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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #55294 > unrolled thread

Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

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

Contents

  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 01:36 +0000
    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 05:13 -0700
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 09:00 -0400
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 15:23 +0000
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 15:03 +0000
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:36 -0700
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 15:49 -0400
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-31 20:12 +0000
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 16:49 -0400
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 14:26 -0700
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 20:34 +0000
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 16:49 -0400
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 21:19 +0000
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 19:18 -0700
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 22:31 -0400
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 22:58 +0000
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 14:52 +0000
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 12:02 -0400
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:37 +0000
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 14:12 -0700
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 17:14 -0400
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 10:05 -0400
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-01 07:19 -0700
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 15:15 +0000
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 12:02 -0400
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 09:44 -0700
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:37 +0000
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy YK <xxxxx@dialme.com> - 2018-09-02 11:56 -0400
                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-09-02 09:21 -0700
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-02 12:34 -0400
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:10 +0000
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-09-02 09:54 -0700
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 12:46 -0700
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-03 09:11 +1200
                                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-09-02 15:12 -0700
                                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2018-09-03 06:44 +0100
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 23:03 +0000
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:16 +0000
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:07 -0400
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-09-02 10:30 -0700
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:28 +0000
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:23 +0000
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 08:23 -0400
                                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-09-03 07:57 -0700
                                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 21:23 +0000
                                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 14:49 -0700
                                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 22:20 +0000
                                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 15:59 -0700
                                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-04 13:45 +1200
                                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 02:29 +0000
                                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-04 20:49 -0700
                                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-09-03 23:17 -0700
                                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 22:03 +0000
                                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 21:23 +0000
                                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy joe <none@domain.invalid> - 2018-09-03 16:54 -0500
                                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 22:10 +0000
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 23:05 +0000
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 23:16 +0000
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:17 +0000
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-05 08:01 -0700
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-09-03 11:45 -0400
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 21:42 +0000
                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 05:30 +1000
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy YK <xxxxx@dialme.com> - 2018-09-02 21:09 -0400
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:38 +0000
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:34 +0000
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:37 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#55294 — Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy

On 30 Aug 2018 18:23:38 GMT, nospam wrote:

> t-mobile's coverage is *much* better than it used to be. in urban and
> suburban areas, there is little to no difference among the carriers. it
> also works quite well in rural areas, but there are always *some* areas
> with dead spots no matter what carrier, even verizon and even in major
> cities.

While nospam always guesses, such that his credibility is shit, 
this is one guess by nospam that I can concur with.

In the Silicon Valley and surrounds, all three major carriers are, in my
opinion (and I've had them all - although sequentially), about the same.

In the mountains, all three suck.

Luckily, T-Mobile gives me three choices, all three of which I use:
1. Free femtocell  (T-Mobile gave me one)
2. Free cellular repeater (T-Mobile gave me one)
3. Free WiFI router (I already have one of my own) & free wifi calls

Since Android has very good cellular signal graphical applications, I can
tell *exactly* which tower I'm using, even if it's a repeated tower from
Santa Cruz, or even if it's the femtocell in my house, since each has a
unique tower ID that Android easily *directly* reports sans need for a
database lookup.

Most of the time, my femtocell wins when set to cellular only, and almost
all the time the wifi calls win when set to prefer WiFi. But the moment I
go down my driveway (which is as long as some roads are), I quickly lose
the signal until I get down the mountain a few thousand feet.

But it's the same for the neighbors on AT&T and Verizon, as much as we can
tell, as there are zero cellular towers within miles.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#55305

On 8/30/2018 6:36 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> In the mountains, all three suck.
> 
> Luckily, T-Mobile gives me three choices, all three of which I use:
> 1. Free femtocell  (T-Mobile gave me one)
> 2. Free cellular repeater (T-Mobile gave me one)
> 3. Free WiFI router (I already have one of my own) & free wifi calls

Verizon works great in the Santa Cruz mountains. And you don't need all 
that extra equipment that you need with one of the second tier carriers.

AT&T works acceptably well, but not as good as Verizon, and has more 
areas with no coverage than Verizon.

Sprint works poorly. Since Sprint does have a presence in the area, they 
limit roaming.

T-Mobile works poorly. They have dropped much of the AT&T roaming that 
they used to have in this area because it was too expensive.

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

#55308

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

> 
> Verizon works great in the Santa Cruz mountains. And you don't need all 
> that extra equipment that you need with one of the second tier carriers.

they're all first tier carriers and you really need to stop shilling
for verizon.

