Message-ID:

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

computers / comp.text.pdf / Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints

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 users� 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>

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>

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.

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.

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.

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-mobile�s 5G network is currently the broadest in the U.S., covering
> around 40% of the country compared to Verizon�s 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 Verizon�s 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 users� 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 that�s more
> than twice as fast as AT&T and Verizon�s 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?

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.

Click here to read the complete article

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

> ftfy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 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?*

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

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

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

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

Steve needs to directly address the _current_ facts.

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

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

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

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>

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.

Click here to read the complete article

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

It should be clear by now that, unfortunately for Steve's argument, almost
his _entire_ premise was based on what we now know to be faulty data.

It's kind of surprising Steve was unaware the FCC maps didn't contain _any_
3G or 5G data given Steve's arguments _depended_ on that flaw just to exist.

What I haven't seen yet though is an apology by Steve that he was unaware
that his _entire_ argument was based on faulty data.

Even if we give Steve the benefit of the doubt, only two options exist:
a. Either Steve was unaware he was basing his arguments on that bad data
b. Or Steve was knowingly using that bad data (hoping we'd not notice)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:17:33 -0800, sms wrote:

> I received two e-mails regarding my document "Coverage Differences
> Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon"
> <https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/> and have updated the
> document accordingly.

All of us could have guessed, years in advance, you'd claim Verizon is great
and that T-Mobile sucks) but you can't base that assessment on faulty data.

You need to *re-state your case that Verizon is great & T-Mobile sucks*, but
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).

Personally, I don't care who is better; but I also don't care to be snowed.

> One e-mail pointed out that the FCC maps show only 4G coverage, not 5G.
> That is true (though the Whistleout Maps let you select 3G, 4G, and/or 5G).

At least we now know that you were innocently unaware the FCC maps didn't
show _any_ 3G or 5G coverage, which means your entire argument is based on
faulty FCC data, through no fault of your own (being unaware of the error).

What that means to any adult is that you'd restate your argument given that
bad FCC data wasn't only crucial to your argument, but it was your argument.
> The important thing to understand is the 5G coverage is virtually always
> a subset of 4G coverage (as the Whistleout maps show). There are
> probably some cases where a mmWave 5G cell has been deployed in a place
> where there is a 4G dead spot, but that would be extremely rare. mmWave
> 5G cells are very short range, and very high speed, and are intended to
> provide "wireless broadband" to subscribers.

It's OK that you were unaware that the FCC maps didn't show _any_
improvement in the T-Mobile 5G coverage, as we can all make mistakes.

You must be aware by now given that T-Mobile may have retrofitted thousands
of their old towers to mmWave 5G, you might even have seen what would appear
to be _worse_ coverage (as an artifact of you not understanding the data).

However, now that you are aware of the fatal flaws in your previous
argument, you need to _restate_ your argument, but you can't also discount
the mmWave towers T-Mobile has put in place over the past couple of years.

To ignore mmWave coverage would be disengenuous - and I know you don't want
to do that. What you _need_ to do is _restate_ your argument taking into
account that the FCC maps don't show _any_ 3G or 5G coverage at all.
> In the future, as 5G phones become dominant, it's certainly possible
> that a carrier might deploy a new cell with 5G only service, but that's
> at least several years out. I know that one carrier makes a huge
> marketing deal out of the fact that they have the most 5G coverage, but
> the reality is that all that 5G coverage is a subset of their 4G
> coverage, and in many cases their low-band 5G is comparable in speed to
> 4G LTE.

You can dance all you want around the fact that your _entire_ argument
hinged on what you now know was completely erroneous data, Steve.

If I assume you have at the very least the lowest common denominator of a
bachelor's degree, we can liken this to the fact you _failed_ a logic test.

However, a bachelor's degree is 120 credits (or 135 as mine was), where
you're redeemed by submitting to a retest using _correct_ data this time.

Simply *re-state your case that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks*, but by
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).

> In any case, I added a map as an example of 5G versus 4G coverage see
> <https://i.imgur.com/dEuUkuJ.jpeg>.
>
> One e-mail asked me to add a coverage comparison in Alaska.

