On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 05:45:42 -0800, sms wrote:

> Untrue. But you already knew that.
>
> Look at the actual FCC maps for cellular coverage in that area (from
> https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b):
> <https://i.imgur.com/0Nn3C2P.png>.
>
> Look at the actual WhistleOut maps for cellular coverage in that area
> (from https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage):
> <https://i.imgur.com/orl84Fb.png>.
>
> Indeed, T-Mobile coverage is extremely spotty. AT&T coverage is a bit
> better. Verizon coverage is excellent. And I've personally experienced
> this as well at Mount Madonna and Mount Umunhum though not at Loma
> Prieta Peak.

In this thread about iOS/Android backcountry offline free registration free
ad free navigation tools, I'm not going to argue cellular coverage for a
couple of rather pragmatic reasons, one of which is that for the topic of
backcountry navigation, we have to _assume_ that cell coverage isn't
assured.

And given I've emailed the map information mostly to the kids who are on
@vtext.com accounts (verizon) & some are one @txt.att.net accounts (AT&T)
and even one person is on a @tmomail.com account (t-mobile)... what that
means, practically speaking, is that coverage has to be there for all the
major carriers for me to give up on trying to find offline navigation tools.

The goal is for all of them to map together, so if even _one_ carrier (most
likely T-Mobile is what you're saying and I'm fine with that for this
purpose), then we _still_ need to give them fully offline navigation tools.

Yet another reason why coverage doesn't matter for this thread even if it
very well may be that the areas in question are _not_ backcountry areas in
terms of (oh, say, Verizon) cellular coverage is that coverage in any one
spot doesn't change the _second_ reason for this thread, which, as always,
is to help _others_ (who may be in completely different areas of the USA).

> At least, for the safety of the children, go get a Verizon/Total
> Wireless SIM card, for $1, and activate a $10/120 day account on
> Verizon/Page Plus, so they'll have coverage in case of emergency
> (assuming they have a phone that is compatible).

The kids are already on their way as they all met up at the break of dawn.

One thing I'm actually worried about is that the weather at this time of
year can get at least to freezing at night, and these kids can be soaking
wet since you can't possibly hike this area without ending up in a ravine.

But that's up to all the parents to worry about where I'm just trying to
find suitable best-in-class navigation apps that the kids can make use of.

> Here is a coverage comparison for southern Alameda, San Mateo, Santa
> Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties: <https://i.imgur.com/1w58JJA.png>. Again
> the coverage differences, outside of the urban areas, are enormous. All
> the experts agree that if coverage in rural areas is important that you
> should stick with Verizon (or at least have a Verizon back-up phone).
>
> Also see the document: Prepaid Phone Service for Foreign Visitors to
> the United States at <https://tinyurl.com/us-prepaid-foreign>.

It's OK that you feel the coverage is better for some carriers than others
in the rugged mountains between Loma Prieta & Mount Madonna, but that
doesn't change the goal one bit for fully offline backcountry nav tools.

One necessary functionality we didn't cover in depth for backcountry use is
a breadcrumb logger, where I already know OSMAnd~ has a fine trip recording
plugin. <https://osmand.net/features/trip-recording-plugin>

Since I'm always all about team efforts, and since I always want everyone to
benefit from the tremendous knowledge imparted by everyone in every thread,
here are some breadcrumb trackers I was able to begin testing for them.

Since I was pressed for time, I only researched Android breadcrumb apps.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmtracker>
<https://www.basicairdata.eu/projects/android/android-gps-logger/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ilyabogdanovich.geotracker>
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.dennisguse.opentracks/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.maptrek.lite>

Even though it's too late for this set of kids' hike, if you know of good
iOS free login free ad free breadcrumb apps, let us know so that everyone
can make use of the information in this thread (especially since the "rich
kids" in this hike are mostly on iOS & Verizon anyway).

