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

Groups > alt.comp.microsoft.windows > #1108 > unrolled thread

USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.microsoft.windows

Contents

  USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 04:32 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 08:56 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 09:40 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 10:40 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 11:28 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 13:22 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 13:54 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 16:50 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 17:01 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 18:14 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 18:40 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 19:56 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 20:56 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-01 21:10 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-02 03:27 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-03 01:59 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-03 02:18 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 00:07 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 00:30 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 01:10 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 02:31 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 02:47 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 02:58 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 03:14 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 21:38 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 23:01 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-05 23:14 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-06 06:34 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-06 06:52 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-06 07:14 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-06 22:35 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-06 22:47 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-06 23:01 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-07 20:17 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-07 20:23 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-08 02:27 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-08 20:29 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-08 20:29 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-08 20:36 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-09 00:08 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-12 02:00 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-01-12 17:29 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 19:45 +0000
      Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 19:45 +0000
        Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 19:46 +0000
          Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 21:27 +0000
            Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-02-27 21:30 +0000
    Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-03-04 20:45 +0000
      Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-03-04 20:53 +0000
        Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-03-04 20:57 +0000
          Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-03-04 21:04 +0000
            Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> - 2022-03-04 22:34 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#1129

*On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 17:44:46 -0800, sms wrote:

> 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.

Speed matters too... 
 <https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg>

To always be objective about all facts that reasonable people present,
Steve's coverage maps did show Verizon & AT&T covered the deep ravines
better'n T-Mobile in these coverage maps between Loma Prieta & Mt. Madonna
 <https://i.postimg.cc/qvTLtvxF/orl84Fb.jpg>

Steve didn't get to cherry pick the coverage areas so we have to take his
maps at face value since a bearing from Mt. Madonna to Loma Prieta was set.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/9fXYpgSt/approximatepath.jpg>

However, what matters is not only cellular coverage but data speeds too.
 *Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
 <https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>
 "For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles, 
  speed-testing AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities, 
  towns, and rural regions all over the US. We found a radically 
  new landscape - and a surprising winner."

Also, if you care about 5G, that coverage matters also to some people.
 *T-Mobile Marks 5G Milestones*
 <https://www.pcmag.com/news/t-mobile-marks-5g-milestones-promises-expansion>

Where this is my data speed at home in the same mountains the kids hiked in.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg>

And this is my cellular signal strength with the femtocell turned off.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg>

However, we have to be careful to be testing cellular and not wi-fi speeds.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg>

BTW, no longer does 5G eat up your battery, apparently, according to this.
 *On Verizon and T-Mobile, It's Time to Turn 5G Back On*
 <https://www.pcmag.com/news/on-verizon-and-t-mobile-its-time-to-turn-5g-back-on>

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

#1130

> Where this is my data speed at home in the same mountains the kids hiked in.
>  <https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg>
> 
> And this is my cellular signal strength with the femtocell turned off.
>  <https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg>
> 
> However, we have to be careful to be testing cellular and not wi-fi speeds.
>  <https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg>

I accidentally referenced the wrong screenshot for the cellular signal
strength graphs where anything above about ~-90 to ~-105 decibels is decent.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

Note that unfortunately, this kind of information is _impossible_ on iOS
even as it's trivial to accurately & graphically debug cellular on Android.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

Also note that the _reason_ such powerful functionality is impossible on iOS
isn't that the iPhone hardware can't accomplish the task - it can.

It's impossible on iOS because Apple limits what apps the market can provide
while Google not only doesn't limit the functionality that the market can
provide but in some cases (such as YouTube or Ungoogled Chromium), Google
can't limit what the market can provide.

Since Apple can and does severely limit what functionality the market can
provide for iPhones, this type of functionality exist in droves in Android
and yet there isn't a single app that gives this functionality on the Apple
iOS app store (despite nospam fabricating numerous times that it does).

I'll believe nospam only after an Apple iOS App Store URL shows up to an iOS
app that can do what this free ad free gsf free app already does on Android.
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

Unfortunately, nospam's claims are never backed up with even a single fact.
-- 
The question is why nospam feels so desperate the need to fabricate
imaginary functionality for iOS apps that never exists on the App Store.