Alaska? Is Alaska still part of the United States, Steve?
Why not cherry pick Siberia Steve?

First you cherry pick Death Valley, and then when we look at your own data
we find out you were trying to snow us given Verizon coverage is the same in
Death Valley as T-Mobile's coverage (given they both share a tower).

Now you cherry pick Alaska?
How many people live in all of Alaska anyway, Steve?
700,000 people in toto.

There are ten times as many people in the fifty miles surrounding you and me
than in all of Alaska Steve, so stop talking about the middle of nowhere.

Simply *re-state your case that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks*, but by
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).

I'm aware you're paid by Verizon Steve, so I'll allow your advertising below
so that the others can see what you wrote in case they missed the original.
> Here is a text version of the document:
>
> Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
> <https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>
>
> The Three U.S. Networks-They Are Not Created Equal
> --------------------------------------------------
> The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
> AT&T and Verizon, the two top-tier networks, evolved from legacy
> cellular networks over the years, and built out a large network,
> acquiring smaller regional and rural carriers along the way. T-Mobile,
> the second tier network, was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with mainly
> urban coverage.
>
> All three networks work acceptably well in urban areas. While no carrier
> has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to more remote areas,
> like National and State Parks, or if you are going to be driving through
> rural areas, or if you're visiting the outskirts of urban areas (often
> called the "greenbelt" or "exurban"), then you'll want to avoid T-Mobile
> and choose AT&T or Verizon.
>
> Even non-tourists that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a
> second phone with an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling
> outside urban areas, just in case of emergency. As PC Magazine stated
> "And if you're out in the countryside and don't often head to the city,
> T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you. The carrier is doing
> great in the nation's biggest metro areas, but when we look at small
> cities and areas away from interstate highways, especially in the
> western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more work to get better
> coverage," (see <https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>).
>
> If your phone supports dual-SIM (either two physical SIM cards or one
> physical SIM and one eSIM) then you can use the eSIM for your primary
> carrier and the physical SIM for when you're traveling outside urban areas.
>
> You can see the vast differences in nationwide coverage here:
> <https://i.imgur.com/irqFqyP.png> (data is from
> <https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>). You can also
> use the interactive map at
> <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>. These are the
> maps for each networks' native coverage. If you sign up for postpaid
> service directly from the carrier, you also get some off-network roaming
> on smaller, more rural carriers, but the carriers' prepaid services, and
> their MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators), often do not include
> off-network roaming (though sometimes they do).
>
> There's a false narrative that one carrier often uses, when potential
> customers ask about coverage, of "no carrier has 100% coverage;" with
> the implication of "all carriers are equal since they all provide less
> than 100% coverage." It's an absurd argument, but you often see it
> repeated by fanbois.
> Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
> essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
> except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
> you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
> always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
>
> Checking Network Coverage-Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
> that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
> visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
> compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
> <https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can check
> the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more of
> rural areas are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You can
> also use the interactive map at
> <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.
>
> What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
> places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
> on anecdotal reports since there are too many individuals giving out
> false information.
> Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
> essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
> except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
> you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
> always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
>
> It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
> coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
> the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
> well as a matter of safety.
>
> What About "Free Roaming"