On 1/1/2022 9:00 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 05:45:42 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> Untrue. But you already knew that.
>>
>> Look at the actual FCC maps for cellular coverage in that area (from
>> https://fcc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6c1b2e73d9d749cdb7bc88a0d1bdd25b):
>> <https://i.imgur.com/0Nn3C2P.png>.
>>
>> Look at the actual WhistleOut maps for cellular coverage in that area
>> (from https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage):
>> <https://i.imgur.com/orl84Fb.png>.
>>
>> Indeed, T-Mobile coverage is extremely spotty. AT&T coverage is a bit
>> better. Verizon coverage is excellent. And I've personally experienced
>> this as well at Mount Madonna and Mount Umunhum though not at Loma
>> Prieta Peak.
>
> In this thread about iOS/Android backcountry offline free registration free
> ad free navigation tools, I'm not going to argue cellular coverage for a
> couple of rather pragmatic reasons, one of which is that for the topic of
> backcountry navigation, we have to _assume_ that cell coverage isn't
> assured.

Not assured, but especially in the Santa Cruz Mountains, where it's
really not "back country" there's a tremendous difference in coverage
because Verizon and AT&T service evolved over 3+ decades and the
carriers they were spawned from spent a lot of money to cover the area.
There was a slight dip in coverage when AMPS was turned off. T-Mobile
just never made much of an effort, at first it was because it would take
so many towers to provide coverage with 1900 MHz GSM and later because
the population density just didn't warrant the capital expenditures.

I know that 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.

In article <sqq2vt$am2$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I know that 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.

you are the very opposite of honest and you shill for verizon.

the differences between the big three cell carriers are not 'vast' and
there are plenty of areas in the santa cruz mountains where there is no
service at all, not even verizon.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 09:28:19 -0800, sms wrote:

> Not assured, but especially in the Santa Cruz Mountains, where it's
> really not "back country" there's a tremendous difference in coverage
> because Verizon and AT&T service evolved over 3+ decades and the
> carriers they were spawned from spent a lot of money to cover the area.

I agree with you that it's not "back country" per se, in that there will
always be "something" of civilization within a few miles as the crow flies.
Mount Madonna:
<https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.0112,-121.70288&z=15&b=mbt>
Loma Prieta:
<https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.10831,-121.84426&z=15&b=mbt>

I realize knowledgeable people like you and nospam already know what the
area is like but for the others reading this to get an idea of what these
high school kids are attempting this four page geoPDF map shows the track.
<https://caltopo.com/p/62GGH> (this free map will only last for 7 days)

> There was a slight dip in coverage when AMPS was turned off. T-Mobile
> just never made much of an effort, at first it was because it would take
> so many towers to provide coverage with 1900 MHz GSM and later because
> the population density just didn't warrant the capital expenditures.

This is my T-Mobile coverage on my balcony for 5G on my free T-Mobile phone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>

I can't complain that I get 250Mbps even with the high 29ms ping latencies.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>

> I know that 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.

Remember, T-Mobile upgraded all USA customers on postpaid with any data to
unlimited data including unlimited 5G data and we have free roaming and free
hotspotting also so while I know you love Verizon, I don't know if you have
a family plan as good as mine where they gave me a handful of free Samsung
phones and free upgrades to almost everything.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L6dFGXVd/tmopromo03.jpg>

Still, it doesn't really matter what the coverage is for a thread on what
the best offline backcountry nav related apps are since you can't be assured
of coverage everywhere on the planet just because you love Verizon Steve.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg>

However, I will grant you the bulk of these kids are on iPhones (almost all
of them actually) and most of them are on Verizon based on the email-to-text
addresses they gave me to send them the maps. Only one is on T-Mobile. My
grand daughter who is a high school kid (and who is on an iPhone 12 mini
that T-Mobile gave me for less than half price although California made me
pay 10% sales tax on the full price that nobody every pays except idiots).
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg>

On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:34:09 -0500, nospam wrote:

> [Steve is] the very opposite of honest and [he] shills for verizon.

I'm not exactly sure why Steve is even bringing up Verizon coverage versus
AT&T and T-Mobile because the whole point of "back country navigation" is
that you can't ever assume that a cell tower will be within reach.

Nonetheless, I gave them apps which will show the nearest cell tower on an
OSM map (not the Internet kind of tower lookup but a real estimate) so if
they need to "head toward" a tower, they can and they can easily tell which
tower is closest (Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile) simply by which phone shows the
closest tower on the OSM map inside that FOSS non-Internet tower-lookup app.
<https://github.com/mvglasow/satstat>

> the differences between the big three cell carriers are not 'vast' and
> there are plenty of areas in the santa cruz mountains where there is no
> service at all, not even verizon.

