's not Verizon LTE.
location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
You can trust the FCC coverage web site to show coverage differences
between carriers. The differences are clear, despite the efforts of some
fanbois to deny them.
Even the maps provided by the carriers are clear about where they lack
coverage, see <https://i.imgur.com/3tVlGdm.png>.
Bugsy
Oct 6, 2021, 2:28:27 PM10/6/21
to
badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>How does Verizon "magically" get signal without any nearby towers
>>doing it? From a satellite?
>
> I don't think sms cares what your T-Mobile 5G signal looks like because
> it's not Verizon LTE.
Didn't you know?
>>How does Verizon "magically" get signal without any nearby towers
>>doing it? From a satellite?
>
> I don't think sms cares what your T-Mobile 5G signal looks like because
> it's not Verizon LTE.
Verizon has secret invisible celltowers.
In flying saucers no less!
--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 6, 2021, 2:39:31 PM10/6/21
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
A lot.
Each (USA) person should find their own home in each of these three maps:
1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>
I'm not going to show my house but all three cover me just fine.
How about for your home?
Badgolferman: How do the three maps cover your home for example?
What about you, nospam?
Steve?
--
BTW, if you want to complain about local coverage, this seems to allow it.
Dead Cell Zones in the Santa Cruz Mountains
<https://www.deadcellzones.com/Santa-Cruz.html>
> You're right, it doesn't matter what one person's 5G signal, in one
> location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
Let's be super clear that the cellular coverage at your home does matter.
> location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
A lot.
Each (USA) person should find their own home in each of these three maps:
1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>
I'm not going to show my house but all three cover me just fine.
How about for your home?
Badgolferman: How do the three maps cover your home for example?
What about you, nospam?
Steve?
--
BTW, if you want to complain about local coverage, this seems to allow it.
Dead Cell Zones in the Santa Cruz Mountains
<https://www.deadcellzones.com/Santa-Cruz.html>
badgolferman
Oct 6, 2021, 3:18:53 PM10/6/21
to
Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> You're right, it doesn't matter what one person's 5G signal, in
>>one location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
>
>Let's be super clear that the cellular coverage at your home does
>matter. A lot.
>
>Each (USA) person should find their own home in each of these three
>maps: 1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
>2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
>3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>
>
>I'm not going to show my house but all three cover me just fine.
>How about for your home?
>
>Badgolferman: How do the three maps cover your home for example?
>What about you, nospam?
>Steve?
Here is a picture of the signal strength inside my house. The phone on
>sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> You're right, it doesn't matter what one person's 5G signal, in
>>one location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
>
>Let's be super clear that the cellular coverage at your home does
>matter. A lot.
>
>Each (USA) person should find their own home in each of these three
>maps: 1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
>2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
>3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>
>
>I'm not going to show my house but all three cover me just fine.
>How about for your home?
>
>Badgolferman: How do the three maps cover your home for example?
>What about you, nospam?
>Steve?
the left is a SE VZW and the one on the right is a 12 TMO. The TMO was
fluctuating between 2-3 bars.
https://ibb.co/K7j8Q5x
nospam
Oct 6, 2021, 3:47:14 PM10/6/21
to
In article <sjkpph$shn$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
propagation can (and does) vary.
> The differences are clear, despite the efforts of some
> fanbois to deny them.
overall, the differences are minor, despite the efforts of a shill to
push one particular carrier.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> You can trust the FCC coverage web site to show coverage differences
> between carriers.
that's not a coverage website. it's for location of the towers.
> You can trust the FCC coverage web site to show coverage differences
> between carriers.
propagation can (and does) vary.
> The differences are clear, despite the efforts of some
> fanbois to deny them.
push one particular carrier.
sms
Oct 6, 2021, 4:34:44 PM10/6/21
to
On 10/6/2021 11:39 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> You're right, it doesn't matter what one person's 5G signal, in one
>> location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
>
> Let's be super clear that the cellular coverage at your home does matter.
> A lot.
>
> Each (USA) person should find their own home in each of these three maps:
> 1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
> 2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
> 3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>
>
> I'm not going to show my house but all three cover me just fine.
> How about for your home?
>
> Badgolferman: How do the three maps cover your home for example?
> What about you, nospam?
> Steve?
They all cover my home, according to the maps, though when I did the
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
>> You're right, it doesn't matter what one person's 5G signal, in one
>> location looks like, regardless of which network it's on.
>
> Let's be super clear that the cellular coverage at your home does matter.
> A lot.