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

#1131

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1132

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1133

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you know that?

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

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

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

> In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were 
> gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since 
> they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous 
> coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was 
> especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than 
> AT&T and Verizon MVNOs were being charged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it is.
Maybe it isn't.

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

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

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

#1134

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 11:06:06 -0500, nospam wrote:

>   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 usersą average 5G download speeds breaking through the 100
>   Mbps mark.

Coverage is important, which, AFAIK, manifests itself objectively as
a. Signal strength over time
b. Cellular data speeds over time

Unfortunately Android can't test cellular coverage for any but the one
carrier whose SIM card is inserted, where I just ran a quick signal strength
and cellular data speed test just now on my free T-Mobile Samsung A325G 
from my office inside the house with the phone wi-fi turned off.

1. I don't want apps with ads, and there are plenty of free gsf free ad free
   speedtest apps but I figured people would trust "okla" so I installed it
   <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.zwanoo.android.speedtest>

3. Inside the house, my 5G speeds (wi-fi off) from the Santa Cruz Mountains
   to Las Vegas (I had my gps spoofing app turned on) are about 60 down, 
   7 up & 39ms ping, with 4ms of jitter at as shown in the screenshots below
   <https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg>

4. The cellular signal strength from the tower was nicely nested between 
   -80 dBm and -100 dBm which is a decent cellular signal strength for 
   inside the house and for  being miles away from any cellular tower.
   <https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg>

Those are actual numbers tested just now inside the house in the same Santa
Cruz Mountains that Steve claims the T-Mobile coverage sucks. Given that I
can only test T-Mobile, I'd like to ask Steve to run the _same_ tests for
Verizon where he lives (on the same California Santa Cruz Mountains range).

Can anyone say what the Verizon or AT&T signal strength & speeds would be?

Note: I don't like redacting much of the tower information so if anyone
knows what minimum tower information regarding privacy I can redact, please
let me know. <https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z&c=apps>

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

#1135

On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 07:24:05 -0800, sms wrote:

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

Hi Steve,

I don't shill for any cellular carrier (I've had them all and they're about
the same where I live in the Santa Cruz Mountain range). 

I'm aware you get paid by Verizon somehow to hawk their products, but I
don't care about that other than to simply ask you to back up your facts.

All I care about are the objective facts.

1. I just ran a quick test for you which I ask you to also objectively run.
   a. Please install Cellular-Z freeware onto your Android phone.
      <https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z&c=apps>
   b. Please install Speedtest freeware onto your Android phone.
      <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.zwanoo.android.speedtest>
   c. Turn off Wi-Fi & run the two tests I just ran for you please.

2. Inside the house, my 5G speeds (wi-fi off) from the Santa Cruz Mountains
   to Las Vegas (I had my gps spoofing app turned on) are about 60 down, 
   7 up & 39ms ping, with 4ms of jitter at as shown in the screenshots below
   <https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg>

3. The cellular signal strength from the tower was nicely nested between 
   -80 dBm and -100 dBm which is a decent cellular signal strength for 
   inside the house and for  being miles away from any cellular tower.
   <https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg>

Those are actual numbers tested just now inside the house in the same Santa
Cruz Mountains that Steve claims the T-Mobile coverage sucks. Given that I
can only test T-Mobile, I'd like to ask Steve to run the _same_ tests for
Verizon where he lives (on the same California Santa Cruz Mountains range).

It will take you only a minute or three to run those tests that I ran.
If you do not run those tests, then we'll know exactly why you won't.

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

#1136

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.

Like most people, I don't care if T-Mobile or AT&T or Verizon comes out on
top simply because I have an open choice of all three. I'm not being paid to
shill any of them so I can objectively tell the truth about all of them.

