On 3/4/2022 3:32 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

<snip>

> The first FCC map doesn't show cell coverage at all. It's just a map of
> locations, not cell signal strength and by which carriers. The initial
> overlay page says "This mapping tool is provided to assist in viewing 4G
> LTE coverage". You click OK to get past the popup overlay page, and
> nothing on the map that shows coverage no matter how much you zoom in.
> There is no overlay I could add to include cell coverage. Presumably
> you were able to get cell coverage (also presumably by different
> carriers as denoted by the different colors) using the FCC map for your
> screen capture. I couldn't get this map to show cell coverage.

You have to check the boxes on the right for each carrier. Look at this
example <https://i.imgur.com/eO1LWZ2.png>.

Lately, data and voice are almost identical since they both are on LTE
or 5G and there are almost no areas (if any) with 3G only.

On 3/4/2022 5:21 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

<snip>

> As evidenced by your history in Usenet, anyone that disagrees with you
> or holds a differing opinion just must be a troll. Uh huh.

In the past, I've urged Andy/Harry/Arlen/Dean to change his approach:
1. Stop constant nymshifting
2. Base his posts based on referenced facts
3. Stop lying and shilling

No one will think any worse of him if he makes the decision to post
factual information. He can repair his reputation though it will take
time. The misinformation he promulgates on Android stuff is bad enough,
but the misinformation he promulgates on things like Covid is inexcusable.

VanguardLH wrote:

> As evidenced by your history in Usenet, anyone that disagrees with you
> or holds a differing opinion just must be a troll. Uh huh.

My believe system is based on facts, Vanguard.
Yes. Facts.

I know... you don't know what facts are.
But I do.

Facts.
Point out even _once_ where what you claim happened, actually happened.
*Name just once*

I know what happened.
You _fabricated_ what happened.

The proof is you can't name a _single_ instance of what you claim actually
happening. If you can, let's see it (but I already know you can't).

Because you made it up.
Why?

I don't know why.
I suspect you own the brain of a child, so that's why.

But you tell me.

What happened was people said things that were dead wrong.
Factually dead wrong.

I simply proved that they were factually dead wrong.
That's _not_ the childish thing you said of a "differing opinion".

Facts are _different_ from an opinion.
If you don't know that by now, then you need to learn that.

Facts come first (adults never disagree on facts).
Opinions come second (adults can often disagree on opinions).

Why do adult always agree on facts?
Because if they didn't, they wouldn't _be_ adults.
Facts are funny that way.

Why do adults often disagree on opinions?
Because they put different _weight_ on the facts.
Adults are funny that way.

No adult should be disagreeing on the facts in this thread.
Not you (if you're an adult) and certainly not me (because I am).

Your _entire_ belief system is based on exactly _zero_ facts, Vanguard.
Here's proof.

Show me even _once_ in this thread where I did what you claimed.
*Name just once*

If you can't name it, then your claim was fabricated.
--
The problem with morons like Vanguard is they confuse facts with opinions.

sms wrote:

> No one will think any worse of him if he makes the decision to post
> factual information.

Vanguard lied.
You lie like a rug.

The fact remains I spoke facts.
What you and Vanguard can't comprehend is these are different things:
a. Facts
b. Opinions

No adult ever disagrees on facts (it's what makes them adults).
Facts are funny that way.

Often adults disagree on opinions (as they're based on weighting of facts).
Adults are funny that way.

a. What Mayayana doesn't like is I proved he was _factually_ wrong.
b. What Steve doesn't like is I proved he was _factually_ wrong.
c. What Vanguard doesn't like is I proved he was _factually_ wrong.

I didn't say a thing about their "opinions".
I proved their facts were wrong.

And that's OK.
Adults accept graciously when their facts are wrong.

Children do not.
It's like I proved Santa doesn't exist but you still believe it does.

No adult would disagree on the fact that Santa doesn't exist.
And yet, the three of you did exactly that (with respect to facts).

Don't blame me because _you_ got your facts wrong.
If you can find a single fact I got wrong - tell it to me now.

Name just one.
--
I'm not afraid of facts because my belief system is _based_ on facts.

VanguardLH wrote:

> Um, why couldn't the wannabe camper use the same road to walk out?

Vanguard,
Mayayana fabricated his entire story.

Why?
You ask Mayayana why.

He turned a simple missed turn into a nefarious unprepared camping story.
Mayana made it all up.

Here are the facts.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

> The story sounds a bit fishy.

Everyone who knows anything knows the story of what happened.
Mayayana just did what Mayayana always does. He lied.

He took a few tidbits and then contorted them in his own racist mind.
He nefariously fabricated the entire "unprepared camper" bit.

Why?
I don't know why.

Why did he claim long ago that most black people were criminals?
I don't know why but I know his belief systems are not based on facts.

> Not using cell phones is also a withdraw symptom in urban areas. People
> have become grafted to their cell phones. It's the new legal heroin.

BTW, that's an "opinion", which is based on the facts as you know it.
You took the facts, and you made an assessment using different weights.

What you claimed I did was I disagreed with your "opinion" which I did not.
I disagree with facts because they were wrong.

But I did not disagree with people's opinion.
You fabricated that.

Why?
I don't know why.

You tell me.
I suspect you're just vile.

You're like an idiot held-back bully who is told Santa isn't real.
You claim that Santa is real.

If I show you facts, you say I disagree with your "opinion".

Children do that.
Not adults.

> Don't send the kids to their rooms as punishment. Also take away their
> phone(s), unplug the RJ45 cable at the modem going to their computer,
> and take out the TV. Give them a paper book as salt on the wound.

Another opinion which I won't disagree with since my belief systems are
based on facts and I stick to the facts (you can have your opinions).

One fact that is useful though that can bring this thread out of the
cesspool that you and Mayayana and Steve dropped us into is this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

Notice how they claim that the "sms" app saved them somehow?
I know you, Vanguard, are able to comprehend detail.

On the behalf of the SUBJECT of this thread, can you read the facts.
And then summarize for us what they're saying about how they _found_ her?

They apparently found a "ping" from an "sms" app which downloaded "two
messages", but it was confusing how that happens aside from the data.