The kids must be within coverage because I received a text from them at 11am
regarding their progress hiking in the hundred acre wood since daybreak.

Moving forward on the thread topic so that everyone can benefit from what we
all collectively can add to the mix, these are a bunch of the free ad free
login free smartphone map-creation apps I didn't get a chance to test out.

*Trail Sense* smartphone hiking toolkit by Kyle Corry
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kylecorry.trail_sense>
It can place beacons so you can navigate back to them without the net.
It will tell you when the sun will set so you know when to pitch the tent.
Without the Internet, it says it can even predict the weather.

*Paper Maps* by Abbro Inc (this seems to be an Avenza clone perhaps?)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.abbro.androidmap>
This implies it will open almost any map format no matter what.
*Custom Maps* by Marko Teittinen
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.custommapsapp.android>
This implies it can make a custom map out of almost any image you have.

*Magic Earth* offline routing app by General Magic
<https://www.magicearth.com/>
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/magic-earth-gps-navigation/id1007331679>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.generalmagic.magicearth>
This claims to have 3D maps with 3-inch accuracy on both iOS and Android.
But unfortunately it uses underlying OSM maps.

*All-In-One Offline Maps* by Psyberia
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.psyberia.offlinemaps>
*AlpineQuest Off-Road Explorer (Lite)* by Psyberia
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=psyberia.alpinequest.free>
This app claims to have topographic maps all stored offline.

*SatMap Xplorer* supposedly accurate mapping software
<https://www.satmap.com/pages/xplorer-gps-app>
<https://apps.apple.com/am/app/satmap-xplorer-gps/id1473009894>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.satmap.xplorergps>

Please note that I haven't tested these apps but they were on my list to
test for these kids, but time ran out and the kids are on the mountain as we
speak.

Tonight will be a test for some of them who have never camped out before.

Let's hope they don't have to stop in a spot so steep they have to tie their
legs around a tree not to roll down the hill (oh, those were the days).

On 1/1/2022 11:55 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:34:09 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> [Steve is] the very opposite of honest and [he] shills for verizon.
>
> I'm not exactly sure why Steve is even bringing up Verizon coverage versus
> AT&T and T-Mobile because the whole point of "back country navigation" is
> that you can't ever assume that a cell tower will be within reach.

Not for navigation, but in case of emergency. The route between Loma
Prieta and Mount Madonna is _not_ "back country" in the middle of
nowhere. It's an area where there are scattered residences, camps, and
parks, where you'd have mobile coverage most of the way.

However it's not a hike where you're going through a bunch of connected
parks, and even the parks that are along the way don't have trails from
one end to the other, and are often not suitable for going cross-country
because of the terrain and the undergrowth.

In any case 911 works no matter which carrier you are using so in case
of a real emergency it's fine.

On 1/1/2022 11:55 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:34:09 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> [Steve is] the very opposite of honest and [he] shills for verizon.
>
> I'm not exactly sure why Steve is even bringing up Verizon coverage versus
> AT&T and T-Mobile because the whole point of "back country navigation" is
> that you can't ever assume that a cell tower will be within reach.

Just trying to educate you, especially in this situation where it's a
matter of safety.

The area along Summit Road and Skyline Boulevard, on the Santa Clara and
San Mateo Counties side, is an area that I am very familiar with.

AT&T and T-Mobile coverage up in the Santa Cruz Mountains area is spotty
and most residents use Verizon, see the FCC map of the area at
<https://i.imgur.com/pzIvgYu.jpg>.

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.

In message <sqsip4$7mi$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> AT&T and T-Mobile coverage up in the Santa Cruz Mountains area is spotty

You are so full of shit.

> and most residents use Verizon, see the FCC map of the area at
> <https://i.imgur.com/

That is not the FCC, that is you, and you are not a trustworthy source.

--
But just because you've seen me on your TV Doesn't mean I'm any more
enlightened than you

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 08:10:10 -0800, sms wrote:

> 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.

All I know is that two Verizon and one T-Mobile kid is still on the hike
where the others who turned back (admittedly most were on Verizon) found
some way to call their parents so they must have had cellular signal.