> -------------------------
> Some carriers advertise "free roaming," attempting to allay potential
> customers' concerns about the lack of native coverage in many areas by
> implying that customers can roam onto whatever network is available in a
> specific area. That is highly misleading. When a carrier touts "free
> roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every other carrier,
> everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911 service). The
> usual case is that roaming is only available on small rural carriers and
> not on any other of the three nationwide networks.
>
> You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
> roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
> carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
> <https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg/>, but MVNOs usually won't roam even
> if their maps show roaming.
>
> Be especially careful about MVNOs because they will often have huge
> areas of no coverage because of a lack of roaming. For example, compare
> T-Mobile in Alaska (all roaming) with a T-Mobile MVNO is Alaska (no
> coverage at all).
>
> In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
> any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
> and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
> roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
> Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
> T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.
>
> The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
> rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
> AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
> differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).
>
> In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
> gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
> they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
> coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
> especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
> AT&T's and Verizon's MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
> that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
> coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
> AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
> T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless or
> <https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-challenge-fcc-s-data-roaming-ruling-sided-t-mobile/>.
>
> Also understand that roaming data is often very limited because of the
> high cost to the carrier. T-Mobile limits roaming data to 200MB per
> month for postpaid accounts created after 11/15/2015 and less for older
> accounts (see
> <https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data/>).
> 200MB is very little data if you're doing things like GPS navigation or
> sending or receiving photos or video. While roaming is nice to have, you
> really want a network with the most native coverage.
>
> In the early days of mobile service in the U.S. there was a lot more
> roaming between top tier carriers. Sprint roamed extensively on Verizon
> and T-Mobile roamed extensively on AT&T. But this roaming was very
> costly for Sprint and T-Mobile and roaming was limited in quantity and
> eventually roaming agreements ended. When Sprint was acquired by
> T-Mobile, all of the roaming that Sprint did on Verizon went away and
> Sprint customers lost a great deal of geographic coverage that was not
> replaced by T-Mobile.
>
> What About 5G? The FCC Maps Show Only 4G
> ----------------------------------------
> 5G coverage is virtually always a subset of 4G coverage, at least for
> mobile phones. 5G equipment is added to existing 4G cells to provide
> more capacity and higher speeds. The exception are mmWave 5G cells used
> to provide home broadband service (Verizon and AT&T are especially
> active in this arena). mmWave 5G is very short range and cells are
> usually placed on streetlight poles. You can see an example of the
> difference in 5G and 4G service, for the Santa Cruz Mountains in
> California, at <https://i.imgur.com/dEuUkuJ.jpeg>.
>
> Issues with MVNOs
> -----------------
> While MVNOs often provide service at lower cost, there are some
> drawbacks. MVNOs will usually not have roaming agreements with smaller
> rural carriers so you won't get any coverage in those areas (like all of
> Alaska for T-Mobile MVNOs, like Mint or Optimum) but also in some
> popular rural tourist destinations, and even on some interstate
> highways, in the lower 48. MVNOs will usually not have any provision for
> international roaming (other than sometimes for Canada and Mexico).
> MVNOs usually don't support eSIMs. Customer service on MVNOs can be a
> nightmare. MVNOs do not subsidize phone purchases to the extent that
> carriers do. Choose MVNOs carefully, keeping in mind the areas you're
> likely to visit or go through.
>
> 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.
> Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
> essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
> except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
> you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
> always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
>
> It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
> coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
> the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
> well as a matter of safety.