The only thing that matters is the objective truths - one of which is that
T-Mobile has free roaming in the USA and in Europe - whether or not you
happen to like that objective truth.
 <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=t-mobile+us+roaming+agreements+partners>

Running that search, the first hit is this "Domestic Roaming Data"
 <https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data>
 "In locations in the U.S. where we do not yet have network coverage,
  we partner with other networks. When you travel outside of T-Mobile's 
  U.S. network areas, your phone automatically switches to use one of our
  wireless network partners where available when you have data roaming
  enabled. T-Mobile has two classifications of domestic roaming networks
  based on the agreement we have in place with each partner, standard 
  and preferred."

Unfortunately that hit doesn't say when you'll know if/when you're roaming
and on which type of partner until you get to about 80% of your quota.

The next hit on that roaming search is the T-Mobile/AT&T roaming agreement.
 <https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/t-mobile-usa-and-att-wireless-sign-roaming-agreement-expanding>
But it's so old as to be almost useless as who knows what's still in place.

Digging through the hits, there isn't much about T-Mobile Roaming Agreements
that is recent information where I'd like to see some of your references on
the matter so that I can make an objective assessment of the situation.

The technical problem is that while I can tell if I'm on roaming, it's a
bunch of button presses, and even if I create a Shortcut to the Android
Activity that controls and describes whether or not I'm roaming, I would
need to be pressing it all the time.
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=diewland.settings.mobilenetworks>

What I'd need is a warning system that buzzes the phone whenever the phone
is roaming. Does that exist? Dunno. Let's look first.
 <https://play.google.com/store/search?q=roaming%20notification&c=apps>

These are all free and ad free google free app hits related to roaming.
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mobidia.android.mdm>
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pyo.frtbitzandpixels.com.networknotification>
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.glasswire.android>
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.roysolberg.android.datacounter>
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.radioopt.widget>
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=aws.apps.networkInfoIi>
etc.

Note for those in the EU there is this free ad free gsf free data watcher:
 EU Roaming Data Watcher, by Marcelo Araujo <com.martindoudera.euroaming>

I'll test some of them out to see if they can log when/if I'm connected to a
roaming tower given I have my free roaming turned on 100% of the time and
yet I've never received any notification from T-Mobile via SMS (as they
claim they will send) notifying me that I'm at 80% of my roaming max limit.

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

#1137

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.

In fact, I provided you the most important facts of all, which was at 2pm
today in my office inside my house in the mountains you claim don't have
T-Mobile coverage, I attained a respectable (not great, but respectable) 
a. 60Mbps cellular data download speed
b. -85dBm cellular signal strength

I'm still waiting for the facts from you which would take you all of a
minute or two to run the speed tests and signal strength tests I ran.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg>
 <https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg>

We've been waiting for _years_ for you to provide those facts, in fact.

While -85Dbm is decent anywhere, certainly where you live your Verizon MVNO
should get far better signal strength & I would hope far faster speeds.

The fact you can't provide the facts is what worries me about your claims.
I would _hope_ after all this shilling you've done for your Verizon MVNO
that you would spend the same minute I spent running a speed & signal test.

And yet, you're apparently completely afraid to show us those facts, Steve.
That's a fact that I'm well aware of Steve.

Please post your cellular signal strength & speeds just like I did, Steve.
Those are the facts that matter.

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

#1138

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 20:03:11 -0500, nospam wrote:

> In article <sr5dqv$sig$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> You really need to concentrate on facts.
> 
> the facts aren't what you claim them to be.
> 
> the *actual* facts, supported by numerous industry surveys as well as
> customer reports, is that t-mobile 5g is consistently faster and far
> more widely deployed than verizon 5g.
> 
> <https://www.tomsguide.com/news/t-mobile-is-the-reigning-5g-champ-new-te
> st-results-claim>
>   T-Mobile is destroying AT&T and Verizon in 5G speed
> ...
>   For the 5G Availability award, T-Mobile proved itself the winner by
>   providing the most 5G coverage and connectivity. 33.1% of users
>   remained connected to 5G, while AT&T came in at 20.5% and Verizon
>   at 11.2%.
> 
>   More importantly, T-Mobile handily beat its competitors with an
>   average download speed of 71.3 Mbps. The next closest was AT&T 
>   with 54.9 Mbps, then Verizon trailing behind at 47.7 Mbps. 5G Upload
>   was a closer race, with T-Mobile on top with 15.2 Mbps, AT&T with 10
>   Mbps, and Verizon with 12.9 Mbps.
> 
> <https://www.usnews.com/360-reviews/services/cell-phone-plans/tmobile-vs-
> verizon>
>   T-mobilešs 5G network is currently the broadest in the U.S., covering
>   around 40% of the country compared to Verizonšs 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 Verizonšs 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 usersš 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 thatšs more
>   than twice as fast as AT&T and Verizonšs 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.
> 
> <https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-mobile-keeps-crown-for-5g-coverage-
> speed-opensignal>
>   T-Mobile dominated the latest 5G report from Opensignal, scoring
>   higher marks than rivals AT&T and Verizon across categories of reach,
>   availability, and upload and download speeds.
> 
> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/verizon-at-t-agree-to-faas-request-for-
> a-two-week-delay-on-5g-expansion-plans/>
>   Verizon and AT&T have agreed to delay the launch of their upgraded
>   5G networks for two weeks, bowing to pressure from the Federal
>   Aviation Administration, the airline companies and Transportation
>   Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 20:03:11 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> You really need to concentrate on facts.
> 
> the facts aren't what you claim them to be.

Hi nospam,

While I am aware that you'll defend Apple to the death (no matter what),
what is surprising that Steve defends Verizon to the death (no matter what),
and he doesn't even _pay_ for Verizon (whereas at least I pay T-Mobile).

I must agree with you that Steve is not only cherry picking (e.g., picking
Death Valley, of all places) to make his point that Verizon is great and
that T-Mobile sucks.... but also Steve is _avoiding_ telling us the very
fact that matters most, and which I have asked him for _years_ to provide.
a. 60Mbps cellular data download speed (inside, today, to Las Vegas anyway)
b. -85dBm cellular signal strength (which is damn good inside the house)
c. As high as 255Mbps on my balcony outside (also damn good don't you think)

Those facts require only a minute to snapshot, as I did here for
badgolferman and the team many times, where the numbers 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.

Given that I'm in the boonies where we don't even have gas lines, water
lines, sewer lines, or even cable or DSL, and that the homes are so far
apart because of 40-acre zoning (i.e., you need 80 acres just to put _two_
houses up!), and comparing that with Steve's Cupertino location where houses
are jam packed together, it's shocking actually that Steve is afraid to post
his Verizon MVNO numbers.

What do you think Steve's Verizon MVNO numbers are if he's afraid that much?
 
> the *actual* facts, supported by numerous industry surveys as well as
> customer reports, is that t-mobile 5g is consistently faster and far
> more widely deployed than verizon 5g.

I've been on Usenet well before I was on T-Mobile and certainly well before
I had a 5G cellphone where I can say that the fact which matters most is
what speeds and signal strength _I_ get, especially given I live in the far
off outskirts of the same Santa Cruz Mountains that Steve claims has no
T-Mobile coverage.

And yet, it's likely my coverage, way off in the boonies, is _better_ than
Steve's where he's in the same mountains but he's definitely in the suburbia
where they pack a hundred homes per acre instead of one home every 40 acres.

>   More importantly, T-Mobile handily beat its competitors with an
>   average download speed of 71.3 Mbps. The next closest was AT&T 
>   with 54.9 Mbps, then Verizon trailing behind at 47.7 Mbps. 5G Upload
>   was a closer race, with T-Mobile on top with 15.2 Mbps, AT&T with 10
>   Mbps, and Verizon with 12.9 Mbps.

My T-Mobile speeds in the boonies (there are days when you can hike our
streets for miles and not a single vehicle passes you buy) where I live in
the same Santa Cruz Mountains Steve says has no T-Mobile coverage is at
least at those averages inside the house (and well above if I go outside).

>   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 users average 5G download speeds breaking through the 100
>   Mbps mark. 

What I find interesting is how afraid Steve is of posting his factual data.

I can only suspect that his Verizon MVNO claims are not backed up by the
facts where those screenshots I've posted above you've seen before (save for
the ones taken today) so you know those are my actual speeds.