The Mount Umunhum (mt. hummingbird) weather station is showing 4 to 7 degree
(about 40 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit) which isn't all that bad to sleep in.
<https://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Umunhum/forecasts/1062>

What would be on topic and useful to add value in the new year is to list
free ad free iPhone and Android apps which can queue up an sms/mms message
so that the kids can set up that sms/mms message at any time and then the
app will repeatedly try to send that sms/mms message even if it only has a
one minute (or whatever) window of cellular coverage in sight.

Having never considered the task before, how do most iOS and Android mms/sms
messaging apps handle a message when the user attempts to send it at a time
when there is no cellular coverage, and then later, a coverage window opens?

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 17:51:05 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> That is not the FCC, that is you, and you are not a trustworthy source.

It's well known Steve loves Verizon which doesn't matter in this case since
most of these kids are on Verizon iPhones anyway but others are on T-Mobile
and Android (as one would expect with a gaggle of HS kids going on a hike).

That's why the thread had to work with both iOS & Android where one is my
granddaughter (on an iPhone 12 mini by the way, on T-Mobile) where they
asked me for help since they knew I have plenty of both the iOS & Android
platforms (and where most of the solution was worked out on Windows 10).

The three kids left (two Verizon and one T-Mobile, all iPhones) are still on
the trail as far as we know, but the ones who gave up early had an
interestingly memorable reason why, which was something along the lines of:
"The mind wants to continue but the body just wants to get a cup of coffee"

We were texted pictures if folks are interested by those who returned, but
we haven't heard from those who are already late as they were slated to have
completed the hike by noon today (yet we haven't heard much from them).
<https://peakvisor.com/peak/mount-madonna.html?yaw=-44.37&pitch=0.62&hfov=9.48>

It's a _steep_ climb up to Loma Prieta the direction they may be coming from
<https://www.topozone.com/california/santa-clara-ca/summit/loma-prieta/>

BTW, the fact that towers will be on the tall bare mountains but not in the
deep verdant ravines is one reason we need good "SOS-type" texting apps
where you hit a button and the app will queue a given message to cycle back
every (settable) number of minutes (or hours) testing whether there is
signal so that the message can be sent the minute a signal is encountered.

The automated message could be as simple as:
"Time 12:00pm 37.1107807�N,-121.8446759�W, 3,766 feet (1,148 meters)"

If you're both knowledgeable and purposefully helpful, what free cross
platform ad free app are you aware of that will do something extremely
useful like that automatic queuing up to send when a signal is found?

On 1/4/2022 12:42 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 17:51:05 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> That is not the FCC, that is you, and you are not a trustworthy source.

> It's well known Steve loves Verizon which doesn't matter in this case since
> most of these kids are on Verizon iPhones anyway but others are on T-Mobile
> and Android (as one would expect with a gaggle of HS kids going on a hike).

Lewis is wrong of course™.

The link I provided <https://i.imgur.com/0Nn3C2P.png> shows the maps
from the FCC web site
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map> for coverage
in that area.

The link I provided <https://i.imgur.com/orl84Fb.png> shows the maps
from the Whistleout web site
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.

The difference in coverage is not debatable.

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.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:59:43 -0800, sms wrote:

> The difference in coverage is not debatable.

I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.
It's also not relevant when we're asking for cross platform apps.
It's especially not relevant when you have a gaggle of kids.
Each of whom may be on iPhones (mostly) or Verizon (mostly).
But maybe not.

The question was which cross platform free ad free apps do hiking best.
The answer is in this thread, which the kids made use of before they left.

What we need now is simply a good free ad free cross platform SMS app.
That app would queue up a message or a location stamp at settable times.
That app would continually try to send the message if there is no signal.
The _instant_ they have signal, the queued up messages would be sent off.

That way we'd know roughly where they are without them needing to stop.
It might use up a lot of battery though (which they won't have much of).

Anyway, all the kids are back. Safe & sound, I'm told.
They completed their three-day adventure in the hundred acre wood.
Almost on schedule (they apparently kept to the route most of the way).
The only problem was they only went about three quarters of the goal.

But that's good enough considering some of these kids never hiked back
country before where I must repeat it's rather steep in these mountains.