>
> 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://tinyurl.com/JDPowerNetworkQuality/>
> * 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
>
> It should be stated that small differences in data speeds are pretty
> meaningless for mobile phone users. If you were using mobile data for
> home broadband then you'd want to choose a carrier that has deployed
> mmWave 5G since it provides data speeds comparable to fiber. But 4G LTE
> versus low-band 5G doesn't have enough, if any, of a speed difference to
> make a noticeable difference. T-Mobile has made a very big deal of the
> fact that they have added low-band 5G to existing cells at a faster rate
> than other carriers. Meanwhile Verizon is busy installing mmWave 5G
> cells in cities, hoping to sell "wireless broadband" to compete against
> Xfinity and AT&T fiber to the home. What matters most to mobile phone
> users is coverage, not small speed differences.
>
> It's also vitally important that people understand that Speed ��
> Coverage. Recently, PC Magazine said that T-Mobile had the highest
> average 5G speed (though not the maximum speed). But what they also
> said, which is key: "And if you're out in the countryside and don't
> often head to the city, T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you.
> The carrier is doing great in the nation's biggest metro areas, but when
> we look at small cities and areas away from interstate highways,
> especially in the western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more
> work to get better coverage." T-Mobile is the least expensive postpaid
> carrier, and they also have the least expensive MVNOs, but there is a
> definite trade-off of price versus coverage.
>
> As to "reliability" that's a metric that many carriers claim, but you
> really need to look to independent studies for an accurate gauge of
> reliability. In fact, T-Mobile recently got into a little trouble
> regarding this, and had to stop advertising that it had "the most
> reliable network," see
> https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-cant-advertise-most-reliable-5g-says-nad.
>
> I added several examples of coverage differences because often there are
> "fanbois" of a carrier that will insist that "all carriers are created
> equal," and get very upset when anyone points out any coverage
> differences. Some fanbois insist that foreign visitors would be unlikely
> to ever go outside of urban areas, where coverage is usually okay on all
> carriers, but the reality is that foreign visitors often want to visit
> places like state and national parks. So I've included a bunch of
> examples of coverage differences that I've personally experienced.
>
> * One area that I go through often is the Sierra Nevada mountains on
> California State Highways 88, 4, 108, and 120, and the FCC map
> highlights the very large differences in coverage in those areas; here
> is a map comparing coverage in the central Sierras, a popular area for
> tourists with National and State Parks, ski areas, and other recreation:
> <https://i.imgur.com/uBD7ZQA.png/>.
>
> * One area we visit frequently is the southern part of San Mateo County.
> In my younger days I used to do a lot of bicycling in this area, now
> it's more hiking and road trips. Verizon has the best coverage of
> course, but surprisingly T-Mobile beats AT&T in the town of Pescadero (I
> recommend Duarte's restaurant <http://www.duartestavern.com/>). Sadly,
> T-Mobile doesn't even have coverage on the major state highway, 84,
> between La Honda and the coast. See <https://i.imgur.com/OgL844m.png/>.
>
> * Another area I go through often is the San Mateo and Santa Cruz coast
> on California Highway 1; here is a map comparing coverage in that area,
> where Verizon is superior, AT&T is a distant second, and T-Mobile an eve
> further distant third: <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png/>.
>
> * 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, <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.
>
> * We sometimes meet up with extended family members to hike in the east
> Bay hills of the San Francisco Bay Area. See
> <https://i.imgur.com/miJpYQk.png>. This is an area where you really want
> to be on Verizon.
>
> * Alaska is a very popular tourist destination. For a long time, of the
> three nationwide networks, only AT&T had native cellular coverage in
> Alaska. In 2013 Verizon finally deployed an LTE-only network in more
> populated areas (initially LTE data only, but then VoLTE as well), and
> roams in less populated areas. T-Mobile has no network in Alaska and is
> 100% roaming (direct T-Mobile subscribers only). These days, if
> traveling to Alaska, it's best to use AT&T or an AT&T MVNO. AT&T has a
> native network in more populated areas but also provides roaming that is
> also available to their MVNOs. Verizon has an LTE-only native network
> which provides very limited coverage for MVNO customers, though
> Verizon's own postpaid and prepaid customers are able to roam (but not
> Visible customers). T-Mobile has no native coverage at all so T-Mobile
> MVNO customers will have no coverage. Both T-Mobile and Verizon offer
> off-network roaming in Alaska, but not to prepaid MVNO customers. See
> <https://i.imgur.com/EVqSX6x.png>. This is another reason why, for
> Alaska especially, Red Pocket's AT&T service can be the best choice in
> terms of price and coverage, or H2O at higher cost.

