On 1/5/2022 10:33 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 13:57:41 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> As you are well aware, that's a highly misleading statement.
>
> I only care about the facts, Steve.

LOL, you may "care about facts" but you post nearly as much incorrect
information as nospam!

But I am willing to help educate you.

Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons>

The Three U.S. Networks—They Are Not Created Equal
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
AT&T and Verizon evolved from legacy cellular networks over the years,
and built out a large network, acquiring smaller regional and rural
carriers along the way. T-Mobile was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with
mainly urban coverage. All three networks work acceptably well in urban
areas. While no carrier has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to
travel to more remote areas, like National and State Parks, or if you
are going to be driving through rural areas, or if you’re visiting the
outskirts of urban areas (often called the “greenbelt”), then you’ll
want to avoid T-Mobile and choose AT&T or Verizon. Even non-tourists
that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a second phone with
an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling outside urban areas,
just in case of emergency.

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).

What About “Free Roaming”
-------------------------
Some carriers advertise “free roaming.” But understand that when a
carrier touts "free roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every
other carrier, everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911
service).

You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
<https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg>, but MVNOs usually won’t roam even if
their maps show roaming.

In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.

The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).

In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
AT&T’s and Verizon’s MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless).

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut

Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can check
the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more of
rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.

Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

Network Speed, Coverage, and Quality
------------------------------------
"We're fastest." "No, we're fastest." "You have fake 5G." "Our 4G is
faster than your 5G." "We have the most 5G." “We have the most real 5G.”
“Your coverage sucks.” “No one needs coverage in Podunk, Idaho.” “You
get free tacos if you choose us.” “We have the happiest customers.”

I received an email requesting that I add information regarding network
speed. Rather than parrot the absurd and conflicting marketing claims of
the carriers, I am adding the results of the most recent independent
surveys.

From Rootmetrics:
<https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021>
For the first half of 2021:
• Data Speed: 1. AT&T. 2. Verizon. 3.T-Mobile.
• Reliability: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Accessibility: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Calls: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Texts: 1. Verizon & AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.

From J.D. Power:
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-study-volume-2>
• Verizon was ranked first in every U.S. region
• T-Mobile was ranked second in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
West regions
• AT&T was ranked second in the North Central, Southeast, and
Southwest regions

I added several examples of coverage differences because often there are
“fanbois” of a carrier that will insist that “all carriers are created
equal,” and get very upset when anyone points out any coverage
differences. Some fanbois insist that foreign visitors would be unlikely
to ever go outside of urban areas, where coverage is usually okay on all
carriers, but the reality is that foreign visitors often want to visit
places like state and national parks. So I’ve included a bunch of
examples of coverage differences that I’ve personally experienced.

• One area that I go through often is the Sierra Nevada mountains on
California State Highways 88, 4, 108, and 120, and the FCC map
highlights the very large differences in coverage in those areas; here
is a map comparing coverage in the central Sierras, a popular area for
tourists with National and State Parks, ski areas, and other recreation:
<https://i.imgur.com/uBD7ZQA.png>.

• One area we visit frequently is the southern part of San Mateo County.
In my younger days I used to do a lot of bicycling in this area, now
it’s more hiking and road trips. Verizon has the best coverage of
course, but surprisingly T-Mobile beats AT&T in the town of Pescadero (I
recommend Duarte’s restaurant). Sadly, T-Mobile doesn’t even have
coverage on the major state highway, 84, between La Honda and the coast.
See <https://i.imgur.com/OgL844m.png>.

• Another area I go through often is the San Mateo and Santa Cruz coast
on California Highway 1; here is a map comparing coverage in that area,
where Verizon is superior, AT&T is a distant second, and T-Mobile an eve
further distant third: <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png>.

• A very popular route for foreign tourists is the coastal road between
Los Angeles in San Francisco; here is a map comparing coverage in the
popular Big Sur area (bottom left): <https://i.imgur.com/ataZAOP.png>.

• The Pacific Northwest, (Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and
especially the coastal areas) is another popular destination for
tourists; here is a map comparing coverage in Oregon:
<https://i.imgur.com/qX5rz0Q.png> where you can see the vast differences
in coverage, in the inland areas but especially along the coast.

• Someone on Reddit/NoContract inquired about service in Montana so I
added that map set as well, see <https://i.imgur.com/Jk6XmCs.jpeg,

In article <sr70jo$ngd$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/5/2022 10:33 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > I only care about the facts, Steve.
>
> LOL, you may "care about facts" but you post nearly as much incorrect
> information as me!

ftfy

On 1/5/2022 10:51 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:41:03 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> You really need to concentrate on facts.
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Don't play that game with me since I _only_ speak facts,

You need to stick to factual data. So far you have not done that in this
thread.

To help educate you I prepared a text version of my Google Docs document.

Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>

Go back to Prepaid Phone Service for Foreign Visitors to the United
States or <https://tinyurl.com/us-prepaid-foreign/>

The Three U.S. Networks—They Are Not Created Equal
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
AT&T and Verizon evolved from legacy cellular networks over the years,
and built out a large network, acquiring smaller regional and rural
carriers along the way. T-Mobile was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with
mainly urban coverage. All three networks work acceptably well in urban
areas. While no carrier has 100% geographic coverage, if you plan to
travel to more remote areas, like National and State Parks, or if you
are going to be driving through rural areas, or if you’re visiting the
outskirts of urban areas (often called the “greenbelt”), then you’ll
want to avoid T-Mobile and choose AT&T or Verizon. Even non-tourists
that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a second phone with
an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling outside urban areas,
just in case of emergency.

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).

What About “Free Roaming”
-------------------------
Some carriers advertise “free roaming.” But understand that when a
carrier touts "free roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every
other carrier, everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911
service).

You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
<https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg/>, but MVNOs usually won’t roam even
if their maps show roaming.

In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.

The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).

In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
AT&T’s and Verizon’s MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless or
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-challenge-fcc-s-data-roaming-ruling-sided-t-mobile/>.

Also understand that roaming data is often very limited because of the
high cost to the carrier. T-Mobile limits roaming data to 200MB per
month for postpaid accounts created after 11/15/2015 and less for older
accounts (see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data/>).
200MB is very little data if you’re doing things like GPS navigation or
sending or receiving photos or video.

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map/>. You can
check the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more
of rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage/>.

Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

Network Speed, Coverage, and Quality
------------------------------------
"We're fastest." "No, we're fastest." "You have fake 5G." "Our 4G is
faster than your 5G." "We have the most 5G." “We have the most real 5G.”
“Your coverage sucks.” “No one needs coverage in Podunk, Idaho.” “You
get free tacos if you choose us.” “We have the happiest customers.”

I received an email requesting that I add information regarding network
speed. Rather than parrot the absurd and conflicting marketing claims of
the carriers, I am adding the results of the most recent independent
surveys.

From Rootmetrics:
<https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021/>
For the first half of 2021:
• Data Speed: 1. AT&T. 2. Verizon. 3.T-Mobile.
• Reliability: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Accessibility: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Calls: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Texts: 1. Verizon & AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.

From J.D. Power:
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-study-volume-2/>
• Verizon was ranked first in every U.S. region
• T-Mobile was ranked second in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
West regions
• AT&T was ranked second in the North Central, Southeast, and
Southwest regions
• Go back to Prepaid Phone Service for Foreign Visitors to the
United States

Examples of Coverage Differences
--------------------------------
I added several examples of coverage differences because often there are
“fanbois” of a carrier that will insist that “all carriers are created
equal,” and get very upset when anyone points out any coverage
differences. Some fanbois insist that foreign visitors would be unlikely
to ever go outside of urban areas, where coverage is usually okay on all
carriers, but the reality is that foreign visitors often want to visit
places like state and national parks. So I’ve included a bunch of
examples of coverage differences that I’ve personally experienced.

