>The coverage map was created using data submitted voluntarily by the four mobile carriers using certain standardized propagation model assumptions
Eh? Why link or even talk about this. Here's 3rd party coverage collected by members over at Cellmapper. It's not perfect or complete but it's real data without 'assumptions' being made: https://www.cellmapper.net
For one, their map isn't restricted to areas that have paved roads or are otherwise regularly occupied by people, unlike the cellmapper map.
Radio propagation maps are used when siting new cell towers, for example. I'm not a radio wave propagation modeller, but my understanding is that 'assumptions' include things like treating trees as columns with a height equal to tree height and a diameter equal to tree crown diameter, for example. Accuracy depends on the type and resolution of input data (eg photo-derived elevation models vs lidar point clouds).
See [1] for some examples. I have no affiliation with them, it's just a site I have bookmarked.
Yes, the OP map shows 100% perfect coverage in my neighborhood for AT&T and that’s definitely wrong. I just moved here and I’m contemplating getting a new carrier because it’s nearly unusable for data.
There's a similar site that shows towers and coverage around the world! And everyone can contribute data too! Sadly you can only contribute on Android but not iOS.
The map is only a piece of the story too. Depriotitization is a thing you will encounter, mostly on MVNO's. I call it four bars of no data. Just moved from Mint back to AT&T Prepaid because of this situation. Your results will vary wildly regionally, and time of day.
I find the map to be inaccurate for Verizons network where I live. There are places with known dead areas that they say has coverage. I don't mean recent dead zones... I mean they have been around for over a decade.
This map doesn't really have anything to do with MVNOs. These maps are just about the deployment of physical infrastructure.
Nor is this a coverage map -- even carriers with physical infrastructure often have roaming agreements that extend their coverage beyond their own networks. It is expected that coverage maps differ from this map. And it is also expected that different network operators have different provisioning of those network services to different customers.
If you're on a budget MVNO, sure. There are higher quality providers in the space, but you will pay significantly more for them.
The provider I have is data only at $120/mo for up to 1TB of 4G data. I'm not certain, but it seems like they'll move my SIM through different accounts on their backend to ensure that I always have full speed transfer within that limit... as when I'm getting close to a transfer threshold, my speeds will slow down, my modem will reboot at some time during that day, and then afterwards I'm back to full speeds.
I'm on Google Fi and I don't think I've ever experienced this.
Of course, this is just anecdata, and maybe I haven't experienced it because I just don't tend to use a lot of data (< 3 GB/month), and rarely go to areas that will have highly-crowded cell towers.
I'm on a MVNO provider and frequently experience issues where I have full signal like you mention, but nothing "works". Are you aware of any tools that can test the signal strength in comparison to... I guess download speed? Would be interesting to plot it out!
Interesting map, but entirely fictional on US Rt2 between East Glacier and West Glacier for ATT. There is no ATT coverage for 60+ miles, yet the map suggests complete coverage. Correct for Verizon and T-Mobile.
Yah, just looking at the signal edges should tell you a couple of those maps are "fictional". The tmobile map at least looks like a signal propagation map in areas that are flat, where they have a tower the map is roughly a circle, and in cities/mountain areas there are dark spots where there is a hole despite being entirely surrounded by signal.
The other two maps look like BS to me, considering a couple years ago I was carrying two phones from differing carriers and driving around in unpopulated areas in the midwest and there were plenty of holes despite the advertised maps at the time showing perfect coverage in the areas in question.
The surprising thing is that the fcc is buying some of that crap and republishing it rather than asking for raw tower data (location/freq/antenna directions/power/etc) and doing the modeling themselves. Even if the modeling is pretty poor the results are likely better than the best case crap they are getting from att.
Check the corridor from San Antonio to El Paso along I-10. I regularly get zero service along that path for dozens of miles at various points.
And, it's not even the fault of towers--there is some weird "roaming" agreement in that area so Verizon doesn't want to carry the calls but still wants credit for that being "in coverage".