Click here to read the complete article

Which test URLs do you set for your Lost Internet Connectivity alerts?

Every day I test Android, Windows, and iOS apps, where today I was testing
Network and Internet connectivity apps to speak out your current status.

I have a custom wav which says "You Lost Your Internet Connection"
whenever a watchdog ping fails but I'm curious what test URL(s) you use?

Most of the apps I'm testing at the moment for reporting connectivity loss
have the option of a settable ping site, but some do not, such as these:
*Internet Status* by Infinities, 100+, free, ad-free, etc.

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Infinities.InternetStatus>
*Internet Status Message* by h2zonesp*, 10+, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.has.internetstatustoast>
*Check your internet connection* by Dogegames Freak, 50+, free, ad-free,

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.check.internet.connection.information>
Hence those apps are only testing for "network connectivity" and not for
"Internet connectivity" as they can be fooled by a router with no Internet.

However, these have settable site(s) to ping to test Internet connectivity.
*Internet Connectivity Tester* by Paul Rowe, 4.6, 10K+, free, ad free, etc.

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.boxhead.android.internettest>
*Internet Connection Alert* by Blue Spectrum, 5K+, free, ad free, etc.

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rakapps.internetconnectionalert>
Where the former can set multiple sites, but the later allows only one URL.

Given you have an infinite choice of URLs to ping to test connectivity...
Which test URL(s) do you set for your Lost Internet Connectivity alerts?
--
Usenet is a team sport where purposefully helpful people work together.

Andy Burns wrote:

>>> Which test URLs do you set for your Lost Internet Connectivity alerts?
>>
>> I don't set any, I just glance at the internet icon on the taskbar.
>
> So you are in effect using
> www.msftncsi.com and dns.msftncsi.com
> as your network connectivity checks

Thank you Andy not only for your purposefully helpful response but for the
added value of which domains are common Windows 10 Internet test domains.

I was ignorant of how Windows tested it, but my ignorance was cured by you!
1. NCSI performs a DNS lookup on www.msftncsi.com;
then NCSI requests http://www.msftncsi.com/ncsi.txt.
2. NCSI expects a 200 OK response header with the proper text returned.
The ncsi.txt file contains only the text of "Microsoft NCSI".
3. If the response is never received, or if there is a redirect,
then a DNS request for dns.msftncsi.com is made.
4. NCSI then sends a DNS lookup request for dns.msftncsi.com.
This DNS address should resolve to 131.107.255.255.
5. If the address does not match, then test reports that it failed.

Incidentally, for privacy, you can set up your own nsci server:
<https://blog.superuser.com/2011/05/16/windows-7-network-awareness/>

You probably know all this, but those domains are all in the registry:
*Network Connectivity Status Indicator* (NCSI)
[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet]
Note that "EnableActiveProbing" apparently turns NCSI on or off.
Also note "ActiveDnsProbeContent" === 131.107.255.255
And note "ActiveDnsProbeHost" === dns.msftncsi.com
And "ActiveWebProbeHost" === www.msftconnecttest.com
Concomitant V6 domains "ActiveWebProbeHostV6" === ipv6.msftconnecttest.com
etc.

For privacy reasons, Ghacks suggests Windows users change the
address which then means that the question I asked that Unsteadyken clearly
ignorantly ridiculed as not being a Windows issue - is as much a Windows
privacy concern as it is for Android. (That's always the case with such
people who don't understand anything about privacy across platforms.)
*Disable or customize Windows' Internet Connection test to improve privacy*

<https://www.ghacks.net/2014/02/07/disable-customize-windows-internet-connection-test-improve-privacy/>

Note there are apparently other options such as "ipv4 checksum offload"
which can be set to "Tx & Rx Enabled", "Rx Enabled" or "Tx Enabled".
Disable-NetAdapterChecksumOffload -Name "*" -TcpIPv4

I will test by setting 'Internet Connectivity Tester' to both domains:
http://www.msftncsi.com
http://dns.msftncsi.com
And by setting 'Internet Connection Alert' to just the one domain:
http://www.msftncsi.com
But that assumes port 80 which you didn't mention the port Windows uses.

After you gave me the "ncsi" term, I found the NCSI Group Policy Editor:
Computer Configuration > Policies > Administrative Templates > System >
Internet Communication Management > Internet Communication Settings >
Turn off Windows Network Connectivity Status Indicator active tests =
Enabled/Disabled

As always with you Andy, you know far more than I ever will, but I'm happy
to report that you've edified me about what domains Windows uses to
determine network connectivity which I can test now on Android.

I was about to reply to the unprepossessing unsteadyken with a nastigram but
your polite correction of his chilish attitude negated me needing to do so.
--
Usenet is a volunteer team sport where every post should add topical value.

Unsteadyken wrote:

> Why bother monitoring?

Why do I bother monitoring the Internet connection?

The question came up initially a few days ago when "micky" (who is also here
on Windows) asked for a free ad-free app that speaks a warning that "your
cell signal just dropped" and that verbally advises "your cell signal just
returned" when his phone in his pocket loses and regains tower connectivity
while hiking in the backwoods, where monitoring such things is a safety
concern.