> AT&T works acceptably well, but not as good as Verizon, and has more 
> areas with no coverage than Verizon.
> 
> Sprint works poorly. Since Sprint does have a presence in the area, they 
> limit roaming.
> 
> T-Mobile works poorly. They have dropped much of the AT&T roaming that 
> they used to have in this area because it was too expensive.

bullshit to all of that.

<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map>

according to that map, t-mobile is the only one covering bonny doon,
with at&t and sprint covering davenport. verizon doesn't cover either
particularly well or at all and also has some dead spots south of
felton.

the only reason t-mobile doesn't roam on at&t is because it's no longer
needed. their coverage is *much* better than it used to be, even
compared to a few years ago.

there's also a lot more to the world than the santa cruz mountains. 

nationwide, t-mobile and verizon are basically *tied*:

<https://opensignal.com/blog/2018/03/15/the-4g-battle-continues-between-
t-mobile-and-verizon/>
  In our national report, released in January, we saw T-Mobile win our
  4G availability award by just a hair: while its users were able to
  access 4G connections an average 93.1% of the time, Verizon was close
  on its heels with scores of 92.7%.

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

#55317

On 31 Aug 2018 06:00:02 GMT, nospam wrote:

> <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map>
> 
> according to that map, t-mobile is the only one covering bonny doon,
> with at&t and sprint covering davenport. verizon doesn't cover either
> particularly well or at all and also has some dead spots south of
> felton.

On this (and on James Comey), I agree with nospam, where adults will
reasonably see different coverages in different areas, particularly when
mountainous areas are affected such as we see in the Santa Cruz Mountains
such as, oh, say, "Twin Creeks, California, USA":
<https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.15606,-121.84412&z=14&b=mbt>

Adults who follow my example can type the following into nospam's URL
  "Twin Creeks, California, USA"
And then click successively on the four carrier display buttons:
 <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map>

A verbal assessment of what *everyone* can see for themselves is:
a. T-Mobile = splotchy
b. AT&T = splotchy
c. Sprint = empty
d. Verizon = splotchy

These aren't even tall mountains, mind you, as they're only about 2000 feet
(only about 600 meters), where the Santa Cruz Mountains have peaks double
that, which makes coverage in blind sided areas even more problematic.

My point is, and this one spot certainly proves it, that the coverage is
"about the same" in that "it sucks" in the mountains.
-- 

BTW, being an adult with adult comprehensive skills, I full well know the
flaws of that T-Mobile chart, where the chart gives a "bye" to all the
carriers as I hike extensively with other people (who have the other
carriers) in these mountains and to the lowest level that you can zoom on
that map, I *know* for certain that there is no coverage in areas that are
indicated as having coverage so even this map is optimistic for _all_ the
carriers.

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

#55316

On 31 Aug 2018 05:13:29 GMT, sms wrote:

> Verizon works great in the Santa Cruz mountains. And you don't need all 
> that extra equipment that you need with one of the second tier carriers.
> 
> AT&T works acceptably well, but not as good as Verizon, and has more 
> areas with no coverage than Verizon.
> 
> Sprint works poorly. Since Sprint does have a presence in the area, they 
> limit roaming.
> 
> T-Mobile works poorly. They have dropped much of the AT&T roaming that 
> they used to have in this area because it was too expensive.

Hi sms,

I expect you to act like an adult, just like David Empson always does, and
like how you almost always do and like how JF Mezei mostly does, and like
how Rod Speed sometimes does, but unlike nospam, Lewis, BK@OnRamp, Jolly
Roger, Alan Baker, Tim Streater, etc., who never act like adults.

We're both highly educated.
We can talk to each other like adults do.

But being an adult means that we are beholden to actual facts. 
Facts rule adults.

Reasonable adults can reasonably agree that conditions are different
depending on a huge variety of factors such as tower placement, antenna
aiming, topography, and distance.

In addition, in my California county, as you're likely well aware, we have
mandated glass (in the newer homes) that I have personally seen blocks
Wi-Fi frequencies like you can't believe (we measured the decibels directly
on multiple devices).

I know nospam calls that bullshit but I published the numbers, so, unlike
Rod Speed who makes claims without any shred of facts, at least I can back
up those claims, by multiple people, including my own WISP who is very
knowledgeable in such things. 

Hence I don't doubt that your situation may appear to be different than
mine, even though we are likely only a score of miles apart. Also, I think
neither you nor I did an Apples-to-Apples detailed study of the signal
strength on the three carriers.

Unfortunately, even on Android, signal strength is only reported for the
carriers that are enabled in the phone at any given time, so I can only
report on signal strength decibels on T-Mobile.