Can someone who is smarter than I am read that article and expound upon what
the lesson is for the SUBJECT of this thread which is safety while far from
a cellular tower, but perhaps close enough to get a few of those pings?
--
I don't care that most people on Usenet are uneducated, child-like, of low
IQ & of low self esteem; but due to that, they are often wrong on the facts.

sms wrote:

> Their maps
> are based on actual cells, not on carrier claims.

You do realize that the FCC coverage maps come from data from the carriers?
Right?

Tell me you know that Steve.
Because if you don't, you're either (a) a liar, or (b) an idiot. (pick one)

You do realize that the FCC coverage maps are completely calculated data?
Right?

Tell me you know that Steve.
Because if you don't, you're either (a) a liar, or (b) an idiot. (pick one)

You do realize that the FCC coverage maps do not contain 5G coverage data.
Right?

Tell me you know that Steve.
Because if you don't, you're either (a) a liar, or (b) an idiot. (pick one)

nospam wrote:

> very much false. carriers have a vested interest in exaggerating their
> maps. if there is a measurable signal, it shows up on the map, even
> though it's weak or unusable in real life.

Here's a question for the _adults_ on this newsgroup.
Q: *If I can show screenshots proving what I say, why can't Steve?*

I have to agree with everything nospam said above, which, you have to admit,
is rare.

Steve has lied to us about those FCC coverage maps for years.
I can even _predict_ Steve's likes years in advance (so can nospam).

The lie always goes like this:
a. Verizon is great (but he doesn't tell us that they pay him)
b. T-Mobile sucks (Steve even _fabricated_ slow speeds for them)

Steve happens to have both a T-Mobile & Verizon phone right now.
Yup. In his hands.

He tells us the Verizon speeds are always better than the T-Mobile speeds.
OK. Show me the proof.

He can't.
He never does.
He fabricates the proof with _text_ (a picture, or it didn't happen).

Steve claims the Santa Cruz Mountains has slow T-Mobile speeds, right?
Well, for years, everyone knows I live there, so what are _my_ tests?
<https://i.postimg.cc/4dDhFK5F/speedtest01.jpg> *125Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT68k3BW/speedtest02.jpg> *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg> *125Mbps* to *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcsyc4Vn/speedtest04.jpg> *82Mbps* & -88dBM
<https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg> *254Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/GhZKX0vZ/speedtest09.jpg> *130Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *81Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps* to *81Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/5y063Jsq/speedtest12.jpg> *96Mbps* to *109Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/fbNyPmHb/speedtest13.jpg> *109Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tSyWyGS/speedtest14.jpg> *88Mbps* to *102Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> *130Mbps* to *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps* to *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *54Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> *60Mbps* & -85dBm

Here's a question for the _adults_ on this newsgroup.
Q: *If I can show screenshots proving what I say, why can't Steve?*
--
The problem with people like Steve, who, we must say, is a paid professonal
politician, Democrat in fact, is they lie so much that they begin to believe
their own lies - and yet - the fact they lie - means they are insulting us
because they are in effect treating us as too stupid to catch their lies.

sms wrote:

> You have to check the boxes on the right for each carrier.

I speak facts.

Steve has been using the same maps for years claiming the same thing:
a. Verizon is great (he is _paid_ by Verizon, let's never forget!)
b. T-Mobile sucks (he _never_ proves that - not even once)

Now I'm _not_ paid by anyone (I'm retired) and I don't care one bit if
Verizon or T-Mobile is better since they're both the same where I live.

Everyone _except_ Steve (e.g., Lewis, badgolferman, nospam, et. al) has told
Steve to stop lying about his vaunted Verizon coverage (which he doesn't
even pay for since he uses a convoluted MVNO setup instead - but that's his
right).

But Steve persists in bringing up these bogus claims based on the FCC maps.
Now, I trusted Steve for a while but then I _looked_ up what they are.

1. They're purely mathematical calculated data!
2. Those calculations are 100% based on data the carriers give to the FCC!
3. Last I checked, they show _zero_ 3G and _zero_ 5G coverage.

Bear in mind T-Mobile 5G coverage has skyrocketed, it's no wonder that
Steve, who we must admit, is a paid professional politician, a Democrat, a
mayor no less, so we have his bio, is a paid liar.

While Steve's facts are wrong, the fact that he based almost his entire
argument on flawed data is _exactly_ what politicians do all the time.

When they do that, I take it as an insult.
They think we're too stupid to know what those FCC maps really say.

And that's insulting.
It's insulting to our intelligence.

Every time Steve makes that claim he made here, only 2 things are possible:
a. Steve is repeatedly and brazenly constantly lying to us, or,
b. Steve is interminably completely ignorant of what those maps actually say.

Pick one.

sms wrote:

> You have to check the boxes on the right for each carrier.

I speak facts.
And I rarely discuss people's opinions.

My belief systems are based on facts.

Steve has been using the same maps for years claiming the same thing:
a. Verizon is great (he is _paid_ by Verizon, let's never forget!)
b. T-Mobile sucks (he _never_ proves that - not even once)

Now I'm _not_ paid by anyone (I'm retired) and I don't care one bit if
Verizon or T-Mobile is better since they're both the same where I live.

Everyone _except_ Steve (e.g., Lewis, badgolferman, nospam, et. al) has told
Steve to stop lying about his vaunted Verizon coverage (which he doesn't
even pay for since he uses a convoluted MVNO setup instead - but that's his
right).

But Steve persists in bringing up these bogus claims based on the FCC maps.
Now, I trusted Steve for a while but then I _looked_ up what they are.

1. They're purely mathematical calculated data!
2. Those calculations are 100% based on data the carriers give to the FCC!
3. Last I checked, they show _zero_ 3G and _zero_ 5G coverage.

Bear in mind T-Mobile 5G coverage has skyrocketed, it's no wonder that
Steve, who we must admit, is a paid professional politician, a Democrat, a
mayor no less, so we have his bio, is a paid liar.

While Steve's facts are wrong, the fact that he based almost his entire
argument on flawed data is _exactly_ what politicians do all the time.

When they do that, I take it as an insult.
They think we're too stupid to know what those FCC maps really say.

And that's insulting.
It's insulting to our intelligence.

Every time Steve makes that claim he made here, only 2 things are possible:
a. Steve is repeatedly and brazenly constantly lying to us, or,
b. Steve is interminably completely ignorant of what those maps actually say.