• One area that I go through often is the Sierra Nevada mountains on
California State Highways 88, 4, 108, and 120, and the FCC map
highlights the very large differences in coverage in those areas; here
is a map comparing coverage in the central Sierras, a popular area for
tourists with National and State Parks, ski areas, and other recreation:
<https://i.imgur.com/uBD7ZQA.png/>.

• One area we visit frequently is the southern part of San Mateo County.
In my younger days I used to do a lot of bicycling in this area, now
it’s more hiking and road trips. Verizon has the best coverage of
course, but surprisingly T-Mobile beats AT&T in the town of Pescadero (I
recommend Duarte’s restaurant <http://www.duartestavern.com/>). Sadly,
T-Mobile doesn’t even have coverage on the major state highway, 84,
between La Honda and the coast. See <https://i.imgur.com/OgL844m.png/>.

• Another area I go through often is the San Mateo and Santa Cruz coast
on California Highway 1; here is a map comparing coverage in that area,
where Verizon is superior, AT&T is a distant second, and T-Mobile an eve
further distant third: <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png/>.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 07:07:35 -0800, sms wrote:

> LOL, you may "care about facts" but you post nearly as much incorrect
> information as nospam!

Steve,
Please don't turn into a child just because you don't like the facts.
I get it the only way you can combat facts is with ad hominem attacks.

The fact is you can't back up that claim above with even a _single_ fact.
Worse, you've _never_ shown even a _single_ fact from me to be wrong.
In _decades_ of posting hundreds of facts each & every week, Steve.
Not even one.

Which means your entire belief system is _completely_ fabricated Steve.
You can't back up what you just said with even a _single_ fact, Steve.

So don't blindly claim all facts are wrong simply because you hate facts.

And don't pull this ad hominem shit again with me just because you have no
_adult_ defense to the facts which I clearly presented in this thread.

Your claims are either completely fabricated, Steve, or they are facts.
If _any_ of your claims are _not_ fabricated - let's _see_ the facts Steve.

Here, I'll give you that chance right now Steve to be an honest man.
Name just _one_ fact I've stated in this thread you say is wrong.
*Name Just One*

HINT: An assessment is not the same as a fact, where the trolls like nospam
will say something like it's wrong to say that iOS is less functional than
Android where that's an assessment.

Note a fact would be something like when I say there isn't a single app on
the iOS App store that can graph wifi signal strength for all access points
over time such as what Cellular-Z easily does for Android.
<https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z&c=apps>

Until you back up your claims with facts, there's no sense in continuing.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 12:06:54 -0500, nospam wrote:

> ftfy

I don't consider the "ftfy" an _adult_ response to what Steve claimed.

Nor do I consider Steve's cherry picking of Death Valley coverage (of all
things) representative of T-Mobile, particularly when even his vaunted
Verizon whom he shills for uses the same roaming agreements overall (based
on Steve's own documents).

Nonetheless, Usenet is water under the bridge, every single day.
All I ask of anyone, including Steve, is to state the actual facts.

Specifically I ask Steve to snapshot his current Verizon MVNO speeds.
How hard can that be?

Steve (a) runs the tool, and (b) snapshots it, and then (c) posts it.
It takers only a minute for Steve to back up his own claims, does it not?

*All Steve needs to do is post _his_ actual speeds on his Verizon MVNO.*

I already posted mine on T-Mobile from the middle of the same Santa Cruz
Mountains that Steve lives in and where Steve claims has sucky tmo signal.

Since I'm not afraid of fact, here they are again where speeds fluctuate.
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps to 181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *60Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> -85dBm
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *80Mbps
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps to 81Mbps*
etc.

FACT: Steve has _not_ posted the speeds he gets on his vaunted Verizon MVNO.
ASSESSMENT: I suspect Steve's speeds on that Verizon MVNO suck compared to
tmo on the _same_ mountain range and where Steve is clearly in a vastly more
urban area than I am (where it's 40 acre zoning per house where I live).

On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:18:19 -0800, sms wrote:

> You need to stick to factual data.
> So far you have not done that in this thread.

Steve,

Don't pull shit with me as I'm rather well educated and I hope you at least
have an undergrad BA degree so you should be able to comprehend basic facts.

What is your response to conclusions in this _recent_ study of the topic?
*Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>
"_We found a radically new landscape and a surprising winner_."

Note that if you continue to completely _ignore_ all those facts, then it
will be a fact that you've ignored those facts for a reason unknown to me.

An assessment of _why_ you ignore facts that don't fit your pre-defined
narrative could be that you'd shill for Verizon no matter what, as you once
told us, I believe, you have a vested interest in Verizon financially so.

FACT: I do not have any financial interest in any of the major carriers,
other than I happen to be on T-Mobile but I've used all three in the past.

A _fact_ I've presented over and again are the speeds I get in the boonies.
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps to 181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *60Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> -85dBm
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *80Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps to 81Mbps*
etc.

What speeds do _you_ get in the _same_ mountain range on Verizon MVNO Steve?

On 1/6/2022 3:00 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:18:19 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> You need to stick to factual data.
>> So far you have not done that in this thread.
>
> Steve,
>
> Don't pull shit with me as I'm rather well educated and I hope you at least
> have an undergrad BA degree so you should be able to comprehend basic facts.

I created a document to help educate you (and others) about the
significant coverage differences between carriers. You can see the
Google Docs version of this, with images, at
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>, but I also did a plain
text version for Usenet and other forums.

Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon

Purpose
-------
The purpose of this document is to educate those shopping for mobile
phone service in the United States as to the differences in coverage
between the three nationwide carriers so they are able to make informed
purchasing decisions.

The Three U.S. Networks—They Are Not Created Equal
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
AT&T and Verizon, the two top-tier networks, evolved from legacy
cellular networks over the years, and built out a large network,
acquiring smaller regional and rural carriers along the way. T-Mobile,
the second tier network, was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with mainly
urban coverage. All three networks work acceptably well in urban areas.
While no carrier has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to
more remote areas, like National and State Parks, or if you are going to
be driving through rural areas, or if you’re visiting the outskirts of
urban areas (often called the “greenbelt” or “exurban”), then you’ll
want to avoid T-Mobile and choose AT&T or Verizon. Even non-tourists
that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a second phone with
an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling outside urban areas,
just in case of emergency.

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).

There’s a narrative that one carrier often uses, when potential
customers ask about coverage, of “no carrier has 100% coverage;” with
the implication of “all carriers are equal since they all provide less
than 100% coverage.” It’s an absurd argument, but you often see it
repeated by fanbois.

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can check
the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more of
rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

What About “Free Roaming”
-------------------------
Some carriers advertise “free roaming.” But understand that when a
carrier touts "free roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every
other carrier, everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911
service).

You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
<https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg/>, but MVNOs usually won’t roam even
if their maps show roaming.

In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.

The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).

In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
AT&T’s and Verizon’s MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless or
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-challenge-fcc-s-data-roaming-ruling-sided-t-mobile/>.

Also understand that roaming data is often very limited because of the
high cost to the carrier. T-Mobile limits roaming data to 200MB per
month for postpaid accounts created after 11/15/2015 and less for older
accounts (see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data/>).
200MB is very little data if you’re doing things like GPS navigation or
sending or receiving photos or video.

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map/>. You can
check the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more
of rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage/>.

Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

Network Speed, Coverage, and Quality
------------------------------------
"We're fastest." "No, we're fastest." "You have fake 5G." "Our 4G is
faster than your 5G." "We have the most 5G." “We have the most real 5G.”
“Your coverage sucks.” “No one needs coverage in Podunk, Idaho.” “You
get free tacos if you choose us.” “We have the happiest customers.”

I received an email requesting that I add information regarding network
speed. Rather than parrot the absurd and conflicting marketing claims of
the carriers, I am adding the results of the most recent independent
surveys.

From Rootmetrics:
<https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021/>
For the first half of 2021:
• Data Speed: 1. AT&T. 2. Verizon. 3.T-Mobile.
• Reliability: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Accessibility: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Calls: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
• Texts: 1. Verizon & AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.

From J.D. Power:
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-study-volume-2/>
• Verizon was ranked first in every U.S. region
• T-Mobile was ranked second in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
West regions
• AT&T was ranked second in the North Central, Southeast, and
Southwest regions

I added several examples of coverage differences because often there are
“fanbois” of a carrier that will insist that “all carriers are created
equal,” and get very upset when anyone points out any coverage
differences. Some fanbois insist that foreign visitors would be unlikely
to ever go outside of urban areas, where coverage is usually okay on all
carriers, but the reality is that foreign visitors often want to visit
places like state and national parks. So I’ve included a bunch of
examples of coverage differences that I’ve personally experienced.

On 1/6/2022 2:46 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 12:06:54 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> ftfy
>
> I don't consider the "ftfy" an _adult_ response to what Steve claimed.
>
> Nor do I consider Steve's cherry picking of Death Valley coverage (of all
> things) representative of T-Mobile, particularly when even his vaunted
> Verizon whom he shills for uses the same roaming agreements overall (based
> on Steve's own documents).

I pointed out that Death Valley is one of the few areas where T-Mobile,
and the other two nationwide carriers, actually provide roaming. It's
because a small rural carrier is the only provider in that area.

Some people have implied that "free roaming" is a panacea for a
carrier's lack of native coverage--it isn't, because "free roaming"
doesn't mean "roaming on any available network no matter where I am
without native coverage," far from it (except for 911 service).

Also remember that MVNOs usually don't get the same roaming coverage
that the parent carrier receives, and often prepaid services directly
from the carrier don't get the same roaming that postpaid receives. For
example, look at Mint (T-Mobile MVNO) coverage in Alaska (or don't look
at it because there isn't any!). Alaska is a place where an AT&T MVNO is
your best bet because AT&T has the best native coverage in Alaska of the
three nationwide carriers (Verizon has only a small LTE-only network,
and T-Mobile has no native network) (I can already picture the fanbois
angrily insisting that almost no one ever would go to Alaska!,
pre-pandemic Alaska had over 2.25 million visitors per year).

Also remember that even where roaming exists, there are often severe
limits of the quantity of data, see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data>.

> Nonetheless, Usenet is water under the bridge, every single day.
> All I ask of anyone, including Steve, is to state the actual facts.

LOL, the problem is that you don't like the actual facts when it comes
to coverage.

> FACT: Steve has _not_ posted the speeds he gets on his vaunted Verizon MVNO.
> ASSESSMENT: I suspect Steve's speeds on that Verizon MVNO suck compared to
> tmo on the _same_ mountain range and where Steve is clearly in a vastly more
> urban area than I am (where it's 40 acre zoning per house where I live).

No problem. Here are the speeds on Total Wireless/Verizon (technically
not an MVNO anymore since Verizon owns Total Wireless now) and on
RedPocket/T-Mobile, see <https://i.imgur.com/aAfZzr0.png>. Taken in my
living room at 9:35 a.m. on January 7th, 2022. Both tests are on LTE
since I have no 5G devices.

Verizon/Total Wireless: Ping: 25ms, Down: 266 Mb/s, Up: 27.8 Mb/s
T-Mobile/RedPocket: Ping: 52ms , Down: 8.3 Mb/s, Up: 0.16 Mb/s

Of course one test, in one location, isn't all that meaningful, all it
means is that T-Mobile 4G coverage and speed at my house is poor. I can
look out the back of my house and see a fake tree tower shared by AT&T
and Verizon, see <https://goo.gl/maps/9AHZgpWaeXEHbhVG9>. The closest
T-Mobile cell is not much further away but it's nothing like that fake
tree tower. A half-mile away I was getting 80 Mb/s down on my T-Mobile MVNO.

What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
an anecdotal reports.

There’s a narrative that one carrier's salespeople often use, when
potential customers ask about coverage limitations, of “no carrier has
100% coverage;” with the implication of “all carriers are equal since
they all provide less than 100% coverage.” It’s an absurd argument, but
you often see it repeated by fanbois.

Prior to signing up for service, it's important to ensure that the
network that you choose will provide coverage in the areas that you plan
to visit or pass through. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
has a nice tool that compares the coverage of the different networks. Go
to <https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can
also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>. Both are
convenient for comparing actual coverage.

You can further educate yourself by reading: "Coverage Differences
Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon" at
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>.

In article <sr9oqi$ioc$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I created a document to help educate you (and others) about the
> significant coverage differences between carriers.

all of your 'documents' have been debunked.

In article <sr9vn9$a10$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> LOL, the problem is that I don't like the actual facts when it comes
> to coverage.

ftfy. see other posts that consistently show t-mobile 5g is trouncing
verizon.

In message <sr9oqi$ioc$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/6/2022 3:00 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:18:19 -0800, sms wrote:
>>
>>> You need to stick to factual data.
>>> So far you have not done that in this thread.
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Don't pull shit with me as I'm rather well educated and I hope you at least
>> have an undergrad BA degree so you should be able to comprehend basic facts.

> I created a document to help

misinform.

> you (and others).

Never follow any of sms's links to his bullshit.

--
TYPOS AR EHT FAULT OF GIN
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 13:26:26 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I created a document to help educate you (and others) about the
>> significant coverage differences between carriers.
>
> all of your 'documents' have been debunked.

I've read Steve's documents which don't address questions asked of Steve.

Somehow Steve thinks that by constantly pasting the same old decrepit data
that somehow by constantly repasting it, it will answer these two questions.

Steve, I asked you for two very simple and quite relevant facts.
1. *What speed does Steve get on his Verizon MVNO in the Santa Cruz Mts?*
2. *What is Steve's response to facts presented in the recent PCMag tests?*

If people haven't looked at the links I've provided, the summary is that my
T-Mobile signal strength and speeds are just fine in those same mountains
that Steve repeatedly claims has no T-Mobile signal compared to Verizon.
<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

But even more importantly, PC Magazine found T-Mobile far and above better
than Verizon in their extensive expensive detailed yearly tests of mobile
speeds throughout the country - which Steve has been ignoring completely.

The facts that Steve keeps dancing about are simple and obvious and correct
a. Steve has still not taken the effort to snapshot is Verizon MVNO speed.
b. Steve has not responded to PC Magazine testing & finding T-Mobile best.

Personally I don't care which cellular service comes out best in the
country, nor what the other carriers have than what I'm on, but Steve keeps
pasting his old decrepit data instead of simply addressing current facts.
1. In the mountains Steve claims has sucky T-Mobile signal, mine is fine.
2. In the country Steve claims has sucky T-Mobile signal, PC Mag says it's
not only fine, but actually better than both Verizon and AT&T overall.

Again, unlike Steve, I have no skin in the game (other than T-Mobile is my
current carrier) so I don't care about anything other than the actual facts.

Steve needs to directly address the _current_ facts.