Let me run a signal strength test at this very moment, so that you can
compare mine with yours. That would be what *adults* would do anyway.
1. I'll run a test inside the large sliding glass doors.
2. I'll run that test outside the large sliding glass doors.
3. I'll then pull the power on both the femtocell & the cellular repeater.
4. Then I'll run the tests of #1 and #2 above.

You can run a single test (since you don't have femtocells or cellular
repeaters in your house) and report your results. Those would be facts.

0. There are many free cellular signal strength utilities to choose from:
   <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=88809410.jpg>

1. Here is the T-Mobile signal strength just inside the glass doors:
   <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=52538241.jpg>

2. Here is the cellular signal strength just outside those same doors:
   <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=55050812.jpg>

3. Here is a shot of the disconnected femtocell & cellular repeater:
   <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=57046143.jpg>

4. Here is test 1 again, sans amplification:
   <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=89348074.jpg>

5. Here is test 2 again, sans amplification:
   <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=64745415.jpg>

Let's be adults. 
Adults comprehend facts.
Children don't comprehend facts.

So children say things that aren't based on facts all the time.
Adults should base their discussions on facts.

Usenet is more pleasurable and we learn more when adults use their facts.
What facts do *your* tests show?

BTW, notice from the unique Cell ID I can tell *exactly* what
tower/femtocell/repeated station I am connected to, which tells me when I'm
connected to my own home towers or to the external towers of T-Mobile.

Also notice I didn't correct for the change in cell tower (I could have,
but that would have taken more time). Also note that I can't run the same
survey at the same time and place for Verizon or AT&T simply because the
limitation of the Android phone/app is that it can only give me the
cellular signal strength of the provider that I currently am subscribed to.

So rest assured, as an adult, I know the flaws of my quick experiment. 
Nonetheless, let's just see what the facts show in your adult experiment.

-- 
Note: The test takes only a minute to run, where sliding the screenshots to
Windows & editing & posting the pictures takes another minute, so I'm only
asking for two minutes of your time. There are plenty of similar apps, but
for this test, I used Network Cell Info Lite freeware, version 4.15,
com.wilysis.cellinfolite, on a $130 Android LG Stylo 3 Plus running Nougat.
The latest version is here (my version is off an APK saved from the past):
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite>

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

#55336

On 8/31/2018 8:03 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> Unfortunately, even on Android, signal strength is only reported for the
> carriers that are enabled in the phone at any given time, so I can only
> report on signal strength decibels on T-Mobile.

Here are the maps for the Santa Cruz Mountains for each carrier: 
<http://oi68.tinypic.com/98hs1z.jpg>.

You can see the stark differences in coverage. Verizon has the best 
coverage, all native. Sprint does pretty well, but most of it is roaming 
coverage on Verizon. AT&T is also pretty good. T-Mobile is very poor.

I spend a lot of time in those areas, especially in the state park area 
between Davenport and Santa Cruz, up at Wilder Ranch State Park. My 
daughter went to U.C. Santa Cruz which did get T-Mobile coverage about 
the third year she was there, but which had good Verizon coverage. But 
in the mid-reaches of the park, between Empire Grade Road and CA1 there 
are areas where only Verizon has coverage, as well as some valleys where 
there is no coverage at all.

I know that some people never venture out of urban areas and they could 
not care less about gaping holes in coverage in rural areas. But many 
people do care a lot. And it's not just rural areas. We drive down to 
San Diego a few times a year to see my son in San Diego. When we had 
T-Mobile, coverage disappeared just east of Gilroy on 152, then it's 
sporadic until I-5. Once you're on I-5 the coverage is very hit or miss. 
As someone else pointed out, their map legend is misleading. "Fair" 
means "poor" and "Good" means "fair," though they are certainly not the 
only carrier that is not completely straigtforward in this regard.

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

#55342

In article <pmc5cg$8gl$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Here are the maps for the Santa Cruz Mountains for each carrier: 
> <http://oi68.tinypic.com/98hs1z.jpg>.

that's *very* outdated.

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

#55346

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I know that some people never venture out of urban areas and they could 
> not care less about gaping holes in coverage in rural areas. But many 
> people do care a lot. And it's not just rural areas.

[Example deleted.]

  Exactly! Outside urban areas, mobile coverage can - and often will -
be a problem. And sometimes 'even' *in* urban areas, mobile coverage
can/will be a problem.

  Anyone who says differently, doesn't know what they're talking about
or/and '*really* should get out more*'!

  That someone hasn't experienced/noticed a mobile coverage problem
doesn't mean that there isn't/can't_be any.

  Just install a mobile signal monitoring app [1] - preferably on
multiple phones for different carriers - and see/hear what happens.

[1] I have 'No Signal Alert', but that seems to be withdrawn from Google
Play.