Overall this one picture sums up this type of trip in a succinct way.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Rqrr666J/tentsite.jpg>

Thanks everyone for all your help and advice choosing the best cross
platform apps for people to use on both iOS & Android for offroad hikes.

On 2022-01-04 4:30 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:59:43 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> The difference in coverage is not debatable.
> I get it that...

....no one will respond to you unless you keep changing your posting
name, Arlen?

Yeah... ...we get that too.

:-)

On 1/4/2022 4:30 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:59:43 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> The difference in coverage is not debatable.
>
> I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.

No, how anyone "feels" about coverage is immaterial. You need to look at
the actual coverage. Fortunately there are multiple ways to do that.

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.

On 2022-01-04 5:18 p.m., sms wrote:
> On 1/4/2022 4:30 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:59:43 -0800, sms wrote:
>>
>>> The difference in coverage is not debatable.
>>
>> I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.
>
> No, how anyone "feels" about coverage is immaterial. You need to look at
> the actual coverage. Fortunately there are multiple ways to do that.
>
> 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.

Whereas Arlen doesn't feel it important to be honest, period.

In article <sr2sbg$1il6$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:

> >> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:59:43 -0800, sms wrote:
> >>> The difference in coverage is not debatable.
> >>
> >> I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.
> >
> > No, how anyone "feels" about coverage is immaterial. You need to look at
> > the actual coverage. Fortunately there are multiple ways to do that.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Whereas Arlen doesn't feel it important to be honest, period.

neither does sms.

t-mobile coverage is nowhere near as bad as he claims, from people who
have actually used it.

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 17:18:37 -0800, sms wrote:

>> I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.
>
> No, how anyone "feels" about coverage is immaterial. You need to look at
> the actual coverage. Fortunately there are multiple ways to do that.

Rest assured that I explained to you quite a few times already that while
this thread isn't about coverage, I _did_ look in detail at your coverage
maps, and, in fact, I even plotted out the bearing the kids planned out.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wBFsj6wD/0Nn3C2P.jpg>

You should know by now that I've never stated an incorrect fact on Usenet in
decades of posting simply because my belief systems are _based_ on facts.
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fXYpgSt/approximatepath.jpg>

Hence, I already re-posted your screenshots and agreed that the coverage
along a bearing these kids had planned shows dramatic coverage differences.
<https://i.postimg.cc/qvTLtvxF/orl84Fb.jpg>

In fact, I also referenced a country-wide scientifically run PC-Magazine
test of all important _speeds_ of the major networks run earlier this year.
*Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>
"For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles,
speed-testing AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities,
towns, and rural regions all over the US. We found a radically
new landscape - and a surprising winner."

Two things about me Steve that you won't find in many others on Usenet.
*Not only am I rather intelligent but I'm objective about facts*

Those observable traits already put me far and above almost all whom you are
conversing with (not that a bar of "Lewis" or "nospam" is all that high).

Bearing in mind that I'm nothing like those Apple apologists who are
despicable people who lie about everything (just as Apple does) in their
defense of everything Apple (no matter what), I understand that you also
have much experience with _both_ iOS and Android devices (as I do also).

That means we can be more objective and correct about the differences when
it comes to finding free ad free google free navigation apps for the kids.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 20:48:05 -0500, nospam wrote:

> neither does sms.
>
> t-mobile coverage is nowhere near as bad as he claims, from people who
> have actually used it.

It would be helpful if people didn't quote either Alan Baker or Rod Speed
when responding in a thread that only _adults_ should be partaking in.

Nobody who is anybody does not have both of those idiots plonked long ago.

Getting back to coverage, while Steve hijacked a thread about cross platform
app functionality for backcountry hiking in the Santa Cruz mountains, if we
objectively _look_ at Steve's coverage maps, a priori, they do show
differences in the bearing that these kids had planned (which Steve didn't
cherry pick because the mountain objectives were chosen by these kids).
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fXYpgSt/approximatepath.jpg>

Looking at Steve's coverage maps, I do seem to see objective differences.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wBFsj6wD/0Nn3C2P.jpg>