Instead of repeatedly pasting _old_ decrepit data which is no longer valid,
Steve should respond to _that_ brand new data which is current and valid.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 18:49:00 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Never follow any of sms's links to his bullshit.

The facts that Steve keeps dancing about are simple and obvious and correct
a. Steve has still not taken the effort to snapshot is Verizon MVNO speed.
b. Steve has not responded to PC Magazine testing & finding T-Mobile best.

Personally I don't care which cellular service comes out best in the
country, nor what the other carriers have than what I'm on, but Steve keeps
pasting his old decrepit data instead of simply addressing current facts.

1. In the mountains Steve claims has sucky T-Mobile signal, mine is fine
(and in my area, houses are so sparse you can't put two on 79 acres).
2. In the country Steve claims has sucky T-Mobile signal, PC Mag says it's
not only fine, but actually better than both Verizon and AT&T overall.

I only care about the facts.

Steve needs to respond to these two factual requests made of him.
A. What speed does Steve get on his vaunted Verizon MVNO in the _same_
Santa Cruz Mountains that I have been posting the T-Mobile speeds for?
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg> *255Mbps*
B. What does Steve think of the PC Magazine tests showing T-Mobile overall
better than both Verizon and AT&T in the most recent countrywide tests?
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>

In article <sra7fp$1gtc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> b. Steve has not responded to PC Magazine testing & finding T-Mobile best.

he never responds to evidence that debunks his claims and it wasn't
just pc magazine either.

On 1/7/2022 12:16 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 13:26:26 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> I created a document to help educate you (and others) about the
>>> significant coverage differences between carriers.
>>
>> all of your 'documents' have been debunked.
>
> I've read Steve's documents which don't address questions asked of Steve.
>
> Somehow Steve thinks that by constantly pasting the same old decrepit data
> that somehow by constantly repasting it, it will answer these two questions.

I think that the issue is that you don't understand that Speed ≠ Coverage.

Yes, PC Magazine said that T-Mobile had the highest average 5G speed
(though not the maximum speed).

But what they also said, which is key, and which you choose to ignore,
for obvious reasons, is "And if you’re out in the countryside and don’t
often head to the city, T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you.
The carrier is doing great in the nation’s biggest metro areas, but when
we look at small cities and areas away from interstate highways,
especially in the western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more
work to get better coverage."

See <https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>.

What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
on anecdotal reports since there are too many individuals, such as you,
giving out false information.

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 would urge you to reconsider your penchant for misstating the facts.
It doesn't make you look any better by not sticking to factual data.

Meanwhile, here is the contents of document I prepared regarding
coverage differences:

Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>

The Three U.S. Networks—They Are Not Created Equal
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
AT&T and Verizon, the two top-tier networks, evolved from legacy
cellular networks over the years, and built out a large network,
acquiring smaller regional and rural carriers along the way. T-Mobile,
the second tier network, was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with mainly
urban coverage. All three networks work acceptably well in urban areas.
While no carrier has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to
more remote areas, like National and State Parks, or if you are going to
be driving through rural areas, or if you’re visiting the outskirts of
urban areas (often called the “greenbelt” or “exurban”), then you’ll
want to avoid T-Mobile and choose AT&T or Verizon. Even non-tourists
that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a second phone with
an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling outside urban areas,
just in case of emergency.

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).

There’s a narrative that one carrier often uses, when potential
customers ask about coverage, of “no carrier has 100% coverage;” with
the implication of “all carriers are equal since they all provide less
than 100% coverage.” It’s an absurd argument, but you often see it
repeated by fanbois.

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can check
the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more of
rural areas are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You can
also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.

What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
on anecdotal reports since there are too many individuals giving out
false information.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

What About “Free Roaming”
-------------------------
Some carriers advertise “free roaming,” attempting to allay potential
customers’ concerns about the lack of native coverage in many areas by
implying that customers can roam onto whatever network is available in a
specific area. That is highly misleading. When a carrier touts "free
roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every other carrier,
everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911 service). The
usual case is that roaming is only available on small rural carriers and
not on any other of the three nationwide networks.

You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
<https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg/>, but MVNOs usually won’t roam even
if their maps show roaming.

In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.

The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).

In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
AT&T’s and Verizon’s MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless or
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-challenge-fcc-s-data-roaming-ruling-sided-t-mobile/>.

Also understand that roaming data is often very limited because of the
high cost to the carrier. T-Mobile limits roaming data to 200MB per
month for postpaid accounts created after 11/15/2015 and less for older
accounts (see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data/>).
200MB is very little data if you’re doing things like GPS navigation or
sending or receiving photos or video.

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map/>. You can
check the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more
of rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage/>.

Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.

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 <srag6d$69v$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> I think that the issue is that you don't understand that Speed ‚ Coverage.

without coverage, speed = 0.

> Yes, PC Magazine said that T-Mobile had the highest average 5G speed
> (though not the maximum speed).

it also has the best 5g coverage, and by a lot.

<https://www.usnews.com/360-reviews/services/cell-phone-plans/tmobile-vs-
verizon>
T-mobile¹s 5G network is currently the broadest in the U.S., covering
around 40% of the country compared to Verizon¹s 11%. While 5G is
still being rolled out across the country, T-Mobile has an edge due
to more coverage and faster speeds when comparing its 5G service
to Verizon¹s 5G Ultra Wideband.

<https://www.opensignal.com/reports/2021/10/usa/mobile-network-experienc
e-5g>
T-Mobile wins the 5G Download Speed award for the fourth time in a
row, increasing once again its lead on Verizon and AT&T, with our
T-Mobile users¹ average 5G download speeds breaking through the 100
Mbps mark. In our last report, T-Mobile more than doubled its lead
over second place from 16.3 Mbps to 35.2 Mbps. This time T-Mobile led
by an impressive 62.7 Mbps and with a 5G Download Speed that¹s more
than twice as fast as AT&T and Verizon¹s scores. Our T-Mobile users
saw average 5G download speeds of 118.7 Mbps, ahead of our users on
Verizon and AT&T which scored 56 Mbps and 51.5 Mbps, respectively.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 15:52:23 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> b. Steve has not responded to PC Magazine testing & finding T-Mobile best.
>
> he never responds to evidence that debunks his claims and it wasn't
> just pc magazine either.

Steve still hasn't responded to the 1st factual question asked of him.
*What speed does Steve get on his vaunted Verizon MVNO in the SC mountains?*

However I do see Steve belatedly responded to the 2nd question asked of him.
*Coverage Comparison of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/vnUDT6Na8Jw/m/6-0JkNUAEgAJ>

Where Steve quoted the article saying the following:
"The carrier is doing great in the nation's biggest metro areas,
but when we look at small cities and areas away from interstate highways,
especially in the western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more
work to get better coverage."

Steve also noted the difference between "coverage" and "speed", which is all
well and good as nobody ever said (except maybe for Steve) that any one
carrier was better than the rest in all measurable performance areas.

To Steve's credit, at least he finally addressed that elephant in the room,
but Steve's next comment was a back stab that was unwarranted & untoward.
"I would urge you to reconsider your penchant for misstating the facts."

Whenever anyone says any facts I present are wrong, you can predict my
response years in advance since I'm too well educated to know that anyone
who can't back up their statements with facts is simply making them up.

Hence I simply ask Steve to point out a _single_ instance where I stated
incorrect facts in this thread (as my belief systems are _based_ on facts).
--
HINT: I expect complete silence on that from Steve since he made it all up.

On 1/7/2022 5:35 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 15:52:23 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> b. Steve has not responded to PC Magazine testing & finding T-Mobile best.
>>
>> he never responds to evidence that debunks his claims and it wasn't
>> just pc magazine either.
>
> Steve still hasn't responded to the 1st factual question asked of him.
> *What speed does Steve get on his vaunted Verizon MVNO in the SC mountains?*

LOL, do you want me to drive to the mountains to do a test for you?