Nobody knew the answer so, being the purposefully helpful kind-hearted
resourceful person I am, I dug around and it took even me a few hours to
find and test a good set of free ad-free gsf-free google-free highly rated
often downloaded app combinations which eventually resolved that issue:

1. You first need to create the text to speech warning alarms/notifications
2. Then you need to find an app that will test the cellular connectivity
3. And then that app has to be able to be set to speak your custom warnings

All using free ad-free apps that _anyone_ can use, as I often tell JP
Gilliver is a requirement since _all_ my kind-hearted tutorials are always
intended to greatly benefit everyone who wants to have the power we have.

Given Usenet is a team sport where volunteers pitch in where they can,
Steve, being an EE, kindly tested it inside an aluminum foil Faraday cage.

With that "lost cellular signal" problem resolved...

During the hours of testing I did out of the goodness of my heart for micky,
I found a few "Internet" testing tools, where they would use either the
Wi-Fi or the Cellular connection (or both, usually settable) as their test.

Of *those* tools, there were two kinds that I found in my searches:
A. Those that simply tested "network" connectivity
B. Those that more deeply probed "Internet" connectivity

Those that probed for actual Internet connectivity, require a domain.

As is almost always the case with cross platform Internet connectivity
solutions, I figured the Windows users must also have solved this problem.

Hence, my question to the two groups at large.

> Is your connection so unstable?

Is my (one?) connection so unstable?

It is when hiking in the backcountry where signal is often flaky at best.
*Kids going hiking for three days from point to point in the mountains*
<https://groups.google.com/g/sci.geo.satellite-nav/c/KDtny69KRvg>
"USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving
topographic geoPDF quadrangles & iOS/Android GPX tracks & waypoints"

However, on any platform, knowledge of Internet connectivity is crucial.

For example, I get my Internet over WISP because I'm so far in the Santa
Cruz mountain range that there is no infrastructure such as no cable, no
water, no natural gas lines, no sewage lines, and even a 40-acre zoning so
that nobody can put more than a single home on 79 acres of land out here.

They do that to keep the land pristine, of course, but my point is that
Internet connectivity is crucial when your WISP AP is 6 miles (10km) away!
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZmtTPxj/apsixmilesaway.jpg> AP is 6 miles away

So, to the point of this thread, we run on the radio the default watchdog.
<https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg> Typical range is about 10 miles

Which tells us when the radio has an issue (along with indicator lights).
<https://i.postimg.cc/yNXw0TZS/antenna02.jpg> Rocket M2 signal strength

As do the Android (but not iOS) devices using excellent debug utilities.
<https://i.postimg.cc/NMbNGBnm/wifi01.jpg> Wi-Fi debug channel graphs
<https://i.postimg.cc/281Hmp7L/wifi02.jpg> This doesn't exist on iOS
<https://i.postimg.cc/Ls3Dvm2w/wifi03.jpg> But Android has many debuggers

Even extending to a variety of cellular signal strength debugging tools.
<https://i.postimg.cc/tJwN7TNZ/wifi04.jpg> Wi-Fi & Cellular debugging

Given we all have dozens of acres of land, our pools, stables, barns, sheds,
and even our driveway gates are far from the house, so inside our homes we
typically have redundant routers that can handle switching multiple WISPs.
<https://i.postimg.cc/7L910XNy/wifi05.jpg> Peplink Balance 30 router

This is a photo of just _some_ of my home access points.
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg> My home Wi-Fi APs

Where you'll note we also have cellular radio repeaters as shown here:
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg> My home Wi-Fi APs

In addition, alignment of our antennas is critical for good connections:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg> Align Mikrotik radio antenna
<https://i.postimg.cc/sfkHW6WG/align.jpg> Align Ubiquiti radio antenna

We are usually radio savvy in the mountains, just as we get good at water
pump technology and horses and four wheel drive repairs and septic systems
such that we often run tests on the spectrum inside and outside of wi-fi.
<https://i.postimg.cc/FRqR6DSq/android-wifi-analyzer.jpg> Wi-Fi analysis
<https://i.postimg.cc/GpCG1H3G/airviewneedsjava.jpg> Spectrum analysis
<https://i.postimg.cc/25v3FT6S/debug-on-android.jpg> Many Wi-Fi debug apps

Nonetheless, we're old men who do just fine with what we have at hand.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg> Desktop in shed with MikroTik