Pick one.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Every major carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) in the USA, to my
> knowledge and experience, will give you a repeater and/or a cell
> tower for free.

Carrier? Yes. MVNO? No.

> I wrote about this _many_ times so it's irksome to have to repeat

No one here is compiling a biography of your Usenet participation to
review everything you ever said before in other threads.

> I wrote _all_ of this up in the past so it's irksome to have to repeat it.

Yep, if you wrote it elsewhere in some other thread, you'll have to
repeat it in this thread if you are going to reference that prior info.

> My experience is the following:
> a. The three carriers all provide free femtocells if you have bad
> signal.

You note that you and all your neighbors are using cellular service from
the Big 3. You pay more for their service. There are the big 3. Then
there are 139 MVNOs (in just the USA).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator

That cites 7 out of 100 cellular users are using an MVNO. Reflects that
many just go with name brands instead of expending the effort to
research what is the best deal for them.

You're posting using Thunderbird. Likely you also use Firefox as your
primary web browser. If so, yep, you're in the minority, but you
decided which was the best web browser instead of getting duped into
accepting Google Chrome. I could buy a 2-pack of Mr Clean Magic Erasers
for $4.99 ($2.50 per sponge), or I could buy a 100-pack of melamine
sponges at eBay for $12 ($0.12 per sponge). Buying the expensive brand
name is not always the best choice.

I don't rely on cell phones when hiking (and I'm far enough in that
there are no trails, other than where the deer mashed the grass to get
to their resting spot) or camping, fishing, hunting, and anything away
from urbania. That means, for use in urbania, I can get the cheapest
cellular service (with rollover, too) with quotas exceeding my usage
($116/yr @ 400 minutes that's tripled for my phone choice) instead of
having to pay hundreds more per year to the Big 3 (e.g., Verizon at
$420/yr @ 500 minutes/month, or $600/yr unlimited minutes). I don't
need unlimited. I'm not even using the 400 x 3 (1200) minutes per year
with Tracfone, and have accrued somewhere over 3000 rollover minutes.
Not all of us need high or unlimited quotas since we will never exceed
the limited quotas. Plus, with wifi calling at home or through any wifi
hotspot, are cellular quota consumption is further reduced. At home, I
never use cellular. It's always wifi. Not everyone needs to pay for
extras or quotas we won't use. MVNOs are an obvious choice for those
not interested in overpaying.

To me, if you're using one of the Big 3, you've been duped. If you have
some bias against Tracfone (and its various brands), go with another
MVNO, like Mint at $15/month (or $180/yr, cheaper than the Big 3), but
that goes up to $25/month after the 3-month trial (or $300, which
exceeds the $116/yr with quotas I don't fully consume, so there is
rollover). The MVNOs are using the same networks as the Big 3.

Ah, but as you note, with the Big 3 you could get a free femtocell aka
microcell (well, if you whine about the cost and manage to get a refund,
else they cost). Not all are free. I remember I could get one from
AT&T for free at one time, but recall they wanted to charge when I
checked again later. Also, not all of the Big 3 offer femtocells
anymore despite you saying so. AT&T no longer provides femtocells; see:

https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1009372

With wifi calling, none of the Big 3 have to provide femtocells anymore.
With wifi calling over the Internet, and since femtocells mandate
Internet access, why would anyone still be using a femtocell? Well, for
smartphones which have wifi, femtocells don't make sense. For old dumb
phones with no wifi feature, yep, femtocells make sense. The dumb
phones only due cellular. Nowadays smartphones with wifi can be had for
cheap (under $100 for unlocked). Are you and your neighbors using
femtocells still using dumb phones (no wifi)? Other than at the
Goodwill for super cheap, I can't remember when I saw someone using an
old dumb phone. I've had them in the past, but wifi was one the
requirements that moved me to smartphones long ago, and not just for
wifi calling.

> If you're using an MVNO, I don't know what they will do, as I don't
> know anyone in the flesh who uses them (although I'm aware Steve uses
> them so ask him).

There is 7 million users of MVNOs. No, we're not the majority, but
we're also not easily duped. We comparison shop. Even you are not in
the majority for choice of e-mail client (Thunderbird) as Outlook has
that honor, but both have been far surpassed by mobile e-mail clients.

https://kinsta.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/top-10-email-market-share.png
(Thunderbird is so low it doesn't show on the list.)

That Thunderbird is popular (which it isn't) wasn't your reason for
picking it. You likely use Firefox, and you didn't choose it because of
popularity. With wifi calling, reduction in femtocell availability, why
stay with paying more to the Big 3?

I get that many, maybe most, consumers get a comfy warm fuzzy feeling
sticking with name brands. It's an emotional thing. Instead of looking
at the 5-year, or longer, maintenance costs for each car they might
purchase, they look at manufacturer warranty duration to feel comfy
about the durability of their choice of car.

> I get four lines from T-Mo with unlimited almost everything, including
> unlimited data, unlimited text, unlimited MMS, unlimited USA calls, etc.
> (the only things limited is the 5GB/month/line of hotspotting & tethering)
> for $25/month/line. I even get two iPads with 200MB/month free SIM service.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

Geez, I get more quota than I can use for $116 per *year*. I only need
1 line. You're paying that every *month* with your 6-line T-Mobile
plan. Yikes! If you really are doling out the 6 lines to 5 other
members in your family, that comes down to $19/line per month, or
$228/year per line. That's twice the price I get per line from an MVNO.
You must have super high quota demands than do I to pay for high quotas
or unlimited quotas.

> Stupid people will make stupid decisions, Vanguard; but my point was
> that if you know what I know, then you have no business complaining
> about coverage.

The guy that is still using a femtocell, claims all of the Big 3 provide
free femtocells (but don't), and hasn't switched to wifi calling since
he claims to have Internet service is telling me I cannot complain about
cellular coverage that I cannot get that the carriers claim I should
have. Sorry if I don't take your word that you are the cellular God of
wisdom.

> If you have Internet in the USA, you have _fantastic_ coverage in your
> home!

I'm not always at home. Neither is micky when on the trails. Yep, I
have fantastic "coverage" at home with Internet access, because then we
are no longer discussing *CELLULAR* coverage and have migrated to wifi
calling -- which, by the way, is completely free to me by using the
Google Voice app on my phone at any wifi hotspot and an Obitalk 200
appliance on my cable modem at home. I can use Google Voice instead of
my cellular carrier to make/receive wifi calls, especially at home,
which further reduces my quota consumption, and why I never use it all.