Don't you?
<https://i.postimg.cc/qvTLtvxF/orl84Fb.jpg>

I think Steve is trying to point out that in _some_ places, Verizon coverage
is better'n that of T-Mobile (and/or AT&T) which you agree with in the main
in that _every_ carrier has their own unique set of dead zones & hot spots.
*Where Are the Mobile Dead Zones (and Hotspots)?*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/driving-10000-miles-across-the-us-where-are-the-mobile-dead-zones-and-hotspots>

Of course, what matters for most people when it comes time to _choose_ their
cellular provider isn't necessarily the coverage in Uvas Canyon so much as
the coverage at the outside of their house, as shown here for my signal.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

And, let's be clear, not only does signal strength over time matter, but so
does cellular data speed matter, where this is a data speed at my house in
the _same_ Santa Cruz Mountain range that these kids just hiked for days in.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg>

Being objective to both nospam's and even to Lewis' point that T-Mobile is
pretty good, both those indications and that of the countrywide test by PC
Magazine earlier this year show overall T-Mobile coverage & speed is good.
*Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>

Couple that decent coverage and speed with decent prices, and that's why I'm
currently on T-Mobile although I've had both Verizon & AT&T in the past.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
--
Because I'm rather unique on Usenet in being intelligent, purposefully
helpful, and caring that others get all the factual data, the trolls like
Alan Baker, Snit, Lewis, JR, nospam, and Rod Speed hate me. So be it.

On 1/4/2022 6:48 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <sr2sbg$1il6$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> >> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:59:43 -0800, sms wrote:
>> >>> The difference in coverage is not debatable.
>> >>
>> >> I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.
>> >
>> > No, how anyone "feels" about coverage is immaterial. You need to look at
>> > the actual coverage. Fortunately there are multiple ways to do that.
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Whereas Arlen doesn't feel it important to be honest, period.
>
> neither does sms.
>
> t-mobile coverage is nowhere near as bad as he claims, from people who
> have actually used it.

I use Mint, which uses T-mobile. I've never had a problem with coverage
being missing where I was, but I haven't been all over the US.

On 1/5/2022 7:51 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

<snip>

> I use Mint, which uses T-mobile. I've never had a problem with coverage
> being missing where I was, but I haven't been all over the US.

T-Mobile is especially problematic in the western U.S., in lightly
populated and rural areas. In east coast cities it works acceptably well
until you get into the exurbs, "an exurb is an area outside the
typically denser inner suburban area of a metropolitan area."

You can see the vast differences in nationwide coverage here:
<https://i.imgur.com/irqFqyP.png> (data is from
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).

I'm sure that there may be a place where T-Mobile has coverage but that
AT&T or Verizon lack coverage, though I've never personally experienced
any such areas.

I keep a line on T-Mobile's network active for comparison purposes. But
my personal experiences are of less interest than the impartial maps
provided by the FCC or the comparison of the carrier's maps by Whistleout.

I moved my coverage comparisons over to "Coverage Differences Between
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon"
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons>, separating them from
"Prepaid Phone Service for Foreign Visitors to the United States"
<https://tinyurl.com/us-prepaid-foreign>.

The foreign visitors that I mostly interact with are very interested in
going to places outside the cities, like national and state parks, which
are usually located in lightly populated areas and that often only have
coverage by the top-tier carriers. If a visitor only is visiting cities
then they'd be fine with T-Mobile 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.

A couple of years ago, a T-Mobile salesperson dropped off some active
SIM cards with our IT director and he gave me one of them. The T-Mobile
salesperson wanted to get us to move a couple of hundred lines from
Verizon to T-Mobile. It would have saved us over $50K per year. But it
just wasn't practical because of the need for coverage in outlying areas.

I've got no dog in this fight. I've used all three networks in the past,
for various reasons. I had T-Mobile for a while when I wanted the
international low-speed data and included SMS. I had AT&T when they had
the best deal for family plans. Now I'm on Verizon because I value their
coverage.

As always, if there are any errors I'm happy to correct them, just point
them out, with references and citations.

In article <sr4h66$f1u$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> As always, if there are any errors I'm happy to correct them, just point
> them out, with references and citations.

many people have, and you don't, no matter what the topic may be.