>
> Each (USA) person should find their own home in each of these three maps:
> 1. AT&T: <https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html>
> 2. T-Mobile: <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>
> 3. Verizon: <https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/>
>
> I'm not going to show my house but all three cover me just fine.
> How about for your home?
>
> Badgolferman: How do the three maps cover your home for example?
> What about you, nospam?
> Steve?
"T-Mobile Test Drive," in August, the LTE data speeds were extremely
slow, and it was basically unusable. But it's rather immaterial. At
home I don't really need cellular coverage since I can use broadband
data and VOIP for calls. It's always amusing when at a carrier's store
they check your home address for coverage then proclaim that their
network will work, or not work, for your needs.
Verizon gives 117 Mb/s down, 36.2 Mb/s up
AT&T gives me 38.6 Mb/s down, 43.4 Mb/s up
T-Mobile gave me 3.15 Mb/s down, 0.81 Mb/s up
All of this was on LTE.
I was in another area last week, in New Hampshire, with only AT&T and
Verizon coverage. Search for "Mt Washington Auto Rd, Jackson, NH, 03846,
USA" on
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>.
Bottom line is that if you travel out of cities and towns, and like to
go to more remote areas, you should at least take a long a phone on AT&T
or Verizon. With the iPhone you can put T-Mobile on the eSIM then use a
physical SIM card for a low cost MVNO like Page Plus. All the carriers'
maps, and all the map comparison sites, confirm this fact.
badgolferman
Oct 6, 2021, 4:55:41 PM10/6/21
to
nospam
Oct 6, 2021, 5:03:36 PM10/6/21
to
In article <sjl192$ga6$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
nevertheless, t-mobile wins in that location:
<https://www.signalchecker.com/nh/jackson-carroll>
but if mountains is your thing, it's best you avoid colorado, where
t-mobile is excellent and verizon is basically worthless (edited for
clarity):
<https://www.14ers.com/php14ers/cellreportmain.php>
Provider: T-Mobile
Entered By: mtgoatmike, For: 09/26/2021
14er Summit: Mt. Wilson Excellent
14er Summit: Wilson Peak Excellent
14er Summit: El Diente Peak Excellent
Provider: Verizon Wireless
Entered By: pbergmaier, For: 09/12/2021
Trailhead: Crags Campground No Reception
Trailhead: Jennings Creek No Reception
14er Summit: Tabeguache Peak Poor
14er Summit: Pikes Peak Poor
Provider: Verizon Wireless
Entered By: hokierock, For: 08/27/2021
14er Summit: Mt. Belford Good
Trailhead: Missouri Gulch No Reception
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I was in another area last week, in New Hampshire, with only AT&T and
> Verizon coverage. Search for "Mt Washington Auto Rd, Jackson, NH, 03846,
a road up a mountain is not in any way representative of typical use.
> I was in another area last week, in New Hampshire, with only AT&T and
> Verizon coverage. Search for "Mt Washington Auto Rd, Jackson, NH, 03846,
nevertheless, t-mobile wins in that location:
<https://www.signalchecker.com/nh/jackson-carroll>
but if mountains is your thing, it's best you avoid colorado, where
t-mobile is excellent and verizon is basically worthless (edited for
clarity):
<https://www.14ers.com/php14ers/cellreportmain.php>
Provider: T-Mobile
Entered By: mtgoatmike, For: 09/26/2021
14er Summit: Mt. Wilson Excellent
14er Summit: Wilson Peak Excellent
14er Summit: El Diente Peak Excellent
Provider: Verizon Wireless
Entered By: pbergmaier, For: 09/12/2021
Trailhead: Crags Campground No Reception
Trailhead: Jennings Creek No Reception
14er Summit: Tabeguache Peak Poor
14er Summit: Pikes Peak Poor
Provider: Verizon Wireless
Entered By: hokierock, For: 08/27/2021
14er Summit: Mt. Belford Good
Trailhead: Missouri Gulch No Reception
sms
Oct 6, 2021, 5:04:18 PM10/6/21
to
Goodfellow name I have not filtered him out. I always said that Arlen
sometimes told the truth, about 20% of the time, and that if he changed
his ways he could be taken more seriously. He seems to be becoming more
credible.
nospam
Oct 6, 2021, 5:06:05 PM10/6/21
to
In article <sjl30h$r8h$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Why are you responding to Arlen? You claim he is blocked.
>
> Arlen is blocked, but since he has been behaving better under the Robin
> Goodfellow name I have not filtered him out. I always said that Arlen
> sometimes told the truth, about 20% of the time, and that if he changed
> his ways he could be taken more seriously. He seems to be becoming more
> credible.
he isn't nor has he ever been, nor have you for that matter.
