On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:17:33 -0800, sms wrote:
> I received two e-mails regarding my document "Coverage Differences
> Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon"
> <
https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/> and have updated the
> document accordingly.
All of us could have guessed, years in advance, you'd claim Verizon is great
and that T-Mobile sucks) but you can't base that assessment on faulty data.
You need to *re-state your case that Verizon is great & T-Mobile sucks*, but
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).
Personally, I don't care who is better; but I also don't care to be snowed.
> One e-mail pointed out that the FCC maps show only 4G coverage, not 5G.
> That is true (though the Whistleout Maps let you select 3G, 4G, and/or 5G).
At least we now know that you were innocently unaware the FCC maps didn't
show _any_ 3G or 5G coverage, which means your entire argument is based on
faulty FCC data, through no fault of your own (being unaware of the error).
What that means to any adult is that you'd restate your argument given that
bad FCC data wasn't only crucial to your argument, but it was your argument.
> The important thing to understand is the 5G coverage is virtually always
> a subset of 4G coverage (as the Whistleout maps show). There are
> probably some cases where a mmWave 5G cell has been deployed in a place
> where there is a 4G dead spot, but that would be extremely rare. mmWave
> 5G cells are very short range, and very high speed, and are intended to
> provide "wireless broadband" to subscribers.
It's OK that you were unaware that the FCC maps didn't show _any_
improvement in the T-Mobile 5G coverage, as we can all make mistakes.
You must be aware by now given that T-Mobile may have retrofitted thousands
of their old towers to mmWave 5G, you might even have seen what would appear
to be _worse_ coverage (as an artifact of you not understanding the data).
However, now that you are aware of the fatal flaws in your previous
argument, you need to _restate_ your argument, but you can't also discount
the mmWave towers T-Mobile has put in place over the past couple of years.
To ignore mmWave coverage would be disengenuous - and I know you don't want
to do that. What you _need_ to do is _restate_ your argument taking into
account that the FCC maps don't show _any_ 3G or 5G coverage at all.
> In the future, as 5G phones become dominant, it's certainly possible
> that a carrier might deploy a new cell with 5G only service, but that's
> at least several years out. I know that one carrier makes a huge
> marketing deal out of the fact that they have the most 5G coverage, but
> the reality is that all that 5G coverage is a subset of their 4G
> coverage, and in many cases their low-band 5G is comparable in speed to
> 4G LTE.
You can dance all you want around the fact that your _entire_ argument
hinged on what you now know was completely erroneous data, Steve.
If I assume you have at the very least the lowest common denominator of a
bachelor's degree, we can liken this to the fact you _failed_ a logic test.
However, a bachelor's degree is 120 credits (or 135 as mine was), where
you're redeemed by submitting to a retest using _correct_ data this time.
Simply *re-state your case that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks*, but by
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).
> In any case, I added a map as an example of 5G versus 4G coverage see
> <
https://i.imgur.com/dEuUkuJ.jpeg>.
>
> One e-mail asked me to add a coverage comparison in Alaska.
Alaska? Is Alaska still part of the United States, Steve?
Why not cherry pick Siberia Steve?
First you cherry pick Death Valley, and then when we look at your own data
we find out you were trying to snow us given Verizon coverage is the same in
Death Valley as T-Mobile's coverage (given they both share a tower).
Now you cherry pick Alaska?
How many people live in all of Alaska anyway, Steve?
700,000 people in toto.
There are ten times as many people in the fifty miles surrounding you and me
than in all of Alaska Steve, so stop talking about the middle of nowhere.
Simply *re-state your case that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks*, but by
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).
I'm aware you're paid by Verizon Steve, so I'll allow your advertising below
so that the others can see what you wrote in case they missed the original.
> Here is a text version of the document:
>
> Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
> <
https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>
>
> The Three U.S. Networks-They Are Not Created Equal
> --------------------------------------------------
> The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
> AT&T and Verizon, the two top-tier networks, evolved from legacy
> cellular networks over the years, and built out a large network,
> acquiring smaller regional and rural carriers along the way. T-Mobile,
> the second tier network, was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with mainly
> urban coverage.
>
> All three networks work acceptably well in urban areas. While no carrier
> has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to more remote areas,
> like National and State Parks, or if you are going to be driving through
> rural areas, or if you're visiting the outskirts of urban areas (often
> called the "greenbelt" or "exurban"), then you'll want to avoid T-Mobile
> and choose AT&T or Verizon.