Okay, not completely free. Zero for the Google Voice app on my Android
phone. Zero for the Google Voice service. $50 for the Obitalk device,
a one-time cost. The Obitalk device was cheaper but equally functional
to the Ooma device. Google Voice is free, and Ooma has their Basic
service plan* for free.

* The Ooma Basic free plan is missing some features in Google Voice.
https://www.ooma.com/home-phone-service/faqs/why-is-ooma-basic-free-and-ooma-premier-costs-money/
mentions it takes their $10/month Premier plan to have: custom and
anon call blocking, private voicemail, voicemail monitoring (aka
screening), and call forwarding. No mention if the paid Premier Ooma
plan includes spam call filtering. Got all those with free Google
Voice. Ooma Premier says it has a Backup Number feature (calls are
automatically forwarded to another number). With simultaneous ring
and Google Voice forwarding to multiple phones, I don't see the need
for a backup number. One of the multiple phones getting forwarded
calls is a backup. All are backup phones. I've yet to see a
bang-for-the buck feature in Ooma's paid Premier plan that I don't
already have with Google Voice, or conversely, free Google Voice has
more features than Ooma's free Basic plan. No impetus to switch from
Google Voice to Ooma Basic.

> While I'm all for saving money, I don't know _anyone_ who uses an MVNO,

Yes, you do. I announced I'm one. If you look, there are probably
other users of MVNOs that have posted here. There are 139 MVNOs, but
only the 3 biggies.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> When did this mutate into a discussion about cellular coverage at home?
>
> Vanguard,
> Stop that crap. Just stop it. Stop it right now.

I don't do requests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oy2xNsR1Mw

> Stop it Vanguard.
> Stop acting just like the iKooks do.
> Nobody said anything like what you're claiming.

You aren't in charge here. You don't moderate this newsgroup. Else,
your attitude would equate you with an evil version of Chris Ilias.

> a. He wants to call 911

That doesn't require his phone be on all the time to hear the following
alerts.

> b. He wants an audible sound when cellular drops below about -115 dBm

That requires he waste valuable battery power to determine when he is
out of range instead of powering off his phone, and then later powering
it back on if there is an emergency. You think the trails wind around
to ensure they're within range of towers? You think micky is going to
go off-trail to stay within tower range because his phone beeped it was
out of range?

> c. It would be nice if messages could "queue up" when signal is too low

They do. For calls, it's called voicemail. For texts, they show up
when I later get in range of a tower. They don't get dumped into the
wastebasket just because they couldn't be immediately delivered. If
that were true, you'd never receive those texts that were sent when your
phone was powered off.

> When you backcountry hike, you need to be intelligent about not only your
> cellular signal and your incoming/outgoing communications, but also your
> ability to accurate map, track, and navigate without access to the net.

Considering the dearth of tower coverage in the hicks, seems proper
planning has you get a satellite phone if staying in contact is super
important to you.

> If you are an adult, you'll either tell it to Mayayana, or, if you think my
> statements are in any way in error, then tell it to me.

I'm not interested in stalking Mayayana, nor am I shy in noting your
errors.

> If you think I got a _single_ fact wrong, for example, tell it to me.

Done that.

> But don't bullshit me.

Your interpretation.

<more vacuous commands from Andy>
<again more vacuous commands from Andy>
<again more vacuous commands from Andy>

sms wrote:

> The important thing when choosing a carrier is to check coverage on the
> FCC web site
> <https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>
> so you know the _native_ coverage you can expect.

I can't that page to show cellular coverage at all. Do you know the
source of their coverage maps, if they have any? If the sources are the
coverage maps spewed by the Big 3 (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile) then those
maps are inaccurate. There are plenty of dead zones within the red
(high) coverage areas in the Big 3 maps.

> You can also use the Whistleout web site
> <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>

That just points to the Big 3 coverage maps which I already know aren't
accurate. The granularity of their coverage is far too coarse (covers a
large area that may be mostly high coverage, but not everywhere in that
zone is high coverage - it's how they bias their maps). All of the Big
3 claim I'm in a high coverage area. Nope.

> ... see <https://i.imgur.com/sigt8Xg.png>

Okay, that has coloring to show where is coverage. Alas, those are your
screenshots. Is there something extra I have to do at the FCC site to
get the coloring showing cellular coverage, and by which provider?

What I see at FCC site:
- On first visit: https://imgur.com/a/isl4Xhi
- Zoom in: https://imgur.com/a/0mL3UlH
- Zoom in some more: https://imgur.com/a/6MlvfT3

No coloring to show cellular coverage. My adblocker (uBlock Origin)
isn't blocking anything at the FCC site.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Mayayana wrote:
>
>> There was a sad story a few years ago. A CNet tech worker, 26 I
>> think, went camping with his wife and 2 or 3 kids. They drove 25
>> miles up a logging road in California and got stuck on ice, unable
>> to get out. No cell service. They sat there for 2 or 3 days, burning
>> tires to stay warm. Finally the young man wandered off into the
>> woods to look for help. He was found dead of exhaustion. The rest
>> were eventually saved.
>
> Oh Jesus. Where do I start?

Probably best not to.

> People like Mayayana are dangerous not because they're ignorant and
> racist, but because they are too stupid to realize they are as stupid
> as they are.
>
> *Almost every single statement in Mayayana's post is patently dead
> wrong.*
> a. He wasn't camping - he was just driving home after Thanksgiving
> b. He wasn't found dead of exhaustion - it was hypothermia
> c. They simply missed a turnoff and decided to follow a secondary road
> etc.

You, nor anyone else, knows the reference of Mayayana's statement. He
never cited a reference, like a news story (which is NOT a blog in the
guise of news). You also do not cite your reference. There is nothing
proving you and Mayayana are talking about the same story. There are
lots of similar stories. Only takes a miniscule of change to tell a
different story. You claim Mayayana was wrong or lying yet you don't
cite a reference to prove your story is the correct one.

Mayayana's folklore mentions a wife and 2 kids along with burning of
tires. Your folklore mentions only the guy driving. Although there is
a bit of similarity, there are significant differences indicating you
two are citing different stories.

