by interweb on 9/28/21, 7:39 PM with 79 comments
by joecool1029 on 9/29/21, 12:34 AM
Eh? Why link or even talk about this. Here's 3rd party coverage collected by members over at Cellmapper. It's not perfect or complete but it's real data without 'assumptions' being made: https://www.cellmapper.net
At least there's a site for Canada that has exactly where every single tower is located: https://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html
by Maxburn on 9/28/21, 8:24 PM
by fastaguy88 on 9/28/21, 11:04 PM
by mdip on 9/29/21, 1:19 PM
I've been using Google Fi and tried a few others with Visible being the one that I found to be the most difficult to sort out. Visible uses Verizon's network (IIRC, they're owned by Verizon). In the thumb of Michigan, there's a large spot at the tip that Verizon post-paid customers have service (via the Extended Network[0]) but Visible does not. In fact, Lexington and Port Huron, with about a 5 mile buffer, were the only places service functioned similarly to home (albeit LTE rather than 5G) where coverage is solid. And it's not a matter of "there was really poor/slow/spotty service", there was simply nothing from just north of Lexington up M-25 to Port Austin and for much of M-59 from Armada to Port Austin[1].
Over the summer that I had this service, my mental model of the map would have the entire thumb empty with a few bursts of service over a some of the more populated areas, much like T-Mobile indicates. And that's curious -- the T-Mobile map looks a whole lot more like I'd expect for most of the service. Even the post-paid Verizon/AT&T service isn't great in a lot of places -- effectively or actually no service, but according to AT&T and Verizon's maps, I should be working almost everywhere.
[0] Which, if I understand things correctly, is Verizon buying service from someone else.
[1] We hit the dark sky park in Port Austin using Waze which caused me to pay closer attention, one route up, one route back; on M-25, I'd pick up service briefly enough to get a routing update but it sat "looking for service" with the circle/slash (No) symbol matching it. On M-59, it was dead except for Sandusky.
by topspin on 9/28/21, 7:57 PM
by cmg on 9/28/21, 9:47 PM
> The coverage map was created using data submitted voluntarily by the four mobile carriers using certain standardized propagation model assumptions or parameters that were established by the FCC as part of the Broadband Data Collection.
> Please note: The map depicts the coverage a customer can expect to receive when outdoors and stationary. It is not meant to reflect where service is available when a user is indoors or in a moving vehicle.
> Because the coverage map is based on propagation modeling, a user’s actual, on-the-ground experience may vary due to factors such as the end-user device used to connect to the network, cell site capacity, and terrain.
by jsjohnst on 9/28/21, 11:23 PM
by sparker72678 on 9/29/21, 2:14 AM
We need data throughput maps, maybe even by time of day.
Having "coverage" doesn't mean you can actually do anything with it.
by JohnJamesRambo on 9/29/21, 5:39 AM
by ece on 9/29/21, 12:38 AM
by shadowtree on 9/28/21, 11:25 PM
I am on AT&T and motorcycle quite a bit through the backcountry and use a real GPS navi for that reason. Trusting your phone is useless.
Such a change coming from Europe where I stay connected on any pass through the Alps.
by LeoPanthera on 9/28/21, 10:16 PM
which I can confirm is true!
It also shows blanket coverage at my house by both Verizon and AT&T, which is definitely not true.
by vlovich123 on 9/28/21, 8:45 PM
by sushisource on 9/28/21, 11:20 PM
by zachberger on 9/28/21, 7:57 PM
by Mup_TIpekpaceH on 9/29/21, 8:03 AM
by ojagodzinski on 9/28/21, 10:15 PM