>
> Even non-tourists that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a
> second phone with an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling
> outside urban areas, just in case of emergency. As PC Magazine stated
> "And if you're out in the countryside and don't often head to the city,
> T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you. The carrier is doing
> great in the nation's biggest metro areas, but when we look at small
> cities and areas away from interstate highways, especially in the
> western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more work to get better
> coverage," (see <
https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>).
>
> If your phone supports dual-SIM (either two physical SIM cards or one
> physical SIM and one eSIM) then you can use the eSIM for your primary
> carrier and the physical SIM for when you're traveling outside urban areas.
> <
https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>). You can also
> use the interactive map at
> <
https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>. These are the
> maps for each networks' native coverage. If you sign up for postpaid
> service directly from the carrier, you also get some off-network roaming
> on smaller, more rural carriers, but the carriers' prepaid services, and
> their MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators), often do not include
> off-network roaming (though sometimes they do).
>
> There's a false narrative that one carrier often uses, when potential
> customers ask about coverage, of "no carrier has 100% coverage;" with
> the implication of "all carriers are equal since they all provide less
> than 100% coverage." It's an absurd argument, but you often see it
> repeated by fanbois.
> Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
> essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
> except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
> you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
> always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
>
> Checking Network Coverage-Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
> that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
> visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
> compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
> rural areas are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You can
> What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
> places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
> on anecdotal reports since there are too many individuals giving out
> false information.
> Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
> essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
> except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
> you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
> always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
>
> It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
> coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
> the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
> well as a matter of safety.
>
> What About "Free Roaming"
> -------------------------
> Some carriers advertise "free roaming," attempting to allay potential
> customers' concerns about the lack of native coverage in many areas by
> implying that customers can roam onto whatever network is available in a
> specific area. That is highly misleading. When a carrier touts "free
> roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every other carrier,
> everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911 service). The
> usual case is that roaming is only available on small rural carriers and
> not on any other of the three nationwide networks.
>
> You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
> roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
> carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
> <
https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg/>, but MVNOs usually won't roam even
> if their maps show roaming.
>
> Be especially careful about MVNOs because they will often have huge
> areas of no coverage because of a lack of roaming. For example, compare
> T-Mobile in Alaska (all roaming) with a T-Mobile MVNO is Alaska (no
> coverage at all).
>
> In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
> any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
> and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
> roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
> Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
> T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.
>
> The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
> rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
> AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
> differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).
>
> In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
> gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
> they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
> coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
> especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
> AT&T's and Verizon's MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
> that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
> coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
> AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
> T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless or
> <
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-challenge-fcc-s-data-roaming-ruling-sided-t-mobile/>.
>
> Also understand that roaming data is often very limited because of the
> high cost to the carrier. T-Mobile limits roaming data to 200MB per
> month for postpaid accounts created after 11/15/2015 and less for older
> accounts (see
> <
https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data/>).
> 200MB is very little data if you're doing things like GPS navigation or
> sending or receiving photos or video. While roaming is nice to have, you
> really want a network with the most native coverage.
>
> In the early days of mobile service in the U.S. there was a lot more
> roaming between top tier carriers. Sprint roamed extensively on Verizon
> and T-Mobile roamed extensively on AT&T. But this roaming was very
> costly for Sprint and T-Mobile and roaming was limited in quantity and
> eventually roaming agreements ended. When Sprint was acquired by
> T-Mobile, all of the roaming that Sprint did on Verizon went away and
> Sprint customers lost a great deal of geographic coverage that was not
> replaced by T-Mobile.
>
> What About 5G? The FCC Maps Show Only 4G
> ----------------------------------------
> 5G coverage is virtually always a subset of 4G coverage, at least for
> mobile phones. 5G equipment is added to existing 4G cells to provide
> more capacity and higher speeds. The exception are mmWave 5G cells used
> to provide home broadband service (Verizon and AT&T are especially
> active in this arena). mmWave 5G is very short range and cells are
> usually placed on streetlight poles. You can see an example of the
> difference in 5G and 4G service, for the Santa Cruz Mountains in
> California, at <
https://i.imgur.com/dEuUkuJ.jpeg>.
>
> Issues with MVNOs
> -----------------
> While MVNOs often provide service at lower cost, there are some
> drawbacks. MVNOs will usually not have roaming agreements with smaller
> rural carriers so you won't get any coverage in those areas (like all of
> Alaska for T-Mobile MVNOs, like Mint or Optimum) but also in some
> popular rural tourist destinations, and even on some interstate
> highways, in the lower 48. MVNOs will usually not have any provision for
> international roaming (other than sometimes for Canada and Mexico).