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

#55350

In article <pmcefm.73k.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > I know that some people never venture out of urban areas and they could 
> > not care less about gaping holes in coverage in rural areas. But many 
> > people do care a lot. And it's not just rural areas.
> 
> [Example deleted.]
> 
>   Exactly! Outside urban areas, mobile coverage can - and often will -
> be a problem. And sometimes 'even' *in* urban areas, mobile coverage
> can/will be a problem.

nobody said otherwise. there are dead spots with every carrier, they
are just in different places.

sms is a verizon shill who likes to bash t-mobile, despite them having
roughly as good coverage as verizon. 

the map he provided (which you snipped) is *horribly* outdated. 

<https://opensignal.com/blog/2018/03/15/the-4g-battle-continues-between-
t-mobile-and-verizon/>
  In our national report, released in January, we saw T-Mobile win our
  4G availability award by just a hair: while its users were able to
  access 4G connections an average 93.1% of the time, Verizon was close
  on its heels with scores of 92.7%.

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

#55359

On 8/31/2018 1:12 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I know that some people never venture out of urban areas and they could
>> not care less about gaping holes in coverage in rural areas. But many
>> people do care a lot. And it's not just rural areas.
> 
> [Example deleted.]
> 
>    Exactly! Outside urban areas, mobile coverage can - and often will -
> be a problem. And sometimes 'even' *in* urban areas, mobile coverage
> can/will be a problem.
> 
>    Anyone who says differently, doesn't know what they're talking about
> or/and '*really* should get out more*'!
> 
>    That someone hasn't experienced/noticed a mobile coverage problem
> doesn't mean that there isn't/can't_be any.

The problem I've seen, especially on Howard Forums, is that there is 
contingent of three or four T-Mobile fanboys that are terribly offended 
anytime anyone mentions coverage issues with T-Mobile, even though some 
of them do admit that these issues exist.

They have several canned responses including "things will change when 
600Mhz (band 71) is rolled out" to "no one cares about gaping holes in 
coverage because no one ever goes to those places with no coverage," to 
"all carriers have coverage holes," to "the Sprint/T-Mobile merger will 
fix coverage issues."

They will often insist that anyone that mentions T-Mobile's coverage 
challenges is employed by Verizon or AT&T. I posted images of the 
monthly checks I receive from Verizon and AT&T for my postings regarding 
comparative coverage levels.

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

#55347

On 31 Aug 2018 12:36:47 GMT, sms wrote:

> Here are the maps for the Santa Cruz Mountains for each carrier: 
> <http://oi68.tinypic.com/98hs1z.jpg>.

Thanks for that suggestion of an area to look at for cellular coverage:
 <https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2680832,-122.310626,13z>
Where the topography is similar to what I was talking about further east:
 <https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.20733,-122.23676&z=12&b=mbt>

You don't mention the source or date of those maps, which is always a
critical piece of scientific information. 

If I assume a current date and a reliable source, then I would agree with
you that, at that level (you zoomed out further than I did where I zoomed
in as close as the T-Mobile maps would let me) there are stark contrasts.

I will (arbitrarily) pick "Loma Mar, California, USA" as a centerpoint:
 <https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map>
Although I just noticed that the T-Mobile coverage map is for "LTE only".

Here's my assessment of that coverage area, which anyone can duplicate:
1. T-Mobile = pretty spotty 
2. AT&T = almost doesn't exist
3. Sprint = doesn't exist
4. Verizon = pretty good coverage (especially in light of the above)

I'm not going to go into the "words" used above simply because anyone can
run those same results for themselves ... but ... but ... but ... I have to
*agree* with you that, if the current LTE coverage map by T-Mobile is
anywhere near accurate for the "Loma Mar" results - then Verizon is the way
to go in that area. 

Clearly, in a map zoomed to the defaults of that T-Mobile "LTE coverage"
centered on Loma Mar, California, the coverage choice is clearly Verizon.

I agree with facts. Facts are funny that way.
I don't know if "LTE Coverage" is meaningful to everyone.

But if "LTE Coverage" is meaningful, and if that map is accurate, then
Verizon is clearly "better" than T-Mobile, and just as clearly, both AT&T
and Sprint suck (Sprint sucking even worse than does AT&T for that area).

> You can see the stark differences in coverage. Verizon has the best 
> coverage, all native. Sprint does pretty well, but most of it is roaming 
> coverage on Verizon. AT&T is also pretty good. T-Mobile is very poor.

Hmmmmmmmm... my assessment is *different* from yours, but mine is based on
the "LTE Coverage" map that nospam provided the link to, while yours is
unknown the source.