> They take the fact that they were stuck in the snow, and then this
> avowed racist manufactures an entire story around irrespondible
> camping.

Hmm, a camping racist. Wonder what is the definition of that.

> It's _why_ Mayayana is a racist.
> a. Mayayana said most black people are criminals at one point.
> b. Mayayana said most jews are trying to steal your money at another.
> c. Mayayana said most Mexicans are in the crime cartels at yet another.

So you say. Got the Message-IDs of those articles by Mayayana as proof?

Even if a racist, they can also add 2 plus 2, cite the news, and perform
other functions that to you are non-racist. Being a racist doesn't
condemn everything he says or does as racist based. Just means you
don't like him. I suspect you're starting to not like me, too, so
obviously that also makes me a racist, or some other disparaging title
you want to hurl at others that disagree with you.

> What Mayayana does with racism is exactly what he did just now.
> A. He takes the bare minimum facts
> B. Then he fabricates his own narrative out of those facts
> C. In order to support his already-foregone conclusion about the event.

That's not racism. Without proof to others, your claims he is a racist
are also fabrications. Give proof, and others may believe you.

> And yet, as always, Mayayana is _completely_ wrong on all the facts.
> Every single one.

So far, this is a case of "I recall" versus "You recall", and the
recollections differ. We don't know your recollection is any more
correct or incorrect than Mayayana's. This is like a parent asking 2
kids who broke the vase, and the two kids point at each other. Uh huh.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> Yet Mayayana is oh so very confident in himself, even as he's always wrong.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

Amazing how you surmized that Mayayana was talking about that guy. I
sure wouldn't have equated the 2 stories. You sure it wasn't you knew
about the one story, and you equated it to Mayayana's story so you could
lambast him on the differences? You could tell many in-the-woods
stories that are similar, but are not the same story. Could be
Mayayana's recollection was about the Kim story, so his recollection was
wrong. Would've been helpful if Mayayana had cited a reference to his
story.

In article <omwav1455sga$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> You, nor anyone else, knows the reference of Mayayana's statement. He
> never cited a reference, like a news story (which is NOT a blog in the
> guise of news).

*many* people know the reference since it was major news at the time
and mayayana often mentions it to 'prove' that gps is bad.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
> Everyone who knows anything knows the story of what happened.

Nope, wrong again. There are plenty of woodland stories that I know of,
that lots of people in my area also know about, but which you never
heard.

> Why did he claim long ago that most black people were criminals?

Guess that would be too long ago for you to provide a MID to his article
stating that.

>> Not using cell phones is also a withdraw symptom in urban areas. People
>> have become grafted to their cell phones. It's the new legal heroin.
>
> BTW, that's an "opinion", which is based on the facts as you know it.

I'm not the one that came up with the term "nomophobia".

> You fabricated that.

Nope. I observed that, and so have others. Do an online search on the
term. Educate yourself instead of arguing it's the way you prefer.

> I suspect you're just vile.

Oh, here it comes folks. Andy has finally gotten close to denouncing me
a vile [troll], or maybe sockpuppet of Mayayana, or some other type of
malcontent. If he really thought me vile, he should plonk me. I
provide plenty of headers to uniquely identify me, and I don't nymshift,
so just the From header is sufficient for a plonk rule. Thunderbird is
limited to which headers on which its filters can test, but my posts
should provide plenty of overview headers on which he can test.

Why don't I plonk him? I'm having fun doing the research he refuses to
do himself.

> You're like an idiot held-back bully who is told Santa isn't real.
> You claim that Santa is real.

Yep, discombobulate by diversion trying to desparately point the finger
at someone else hoping others don't see Andy's true demeanor.

> If I show you facts, you say I disagree with your "opinion".

You haven't shown fact. You cited your realm of experience and
extrapolated it as truth for all. You claim facts, you get disproven,
and then you claim I'm lying, ignorant, or a troll.

> Another opinion which I won't disagree with since my belief systems are
> based on facts and I stick to the facts (you can have your opinions).

Boy, does Andy get stale in claiming he cites facts. He cites his
experiences as facts. If anyone shows actual facts that dispute his
claims, he ignores those and makes vacuous references of attacks against
him.

> Can someone who is smarter than I am read that article and expound
> upon what the lesson is for the SUBJECT of this thread which is
> safety while far from a cellular tower, but perhaps close enough to
> get a few of those pings?

Don't rely on cell phones for survival in wilderness. Use satellite
phone when cell coverage cannot be relied upon, especially if coverage
maps show no coverage in the area. If you intend to travel the boonies,
learn orienteering, carry topographical maps (paper, not on a
battery-operated device), and a compass. If it's winter, don
appropriate apparel for extended travel outside the car. "Kim left his
family to look for help, wearing tennis shoes, a jacket, and light
clothing". Yep, not prepared for the weather outside the car. Deep
snow caused their predicament, but it could've been lack of gas, a
broken gas line, multiple punctured or ripped tires, or a myriad of
other car failures. No car is fail-proof. Don't traverse deep snow or
any offroad hazard you are unsure your vehicle can handle, especially on
an "unpaved logging road". Hell, they weren't even driving a SUV (which
many owners mistake as offroad trucks), but a Saab 9-2X. This is a
commuter car, not an off-roader. Why the hell did they go on a logging
road?

They got stuck in the snow. They really had no experience that snow can
happen around Thanksgiving, or in that area? Why didn't they have a
folding shovel in the trunk, tire chains, and other tools? Bet they
also don't have a tow strap, too, or a toolbox, extra bottle of
windshield fluid, spare engine oil, flashlights, glow sticks, matches or
lighters or both, winter mylar "space" suits, blankets, water bottles
(even if they get frozen, they can thaw), tire inflator, spare valve
cores. Didn't bother to check if their car is one of those that went
cheap by omitting a spare tire, but many users never bother to check the
pressure of their spare tire even if they get around to checking
pressures of the mounted tires. Many drivers don't equip their cars for
failures or emergencies.

"Although the Kims had a cellular phone with them, their remote location
in the mountains was out of range of the cellular network, rendering the
phone unusable for voice calls."

Pretty much it has been stated several times no calls are possible if a
cell tower is unreachable. Nothing to expound upon regarding making 911
calls.

