Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.cellular > #6225 > unrolled thread

Re: 5G map

Back to article view | Back to alt.cellular

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-04 23:34 +0100
    Re: 5G map "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2022-04-04 23:04 +0000
      Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 00:31 +0100
      Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-04 17:00 -0700
        Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-04 20:04 -0400
          Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 01:19 +0100
        Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 01:15 +0100
          Re: 5G map Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2022-04-04 17:20 -0700
            Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-04 17:25 -0700
              Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-04 20:26 -0400
              Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 03:30 +0100
                Re: 5G map Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-04 21:38 -0500
                  Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 04:12 +0100
                  Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-05 07:52 -0700
                    Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-05 11:38 -0400
                      Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-06 04:51 +0100
                        Re: 5G map badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 10:10 +0000
                          Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-06 16:41 +0100
                            Re: 5G map "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2022-04-06 16:49 +0000
                          Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-06 14:37 -0700
                            Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-06 23:50 +0100
                            Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-06 18:53 -0400
                              Re: 5G map Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> - 2022-04-07 18:19 +0000
                            Re: 5G map RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2022-04-06 22:58 +0000
                              Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-06 16:43 -0700
                                Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-06 20:15 -0400
                                Re: 5G map RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2022-04-07 00:48 +0000
                                  Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-06 21:03 -0400
                                    Re: 5G map RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2022-04-07 03:44 +0000
                                      Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-06 23:56 -0400
                                      Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-07 06:28 -0700
                                        Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-07 09:56 -0400
                                        Re: 5G map Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> - 2022-04-07 22:53 +0000
                                      Re: 5G map Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> - 2022-04-07 18:23 +0000
                                  Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-06 19:14 -0700
                                    Re: 5G map RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2022-04-07 03:32 +0000
                    Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-06 02:56 +0100
                      Re: 5G map Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-05 21:50 -0500
                        Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-05 21:12 -0700
                          Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-06 16:41 +0100
              Re: 5G map Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> - 2022-04-05 15:25 +0000
        Re: 5G map Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> - 2022-04-05 15:22 +0000
          Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 17:29 +0100
            Re: 5G map badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2022-04-05 17:33 +0000
              Re: 5G map sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2022-04-05 11:24 -0700
                Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-05 15:35 -0400
                  Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 23:42 +0100
              Re: 5G map nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-05 15:35 -0400
                Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 23:42 +0100
                  Re: 5G map Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> - 2022-04-05 17:53 -0500
              Re: 5G map Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-04-05 23:43 +0100
                Re: 5G map Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2022-04-05 15:46 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#6240

In message <t2g292$d8g$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Whatever. I understand how some people get very upset when confronted 
> with facts that they don't like.

Well of course you do, at it takes is looking in the mirror.

Although different people react differently, and not everyone is as
infantile as your method of ignoring all facts and making shit up
constantly like a 4yo.

-- 
Are you a lucky little lady in the city of light Or just another lost
	angel?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6239

In message <t2g0q9$m9t$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 4:04 PM, badgolferman wrote:

> <snip>

>> I would have to agree with you.
> LOL, are you that invested in your carrier that you are compelled to 
> agree with our pathological liar nymshifting troll? Very sad.

Coming from the fawning shill for Veriscum that is you, that is quite
rich. Has there ever been a discussion on any facet of cellular service
where you have not sucked VEriscums cock in appreciation for how
wonderful they are?

No, there is not. You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
to shill your favored company.

> Please stick to facts.

You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.


-- 
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support
	rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6243

Lewis wrote:

> You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
> to shill your favored company.

The fact is that Lewis is correct that Steve shills incessantly.
 
>> Please stick to facts.
> 
> You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.

Bear in mind Steve claimed for _years_ that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage.
And yet they don't.

The only conclusion one can make from that is one of two options below:
a. Steve was _ignorant_ that FCC maps can't possibly show what he claimed
b. Steve _knew_ the FCC maps didn't show _any_ 5G coverage (nor 3G)

Either way:
A. Steve is either rather stupid if it's (a) above.
B. Steve is a brazen pathological liar if it's (b) above.

Which is it?
Facts or dogma?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6245

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
> 
>> You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
>> to shill your favored company.
> 
> The fact is that Lewis is correct that Steve shills incessantly.
> 
>>> Please stick to facts.
>> 
>> You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.
> 
> Bear in mind Steve claimed for _years_ that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage.
> And yet they don't.
> 
> The only conclusion one can make from that is one of two options below:
> a. Steve was _ignorant_ that FCC maps can't possibly show what he claimed
> b. Steve _knew_ the FCC maps didn't show _any_ 5G coverage (nor 3G)
> 
> Either way:
> A. Steve is either rather stupid if it's (a) above.
> B. Steve is a brazen pathological liar if it's (b) above.
> 
> Which is it?
> Facts or dogma?
> 

It’s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
took sms to make this possible!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6246

On 4/5/2022 10:33 AM, badgolferman wrote:

> It’s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
> took sms to make this possible!

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” ― Napoleon 
Bonaparte

It's great to have three trolls all lying at the same time and being 
unable to dispute any referenced facts!

Arlen/Andy Burnelli/Dean Hoffman/whatever/ is wrong of course™.

I never claimed that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage. What I did say is 
that 5G coverage is virtually always a subset of 4G coverage, at least 
for mobile phones. 5G equipment is added to existing 4G cells to provide 
more capacity and higher speeds. The exception are mmWave 5G cells used 
to provide home broadband service.

I also pointed out the the Whistleout coverage map included the 
capability to show 5G only, 4G only, and 5G + 4G coverage, which is very 
useful if you want to see the difference between 4G and 5G coverage.