Even so, Verizon comes out on top in both, but T-Mobile comes second in the
T-Mobile coverage map (surprise, surprise), but AT&T sucked and Sprint
didn't exist (where AT&T is the surprise there).

> I spend a lot of time in those areas, especially in the state park area 
> between Davenport and Santa Cruz, up at Wilder Ranch State Park. My 
> daughter went to U.C. Santa Cruz which did get T-Mobile coverage about 
> the third year she was there, but which had good Verizon coverage. But 
> in the mid-reaches of the park, between Empire Grade Road and CA1 there 
> are areas where only Verizon has coverage, as well as some valleys where 
> there is no coverage at all.

As an aside, just as you helped with the pool supplies at the Pool Guys in
Saratoga, I have a relative who plans on going to USSC if she can get in
(she applies this year). 

If she does get in, it would be nice if I can ask advice as to what
cellular providers work best but I'll wait until she gets in before asking
questions (she only has a 3.7 GPA so it's going to be iffy).

> I know that some people never venture out of urban areas and they could 
> not care less about gaping holes in coverage in rural areas. But many 
> people do care a lot. And it's not just rural areas. We drive down to 
> San Diego a few times a year to see my son in San Diego. When we had 
> T-Mobile, coverage disappeared just east of Gilroy on 152, then it's 
> sporadic until I-5. Once you're on I-5 the coverage is very hit or miss. 
> As someone else pointed out, their map legend is misleading. "Fair" 
> means "poor" and "Good" means "fair," though they are certainly not the 
> only carrier that is not completely straigtforward in this regard.

I visit kids in colleges too (I think we all do), and I visit relatives and
go on trips to Napa and Tahoe and Yosemite, etc., where we all experience
some dropouts - but - generally - I find the coverage on highways pretty
good nowadays.

There's no doubt that everyone will have a different experience based on a
lot of factors, one of which is the device (e.g., I find very consistently
that my iPads suck compared to the Android devices - and this is consistent
and my WISP agrees with me - as he makes jokes about his iPhone owners all
the time telling me that they have most of the problems he has to deal
with). 

But, even with a good device, if there is no coverage, there is no
coverage. 

For the default area centered on "Loma Mar, California, USA", I would agree
with you that the "LTE Coverage Map" above shows that Verizon clearly has
the best coverage - such that - if I lived in Loma Mar - I'd choose Verizon
too (simply because I would have to).

AT&T barely existed and Sprint didn't exist.
T-Mobile was splotchy as hell - but it would be the second choice.

Of course, I'd ask residents of the area, who would know all the local
conditions, so those conclusions are based solely on the LTE Coverage map
results (which anyone can repeat - which is how adults work things out).

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

#55352

In article <pmc8p2$uuu$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 31 Aug 2018 12:36:47 GMT, sms wrote:
> > Here are the maps for the Santa Cruz Mountains for each carrier: 
> > <http://oi68.tinypic.com/98hs1z.jpg>.
> 


> You don't mention the source or date of those maps, which is always a
> critical piece of scientific information. 

of course he doesn't, because it's very old.

t-mobile's coverage use to be not particularly good but that was a
while ago. t-mobile has come a long way in the past few years.

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

#55356

On 31 Aug 2018 13:49:45 GMT, nospam wrote:

>> You don't mention the source or date of those maps, which is always a
>> critical piece of scientific information. 
> 
> of course he doesn't, because it's very old.
> 
> t-mobile's coverage use to be not particularly good but that was a
> while ago. t-mobile has come a long way in the past few years.

I'm not sure if I should commend you for bringing that fact up since you
usually provide zero facts - but I must commend you nonetheless if it's
true that his coverage maps are old.

At least I provide my sources, and, I provide enough data for anyone to
reproduce the tests (which is what all adults do as do all scientists).

The single test I ran from my phone this morning is current as of that
moment it was made (but the readings vary even within any given minute so a
"real" study would take far more readings than a single reading and it
would take three phones of the same make and model tested with the SIM
cards from all three carriers swapped among them and then the averages
reported).

The web-site test of Loma Mar and Twin Creeks I suggested do show different
results, where, in the Loma Mar tests, for LTE anyway, it's pretty clear
that T-Mobile was second to Verizon and AT&T & Spring basically didn't
exist.

The results were more even for Twin Creeks at splotchy for both T-Mobile &
Verizon. 

In short, for the general area I care about, the coverage sucks equally for
all three major carriers, but, if we assume that sms cares about the area
around Loma Mar, depending on exactly where he cares about the Verizon
"LTE" coverage was certainly indicated as better.

I'm not sure *how* T-Mobile generated those maps, nor how accurate they
are, but overall, if that's the area sms cares about, and if "LTE" is what
matters to him ... he doesn't have much choice other than Verizon or
T-Mobile as a distant second place.