For those using these maps to determine the service you can expect from an MVNO operating on these providers, beware.
I've been using Google Fi and tried a few others with Visible being the one that I found to be the most difficult to sort out. Visible uses Verizon's network (IIRC, they're owned by Verizon). In the thumb of Michigan, there's a large spot at the tip that Verizon post-paid customers have service (via the Extended Network[0]) but Visible does not. In fact, Lexington and Port Huron, with about a 5 mile buffer, were the only places service functioned similarly to home (albeit LTE rather than 5G) where coverage is solid. And it's not a matter of "there was really poor/slow/spotty service", there was simply nothing from just north of Lexington up M-25 to Port Austin and for much of M-59 from Armada to Port Austin[1].
Over the summer that I had this service, my mental model of the map would have the entire thumb empty with a few bursts of service over a some of the more populated areas, much like T-Mobile indicates. And that's curious -- the T-Mobile map looks a whole lot more like I'd expect for most of the service. Even the post-paid Verizon/AT&T service isn't great in a lot of places -- effectively or actually no service, but according to AT&T and Verizon's maps, I should be working almost everywhere.
[0] Which, if I understand things correctly, is Verizon buying service from someone else.
[1] We hit the dark sky park in Port Austin using Waze which caused me to pay closer attention, one route up, one route back; on M-25, I'd pick up service briefly enough to get a routing update but it sat "looking for service" with the circle/slash (No) symbol matching it. On M-59, it was dead except for Sandusky.
Is it? I guess in US with its vast land mass and relatively low population density wired is very important, but I can tell you in many parts of Europe LTE and up are slowly becoming the norm even for high-volume, high-bandwidth usage such as for video streaming (not at 4k though ofc).
I don't know. My manager (household of 3) just switched to using Verizon 5G for their home internet. She's getting like pretty good speeds compared to what Xfinity offers (which was the only alternative).
> The coverage map was created using data submitted voluntarily by the four mobile carriers using certain standardized propagation model assumptions or parameters that were established by the FCC as part of the Broadband Data Collection.
> Please note: The map depicts the coverage a customer can expect to receive when outdoors and stationary. It is not meant to reflect where service is available when a user is indoors or in a moving vehicle.
> Because the coverage map is based on propagation modeling, a user’s actual, on-the-ground experience may vary due to factors such as the end-user device used to connect to the network, cell site capacity, and terrain.
It’s definitely not accurate. I can show screenshots of over a dozen places with no service at all on AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon where this map claims coverage (and it’s supposedly filtered to be areas that have useable data, not just “coverage”).
As of a couple months ago, the T-Mobile coverage maps have been very accurate for both 4G and low/mid band 5G in my areas, and from what I've seen from others on the subreddit.
I’m so tired of maps that are grossly inaccurate like this. Since Christmas last year I’ve been traveling across the US working remotely from my RV. I’m very meticulous about checking over a dozen sources and still have been bitten by campgrounds without any (let alone useable) cell coverage on any carrier, despite having a high gain directional antenna. I spot checked a bunch of the places I’m aware of and just like all the other maps out there, this is just flat misleading and inaccurate.
Yeah, it's not accurate. My house has zero Tmobile signal. Lake Nona FL I remember also being completely devoid of signal. Both show as pink shaded on the map.
Coverage maps like these are no longer useful. I have "4 Bars" with extremely slow data rates constantly. My average speeds are about 1/10th what they were 7ish years ago (1.5 Mbps down vs 15 when networks were less loaded, "LTE" networks) as device density and usage has gone up.
We need data throughput maps, maybe even by time of day.
Having "coverage" doesn't mean you can actually do anything with it.
I question what the point of making this map was, when it isn’t even remotely accurate in so many places. I guess it makes the FCC feel like they did something and the carriers can continue saying how awesome they are and how they have brought broadband to the citizens as promised.