When someone is _hiding_ the data, I have to begin to ask myself why.

I'm not afraid of posting the speeds I get on T-Mobile in the boonies.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg>

Why is Steve afraid to spend a minute to snapshot his Verizon MVNO speeds?

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

#1139

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

> On 1/5/2022 10:33 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> [8 quoted lines suppressed]
> 
> 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,
> 
> * Yosemite is a place we visit one or two times per year, often staying 
> in the "Yosemite West" area (technically outside the park boundary but 
> you have to go into the park to get there). One time we arrived in a 
> snowstorm and the key to our lodging wasn't left out. Thankfully I had 
> Verizon service so I could call the management company. AT&T and 
> T-Mobile have no coverage (Sprint used to roam on Verizon, but no more). 
> Verizon had acquired a small regional carrier, Golden State Cellular 
> upon which they used to roam. See <https://i.imgur.com/9zJhPUq.png>.
> 
> * An example of the the San Francisco Bay Area's "greenbelt," up to the 
> northwest corner of Marin County and Point Reyes National Seashore 
> (highly recommended), is at <https://i.imgur.com/BCRhffC.png>:, you can 
> see the gaps in coverage on AT&T and especially on T-Mobile.
> 
> * Muir Woods is another highly-recommended tourist destination in Marin 
> County and you can see how poor T-Mobile coverage is in that area, see 
> <https://i.imgur.com/QTPgy8j.png>:
> 
> * This is part of the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties' greenbelt, 
> and again you can see the big advantage in coverage enjoyed by Verizon 
> subscribers, see <https://i.imgur.com/1w58JJA.png>
> 
> * Here is the area around Pinnacles National Park (highly recommended) 
> <https://i.imgur.com/HevfvTN.png>:
> 
> * Someone I know lives in one of the mountain communities of the Santa 
> Cruz Mountains. I did a comparison of that area. You can see the huge 
> advantage of Verizon, and how poor T-Mobile is at 
> <https://i.imgur.com/t8t7Xy2.png>:
> 
> * I grew up in South Florida, and still visit, so coverage there is of 
> interest to me, see <https://i.imgur.com/SoWWEk8.png>.
> 
> * Someone mentioned that their children were hiking between Loma Prieta 
> Peak and Mount Madonna so I did the coverage maps for that area, see 
> <https://i.imgur.com/0Nn3C2P.png>. You can see how tremendously better 
> Verizon coverage is in that area. It's especially important to have 
> coverage when in areas away from roads. At the very least take along a 
> phone that's on a prepaid Verizon service.
> 
> * A huge park in Santa Clara County is Henry Coe. You can see the big 
> differences in coverage at <https://i.imgur.com/g61Ss5T.jpeg,though even 
> Verizon doesn't have complete coverage.



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.
If you could, I challenge you to *name just one*.

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.

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

#1140

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).

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

#1141

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?

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

#1142

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.

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

#1143

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>

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

#1144

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*

> 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.

Hmmmmm... something is illogical about that; however we're missing detail.

For example, you can have two towers in your back yard, one pointing toward
you and the other pointing in the other direction, so the location, in and
of itself, isn't the only datapoint we need to know about to compare them.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg>

Also the transmit strength is important, where, as you know, I get my
Internet from a WISP from miles away and my speeds instantly jumped when I
switched from a nanobeam to a 2.4GHz rocket and then again to a 5GHz rocket.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg>
 
> 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.

Please don't forget I listed early on the PC Magazine tests which covered
the entire country, both city & rural, and you _know_ this, so stop it with
the anecdotal shit.

The only anecdotal facts I provided were my own coverage in the same
mountains _you_ said has crappy T-Mobile coverage, which is relevant for two
reasons, one of which is it debunks what you claim (whether you like that
fact or not), and the other is it's all I _can_ do to test your claims.

> 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.

I think the PC Magazine was pretty clear that the T-Mobile _coverage_ is
just fine for most of the country (and the speeds were great too).

I'm not the one saying that Verizon is shit though, nor AT&T.
All I ever ask of you are the facts, and if you present a fact, I look at
it, just as if I present a fact, I _expect_ you to look at it also.