You can see one example of the difference in 5G and 4G service at 
<https://i.imgur.com/dEuUkuJ.jpeg>. You can see that 5G coverage is a 
subset of 4G coverage.

It's unclear what prompts Arlen/Andy Burnelli/Dean Hoffman/whatever/ to 
misstate the facts. It's likely that the cause is the marketing campaign 
by one carrier that correctly claims that they have more 5G coverage 
than their competitors. But what that carrier leaves out is that their 
_total_ coverage, is far less, and for most users what matters most is 
total coverage, not the difference between 200 Mb/s 4G and 400 Mb/s 5G, 
even if they're using home broadband service from their carrier. 
Arlen/Andy Burnelli/Dean Hoffman/whatever/ likely feels bad about making 
a poor purchasing decision, and rather than helping others to avoid the 
same mistake, he wants others to follow him down the wrong path.

A 2021 PC Magazine article 
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021> summed it up 
well: "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."

You can see a comparison of nationwide 4G+5G at 
<https://i.imgur.com/vPcBgF5.png>. But it's also helpful to zoom into 
the areas that you're most interested in. You can see a compendium of 
4G+5G coverage comparisons for areas I’ve experienced at 
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6248

In article <t2i1hm$cth$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's great to have three trolls all lying at the same time and being 
> unable to dispute any referenced facts!

more bullshit. those whom you are calling trolls are *not* lying and
they have repeatedly disputed your bullshit many times over, with
multiple references, not that any were needed since it's clear your
'facts' were fabricated and/or cherry-picked to further your shilling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6250

nospam wrote:

>> It's great to have three trolls all lying at the same time and being 
>> unable to dispute any referenced facts!
> 
> more bullshit. those whom you are calling trolls are *not* lying and
> they have repeatedly disputed your bullshit many times over, with
> multiple references, not that any were needed since it's clear your
> 'facts' were fabricated and/or cherry-picked to further your shilling.

I have to agree with nospam that Steve has been spewing dogma and not facts
for _years_ now, where the result is always that he claims Verizon has
coverage in all the cherry picked places he claims nobody else has.

Steve even claimed at one point that Verizon had coverage where _nobody_ had
that coverage (as the tower in that location by his own admission wasn't
owned or leased by _any_ of the three major carriers in the USA).

Essentially, Steve is always spewing dogma and not facts where his dogma we
can predict years in advance is that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks.

BTW, none of us except Steve even _care_ about any given carrier. 
The carriers don't pay us to shill for them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6247

In article <t2hugt$6tm$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
> >> to shill your favored company.
> > 
> > The fact is that Lewis is correct that Steve shills incessantly.
> > 
> >>> Please stick to facts.
> >> 
> >> You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.
> > 
> > Bear in mind Steve claimed for _years_ that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage.
> > And yet they don't.
> > 
> > The only conclusion one can make from that is one of two options below:
> > a. Steve was _ignorant_ that FCC maps can't possibly show what he claimed
> > b. Steve _knew_ the FCC maps didn't show _any_ 5G coverage (nor 3G)
> > 
> > Either way:
> > A. Steve is either rather stupid if it's (a) above.
> > B. Steve is a brazen pathological liar if it's (b) above.
> > 
> > Which is it?
> > Facts or dogma?
> > 
> 
> It¹s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
> took sms to make this possible!

always looking at the bright side :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6249

nospam wrote:

>> It�s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
>> took sms to make this possible!
> 
> always looking at the bright side :)

Most of the time I don't even LOOK at who is posting. 
I respond to the data. 

If what the person says is sensible, I will agree with it.
If what the person says is idiotic, I'll let him know he's an idiot.

Hence, the only reason you don't see me congratulating Jolly Roger or Lewis
a lot for acting like adults, is that they don't do it all that much.

Nothing more complex than that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6253

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> 
>>> It¹s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for 
>>> once. It
>>> took sms to make this possible!
>>
>> always looking at the bright side :)
> 
> Most of the time I don't even LOOK at who is posting. I respond to 
> the data.
> If what the person says is sensible, I will agree with it.
> If what the person says is idiotic, I'll let him know he's an idiot.
> 
> Hence, the only reason you don't see me congratulating Jolly Roger 
> or Lewis
> a lot for acting like adults, is that they don't do it all that much.
> 

Hell, I believe you are the only adult here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6251

badgolferman wrote:

> It's nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
> took sms to make this possible!

I respond to what people say.
*Hence I agree with _anyone_ who has a valid point which is based on facts.*

Hell, if Snit, Alan Baker or Alan Browne or even Jolly Roger or Lewis or
nospam or Joerg or Your Name wrote a valid point, I'd agree with them. 

I'm a mirror of your posts.
a. If you say stupid things, I'll let you know you said stupid things.
b. If you have an adult viewpoint, I will treat you as an adult.

My responses aren't as complicated as you seem to be thinking they are.
Say something sensible and I'll agree with it.
-- 
So far the only ones I plonk are those like Alan Baker, Snit & Rod Speed who
_never_ have any viewpoint that is worth an adult wasting their time upon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6252

On 2022-04-05 3:43 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
> 
>> It's nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
>> took sms to make this possible!
> 
> I respond to what people say.
> *Hence I agree with _anyone_ who has a valid point which is based on 
> facts.*
> 
> Hell, if Snit, Alan Baker or Alan Browne or even Jolly Roger or Lewis or
> nospam or Joerg or Your Name wrote a valid point, I'd agree with them.

No.

You'd put them in your killfile.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.cellular

csiph-web