It's funny that US Cellular is listed here, and Dish/Boost isn't. Neither is Sprint, but it's LTE network is still relatively separate and something most T-Mobile customers can't access yet. Pretty useless map. Maybe comparing this with how much spectrum these companies have in an area might give more incentive to build where there's demand.
Boost is an MVNO. Look at the T-Mobile map and you are effectively looking at Boost’s map. It’s the same reason Cricket (AT&T), GoogleFi (T-Mobile/US Cellular), Metro/Mint (T-Mobile), Republic (T-Mobile), Spectrum (Verizon), Visible (Verizon), Xfinity (Verizon), etc aren’t listed.
> Neither is Sprint
Sprint is effectively T-Mobile now. Yes, they haven’t fully merged in all areas, but breaking Sprint only out wouldn’t be very useful for very long.
This should really be normalized as MB/capita. Basic data/voice coverage in the vast wilderness is important for safety, but speed is really more relevant in more populated regions. Geographic maps like this aren't useful, especially without more powerful filtering tools (e.g. specifying a minimum speed & showing that coverage).
[+] [-] joecool1029|4 years ago|reply
Eh? Why link or even talk about this. Here's 3rd party coverage collected by members over at Cellmapper. It's not perfect or complete but it's real data without 'assumptions' being made: https://www.cellmapper.net
At least there's a site for Canada that has exactly where every single tower is located: https://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html
[+] [-] geenew|4 years ago|reply
Radio propagation maps are used when siting new cell towers, for example. I'm not a radio wave propagation modeller, but my understanding is that 'assumptions' include things like treating trees as columns with a height equal to tree height and a diameter equal to tree crown diameter, for example. Accuracy depends on the type and resolution of input data (eg photo-derived elevation models vs lidar point clouds).
See [1] for some examples. I have no affiliation with them, it's just a site I have bookmarked.
[1] https://www.forsk.com/propagation-modelling
[+] [-] hamburglar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isaack|4 years ago|reply
http://www.cellmapper.net/
[+] [-] slobotron|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maxburn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yangl1996|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mfer|4 years ago|reply
I wonder how accurate they really are.
[+] [-] kube-system|4 years ago|reply
Nor is this a coverage map -- even carriers with physical infrastructure often have roaming agreements that extend their coverage beyond their own networks. It is expected that coverage maps differ from this map. And it is also expected that different network operators have different provisioning of those network services to different customers.
[+] [-] akira2501|4 years ago|reply
The provider I have is data only at $120/mo for up to 1TB of 4G data. I'm not certain, but it seems like they'll move my SIM through different accounts on their backend to ensure that I always have full speed transfer within that limit... as when I'm getting close to a transfer threshold, my speeds will slow down, my modem will reboot at some time during that day, and then afterwards I'm back to full speeds.
So far, never had an issue.
[+] [-] Sohcahtoa82|4 years ago|reply
Of course, this is just anecdata, and maybe I haven't experienced it because I just don't tend to use a lot of data (< 3 GB/month), and rarely go to areas that will have highly-crowded cell towers.
[+] [-] clone1018|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treefry|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weirdalb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fastaguy88|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StillBored|4 years ago|reply
The other two maps look like BS to me, considering a couple years ago I was carrying two phones from differing carriers and driving around in unpopulated areas in the midwest and there were plenty of holes despite the advertised maps at the time showing perfect coverage in the areas in question.
The surprising thing is that the fcc is buying some of that crap and republishing it rather than asking for raw tower data (location/freq/antenna directions/power/etc) and doing the modeling themselves. Even if the modeling is pretty poor the results are likely better than the best case crap they are getting from att.
[+] [-] bsder|4 years ago|reply
Check the corridor from San Antonio to El Paso along I-10. I regularly get zero service along that path for dozens of miles at various points.
And, it's not even the fault of towers--there is some weird "roaming" agreement in that area so Verizon doesn't want to carry the calls but still wants credit for that being "in coverage".