Only after we agree on the facts can we even attempt to discuss them.
Did I mention yet that anyone who disagrees with facts is an idiot?

> 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/>.

Steve,

Just so you know, I've been on Usenet for decades where I haven't been shy
all those years about saying I was on Verizon, and then AT&T and then
T-Mobile, all in the Silicon Valley, where I found the coverage for all
three to be... wait for it... *about the same* (which is where I live).

You also live in the Silicon Valley so I would find it surprising if you
claim the coverage in the Silicon Valley is vastly different between them.

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

#1145

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:15:27 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> As to coverage on interstates, there are gaps on T-Mobile that don't 
>> exist on AT&T or Verizon, such as I-80 in most of Nebraska, 
> 
> that is simply false.

Is Nebraska still a state?

It's interesting how Steve is flailing to find the worst places on the 
planet (like Death Valley) to cherry pick (What's next? Siberia?).

Still... this is a thread about COVERAGE, and specifically COVERAGE 
COMPARISONS, so let's take an objective look at those vaunted coverage maps.

Looking it up, this first hit (from August 2021) explains how lousy the FCC 
coverage maps really are (they don't take into account _any_ 5G for 
example).
 *FCC Puts Out Its First Mobile Coverage Maps: Why They Differ From Carrier
Maps*

<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fcc-puts-out-its-first-mobile-coverage-maps-why-they-differ-from-carrier>

The FCC maps are calculated based on voluntary information provided to them 
(that does not include 5G data) by each of the carriers. 
 "The FCC knows where the towers are, which frequencies are being used, 
  and what the terrain is like. Using mathematical modeling, the commission
  projects coverage at distances from towers and put it on its maps. 
  So this [i.e., an FCC map] isn't on-the-ground measurement."

Still, the FCC maps should be better than nothing, right?

While the article brings up a "huge hole" in T-Mobile 4G coverage in one 
area of Upper New York State and some "potential holes" in AT&T's coverage 
in similar areas, the authors rationalize that the FCC maps don't show _any_ 
T-Mobile 5G nor even any of AT&T's 3G coverage anywhere, so we have to take 
_all_ the FCC maps with a grain of salt (as they're not the true story).

Yikes. That sucks.

Worse perhaps, the article says that the carriers' own maps are also 
incorrect in that the article claims the carrier 4G coverage maps tend to 
show greater coverage than the 4G coverage that actually exists.

OK. That sucks even more.

Anyone well educated and logical can see what that means, not the least of 
it being that PC Magazine is prepping us for their actual tests around the 
country being more accurate for the areas they tested than either the 
calculated FCC 4G-only FCC maps or the optimistic carrier coverage maps.

As an interesting flip of what Steve said, it may very well be that the only 
accurate measurements are _not_ the crappy FCC maps (which omit 5G 
apparently, and even 3G) nor the even crappier carrier maps (which are 
apparently overly optimistic), but the actual real world tests in the wild.

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

#1146

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:10:41 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Is Nebraska still a state?
> 
> it is.

I think you're right because Wikipedia  starts off with & I quote verbatim:
 "Nebraska is a state" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska>

Although at fewer than 2 million people in the entire state, just the SF Bay
area we started this conversation with already dwarfs the entire state by a
multiplication factor of something like four or five times alone.
 
>> It's interesting how Steve is flailing to find the worst places on the 
>> planet (like Death Valley) to cherry pick (What's next? Siberia?).
> 
> it's what he does.

At first I believed Steve's coverage maps, a priori, but after having read
that PCMag article on why FCC coverage maps differ from carrier coverage
maps, I realized the unfortunate truth that all those coverage maps lie.
a. The FCC maps are apparently mainly (only?) 4G coverage
b. Even then, they're calculated coverage based on what the carriers provide
c. And perhaps worse, the carrier maps they said were overly optimistic

I guess that means the coverage maps are an "ok" starting point, but
coverage maps alone (whether from the FCC or the carriers) can't possibly be
our only objective tool to compare the coverage in the USA between carriers.