In any case, as I explained to you what is of utmost importance is
coverage, not minor speed differences, and I have provided coverage
comparisons for the Santa Cruz mountain areas.

Fortunately for you I have prepared a comprehensive document that
compares coverage in a number of different areas, including several in
the Santa Cruz Mountains.

You can educate yourself by reading the document "Coverage Differences
Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon" at
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>. But the Google Docs
version is easier to read and includes all the map comparisons. I know
that you don't like factual information, but no one would think any
worse of you if you admitted your mistakes and decided to stick to facts.

As you've continued to lie, I've added more data, references, and
citations to the document to correct your factually incorrect information.

This is the text version of the document:

"Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon"

The Three U.S. Networks—They Are Not Created Equal
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
AT&T and Verizon, the two top-tier networks, evolved from legacy
cellular networks over the years, and built out a large network,
acquiring smaller regional and rural carriers along the way. T-Mobile,
the second tier network, was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with mainly
urban coverage. All three networks work acceptably well in urban areas.
While no carrier has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to
more remote areas, like National and State Parks, or if you are going to
be driving through rural areas, or if you’re visiting the outskirts of
urban areas (often called the “greenbelt” or “exurban”), then you’ll
want to avoid T-Mobile and choose AT&T or Verizon. Even non-tourists
that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a second phone with
an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling outside urban areas,
just in case of emergency.

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).

There’s a false narrative that one carrier often uses, when potential
customers ask about coverage, of “no carrier has 100% coverage;” with
the implication of “all carriers are equal since they all provide less
than 100% coverage.” It’s an absurd argument, but you often see it
repeated by fanbois.

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can check
the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more of
rural areas are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You can
also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.

What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
on anecdotal reports since there are too many individuals giving out
false information.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

What About “Free Roaming”
-------------------------
Some carriers advertise “free roaming,” attempting to allay potential
customers’ concerns about the lack of native coverage in many areas by
implying that customers can roam onto whatever network is available in a
specific area. That is highly misleading. When a carrier touts "free
roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every other carrier,
everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911 service). The
usual case is that roaming is only available on small rural carriers and
not on any other of the three nationwide networks.

You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
<https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg/>, but MVNOs usually won’t roam even
if their maps show roaming.

In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.

The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).

In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
AT&T’s and Verizon’s MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless or
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-challenge-fcc-s-data-roaming-ruling-sided-t-mobile/>.

Also understand that roaming data is often very limited because of the
high cost to the carrier. T-Mobile limits roaming data to 200MB per
month for postpaid accounts created after 11/15/2015 and less for older
accounts (see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data/>).
200MB is very little data if you’re doing things like GPS navigation or
sending or receiving photos or video.

Checking Network Coverage—Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map/>. You can
check the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more
of rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage/>.

Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

Network Speed, Coverage, and Quality
------------------------------------
"We're fastest." "No, we're fastest." "You have fake 5G." "Our 4G is
faster than your 5G." "We have the most 5G." “We have the most real 5G.”
“Your coverage sucks.” “No one needs coverage in Podunk, Idaho.” “You
get free tacos if you choose us.” “We have the happiest customers.”

On 01/07/2022 02:51 PM, sms wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 12:16 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 13:26:26 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> I created a document to help educate you (and others) about the
>>>> significant coverage differences between carriers.
>>>
>>> all of your 'documents' have been debunked.
>>
>> I've read Steve's documents which don't address questions asked of Steve.
>>
>> Somehow Steve thinks that by constantly pasting the same old decrepit data
>> that somehow by constantly repasting it, it will answer these two questions.
>
> I think that the issue is that you don't understand that Speed ≠ Coverage.
>
> Yes, PC Magazine said that T-Mobile had the highest average 5G speed
> (though not the maximum speed).
>
> But what they also said, which is key, and which you choose to ignore,
> for obvious reasons, is "And if you’re out in the countryside and don’t
> often head to the city, T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you.
> The carrier is doing great in the nation’s biggest metro areas,

A couple of weeks ago I had NO coverage in the parking lot of the Good
Samaritan Hospital in downtown Los Angeles. Heretofore I had thought
that there was good coverage in cities and along interstates. I was wrong.

> but when
> we look at small cities and areas away from interstate highways,
> especially in the western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more
> work to get better coverage."

BUT twice now I've received scam calls on the local ski slope, and
T-Mobile won't let me automatically block such calls because of my
prepaid plan. Go figure.

--
Cheers, Bev
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of
entrusting a man like him with the presidency." -- Unknown

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 10:10:49 -0800, sms wrote:

> I pointed out that Death Valley is one of the few areas where T-Mobile,
> and the other two nationwide carriers, actually provide roaming. It's
> because a small rural carrier is the only provider in that area.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for explaining _why_ you chose Death Valley (of all places) to make a
point, where at least you can tell I _read_ what you posted, and I _read_
your references, which is why I pointed out that Verizon had the _same_
agreement as T-Mobile, which you've confirmed above.

Thanks for being an adult on clarifying facts, which is a rarity on Usenet.
Much appreciated.

> Some people have implied that "free roaming" is a panacea for a
> carrier's lack of native coverage--it isn't, because "free roaming"
> doesn't mean "roaming on any available network no matter where I am
> without native coverage," far from it (except for 911 service).

When you say "some people" I think you're pointing to "me", where I did
_ask_ for data on how the T-Mobile free roaming works when we are in an area
that might not have coverage.

Based on the paucity of references I found, not a lot of people are asking
that same question, so I was clear that I'm not sure what the answer is.

I did point out that T-Mobile sends an automatic text message when you reach
80% of your "free roaming" allotment, which is an SMS I've never received.

> Also remember that MVNOs usually don't get the same roaming coverage
> that the parent carrier receives, and often prepaid services directly
> from the carrier don't get the same roaming that postpaid receives.

Personally, I find it untoward of you to have claimed that your time is
worth too much for you to look at freeware - and then - you spend an ungodly
amount of time finding and switching between Verizon MVNOs which, let's be
honest - I don't spend since I've been on T-mobile ever since I left AT&T a
decade ago, and I was on Verizon from the start of cell phones until I left
for AT&T.

My point being you apparently spend an ungodly amount of effort to find
inexpensive Verizon MVNOs, which is all well and good, but you then blast me
for easily finding free software (remember, I have far better filters than
you do for such things since I don't use Google Play but I use Aurora).
<https://auroraoss.com/download/>

Maybe you too have filters that make your choice of Verizon MVNO less time
intensive (like I do for finding only the best freeware in my searches), but
the fact you don't even use Verizon and yet you shill for Verizon means you
should, in all fairness, at least make that point known to the hapless
readers.

Bear in mind that it doesn't bother me so much that you shill for Verizon
(why would I care) but that you don't seem to take into account _recent_
facts about the other carriers when you incessantly shill for Verizon.

At least all my references are facts I gleaned myself on my own phone, or
the links I posited were all recent links of reliable country wide testing.

> For
> example, look at Mint (T-Mobile MVNO) coverage in Alaska (or don't look
> at it because there isn't any!). Alaska is a place where an AT&T MVNO is
> your best bet because AT&T has the best native coverage in Alaska of the
> three nationwide carriers (Verizon has only a small LTE-only network,
> and T-Mobile has no native network) (I can already picture the fanbois
> angrily insisting that almost no one ever would go to Alaska!,
> pre-pandemic Alaska had over 2.25 million visitors per year).