> MVNOs usually don't support eSIMs. Customer service on MVNOs can be a
> nightmare. MVNOs do not subsidize phone purchases to the extent that
> carriers do. Choose MVNOs carefully, keeping in mind the areas you're
> likely to visit or go through.
>
> Checking Network Coverage-Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
> that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
> visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
> compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
> <
https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map/>. You can
> check the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more
> of rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
> can also use the interactive map at
> <
https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage/>.
>
> Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
> often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
> Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.
> Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
> essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
> except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
> you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
> always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
>
> It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
> coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
> the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
> well as a matter of safety.
>
> Network Speed, Coverage, and Quality
> ------------------------------------
> "We're fastest." "No, we're fastest." "You have fake 5G." "Our 4G is
> faster than your 5G." "We have the most 5G." "We have the most real 5G."
> "Your coverage sucks." "No one needs coverage in Podunk, Idaho." "You
> get free tacos if you choose us." "We have the happiest customers."
>
> I received an email requesting that I add information regarding network
> speed. Rather than parrot the absurd and conflicting marketing claims of
> the carriers, I am adding the results of the most recent independent
> surveys.
>
> From Rootmetrics:
> <
https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021/>
> For the first half of 2021:
> * Data Speed: 1. AT&T. 2. Verizon. 3. T-Mobile.
> * Reliability: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
> * Accessibility: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
> * Calls: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
> * Texts: 1. Verizon & AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
>
> From J.D. Power: <
https://tinyurl.com/JDPowerNetworkQuality/>
> * Verizon was ranked first in every U.S. region
> * T-Mobile was ranked second in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
> West regions
> * AT&T was ranked second in the North Central, Southeast, and
> Southwest regions
>
> It should be stated that small differences in data speeds are pretty
> meaningless for mobile phone users. If you were using mobile data for
> home broadband then you'd want to choose a carrier that has deployed
> mmWave 5G since it provides data speeds comparable to fiber. But 4G LTE
> versus low-band 5G doesn't have enough, if any, of a speed difference to
> make a noticeable difference. T-Mobile has made a very big deal of the
> fact that they have added low-band 5G to existing cells at a faster rate
> than other carriers. Meanwhile Verizon is busy installing mmWave 5G
> cells in cities, hoping to sell "wireless broadband" to compete against
> Xfinity and AT&T fiber to the home. What matters most to mobile phone
> users is coverage, not small speed differences.
>
> It's also vitally important that people understand that Speed 【
> Coverage. Recently, PC Magazine said that T-Mobile had the highest
> average 5G speed (though not the maximum speed). But what they also
> said, which is key: "And if you're out in the countryside and don't
> often head to the city, T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you.
> The carrier is doing great in the nation's biggest metro areas, but when
> we look at small cities and areas away from interstate highways,
> especially in the western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more
> work to get better coverage." T-Mobile is the least expensive postpaid
> carrier, and they also have the least expensive MVNOs, but there is a
> definite trade-off of price versus coverage.
>
> As to "reliability" that's a metric that many carriers claim, but you
> really need to look to independent studies for an accurate gauge of
> reliability. In fact, T-Mobile recently got into a little trouble
> regarding this, and had to stop advertising that it had "the most
> reliable network," see
>
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-cant-advertise-most-reliable-5g-says-nad.
>
> I added several examples of coverage differences because often there are
> "fanbois" of a carrier that will insist that "all carriers are created
> equal," and get very upset when anyone points out any coverage
> differences. Some fanbois insist that foreign visitors would be unlikely
> to ever go outside of urban areas, where coverage is usually okay on all
> carriers, but the reality is that foreign visitors often want to visit
> places like state and national parks. So I've included a bunch of
> examples of coverage differences that I've personally experienced.
>
> * One area that I go through often is the Sierra Nevada mountains on
> California State Highways 88, 4, 108, and 120, and the FCC map
> highlights the very large differences in coverage in those areas; here
> is a map comparing coverage in the central Sierras, a popular area for
> tourists with National and State Parks, ski areas, and other recreation:
> <
https://i.imgur.com/uBD7ZQA.png/>.
>
> * One area we visit frequently is the southern part of San Mateo County.
> In my younger days I used to do a lot of bicycling in this area, now
> it's more hiking and road trips. Verizon has the best coverage of
> course, but surprisingly T-Mobile beats AT&T in the town of Pescadero (I
> recommend Duarte's restaurant <
http://www.duartestavern.com/>). Sadly,
> T-Mobile doesn't even have coverage on the major state highway, 84,
> between La Honda and the coast. See <
https://i.imgur.com/OgL844m.png/>.