Is LTE a valid criteria and are those T-Mobile maps accurate???

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

#55386

On 8/31/2018 2:19 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2018 13:49:45 GMT, nospam wrote:
> 
>>> You don't mention the source or date of those maps, which is always a
>>> critical piece of scientific information.
>>
>> of course he doesn't, because it's very old.
>>
>> t-mobile's coverage use to be not particularly good but that was a
>> while ago. t-mobile has come a long way in the past few years.
> 
> I'm not sure if I should commend you for bringing that fact up since you
> usually provide zero facts - but I must commend you nonetheless if it's
> true that his coverage maps are old.

Of course the maps are not old! You are well aware that nospam is a 
pathological liar so why you would give anything he writes any attention 
is a mystery. Filter him out like the rest of us do and get a life.

As I stated, those four maps are a mere eight days old. I gathered them 
from each of the carrier's web sites for a post I made on Howard Forums 
about T-Mobile coverage.

You complain about people like nospam lying so much, and you're correct, 
but you can be just as guilty of it. Consider following my lead and 
posting only referenced facts.

And by the way, if the maps WERE old, a decade or so old, T-Mobile would 
look better not worse because they've dropped so much of the AT&T 
coverage that you see on the AT&T map. Paradoxically, they've had a 
tower in Pescadero for a very long time, even before AT&T covered that 
area. Apple used to have an EMI test facility just north of Pescadero on 
Stage Road but I think they sold it. Used to ride my bike past it often.

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

#55387

In article <pmcsu0$aea$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>> You don't mention the source or date of those maps, which is always a
> >>> critical piece of scientific information.
> >>
> >> of course he doesn't, because it's very old.
> >>
> >> t-mobile's coverage use to be not particularly good but that was a
> >> while ago. t-mobile has come a long way in the past few years.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if I should commend you for bringing that fact up since you
> > usually provide zero facts - but I must commend you nonetheless if it's
> > true that his coverage maps are old.
> 
> Of course the maps are not old! You are well aware that nospam is a 
> pathological liar so why you would give anything he writes any attention 
> is a mystery. Filter him out like the rest of us do and get a life.

except that your maps conflict with objective surveys (i.e., not you).

you've been trolling this anti-tmobile propaganda for years and it's
*bullshit*, as anyone who actually uses t-mobile knows. 

no carrier is perfect and even verizon has dead spots, including the sf
bay area.

<https://opensignal.com/blog/2018/03/15/the-4g-battle-continues-between-
t-mobile-and-verizon/>
  Our latest national report on the State of Mobile Networks in the
  U.S. recognized T-Mobile as the winner in almost all of our
  categories, but it certainly wasn¹t for a lack of competition.
  Verizon took second place in several of our key metrics, in some
  cases by the narrowest of margins. This intense competition becomes
  even clearer as we zoom in on how the operators ranked across five
  regions: The Northeast, The Southeast, The Midwest, the Southwest and
  the West.  

  In our national report, released in January, we saw T-Mobile win our
  4G availability award by just a hair: while its users were able to
  access 4G connections an average 93.1% of the time, Verizon was close
  on its heels with scores of 92.7%.

and then there's speed:
  In our national report, we saw T-Mobile win our speed award, with
  users experiencing average download speeds of 19.4 Mbps, almost 2
  Mbps higher than runner-up Verizon (17.7 Mbps). Verizon is still
  feeling the hit it took by introducing unlimited data plans over a
  year ago causing its speeds to temporarily plummet. Verizon speeds
  have recovered to pre-unlimited plan levels, but, over the same
  period, T-Mobile have increased steadily in our measurements,
  allowing it to establish a significant lead over Verizon

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

#55503

In message <310820182231274601%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <pmcsu0$aea$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>> >>> You don't mention the source or date of those maps, which is always a
>> >>> critical piece of scientific information.
>> >>
>> >> of course he doesn't, because it's very old.
>> >>
>> >> t-mobile's coverage use to be not particularly good but that was a
>> >> while ago. t-mobile has come a long way in the past few years.
>> > 
>> > I'm not sure if I should commend you for bringing that fact up since you
>> > usually provide zero facts - but I must commend you nonetheless if it's
>> > true that his coverage maps are old.
>> 
>> Of course the maps are not old! You are well aware that nospam is a 
>> pathological liar so why you would give anything he writes any attention 
>> is a mystery. Filter him out like the rest of us do and get a life.

> except that your maps conflict with objective surveys (i.e., not you).

> you've been trolling this anti-tmobile propaganda for years and it's
> *bullshit*, as anyone who actually uses t-mobile knows. 