Steve... I don't get your logic (since you are the one who said you wouldn't
spend time finding good freeware) when you claim AT&T has the best coverage
in Alaska but then you'd recommend an AT&T MVNO when all you're doing is
talking about coverage?

Think about the fact I already noticed your statement lack logic.
Put more directly, if _coverage_ is what you want from AT&T, why on earth
would you say that the AT&T MVNO is the way to go? Makes no sense.

Why not go with AT&T instead?

HINT: I presume you're ignoring cost when you talk about coverage and I can
presume you're including cost (but ignoring customer service) when you
recommend the MVNO - but my point is that you are being illogical.

If you're going to recommend AT&T for coverage - that's fine.
But how the hell will an AT&T _MVNO_ give you any better coverage?

It can't. Right?
Or am I missing something about how MVNO's garner coverage?
(e.g., do they pool various carriers' towers?)
> Also remember that even where roaming exists, there are often severe
> limits of the quantity of data, see
> <https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data>.

I'm the one who brought up that T-Mobile will send you an automatic text at
80% of your limits, where I've _never_ received that text in over 10 years.

On my plan, there are no roaming limits on data when I'm traveling in Europe
but for USA travel there are limits of 5MB to 200MB depending on the plan.

I agree that's not a lot in any case since I never disagree with facts.
(BTW, only an idiot disagrees with facts, which is why I find the Apple
apologists to be idiots, in general, since they disagree with facts.)

>> Nonetheless, Usenet is water under the bridge, every single day.
>> All I ask of anyone, including Steve, is to state the actual facts.
>
> LOL, the problem is that you don't like the actual facts when it comes
> to coverage.

You can claim that I don't like the coverage facts, but I already agreed
with you on the fact that in the Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta backcountry,
clearly T-Mobile was much less than was the Verizon & AT&T coverage.

Did I mention yet that only an idiot disagrees with facts?
I didn't disagree with _that_ fact, which you presented, did I?

In fact, I even drew the bearing that proved I didn't disagree with them.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wBFsj6wD/0Nn3C2P.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/qvTLtvxF/orl84Fb.jpg>

So stop saying that I don't like facts when the real problem is _you_ can't
agree with the facts, Steve. I've got too much education over you to fall
for that shit. The Apple Apologists try that crap all the time.

I assume you have at least a bachelor of arts Steve, where I'm assuming that
anyone who has even that little of a minimum education knows that facts are
what you should be basing your belief systems upon.

If I haven't mentioned it yet, only an idiot disagrees with proven facts.

There are a _lot_ of idiots on Usenet Steve, but I was hoping you're not one
of them so stop handing me shit as I am trying to respect your acumen.

>> FACT: Steve has _not_ posted the speeds he gets on his vaunted Verizon MVNO.
>> ASSESSMENT: I suspect Steve's speeds on that Verizon MVNO suck compared to
>> tmo on the _same_ mountain range and where Steve is clearly in a vastly more
>> urban area than I am (where it's 40 acre zoning per house where I live).
>
> No problem. Here are the speeds on Total Wireless/Verizon (technically
> not an MVNO anymore since Verizon owns Total Wireless now) and on
> RedPocket/T-Mobile, see <https://i.imgur.com/aAfZzr0.png>. Taken in my
> living room at 9:35 a.m. on January 7th, 2022. Both tests are on LTE
> since I have no 5G devices.
>
> Verizon/Total Wireless: Ping: 25ms, Down: 266 Mb/s, Up: 27.8 Mb/s
> T-Mobile/RedPocket: Ping: 52ms , Down: 8.3 Mb/s, Up: 0.16 Mb/s

OK. Thanks. I'll believe those numbers, a priori. 266Mbps & 8Mbps.
The 266Mbps is better than my T-Mobile average, which is commendable.

Bear in mind where I live the houses are so far apart we aren't allowed to
put two houses on 79 acres due to 40 acre zoning, so it would be _expected_
that your speeds _should_ be greater than mine in that there are probably
thousands greater numbers of customers per mile in the area you live than in
the area I live (which doesn't even have cable service or DSL service yet).

Thank you for finally providing those numbers as I know on Usenet it takes a
brave person to back up their speeds as I did also for my area as you know.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*

Bear in mind both speed and signal strength can vary greatly, and one
affects the other (as nospam pointed out to you on 'no signal, no speed').
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcsyc4Vn/speedtest04.jpg> *82Mbps & -88dBM*
> Of course one test, in one location, isn't all that meaningful, all it
> means is that T-Mobile 4G coverage and speed at my house is poor.

I can say that recently the T-Mobile 5G coverage has skyrocketed our speeds.
Is it _because_ of 5G? I don't know. I just know it's super fast at times.
It's almost never slow, as you can see from a variety of my past 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*

For the Usenet permanent record, there's a similar backcountry thread in
terms of _emergency_ calling capability going on in this cross reference:
*Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/3H9ConAZfcc>

Below is one relevant post containing useful free offline app information...

VanguardLH wrote:

> Personally I have to wonder why micky is going off onto trails to go
> hiking, but has his cell phone on. Isn't the point of venturing into
> wilderness to get away from the din of civilization, not to have a phone
> making noise and interrupting the experience?

I think micky made it clear the point is 911 _emergency_ communications.

But even outside an emergency, there's nothing wrong with sending updates to
your parents, your grandparents, your children, your mom, your aunt, etc.

Look at this thread which shows a perfectly valid use of a cellphone,
although, this perfect apropos usage doesn't require "cellular" signal.
*Using a cell phone for navigation & bearings during backcountry hiking*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/5c_iaS01eHM>
> Oh yes, there's the emergency feature of a phone to call when you need
> help. Um, handholding you in the wilderness takes away from the risk of
> you going there. What would be the point of bungie jumping if there
> were a quater-mile square 100-ft high air pad below? If he really is
> enjoying wilderness, and he is turning off his phone to use only for
> emergencies (especially since the phone's battery is crucial for that
> intended emergency-only use, not to blather to friends or family), why
> would he need an app to tell him when he's out of tower range while his
> phone is off?

While some of the above may be tongue-in-cheek chastising micky, I will say
that my battery on my free Android phone is a whopping 5 amp hours, which,
let's be frank, lasts forever even with the radios running full time.

> When we go camping, and if any kids are attending, we say before leaving
> that they either agree to keep their phones off their during the entire
> trip, leave them at home, or they stay home. The only noise I want to
> hear when camping or hiking are the birds screaming to wake me before
> the sun rises. I don't even want the people on the trip talking since
> the point is to be in nature, not yakking away which can be done back
> home.

That's fine but micky was asking about _emergency_ coverage, and not about a
staid quiet simple family camping trip where the worst thing that happens is
you get bitten by a mosquito.

I, for one, hike with climbing gear and clippers, where there is no way to
hike out here without ending up in a steep ravine, where you then have to
climb back out.

It's not the same thing as a picnic table tentsite campout for sure.

> Just imagine how stupid it would be to go a scuba trip to suffer the
> boobs that managed to use their phones underwater. Gee, how was the
> trip? Oh, so-and-so texted me about their cat having kittens. Um, what
> did that have to do with the scuba trip? Oh, I saw videos of the
> Ukraine invasion. Um, did you see anything of the ocean when diving?

I think the most fantastic use of a smartphone while hiking is
a. It's fantastic for photos (and for communicating them to others)
b. It's fantastic for navigation (and for identifying stellar objects)
c. It's fantastic for plant & animal & sound identification
etc.