They returned from a Thanksgiving party. Was this the first time they
traveled the area? This was a mountainous area. Cell phone users don't
know radio doesn't pass through mountains? They're driving far outside
any towns, and they've never done that before in or around that area to
know cell towers are sparse?

While they dug themself deeper into trouble, and although cell towers
were too far away for making calls, the wiki article says they were able
to send texts. Why didn't they text to 911? Back in 2017, 6 mobile
providers (AT&T, i_Wireless, Sprint, T-mobile, US Cellular, Verizon)
enabled support for texting to 911. Alas, the Kim story dates back to
2006, but today text-to-911 is available in many, but not all, areas
with sparse density of cell towers.

https://www.slicktext.com/blog/2014/08/understanding-text-to-911/

Rather than test by texting to 911, I suggest to call the local police
in the intended areas of travel, or to ask them how to contact the PSAPs
(Public Safety Answering Point) to inquire about text-to-911 service.
Texting requires less power than calls, especially since the power (to
the antenna) is only used when sending, not when composing. Texting
leaves the screen on while phones usually blank the screen when it is
held close to the head, like next to the ear during calls, so lower the
brightness to preserve power. This wouldn't have helped the Kims back
in 2006, but micky is asking about today.

Rather than check which states have text-to-911, instead check which
states don't: Alaska, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and South Dakota (per
https://www.slicktext.com/blog/2014/08/understanding-text-to-911/).
That doesn't mean every PSAP supports text-to-911 statewide in the
"covered" states.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/what-you-need-know-about-text-911
"FCC rules require all wireless carriers and other providers of text
messaging applications in the United States to deliver emergency texts
to call centers that request them. If a call center requests
text-to-911 service, text messaging providers must deliver the service
in that area within six months."

So, it depends on the PSAPs to issue the text-to-911 requests that the
cellular carriers in that area must then support within 6 months. What
is slow is the PSAPs gearing up to adopt the text-to-911 service. There
is a link in that article to an Excel spreadsheet updated monthly listed
which PSAPs have text-to-911 service. On caveat: for texting to 911,
you must have an active cellular plan (so you need a SIM card, too).
While you might carry around a no-plan no-SIM phone in your car's glove
box to use with nearby cell towers to make 911 calls, it is unlikely
you'll be toting a no-plan no-SIM phone into the woods.

In my state, it looks like the sparsest counties, like those in
low-density rural or forested areas, are where the PSAPs have so far
adopted the text-to-911 service, probably because that is where cellular
coverage is poor. Where there is higher density of cell towers the
text-to-911 service probably isn't needed since 911 calls are possible
and preferred.

The Excel document is grouped by publish dates for updates to the list.
No one publish section lists all the PSAPs that have adopted
text-to-911. Instead you have to aggregate each publish group to get a
comprehensive list by state and county. I gave on trying to sort the
spreadsheet by state (kept getting different errors) to sort by state
first and county second to get an aggregate list of all PSAPs in my
state that support text-to-911. It wasn't something I needed to know
right now.

While you might be too far from a tower to make a 911 call, you might
just be close enough in a supported area to send a 911 text.

sms wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The first FCC map doesn't show cell coverage at all. ...
>> I couldn't get this map to show cell coverage.
>
> You have to check the boxes on the right for each carrier. Look at this
> example <https://i.imgur.com/eO1LWZ2.png>.

Argh! In Firefox, that right-side pane (Layer List) is blank (and no
content is getting blocked). In Edge Chromium, I see the checkboxes,
and list of carriers. Seems odd the FCC site is Chrome-only.

https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-online/reference/browsers.htm

That lists Firefox 94+ as supported. I have Firefox 97.0.2. I don't
have local storage disabled in Firefox, but I do have Firefox purge all
locally cached storage on its exit. I went into FF's security settings,
selected the Custom mode for Browser Security for Enhanced Tracking
Protections, and disabled all the protections, refreshed the tabs, but
still a blank right-side Layer List pane. I disabled all add-ons,
restarted FF, but still the blank Layer List pane. That site does not
like Firefox.

I backed off in the URL to:

https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html

In its toolbar is a Layer List icon. Clicked that, got a popup frame
(not a pane) for Layer List, but it was empty.

https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-online-questions/portal-works-in-ei-and-chrome-but-not-in-firefox/td-p/521843

Might be an old problem when using Firefox. Another article:

https://geotalk.cast.uark.edu/the-best-web-browsers-for-arcgis-online/

mentions "Only WebGL-enabled browsers are supported." I went into
about:config, but webgl.disabled = False (meaning WebGL is enabled)
which is also the default setting, plus the WebGL examples at
https://webglsamples.org/ played okay.

Tried to resolve. ArcGIS don't like my Firefox. Thanks for the help.

On 3/4/2022 7:32 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

<snip>

> That cites 7 out of 100 cellular users are using an MVNO. Reflects that
> many just go with name brands instead of expending the effort to
> research what is the best deal for them.

Well technically a lot fewer now, since a carrier-owned prepaid is not
considered a MVNO and Verizon now owns Tracfone whose various brands
probably comprised 80% of that 7%.

The reality is that the need for home micro-cells largely went away when
Wi-Fi calling became available; even most prepaid and MVNOs now provide
Wi-Fi calling. So even though a carrier may provide a micro-cell, free
upon request, there's not much upside in getting one.

For commercial and government buildings micro-cells are another story
since those entities may not want to provide free open Wi-Fi. My City
tried for years to get AT&T to put in a micro-cell in some buildings, to
no avail. It was a constant complaint by residents that there was no
AT&T or T-Mobile coverage at city hall and the library, and for most of
that time there was no Wi-Fi calling. It was an especially big issue as
soon as the iPhone came out in 2007 since it was only on AT&T for the
first few years and a lot of residents switched from Verizon to AT&T to
get an iPhone, unaware that AT&T coverage had a lot of gaps.

Finally, about three years ago, AT&T started sharing a fake tree cell
tower with Verizon and that issue was addressed, at least for the city
hall and library but it took 15 year or so. I remember when AT&T added
their "branches" to the tree, which I can see from my back yard and my
wife said "where did that tall tree come from?" (see
<https://i.imgur.com/WU3jRCB.jpeg>). But in some other parts of the city
(and other areas in the ZIP code, it is still Verizon-only (see a
comparison, from the FCC maps, at <https://i.imgur.com/ZwDGmp0.png>.