> the number of people who are affected by coverage gaps in the middle of
> nowhere are very, very small, which is why it's a very low priority. 

Again, at first I believed Steve's coverage maps, a priori, but now that I
know more, I would have to subjectively assess that anyone relying
_completely_ on those coverage maps, is not telling us the entire truth.

The coverage maps, sadly to say, turn out to only be a rough starting point
for a factual discussion of what the actual coverage may be in a given area.

> all of the carriers have excellent coverage where people actually are. 

I only care about the facts, where subjectively I've had all three carriers
sequentially in the Silicon Valley (starting with Verizon and then moving to
AT&T and T-Mobile in sequence) where I had not noticed any appreciable
difference in coverage at the times that I switched over from each one.

I have noticed, subjectively, that T-Mobile speeds have jumped through the
roof lately, which "may" be due to the fact that T-Mobile gave me a free
Samsung 4G phone (and a half-price Apple iPhone, with trade in) so those
speeds (as you can tell from my screenshots) are almost always 5G nowadays.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/gcsyc4Vn/speedtest04.jpg> *82Mbps & -88dBM*

Note that while I took Steve's claimed speeds at face value, I know that if
there isn't a picture, it didn't happen on Usenet, and I also know that
speeds fluctuate greatly, where you can trust me since I've shown something
like a dozen test results, with pictures, showing 80Mbps is a decent low
average where 255Mbps isn't what I get all the time (just sometimes).
 <https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> *130Mbps to 255Mbps*

I'm not sure if Steve is trustworthy enough since he didn't even bother to
spend the seconds it takes to snapshot & post his results like I did for us.

But if we take his typed numbers at face value, where he lives in the same
mountains, *his Verizon speeds are fantastic & his T-Mobile speeds suck*
(but I would like to see a decibel graph from him as I had openly showed).
 <https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

>> <https://www.pcmag.com/news/fcc-puts-out-its-first-mobile-coverage-maps-why-th
>> ey-differ-from-carrier>
>> 
>> The FCC maps are calculated based on voluntary information provided to them 
>> (that does not include 5G data) by each of the carriers. 
>>  "The FCC knows where the towers are, which frequencies are being used, 
>>   and what the terrain is like. Using mathematical modeling, the commission
>>   projects coverage at distances from towers and put it on its maps. 
>>   So this [i.e., an FCC map] isn't on-the-ground measurement."
> 
> mathematical modeling = estimated. it is not measured.

All I care about are the facts, where I agree with you that the FCC maps are
estimated, and, what the PCMag said was they are even far worse than that.

Certainly PCMag was prepping us for the need for objective on-the-ground
tests, but what PCMag said about the lack of _any_ 5G in the FCC maps is
fatal to Steve's argument if Steve uses the FCC map to show T-Mobile sucks
compared to his vaunted Verizon.

If Steve knew that ahead of time, then Steve was trying to bullshit us,
because it's a discloser that is critically important to his overall case.

If Steve didn't know that the FCC maps (apparently) omit 5G, and if Steve
was also unaware that T-Mobile has expanded 5G tremendously recently, then
Steve wasn't trying to bullshit us - but he may just have been innocently
ignorant of those (reputed) facts.
> 
>> Still, the FCC maps should be better than nothing, right?
> 
> whether it's better than nothing is debatable. 

If what PCMag said in August of this year is true today, then the FCC
coverage maps do NOT show _any_ of the T-Mobile 5G coverage (and even 3G for
AT&T), then, of course, Steve's vaunted Verizon will show up better.

But that's just an artifact of the inaccuracies of the FCC coverage maps.
Steve _must_ respond to these allegations as they're critical to his case.

> relying on information that turns out to be inaccurate can turn out
> quite poorly.

As a rather well educated fact-based aspy who can basically only tell the
truth, I find it rather disconcerting when salespeople, marketing,
politicians & Usenet pundits play clever deceptive games with the facts so
as to sway public opinion.

If Steve was playing games with us on the FCC coverage maps, then that's
dismaying since they can't but help to show Verizon (artificially) with
better coverage (if it's true that only 4G is properly represented).