On 1/5/2022 9:32 AM, sms wrote:
> On 1/5/2022 7:51 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I use Mint, which uses T-mobile. I've never had a problem with coverage
>> being missing where I was, but I haven't been all over the US.
>
> T-Mobile is especially problematic in the western U.S., in lightly
> populated and rural areas. In east coast cities it works acceptably well
> until you get into the exurbs, "an exurb is an area outside the
> typically denser inner suburban area of a metropolitan area."

The western US is where I live.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:06:10 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

>>> I use Mint, which uses T-mobile. I've never had a problem with coverage
>>> being missing where I was, but I haven't been all over the US.
>>
>> T-Mobile is especially problematic in the western U.S., in lightly
>> populated and rural areas. In east coast cities it works acceptably well
>> until you get into the exurbs, "an exurb is an area outside the
>> typically denser inner suburban area of a metropolitan area."
>
> The western US is where I live.

*Roaming*.
Specifically free *Roaming*.
Specifically T-Mobile has free *Roaming* (in the USA).
Specifically T-Mobile has free *Roaming* (in the USA & in Europe).

What's wrong with free *roaming*?

I don't know how the MVNO's work when *roaming* but T-Mobile USA gives all
of us free *roaming* (at least on regular postpaid plans like mine is).

Assuming dead areas exist a priori, why wouldn't the free *roaming*
handle those areas where Steve claims there is Verizon or AT&T but no
T-Mobile coverage?

Why would Steve claim that the free T-Mobile *roaming* can't do what
*roaming* is specifically designed to do?

What facts can Steve present about *roaming* agreements (which are
_intended_ to handle areas not covered that Steve constantly talks about)?

On 1/5/2022 10:54 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:

<snip>

> What's wrong with free *roaming*?
>
> I don't know how the MVNO's work when *roaming* but T-Mobile USA gives all
> of us free *roaming* (at least on regular postpaid plans like mine is).

LOL, pretty sure that you understand that "free roaming" doesn't mean
"roaming on every other carrier no matter what" (except for 911).

You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, the
carriers, including T-Mobile, roam onto Commnet, see
<https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg>.

The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is limited but
they usually only roam onto the small rural carriers, and not usually
onto AT&T or Verizon.

In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming at all. In the far north there's a little roaming onto U.S.
Cellular and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet.

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 and Verizon MVNOs were being charged.

If you go to Alaska, T-Mobile is 100% roaming and an MVNO like Mint
Mobile has no coverage at all, nor do they roam on a carrier like
Commnet in Death Valley.

I added this information to the document "Coverage Differences Between
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon" at
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons>.

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.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 12:22:48 -0800, sms wrote:

>> What's wrong with free *roaming*?
>>
>> I don't know how the MVNO's work when *roaming* but T-Mobile USA gives all
>> of us free *roaming* (at least on regular postpaid plans like mine is).
>
> LOL, pretty sure that you understand that "free roaming" doesn't mean
> "roaming on every other carrier no matter what" (except for 911).

First off, I never said anything about 911 but what I _did_ say was that
T-Mobile allows free roaming in the USA and in Europe.

I don't know _when_ I'm roaming but when I'm in Europe (which I frequently
visit) the roaming works just fine where _all_ the phone calls and wifi are
on the roaming towers - so we _know_ that roaming works.

I already can assume, ahead of time, that you'll likely claim T-Mobile
roaming in the USA sucks but what actual facts would you base that upon?
> You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
> roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, the
> carriers, including T-Mobile, roam onto Commnet, see
> <https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg>.

If you are going to provide a reference, I'll check it out.
But _that_ reference is in the middle of Death Valley for Christ's sake.

How many hours did you spend trying to find the _one_ spot that fit your
narrative Steve? It's unrealistic to claim the area we live in (which is the
Santa Cruz Mountains) is similar to Death Valley, Steve. It's just not.

We can cherry pick the area, where the area of concern should be where we
both live (which is in the fringes of the Santa Cruz mountains) and in the
case of this thread, the area between Mount Madonna & Loma Prieta.

It's all well and good that I can predict years in advance that you'll claim
Verizon coverage in those two areas is good and that T-Mobile coverage
you'll claim sucks (since that's your history) but we both _live_ there.

My coverage on T-Mobile is just fine and getting even better over time,
particularly with 5G for example - and this is in the same Santa Cruz
Mountains you claim that I don't have good coverage.