Yep. At my office building I get 30/30Mbps on tmobile. in my BASEMENT at
home I get 15/15Mbps. Upstairs I get close to 40 often, though that does
vary.

> no carrier is perfect and even verizon has dead spots, including the sf
> bay area.

I will agree that generally, Verizon has better coverage, but not enough
to justify the astonishing shittiness of the company.

>   In our national report, released in January, we saw T-Mobile win our
>   4G availability award by just a hair: while its users were able to
>   access 4G connections an average 93.1% of the time, Verizon was close
>   on its heels with scores of 92.7%.

That surprising, but that doesn’t actually indicate coverage so much as
where their customers are. That said, it's been a year or so since I was
out in the boonies with a phone.

> and then there's speed:

Speed is no contest. Both AT&T and Verizon are way behind t-mobile. I
used t-mobile hotspot to stream a UDH video off my plex server (40Mbps)
with no lag other than the time it took the synology to read and buffer
the video (not using transcoding).

>   In our national report, we saw T-Mobile win our speed award, with
>   users experiencing average download speeds of 19.4 Mbps, almost 2
>   Mbps higher than runner-up Verizon (17.7 Mbps). Verizon is still
>   feeling the hit it took by introducing unlimited data plans over a
>   year ago causing its speeds to temporarily plummet. Verizon speeds
>   have recovered to pre-unlimited plan levels, but, over the same
>   period, T-Mobile have increased steadily in our measurements,
>   allowing it to establish a significant lead over Verizon

IME with Verizon customers, T-Mobile is 50-100% faster than Verizon.


-- 
I CAN BE ROBBED BUT NEVER DENIED, I TOLD MYSELF. WHY WORRY?  'I too
cannot be cheated,' snapped Fate. SO I HAVE HEARD.

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

#55404

On 31 Aug 2018 19:18:39 GMT, sms wrote:

> Of course the maps are not old! You are well aware that nospam is a 
> pathological liar so why you would give anything he writes any attention 
> is a mystery. Filter him out like the rest of us do and get a life.

I agree that nospam guesses where his guesses are more often wrong than
right, which is really strange because intelligent adults just don't do
that.

Intelligent adults *care about their credibility*.

Mine is stellar, for example, where if I'm guessing, I *say* I'm guessing,
and when I speak facts, unless they're already known world wide, I provide
a reference to my facts.

Just like I did in this thread where I reported my own cellular signal
strength scores on T-Mobile on my balcony and where I reported *how* I
obtained those scores, and even where the inaccuracies may lie.

It's what *adults* do (as do scientists).
Anyone can reproduce my facts for themselves.

With nospam, I agree, the only one whos uphold his "facts" are himself,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK@OnRamp, Alan Baker, Tim Streater, etc.

> As I stated, those four maps are a mere eight days old. I gathered them 
> from each of the carrier's web sites for a post I made on Howard Forums 
> about T-Mobile coverage.

What fair enough is that I looked at that same area (centered on Loma Mar,
California), where I would conclude that Verizon is the way to go, but on
the rest of the carriers my conclusion would be different from yours - but
- I certainly realize everything depends on the exact places we look at as
it's splotchy for all of them in different ways.

> You complain about people like nospam lying so much, and you're correct, 
> but you can be just as guilty of it. Consider following my lead and 
> posting only referenced facts.

Whoa. Where did I not post facts?
I only post facts. And you know that.
I care about my credibility, as I am sure you do.

SO I'm fine with you defending the date on your maps, but you didn't say at
first where those maps came from and nospam said they were old (which, you
say is a lie, and if I ever have to weigh him against an intelligent adult,
the adult will always win).

However, please don't accuse me of lying because I didn't lie.
Notice my words in the post that you're responding to used the word "if".

You can check yourself that I only speak facts. 
I said: "if it's true that his coverage maps are old."

The "if" means that I know that everything nospam guesses at has to be
checked. It's enough that you confirmed the results, because your
credibility is valid - as is mine.

So two things I want to be clear in with you:
1. I speak facts - and the fact is that I said "if" your maps are old.
2. I agree that nospam makes things up without any proof so that's why I
said "if" ... 

It doesn't matter anyway since my own tests on the latest T-Mobile site
confirms some of your observations (at least for "LTE" in Loma Mar it
does). T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint all suck in Loma Mar. Verizon isn't
fantastic, but it's clearly better than the rest (with T-Mobile in second
place).

You don't have to take my word for it though as I provided *all* the links
necessary to *exactly* reproduce what I was seeing. 

One important question for you is whether "LTE" coverage is a valid test?
Is it?