If Steve was ignorant of those facts, it may even be worse than playing
games since Steve may not be concluding the correct answers given he's not
starting with the correct datapoints (if he wasn't aware of the facts).

Either way, it's classic in politics to use bad data to press the story.

While anyone can see I've been striving to be objective (I don't care which
carrier has the better coverage since my choice of T-Mobile was based on
price performance which I accept, including tons of free 5G phones), I don't
see that Steve has been objective in the least (so he needs to respond).

For one, Steve didn't show me screenshots of his speeds, which, while I
accept his results a priori that T-Mobile sucks where he lives and Verizon
is great, I find his single typewritten measurement for each to not be as
believable as, oh, say, many screenshots like I provided would have been.

For another, if it's true what PCMag said about the FCC coverage maps being
so crappy for 5G and 3G, then if that data forms the basis of Steve's entire
argument, then he has to respond to that allegation of fact to be believed.

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

#1147

On Fri, 07 Jan 2022 18:24:57 -0500, nospam wrote:

>   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,

All I care about is the objective truth on the topic of cellular coverage.

I need to point out what I just learned so that anyone with more knowledge 
than I have (which should be most people, right?) can augment what I say.

As always, I don't care _who_ is better/worse.
I only care to have objective facts assessed.
(That's because my belief systems are _based_ on facts.)

To that end, please take a quick look at this August 2021 PC Magazine 
article about why FCC coverage maps differ from carrier coverage maps. 
*FCC Puts Out Its First Mobile Coverage Maps: Why They Differ From Carrier
Maps*

<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fcc-puts-out-its-first-mobile-coverage-maps-why-they-differ-from-carrier>

Bear in mind the following potentially important objective facts.
1. PCMag says the FCC maps suck as they don't cover 5G at all (nor much 3G).
2. PCMag says carrier maps aren't much better as they're overly optimistic.
3. PCMag says the only true test is an independent scientifically run test.

Of course, there is an "assessment" of those facts, which is subjective.
4. PCMag is prepping us to accept their subsequent on-the-ground tests.
5. Where a flaw in PCMag tests is likely that they can't test everywhere.

What this means, overall, is that I've been hugely misinterpreting the maps 
that Steve has been posting in that they omit fundamental information in the 
FCC case (given, for example, the fact that T-Mobile is expanding 5G and 
Verizon is by all accounts way behind) - and yet - they also express 
unwarranted optimism in the case of the carrier maps.

So perhaps, maybe the only true test is, as PCMag claims, independent tests.

What are other independent scientifically run tests that we collectively 
know of that we can use to better characterize the true nature of coverage?

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

#1148

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 12:04:03 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

>> Also, your Pixel 2 doesn't support LTE band 71 (600 MHz) which would
>> probably help your coverage.
> 
> One of these days I'm going to learn about bands, but the knowledge 
> probably won't be all that personally useful...

I'm going to agree with The Real Bev that I too have never bothered to even
try to understand this 'band' stuff so I don't know what my free Samsung
A325G phone supports (although I must say it works just fine for me).
 <https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

To that end, I just pressed "*#0011#" on my phone keypad, which brings up
what's the current connection (field test mode of sorts), but not the bands.

Running a free google-free gsf-free ad free app search for "MTK" finds this
shortcut to the standard Android MTK Engineering Mode Activity page
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Go.EngModeMtkShortcut> 
But unfortunately it was built for older Android than mine (Android 11).

A persistent filter search (which is impossible on iOS AFAIK) for "network
bands" garners a few more free ad free gsf free google free related apps,
the first of which that brought up the desired bands on my phone was
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ljh.networkmodesamsung>

That brought up the following 34 bands that I could select from I guess.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/ZKnwPGQ0/bands02.jpg>

What does all that mean? I don't know (because I never asked the questions).
 <https://i.postimg.cc/FFByv7Ps/bands01.jpg>

Someone who actually knows whether that's useful information might be able
to tell us why we should care how many bands my free phone supports when it
works just fine for whatever my current needs happen to be (so far anyway).

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.microsoft.windows

csiph-web