But it's still not very smart to choose a cellular carrier that doesn't
provide service at your home when there are others that do. Broadband
service isn't 100% reliable. Maybe once ever two months or so my Comcast
broadband will go down, usually for only a short time, sometimes for
hours (if a shared utility pole is being replaced, and the poles in my
neighborhood are at an age that is requiring replacement of many).

It's also not very smart to choose a wireless carrier that has the worst
coverage in your area. One 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, see:
<https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png/>.

I never understood people that make a poor buying decision about goods
or services and then, rather that say "I made a big mistake, you should
learn from me and not do the same thing," instead encourage others to
make the same mistake that they did.

In article <svvucc$iv$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

> My City
> tried for years to get AT&T to put in a micro-cell in some buildings, to
> no avail. It was a constant complaint by residents that there was no
> AT&T or T-Mobile coverage at city hall and the library, and for most of
> that time there was no Wi-Fi calling.

sprint had excellent coverage back in the 1990s at the library in 'your
city', and quite likely the others did as well.

> It was an especially big issue as
> soon as the iPhone came out in 2007 since it was only on AT&T for the
> first few years and a lot of residents switched from Verizon to AT&T to
> get an iPhone, unaware that AT&T coverage had a lot of gaps.

also wrong.

first of all, that was 15 years ago and things are very, very different
now.

second, the problem was *not* gaps, but rather that at&t's network was
overloaded due to the popularity of the iphone. coverage was actually
very good, it's just that at&t thought that usage patterns would be
similar to previous smartphones and was unprepared for the actual
demand. it didn't help that they offered unlimited bandwidth.

third, the overloading was mainly dense urban areas, such as san
francisco and new york, and in peak hours. in other areas, including in
'your city' and nearby cities prior to the iphone, and off-peak hours,
there were few issues, if any. in fact, at&t made sure that 'your city'
and nearby had excellent coverage, because that's where a substantial
amount of testing of the iphone was done and at&t had a vested interest
in its success.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:30:54 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/4/2022 5:21 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> As evidenced by your history in Usenet, anyone that disagrees with you
>> or holds a differing opinion just must be a troll. Uh huh.
>
>In the past, I've urged Andy/Harry/Arlen/Dean to change his approach:
> 1. Stop constant nymshifting

Nymshifting is the mark of a troll. Trolls do it to get out of the
killfiles they are in. But it works for only a couple of days.

> 2. Base his posts based on referenced facts
> 3. Stop lying and shilling

Of course that's another mark of a troll.

Urging a troll to change his behavior is useless.
--
The real, original Ken Blake, not some other newcomer

On 3/5/2022 12:00 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The first FCC map doesn't show cell coverage at all. ...
>>> I couldn't get this map to show cell coverage.
>>
>> You have to check the boxes on the right for each carrier. Look at this
>> example <https://i.imgur.com/eO1LWZ2.png>.
>
> Argh! In Firefox, that right-side pane (Layer List) is blank (and no
> content is getting blocked). In Edge Chromium, I see the checkboxes,
> and list of carriers. Seems odd the FCC site is Chrome-only.

Works in Firefox (97.0.2 64 bit) for me.

VanguardLH wrote:

>> Everyone who knows anything knows the story of what happened.
>
> Nope, wrong again. There are plenty of woodland stories that I know of,
> that lots of people in my area also know about, but which you never
> heard.

Everyone knew _that_ story if they weren't completely ignorant of news.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

Anyway, maybe Mayayana can feverishly dig up a _different_ story.
One that fits his pre-defined racist leanings better perhaps?

Shouldn't be too hard to find, even for a moron like Mayayana is.
a. Find an unprepared camper story (shouldn't be too hard)
b. Who died of exhaustion (not too hard to find either I would think)
c. A few years ago (not too hard to find as this is easy to find)
d. It's a "CNet worker" (well, that is going to be hard for Mayayana)
e. In his twenties (Mayayana said "26 I think" so about that range)
f. Who went camping with "his wife and 2 or 3 kids" as Mayayana said
g. They drive "25 miles up a logging road in California" (harder)
h. And then "got stuck on ice, unable to get out" (even harder now)
i. "No cell service" (well, that one is back to being easy to find)
j. "They sat there for 2 or 3 days" (again, gonna be hard to find)
k. "burning tires to stay warm" (Wow, Mayayana is gonna be digging)
l. "Finally the young man wandered off into the woods to look for help"
m. "He was found dead of exhaustion"
n. "The rest were eventually saved."

Vanguard,
You may assume Mayayana is smart, and that's fine, so all I ask _you_ to do
is tell us all how Mayayana's story does _not_ fit (only in outline) this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

And yet, true to form *for all the racists out there*, Mayayana _changed_
the story tremendously, in ways that _fit_ his pre-defined racist narrative.
o. "They could have walked out of there in maybe 8 hours."
p. "They should have had camping supplies to last several days."
q. "There must have been something they could have done to free the car."
r. "But this was a geek with little experience of physicality, much less camping."

Mayayana's racist narrative was a "geek went camping unprepared and the
bastard died of exhaustion as a result of his own camping unpreparedness".

And yet, that's _not_ even close to what happened.
What happened was a "geek visited friends on Thanksgiving and they took a
wrong turn, and then a cavalcade of errors resulted in his death".

But Mayayana needed his racist pre-defined opinion to have a back story.
So Mayayana fabricated the important details (i.e., Kim wasn't camping).

You don't see that instantly_ Vanguard?
Really?

I did.

I think only a _stupid_ person wouldn't have seen exactly what I saw.
Instantly.

Remember when all the iKooks (and, notably, Frank Slootweg) congratulated
Snit for finally, after two decades of posting, proving me wrong once?

You don't?
I do.

Here's the video that they all applauded as showing that the iPhone did
indeed have an app that showed signal strength for all visible Wi-Fi APs.
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> Hilarious Snit video

Vanguard, I'm not stupid.
Instantly, I saw what _all_ the iKooks missed (as did Frank Slootweg).
Yet none of them noticed the _most important fact_ of all.

Not a single one of them noticed that.
They had a pre-defined narrative and they were sticking to it.