Here's a screenshot of just my backcountry "nature" folder, by way of
example, where you can see a compass, a bearing indicator, various geoPDF
apps, starmaps, heading calculators, gps-to-sms emergency apps, mushroom
identifier, bird sound identifier, plant identifiers, etc.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y0MZd55k/nature01.jpg>
--
The job of a Usenet post is to add useful value each time we communicate.

For the Usenet permanent record, there's a similar backcountry thread in
terms of _emergency_ calling capability going on in this cross reference:
*Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/3H9ConAZfcc>

Below is one relevant snippet containing useful offline app information...

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> There has to be coverage from at least one company.
> If no company has any coverage, you are stuck, isolated.

While "coverage" is a broad term, and as such is correct, what really
matters most is the signal strength (although there are quality factors)
where the minimum signal strength also depends on the frequencies used
and a host of other typical conditions (such as weather & noise levels).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

*What is a Good Cell Phone Signal Strength?*
<https://www.accu-tech.com/accu-insider/what-is-a-good-cell-phone-signal-strength>
"Signal strengths can range from approximately -30 dBm to -110 dBm.
In general, anything better than -85 decibels is considered a
usable signal."

*What is Good Signal Strength for a Cell Phone?*
<https://www.wilsonpro.com/blog/what-is-a-good-cell-phone-signal-strength>
"Signals better than -85 decibels are considered usable and strong,
and you'll rarely see a signal stronger than -50 dBm.
At the other end of the spectrum, a signal that's weaker than -100 dBm
is likely too problematic to be useful - resulting in dropped calls
and incomplete data transmissions."

*What's considered "good" cell signal?*
<https://powerfulsignal.com/cell-signal-strength/>
"Excellent signal strength on the RSRP scale is anything stronger than
about −85 dBm; poor signal strength is anything less than −115 dBm.
If you're receiving less than −120 dBm RSRP, you'll probably have
difficulty making phone calls, sending or receiving text messages,
or using internet data.

Another factor to keep in mind is the quality of your cellular connection.
How much usable signal you are receiving vs. the amount of noise
(unwanted disturbances of the signal). There are ways to measure cellular
signal quality (RSRQ and SINR), but that's beyond the scope of this article.

Just be aware that you can have strong cellular signal but still have
slow data and dropped calls because your signal quality is poor."

*What Is Strong And Weak Signal In DBm For 3G Vs. 4G?* (older)
<https://www.signalbooster.com/blogs/news/differences-between-3g-1x-vs-4g-lte-signal-strength-in-dbm>
Excellent: -70 dBm on 3G is considered excellent signal strength versus
-90 dBm on 4G or LTE network which is also considered excellent.
Good: -71to-85 dBm on 3G is considered good.
So is -91 to -105 dBm on 4G/LTE.
Fair: -86 to -100 dBm on 3G is fair and
-106 to -110 dBm on 4G/ LTE is also fair.
Poor: -101 to -109 dBm on 3G is poor and
-111 to -119 dBm on 4G is poor.
Dead Zone: -110 dBm on 3G network is practically a dead zone,
So is -120 dBm on 4G LTE network.
--
The job of a Usenet post is to add value each time we communicate.

For the Usenet permanent record, there's a similar backcountry thread in
terms of _emergency_ calling capability going on in this cross reference:
*Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/3H9ConAZfcc>
Below is one relevant snippet containing useful offline app information...
VanguardLH wrote:

> Nice you decided to pay an actual carrier for cellular service, and that
> carrier gave you a repeater (booster) and femtocell for free.

I'm well aware that you're one of the very few people on this ng who has the
capacity to handle detail, so I won't spare that detail for you below.

However, my main observation remains the same as it was, assessed by me as:
*If you have any Internet, you have _fantastic_ coverage in your US home!*

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.

For example, here is my cellular repeater (aka booster) in the pool shed.
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg> Repeater (booster)

And here is my Ooma & femtocell connected to an old router in a side office.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QCNqss9T/femto-ooma-switch.jpg>

I have both, but my house is unusual in some ways as it's built to survive
an earthquake (given the fault line is very close indeed); but I still do
very much agree with you that you must pay at least one of the major
carriers for the basic service first and foremost, as you duly noted.

But you can't have much _less_ public infrastructure where you live than I.

Where I live the government doesn't want any more people living here, so
they limit our land to 40 acres, which means that anyone with under 80 acres
can only put a single house on the lot. It goes without saying that we don't
have the concept of public water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, or even
cable.

Like _everyone_ else in the USA, we do have telephone lines & electrical
power lines (but don't get me started on why virtually everyone installed
built-in propane gas generators due to PG&E unreliability & quite a few are
dropping off the grid entirely, via solar & batteries, as PG&E is unreliable
(we've had an outage a month for a day each for the past six years where
last summer we had three power outages a week on average for the entire
summer, consistently).

My point in explaining that is our infrastructure is likely almost as bad as
any others in the US due to intentional rules and unintentional neglect.

Given all of us have generators and that it's a given the telephone
connection is too far away for DSL, most of us dropped telephone long ago
(where I dropped Verizon because the taxes were half the total charges).

So all we have is Internet - and even that comes from 20 miles away by road,
but only about 6 miles as the crow flies given we are all on WISP radios.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMNv5FBC/typical-range-ptp.jpg> Typical WISP range

My point is if I have _fantastic_ cellular service inside my house, given if
I turn off my repeater (aka booster), I _only_ have the femtocell tower
inside the house, why can't anyone in the USA who pays a postpaid bill to
any of the three carriers have the same as I do.

I'm not special. I am simply miles away from the nearest cellular tower.

> That's
> not true in many cases. To get a booster means the carrier has to
> qualify you are in a low-coverage area.

I agree with you that they're not gonna give you your own booster or cell
tower inside your house if you _already_ have good signal. That's a given.

Although, I must mention that I _used_ to have crappy cellular signal until
T-Mobile gave me a set of half-price 5G iPhones and free 5G Android phones.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone

Now my 5G signals _outside_ the house are fantastic as shown in these shots.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps* 5G speeds at home

But those fantastic 250Mbps speeds only happened with the advent of 5G tech.

Even so, 5G doesn't penetrate the house well (which is also solar protected
so signals bounce off the windows & doors which all have a metal haze
deposited on them, which is required by local code, I'm told).

Inside the house I use the femtocell tower & the cellular repeater signal,
along with a variety of powerful transceivers acting as APs and as bridges.
<https://i.postimg.cc/4xgmTTgm/wifi01.jpg> Multiple access points

> To get a femtocell means you
> have to get the one your carrier provides, and not all do.

In my experience, all three majors in the USA provide a free home tower.

For example, I called Verizon about a year ago (and I wrote it up at
the time) for one neighbor where Verizon tried to charge her a shipping and
handling fee and I was emphatic she should get it for free, and they gave it
to her for free.

On AT&T on another call they wanted a $400 deposit and I told AT&T that the
customer was theirs for a long time and wasn't going anywhere, so the
supervisor waived the fee.

Most recently for another neighbor, she called T-Mobile and they gave her a
hard time and she patched me in and they told me they no longer provide the
free wi-fi routers or the free boosters (aka repeaters), but they still
provide the femtocell tower, but at a $25 one-time charge. I was livid with
them, and after asking them to check with a supervisor I got T-Mobile to
credit her $25 for the $25 charge that they now charge - so she had to give
them her credit card, but they credited her bill the same amount so it was a
wash. (To T-Mo's credit, they did a similar $20 charge-credit for me when I
replaced my free Samsung under warranty just a few weeks ago, and I wrote
about that too - so that everyone benefits from knowing what they will do.)

My experience is the following:
a. The three carriers all provide free femtocells if you have bad signal.
b. They probably no longer provide free wi-fi routers or free repeaters.
c. They may ask for a deposit or a S&H charge but you can have them waive it

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).