[+] [-] jsjohnst|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdip|4 years ago|reply
I've been using Google Fi and tried a few others with Visible being the one that I found to be the most difficult to sort out. Visible uses Verizon's network (IIRC, they're owned by Verizon). In the thumb of Michigan, there's a large spot at the tip that Verizon post-paid customers have service (via the Extended Network[0]) but Visible does not. In fact, Lexington and Port Huron, with about a 5 mile buffer, were the only places service functioned similarly to home (albeit LTE rather than 5G) where coverage is solid. And it's not a matter of "there was really poor/slow/spotty service", there was simply nothing from just north of Lexington up M-25 to Port Austin and for much of M-59 from Armada to Port Austin[1].
Over the summer that I had this service, my mental model of the map would have the entire thumb empty with a few bursts of service over a some of the more populated areas, much like T-Mobile indicates. And that's curious -- the T-Mobile map looks a whole lot more like I'd expect for most of the service. Even the post-paid Verizon/AT&T service isn't great in a lot of places -- effectively or actually no service, but according to AT&T and Verizon's maps, I should be working almost everywhere.
[0] Which, if I understand things correctly, is Verizon buying service from someone else.
[1] We hit the dark sky park in Port Austin using Waze which caused me to pay closer attention, one route up, one route back; on M-25, I'd pick up service briefly enough to get a routing update but it sat "looking for service" with the circle/slash (No) symbol matching it. On M-59, it was dead except for Sandusky.
[+] [-] topspin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjevans|4 years ago|reply
The AND in "broadband and LTE" part of the title is a huge hint that the and part is _not_ LTE (non-mobile) data.
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|4 years ago|reply
I ask since satellite and even mesh network non-mobile broadband is a super performant and already deployed reality, evidently.
example : https://tech.fb.com/terragraph-alaska/
[+] [-] tannhaeuser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HaloZero|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tguvot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmg|4 years ago|reply
> The coverage map was created using data submitted voluntarily by the four mobile carriers using certain standardized propagation model assumptions or parameters that were established by the FCC as part of the Broadband Data Collection.
> Please note: The map depicts the coverage a customer can expect to receive when outdoors and stationary. It is not meant to reflect where service is available when a user is indoors or in a moving vehicle.
> Because the coverage map is based on propagation modeling, a user’s actual, on-the-ground experience may vary due to factors such as the end-user device used to connect to the network, cell site capacity, and terrain.
[+] [-] jsjohnst|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ranon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Underphil|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsjohnst|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pid-1|4 years ago|reply
A lot of that info was gathered via on site inspection and spreadsheet filling.
Also most software used to organize access network information sucked hairy balls.
[+] [-] nixpulvis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silisili|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparker72678|4 years ago|reply
We need data throughput maps, maybe even by time of day.
Having "coverage" doesn't mean you can actually do anything with it.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ece|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsjohnst|4 years ago|reply
Boost is an MVNO. Look at the T-Mobile map and you are effectively looking at Boost’s map. It’s the same reason Cricket (AT&T), GoogleFi (T-Mobile/US Cellular), Metro/Mint (T-Mobile), Republic (T-Mobile), Spectrum (Verizon), Visible (Verizon), Xfinity (Verizon), etc aren’t listed.
> Neither is Sprint
Sprint is effectively T-Mobile now. Yes, they haven’t fully merged in all areas, but breaking Sprint only out wouldn’t be very useful for very long.
[+] [-] shadowtree|4 years ago|reply
I am on AT&T and motorcycle quite a bit through the backcountry and use a real GPS navi for that reason. Trusting your phone is useless.
Such a change coming from Europe where I stay connected on any pass through the Alps.
[+] [-] MikeKusold|4 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.onxmaps.com/
[+] [-] xxpor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeoPanthera|4 years ago|reply
which I can confirm is true!
It also shows blanket coverage at my house by both Verizon and AT&T, which is definitely not true.
[+] [-] vlovich123|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sushisource|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zachberger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nicksil|4 years ago|reply
Keep fightin' the good fight, Zach.
[+] [-] Mup_TIpekpaceH|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ojagodzinski|4 years ago|reply