Either that, or all the iKooks (and Frank Slootweg) are utter morons.
Because only a moron wouldn't notice, _instantly_ the fatal flaw.

These people are _incredibly_ stupid, Vanguard.
Don't be one of them.

Remember Vanguard: I'm not afraid of facts. Facts don't scare me.
Facts only petrify people (like you) who are wrong on them. Not me.

My belief system is based on facts.
If there are new facts, I change my belief system.

Remember what I say, Vanguard, since you confuse facts with opinions.
(Only stupid people do that, by the way - which is _why_ they're stupid.)

No adult disagrees with facts; facts are funny that way.
If they disagree with facts, they're fools (fools are funny that way).
Yet adults can reasonably disagree on opinions (also known as assessments).
Adults are funny that way.

You claimed I disagreed on opinions, where that's normal even if I did
disagree on opinions, so where in hell do you get up on a huff about it?

What really happened is you're stupid.
You don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact.

What I disagreed with was people were stating incorrect technical facts.
That's all I cared to correct.

Incorrect technical facts.
Not "incorrect technical opinions".
But incorrect technical facts.

You don't know the difference between them.
But I do.

As do all adults.
Yet, you don't.

You're allowed any opinion you want to have, as long as you don't claim it
as a fact, I won't disagree with it (and if I do, I'll apologize the instant
you point it out as I don't derive my self esteem from your opinions).

My challenge stands that you are (a) stupid or, you (b) you simply lied.
*Name just one*

PS: Technical stuff to be covered separately as this is about you making
your vile comments about this thread which you repeatedly fail to back up.
--
I'm not afraid of facts but ignorant people like Vanguard are afraid of
people like me because they don't own the adult tools to deal with facts.

This is what Mayayana says that Vanguard is defending as "fact".

There was a sad story a few years ago. A CNet tech worker,
26 I think, went camping with his wife and 2 or 3 kids. They
drove 25 miles up a logging road in California and got stuck on
ice, unable to get out. No cell service. They sat there for 2 or 3
days, burning tires to stay warm. Finally the young man wandered
off into the woods to look for help. He was found dead of exhaustion.
The rest were eventually saved.

They could have walked out of there in maybe 8 hours. They
should have had camping supplies to last several days. There
must have been something they could have done to free the car.
But this was a geek with little experience of physicality, much less
camping.

VanguardLH wrote:

>>> Yet Mayayana is oh so very confident in himself, even as he's always wrong.
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>
>
> Amazing how you surmized that Mayayana was talking about that guy.

Vanguard,
I'm not stupid.
Mayayanay is stupid.
You are stupid.
But I'm not.

You're so stupid, you don't even realize how stupid you really are.

Yet, I'm not afraid of facts.
I would _love_ for you to prove me wrong.
Really I would.

Because nobody has ever proven me wrong on facts in decades of posting.
Not even once [1].

All you need to do is ask Mayayana to point to the story.

See?
It's not hard.

I pointed to the story that Mayayana is really talking about.
You say he could be talking about a different story.

Yet I know Mayayana is a racist.
I know Mayayana is stupid.
I know Mayayana distorted that story to fit his predefined racist objective.

But maybe I'm wrong.
If I am, I'll admit I was wrong.
Openly.
Honestly.

All you need to do is to ask Mayayana to cite where his story came from.
Easy peasy.

HINT: It will never happen because Mayayana _fabricated_ his story
(well, he fabricated the critical components that fit his narrative).

Just like all the iKooks do every day.
And Steve does it with respect to his Covid and Verizon claims.

Only stupid people don't see through these fabrications, Vanguard.
And I'm not stupid.

You are stupid.
I'm not.

Prove me wrong.

> Would've been helpful if Mayayana had cited a reference to his story.

Hehhehheh...

Here's a fact for you Vanguard.
*You did NOT even _ask_ Mayayana to back up his story before refuted mine.*

Why?

HINT: I know why.
--
[1] Sometimes I make a thinko but I correct that as soon as I see it or, if
someone points it out, then I correct that and apologize, and we even have a
thread by badgolferman on where we proved that is a fact when badgolferman
noticed that the iKooks can never admit they were wrong - they just double
down harder when they're wrong (as Vanguard is doing right now in fact).

On 3/4/2022 7:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> The important thing when choosing a carrier is to check coverage on the
>> FCC web site
>> <https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>
>> so you know the _native_ coverage you can expect.
>
> I can't that page to show cellular coverage at all. Do you know the
> source of their coverage maps, if they have any? If the sources are the
> coverage maps spewed by the Big 3 (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile) then those
> maps are inaccurate. There are plenty of dead zones within the red
> (high) coverage areas in the Big 3 maps.

The maps are based on the FCC database of cell towers (location,
frequency, power). There will be places that have coverage that show no
coverage and vice-versa. Also, the FCC maps don't show roaming coverage.
A lot of MVNOs and prepaid services have limited or no roaming while
postpaid will often have some off-network roaming available. For roaming
coverage you have to look at the carrier's own maps and be aware that
there are often limitations when roaming, especially for data.

So the FCC maps are not perfect, nor are the carrier's own maps. But you
can still get an a good idea of the differences in coverage between
carriers.

Also, for now, the FCC maps don't show 5G coverage but since 5G coverage
is a subset of 4G LTE coverage, that's not so important for checking
coverage (though perhaps it would be useful for checking speed if a 5G
map distinguished between 5G low band, 5G mid band, and mmWave. For
comparing 5G coverage the Whistleout maps are good. Between the two, you
can get a pretty good idea of which carrier is best in your area.

FCC maps:
<https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b>

Whistleout maps: <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>

On 3/5/2022 7:49 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

<snip>

> Nymshifting is the mark of a troll. Trolls do it to get out of the
> killfiles they are in. But it works for only a couple of days.
>
>
>> 2. Base his posts based on referenced facts
>> 3. Stop lying and shilling
>
>
> Of course that's another mark of a troll.
>
> Urging a troll to change his behavior is useless.

When my Usenet provider was down (eternal-september) I temporarily added
another free provider. Of course none of my filters were in place so I
had to add them back, but with only seven filters this group was back to
normal. A lot of the 64 filters for this group, in my regular Usenet
provider didn't do anything anymore because trolls had either
nym-shifted or disappeared completely, or a subject-specific filter was
no longer needed.