I just want to know if that good coverage is because of roaming or not.

> The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is limited but
> they usually only roam onto the small rural carriers, and not usually
> onto AT&T or Verizon.

How do you know that?

Rest assured I knew (years ahead of time) that you'd say T-Mobile roaming
sucks but what actual _facts_ do you base that assessment upon in the area
we're talking about of the Santa Cruz Mountain range (where we both live)?

> In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
> any roaming at all. In the far north there's a little roaming onto U.S.
> Cellular and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet.

How do you know that?
Can you point to a reference that backs up that claim?
(I'm not saying it's right or wrong; I'm asking where the data is from.)

> 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 and Verizon MVNOs were being charged.

Steve... you are being inconsistent. Either T-Mobile is roaming on AT&T &
Verizon towers or they're not. You can't logically claim T-Mobile isn't
roaming on them and then claim that T-Mobile doesn't like what they're
paying to roam on them.

You can't have both in any one given area such as the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Something is fishy about your claims.
> If you go to Alaska, T-Mobile is 100% roaming and an MVNO like Mint
> Mobile has no coverage at all, nor do they roam on a carrier like
> Commnet in Death Valley.

First off, you claim _all_ three major carriers roam in that area, so how
can you then use _that_ as a comparison about T-Mobile versus Verizon?

It's not even close to a logical position to take, Steve, that you claim
Verizon is better than T-Mobile when in that area that you point out,
Verizon is exactly no better (or worse) than T-Mobile anyway.

I don't know your educational level but I assume you took basic logic.
What you claim makes no logical sense, by your own facts and admission.

Besides, let's stick to the Santa Cruz Mountains, and if we need to get to
specific towers, let's stick with the area between Mt. Madonna & Loma
Prieta.

You already presented a case of what the T-Mobile native coverage is in that
area, so now we just need to ask _how_ T-Mobile free roaming changes that.
> I added this information to the document "Coverage Differences Between
> AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon" at
> <https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons>.

If you're going to provide a link, I, unlike the Apple apologists like
nospam, will actually look at the link to see if it backs up your claims.

That's a document you perhaps wrote titled
*Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon*

What you claim there is EXACTLY OPPOSITE what PC Magazine recently claimed
where they must have spent tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands)
of dollars testing the coverage around the country that you write about.

What research do you run that beats that of the most recent PC Magazine
standardized testing which costs plenty of thousands of dollars to perform?

Why is your conclusion _not_ even remotely supported by PC Magazine's tests?

>
> 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.

I get it that you claim that anyone who uses T-Mobile and is happy with the
coverage must be an unrealistic aficionado, but the fact is that my
neighbors, like yours, are on all three carriers and the coverage is about
the same for all three where I live & travel in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

I notice you don't read the PC magazine facts which shows that T-Mobile
coverage is just fine as it doesn't fit your pre-determined narrative.

All I want to know is that if I accept, a priori (that means sans facts
backing you up) that you claim T-Mobile coverage sucks compared to that of
Verizon or AT&T, and yet - if you take into account free roaming on T-Mobile
- why wouldn't the coverage be essentially the same in the area of concern
in this thread?

That is, you don't get to dig for hours to find the one spot where your
claims come true. You are stuck with (a) the Santa Cruz Mountains (where
both you and I live), and if we need greater granularity, then (b) the
towers affecting the area between Mt. Madonna and Loma Prieta.

If it's true what you say about T-Mobile towers, why doesn't the T-Mobile
free roaming fill in the coverage in _that_ area of common concern?

In summary, I am quite intelligent Steve, and therefore I can understand all
your arguments, but you just "saying" inconsistent things about the coverage
dilutes your argument immensely.

The fact I can _predict_ all your arguments years in advance is one thing,
but the fact that your arguments are _not supported_ in the least in the
latest PC Magazine countrywide tests should tell us that you have an ax to
grind with always claiming that Verizon is better than T-Mobile in the areas
we're talking about.

Maybe it is.
Maybe it isn't.

But your claims are completely inconsistent and hence not fully believable.
It could well turn out to be you who is a "Verizon aficionado" for example.

A key logical question is where do you get your facts from that T-Mobile
does not roam on Verizon or AT&T towers in the Santa Cruz Mountain area?