> Those using
> MVNOs (e.g., Tracfone) are *not* customers of the actual carrier to
> which the MVNO user is assigned, so they don't qualify for free, or even
> paid, boosters or femtocells. Your experience does not dictate what is
> available or usable to all cellular users.

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

You never get what you pay for, by the way, as stupid people get less than
what they pay for and only intelligent people get what they pay for. (Don't
even get me started on Apple's ungodly profits if I need to prove that
point.)

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.

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

While I'm all for saving money, I don't know _anyone_ who uses an MVNO, but
as I said, Steve, who always shills for Verizon but doesn't actually pay
them, is an expert in MVNOs and so you should be asking him what they
provide as I can't tell you what they provide.

However, if the MVNO has crappy signal, and if they won't give you a free
cellular tower for your home, my suggestion would be to change MVNOs as I'm
a believer that lousy service is a tax on the stupid, not on smart people.

Your point that stupid people buy crappy service is fine, but don't blame
the crappy service given I have experience with all three major providers.
--
Each post is to enhance the current and _permanent_ record for Usenet value.

For the Usenet permanent record, there's a similar backcountry thread in
terms of _emergency_ calling capability going on in this cross reference:
*Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/3H9ConAZfcc>

Here is another related post for the permanent record to provide to others.

VanguardLH wrote:

> Personally I have to wonder why micky is going off onto trails to go
> hiking, but has his cell phone on. Isn't the point of venturing into
> wilderness to get away from the din of civilization, not to have a phone
> making noise and interrupting the experience?

I think micky made it clear the point is 911 _emergency_ communications.

But even outside an emergency, there's nothing wrong with sending updates to
your parents, your grandparents, your children, your mom, your aunt, etc.

Look at this thread which shows a perfectly valid use of a cellphone,
although, this perfect apropos usage doesn't require "cellular" signal.
*Using a cell phone for navigation & bearings during backcountry hiking*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/5c_iaS01eHM>
> Oh yes, there's the emergency feature of a phone to call when you need
> help. Um, handholding you in the wilderness takes away from the risk of
> you going there. What would be the point of bungie jumping if there
> were a quater-mile square 100-ft high air pad below? If he really is
> enjoying wilderness, and he is turning off his phone to use only for
> emergencies (especially since the phone's battery is crucial for that
> intended emergency-only use, not to blather to friends or family), why
> would he need an app to tell him when he's out of tower range while his
> phone is off?

While some of the above may be tongue-in-cheek chastising micky, I will say
that my battery on my free Android phone is a whopping 5 amp hours, which,
let's be frank, lasts forever even with the radios running full time.

> When we go camping, and if any kids are attending, we say before leaving
> that they either agree to keep their phones off their during the entire
> trip, leave them at home, or they stay home. The only noise I want to
> hear when camping or hiking are the birds screaming to wake me before
> the sun rises. I don't even want the people on the trip talking since
> the point is to be in nature, not yakking away which can be done back
> home.

That's fine but micky was asking about _emergency_ coverage, and not about a
staid quiet simple family camping trip where the worst thing that happens is
you get bitten by a mosquito.

I, for one, hike with climbing gear and clippers, where there is no way to
hike out here without ending up in a steep ravine, where you then have to
climb back out.

It's not the same thing as a picnic table tentsite campout for sure.

> Just imagine how stupid it would be to go a scuba trip to suffer the
> boobs that managed to use their phones underwater. Gee, how was the
> trip? Oh, so-and-so texted me about their cat having kittens. Um, what
> did that have to do with the scuba trip? Oh, I saw videos of the
> Ukraine invasion. Um, did you see anything of the ocean when diving?

I think the most fantastic use of a smartphone while hiking is
a. It's fantastic for photos (and for communicating them to others)
b. It's fantastic for navigation (and for identifying stellar objects)
c. It's fantastic for plant & animal & sound identification
etc.

Here's a screenshot of just my backcountry "nature" folder, by way of
example, where you can see a compass, a bearing indicator, various geoPDF
apps, starmaps, heading calculators, gps-to-sms emergency apps, mushroom
identifier, bird sound identifier, plant identifiers, etc.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y0MZd55k/nature01.jpg>

Ask me about any of those as I've tested them all with my one-strike and
you're out rule (they can't require any login, for example, or have ads).
--
The job of a Usenet post is to add useful value each time we communicate.

sms wrote:

> Contacting emergency services if you, or someone you come across,
> needs help.

Every app I suggest on this ng is almost always going to be free, ad free,
login free, often gsf free & almost always works offline, just so you know.
[It takes more effort but any idiot can suggest an app with ads and login
requirements but it takes intelligence to find the best apps that don't.]

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for smartphone usefulness hiking,
let's say while you were moseying along, you run across an injured person.

Instantly, you need to know an accurate coordinate location which apps like
this GPS-to-SMS app are designed to do for you at a single button tap.
*GPS to SMS - location sharing* by Tralchonok Labs, 100K+, 3.6, free
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.perm.trubnikov.gps2sms>

> Downloading trail maps, especially in areas you're unfamiliar with.

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for downloading useful park maps,
what's _extremely_ useful is to download a PDF (even better, a geoPDF) of
the local park you're hiking in, as it may have more detail than the USGS
topographic geoPdfs, and that gives you the ability to use _that_ park map
with your GPS navigation on your phone (if you use the right apps).
*Avenza Maps: Offline Mapping* by Avenza, 4.7, free but limited to 3 maps
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Avenza>

*Paper Maps* by Abbro, 5K+, 2.8, free ad free & unlimited number of maps
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.abbro.androidmap>

You can even draw your own track on a geoPDF and your navigation software
will let you know at all times where you are in relation to the track.
*All-In-One Offline Maps* by Psyberia
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.psyberia.offlinemaps>

> Finding the trailhead in the first place, though with offline mapping
> you can still do this.

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for finding old trailheads,
what's really neat is downloading _historical_ geoPDFs from the USGS, which
will show you where you are in relation to long lost cities & trails.

For example, in the Santa Cruz mountains is a reservoir over an old town
from the 1940s, where you can tell where you are on the water with this.

Or you can find the old location of silver mines and cinnabar mines by
loading a geological USGS 1:24K topographic map (they're always free).
<https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/>

> Finding other hikers in your party if you get separated

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for finding the rest of the group,
one way to do that _without_ having to log into anything is the GPS-to-SMS
app listed above where you simply create a group and schedule periodic
sending of the messages (or send them ad hoc) of your location.

I don't use these but there are plenty of friend-location apps such as:
*Whizz (SMS Locator)* by Green Machines
<https://whizzap.wixsite.com/whizz/downloads>
Note the Google Play app is just a placeholder.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.greenmachines.way.whereareyou>

> Keeping track of the distance you're traveling and the number of steps

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for step counting & profiles,
I tested most of the free pedometer apps where very few had the privacy you
need which is required for all apps (if they need a login, they're no good).

The best one I found is from the privacy team at Secuso, which is this one:
*Pedometer (Privacy Friendly)* by SECUSO Research Group
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker>

> One week a month my wife is on-call and needs to be reachable 24/7. We
> can still go hiking even on those days but she has to be in an area with
> coverage. Fortunately her employer provides her with an iPhone on
> Verizon so it would be rare for her not to have coverage in the areas we
> hike.

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for local coverage, there are
crowd-sourced cellular coverage map apps, but I don't use these apps myself:
*Coverage Map* by RootMetrics
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rootmetrics>
--
The job of a Usenet post is to add useful value each time we communicate.