>
> * Another area I go through often is the San Mateo and Santa Cruz coast
> on California Highway 1; here is a map comparing coverage in that area,
> where Verizon is superior, AT&T is a distant second, and T-Mobile an eve
> further distant third: <
https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png/>.
>
> * A very popular route for foreign tourists is the coastal road between
> Los Angeles in San Francisco; here is a map comparing coverage in the
> popular Big Sur area (bottom left): <
https://i.imgur.com/ataZAOP.png/>.
>
> * The Pacific Northwest, (Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and
> especially the coastal areas) is another popular destination for
> tourists; here is a map comparing coverage in Oregon:
> <
https://i.imgur.com/qX5rz0Q.png/> where you can see the vast
> differences in coverage, in the inland areas but especially along the coast.
>
> * Someone on Reddit/NoContract inquired about service in Montana so I
> added that map set as well, see <
https://i.imgur.com/Jk6XmCs.jpeg/>,
>
> * Yosemite is a place we visit one or two times per year, often staying
> in the "Yosemite West" area (technically outside the park boundary but
> you have to go into the park to get there). One time we arrived in a
> snowstorm and the key to our lodging wasn't left out. Thankfully I had
> Verizon service so I could call the management company. AT&T and
> T-Mobile have no coverage (Sprint used to roam on Verizon, but no more).
> Verizon had acquired a small regional carrier, Golden State Cellular
> upon which they used to roam. See <
https://i.imgur.com/9zJhPUq.png/>.
>
> * An example of the the San Francisco Bay Area's "greenbelt," up to the
> northwest corner of Marin County and Point Reyes National Seashore
> (highly recommended), is at <
https://i.imgur.com/BCRhffC.png/>, you can
> see the gaps in coverage on AT&T and especially on T-Mobile.
>
> * Muir Woods is another highly-recommended tourist destination in Marin
> County and you can see how poor T-Mobile coverage is in that area, see
> <
https://i.imgur.com/QTPgy8j.png/>:
>
> * This is part of the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties' greenbelt,
> and again you can see the big advantage in coverage enjoyed by Verizon
> subscribers, <
https://i.imgur.com/1w58JJA.png/>:
>
> * Here is the area around Pinnacles National Park (highly recommended)
> <
https://i.imgur.com/HevfvTN.png/>:
>
> * Someone I know lives in one of the mountain communities of the Santa
> Cruz Mountains. I did a comparison of that area. You can see the huge
> advantage of Verizon, and how poor T-Mobile is at
> <
https://i.imgur.com/t8t7Xy2.png/>:
>
> * I grew up in South Florida, and still visit, so coverage there is of
> interest to me, see <
https://i.imgur.com/SoWWEk8.png/>.
>
> * Someone mentioned that their children were hiking between Loma Prieta
> Peak and Mount Madonna so I did the coverage maps for that area, see
> <
https://i.imgur.com/0Nn3C2P.png/>. You can see how tremendously better
> Verizon coverage is in that area. It's especially important to have
> coverage when in areas away from roads. At the very least take along a
> phone that's on a prepaid Verizon service.
>
> * A huge park in Santa Clara County is Henry Coe. You can see the big
> differences in coverage at <
https://i.imgur.com/g61Ss5T.jpeg/>,though
> even Verizon doesn't have complete coverage.
>
> * We sometimes meet up with extended family members to hike in the east
> Bay hills of the San Francisco Bay Area. See
> <
https://i.imgur.com/miJpYQk.png>. This is an area where you really want
> to be on Verizon.
>
> * Alaska is a very popular tourist destination. For a long time, of the
> three nationwide networks, only AT&T had native cellular coverage in
> Alaska. In 2013 Verizon finally deployed an LTE-only network in more
> populated areas (initially LTE data only, but then VoLTE as well), and
> roams in less populated areas. T-Mobile has no network in Alaska and is
> 100% roaming (direct T-Mobile subscribers only). These days, if
> traveling to Alaska, it's best to use AT&T or an AT&T MVNO. AT&T has a
> native network in more populated areas but also provides roaming that is
> also available to their MVNOs. Verizon has an LTE-only native network
> which provides very limited coverage for MVNO customers, though
> Verizon's own postpaid and prepaid customers are able to roam (but not
> Visible customers). T-Mobile has no native coverage at all so T-Mobile
> MVNO customers will have no coverage. Both T-Mobile and Verizon offer
> off-network roaming in Alaska, but not to prepaid MVNO customers. See
> <
https://i.imgur.com/EVqSX6x.png>. This is another reason why, for
> Alaska especially, Red Pocket's AT&T service can be the best choice in
> terms of price and coverage, or H2O at higher cost.