> And by the way, if the maps WERE old, a decade or so old, T-Mobile would 
> look better not worse because they've dropped so much of the AT&T 
> coverage that you see on the AT&T map. Paradoxically, they've had a 
> tower in Pescadero for a very long time, even before AT&T covered that 
> area. Apple used to have an EMI test facility just north of Pescadero on 
> Stage Road but I think they sold it. Used to ride my bike past it often.

I already agreed with you, at least for LTE coverage centered on Loma Mar
(at least for Verizon). 

My question for you is whether "LTE" coverage is a valid test.
Is it?

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

#55411

In article <pme93b$5vl$1@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 31 Aug 2018 19:18:39 GMT, sms wrote:
... 


> SO I'm fine with you defending the date on your maps, but you didn't say at
> first where those maps came from and nospam said they were old (which, you
> say is a lie

of course he won't say where, and yes they are old because they aren't
even close to t-mobile's *current* maps that can be seen at t-mobile's
site *today*.

it's true that t-mobile's coverage used to not be all that great, but
those days are *gone*.

compare his 'maps' with t-mobile's own maps and note the large
differences between reality and what he's spouting:
<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map>

also compare t-mobile's coverage with the other three carriers as well
as his 'maps', and again, note the large differences between reality
and what he's spouting:
<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map>

compare t-mobile's coverage in 2015 with 2018 to see the *huge*
improvements, especially in the western states, and that isn't slowing
down either. also note how the data was obtained, that being crowd
sourced from more than 8 *billion* samples:
<https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/4g-lte-network>
  The results are in. We¹re still on top.

  According to network tests, T-Mobile is the fastest and tied for LTE
  availability. You can trust the billions of real world consumer tests
  that prove it.

  Data from OpenSignal State of Mobile Networks USA report ­ July 2018
  and Ookla Q1-Q2 2018 U.S. Mobile Performance Report. Ookla report
  based on 12,475,733 consumer-initiated cellular network tests taken
  with Speedtest® on 2,841,471 unique devices in Q1-Q2 2018. OpenSignal
  report based on independent analysis of 8,127,424,784 on-device
  measurements recorded by 385,679 users during the period Mar 16th -
  June 13th 2018. © 2018 OpenSignal Inc.

that was march-june, 2018.

this is from july 2018, just over one month ago:
<https://opensignal.com/reports/2018/07/usa/state-of-the-mobile-network>
  T-Mobile and Verizon have long battled over our 4G availability
  award, but in our last report we saw T-Mobile gain the upper hand,
  beating Verizon by a fraction of a percentage point in our
  measurements. Verizon, however, has closed that narrow margin in the
  last six months. The two operators weren't just statistically tied,
  they were numerically tied. Overall our users on both T-Mobile and
  Verizon were able to latch on to their respective LTE connections
  93.7% of the time. It doesn't get closer than that.

note this part:
  The two operators weren't just statistically tied, they were
  numerically tied. Overall our users on both T-Mobile and Verizon 
  were able to latch on to their respective LTE connections 93.7% of
  the time. It doesn't get closer than that.

tl;dr t-mobile does *not* suck.

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

#55424

On 1 Sep 2018 09:02:18 GMT, nospam wrote:

> tl;dr t-mobile does *not* suck.

I agree that in most places I go I use T-Mobile all the time and it's just
fine. I have friends with Verizon & AT&T and on our hikes in the hills,
they all drop out at different places. 

So in the mountains, the coverage for all three is splotchy.

But in the valley (Silicon Valley), they're all just fine.

We can always find places where one dominates over the other such as in
Loma Mar, but on average, in the Silicon Valley anyway, I've found that,
for me, T-Mobile is fine on the lowland roads.

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

#55354

On 8/31/2018 1:34 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2018 12:36:47 GMT, sms wrote:
> 
>> Here are the maps for the Santa Cruz Mountains for each carrier:
>> <http://oi68.tinypic.com/98hs1z.jpg>.
> 
> Thanks for that suggestion of an area to look at for cellular coverage:
>   <https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2680832,-122.310626,13z>
> Where the topography is similar to what I was talking about further east:
>   <https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.20733,-122.23676&z=12&b=mbt>
> 
> You don't mention the source or date of those maps, which is always a
> critical piece of scientific information.

The maps were taken from the four carrier's web sites on Thursday, 
‎August ‎23, 2018. I doubt if they've changed a lot in the past eight 
days but you're certainly welcome to check.

Again, the URL for the combined maps is <http://oi68.tinypic.com/98hs1z.jpg>

The T-Mobile map is the most disturbing because T-Mobile used to have 
AT&T roaming in the areas that are now white for no coverage.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web