> > Why are you responding to Arlen? You claim he is blocked.
>
> Arlen is blocked, but since he has been behaving better under the Robin
> Goodfellow name I have not filtered him out. I always said that Arlen
> sometimes told the truth, about 20% of the time, and that if he changed
> his ways he could be taken more seriously. He seems to be becoming more
> credible.
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 6, 2021, 11:13:05 PM10/6/21
to
sms <scharf...@geemail.com> asked
matter _inside_ the house when you set up the phone for free Wi-Fi calling.
For example, this screenshot taken just now shows a graph of what appears to
be excellent cellular signal strength over time of -90 to -60dBm (RSRP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/vH0xdT7W/data03.jpg>
If you don't know it, that's damn good signal strength for cellular signal.
But the unique cell id tells me it's actually using the in-home cell tower.
When I unplug the internal cell towers inside my house, the cellular signal
strength immediately drops to a (still respectable) -100 to -90 dBm (RSRP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
All that matters is how close you are to your router when you use the phone
for calling - but - I don't know (nospam might know better than I do?) if
Wi-Fi calling has anything to do with cellular data. I suspect not.
Therefore, if there's no nearby tower, then I think you'd _still_ need a
cellular tower inside your home in order to get cellular data you pay for.
That free cellular tower would most likely be connected to your router, but
if you have "some" cellular signal, a free cellular repeater would work as
well I would think. <https://i.postimg.cc/L8vjbvXD/data01.jpg>
I have all three, but I also have signal outside my house as shown by this
screenshot I took a few minutes ago showing 4G inside & 5G on my balcony.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pTQNYPQX/data02.jpg>
If my eyes were better, I'd be able to discern the two little up/down arrows
indicating when the cellular appears to be working - but those icons are
just too small to see until they're blown up on my large computer monitor.
> It's always amusing when at a carrier's store
> they check your home address for coverage then proclaim that their
> network will work, or not work, for your needs.
I would tend to agree with you that the coverage at your home might not
> they check your home address for coverage then proclaim that their
> network will work, or not work, for your needs.
matter _inside_ the house when you set up the phone for free Wi-Fi calling.
For example, this screenshot taken just now shows a graph of what appears to
be excellent cellular signal strength over time of -90 to -60dBm (RSRP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/vH0xdT7W/data03.jpg>
If you don't know it, that's damn good signal strength for cellular signal.
But the unique cell id tells me it's actually using the in-home cell tower.
When I unplug the internal cell towers inside my house, the cellular signal
strength immediately drops to a (still respectable) -100 to -90 dBm (RSRP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
All that matters is how close you are to your router when you use the phone
for calling - but - I don't know (nospam might know better than I do?) if
Wi-Fi calling has anything to do with cellular data. I suspect not.
Therefore, if there's no nearby tower, then I think you'd _still_ need a
cellular tower inside your home in order to get cellular data you pay for.
That free cellular tower would most likely be connected to your router, but
if you have "some" cellular signal, a free cellular repeater would work as
well I would think. <https://i.postimg.cc/L8vjbvXD/data01.jpg>
I have all three, but I also have signal outside my house as shown by this
screenshot I took a few minutes ago showing 4G inside & 5G on my balcony.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pTQNYPQX/data02.jpg>
If my eyes were better, I'd be able to discern the two little up/down arrows
indicating when the cellular appears to be working - but those icons are
just too small to see until they're blown up on my large computer monitor.
Robin Goodfellow
Oct 6, 2021, 11:42:14 PM10/6/21
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
I don't defend any carrier to the death either.
I simply state the facts.
I've said many times they're all about the same in many ways, nospam.
What's different is you deny all facts about Apple that you don't like.
Because, in reality, you hate these facts show exactly what Apple is.
Unfortunately for you, that's a _lot_ of facts about Apple you don't like.
You apologists are no different than Trumpists with your imaginary beliefs.
> he isn't nor has he ever been, nor have you for that matter.
I don't defend _any_ company to the death at all costs, like you do nospam.
I don't defend any carrier to the death either.
I simply state the facts.
I've said many times they're all about the same in many ways, nospam.
What's different is you deny all facts about Apple that you don't like.
Because, in reality, you hate these facts show exactly what Apple is.
Unfortunately for you, that's a _lot_ of facts about Apple you don't like.
You apologists are no different than Trumpists with your imaginary beliefs.
0 new messages