Where, like farmers do with old tractors, we learn to repurpose WISP CPE
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg> WISP router transceiver

Which, even when bought new, cost about the same as crappy consumer routers
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg> Parts costs ~$150

Yet, for the same price, we can connect to a home AP hundreds of feet away
<https://i.postimg.cc/yx4CgWYt/mikrotik-router-config.jpg> MikroTik -40dBm

For example, the barn desktop doesn't have a Wi-Fi card so out the Ethernet
port is connected a wireless wi-fi pseudobridge courtesy of MikroTik.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg> Desktop MikroTik pseudobridge

With distances to the barn being a hundred yards from the home router, you
begin to think about how to assemble a network out of available spare parts.
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg> Desktop MikroTik WISP radios

Not desktops, but the laptops at the pool also require long range equipment.
<https://i.postimg.cc/D0vfqM3p/horns.jpg> Horns extend laptop Wi-Fi range

Where in the pool shed, we keep a spare linksys router & horn extender.
<https://i.postimg.cc/25NdBZ7f/horn-to-router.jpg> Laptop horn to router

Sometimes requiring a dish to throw the laptop signal a few hundred yards.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hs0NWSKr/laptopnanobeam.jpg> Laptop to dish antenna

Which, over time, gets extended even further with the addition of a switch.
<https://i.postimg.cc/JhyCRT69/horn-to-switch.jpg> Laptop horn to switch

And, with that switch, we can then add another more powerful access point.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bv0wZbDh/pbe-m2-400-802-11-wifi-setting.jpg> AP

Although sometimes we set them up as a repeater instead of as an AP alone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/htQ469sQ/pbe-m2-400-ap-station.jpg> AP or Repeater

If not just as a basic bridge to bridge the computer to the SOHO router.
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcBWpxnV/pbe-m2-400-bridge-router.jpg> Bridge

But often the horn alone has enough transmit power & receiver sensitivity:
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT0Krpfc/laptop-nanobeam-horn.jpg> Laptop to horn

The point being that with all these radios and these distances, we kind of
do sort of get a disconnect on our desktop computers every once in a while
(even with radios connected to them capable of going over 10 miles LOS).
--
Usenet is a team sport where each person owns a set of professional skills.

Big Al wrote:

> On 2/27/22 07:35, this is what J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:25:29, Unsteadyken <unsteadyken@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Why bother monitoring? Is your connection so unstable?
>> I agree, I too am fortunate in having a fair connection
>> (not sure it's as good as yours, but its good).
>> On the whole, I'd say more reliable
>> than my electricity supply (I live in a rural area,
>> or at least what passes for one in SE England!).
>>
>> I tend (if something's not working) to look at the light
>> on my router, and if it's not blue, I know things aren't right.
>> Or, I try
>> http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ if I seem unable to connect
>> to a specific site; if I can't get downforeveryoneorjustme itself,
>> then I begin to think things are awry.
>> (Most times - and that not often - I find a restart of anything
>> up to my PC and/or router restores normality.)
> I have a small util that just pings bing.com.
> If I think I have issues I just launch the utility and see what's up.
> ping -4 -c 5 bing.com

I gratefully thank JP Gilliver and Big Al for their kind advice,
where I too sometimes reset the power by disconnecting all my devices
starting the furthest away from "the wall" and moving toward "the wall"
(which is how I tell my wife to do it when I'm traveling away from home).

Given I have multiple wired and wireless repeaters, bridges, and access
points, there's a certain "perfect sequence" which is never achieved in
practice, particularly considering the lag time necessitated in bootup.

In theory, if not always in practice, I boot everything back up starting
with the devices closest to "the wall", such as the rooftop transceiver
(which would be a "modem" for most of you) and ending with the PCs & phones.
a. I start with the rooftop transceivers & outside & indoor access points
c. then move to the cellular repeaters and femtocells (of which I have both)
b. including multiple connected routers, switches, and the client bridges
d. culminating with then end devices being Windows, Linux, iOS & Android.

As end points, usually the iOS devices have the most trouble switching
between the many access points as I can hold in my hand an Android phone
& an iPad and see the iPad _not_ connecting as I walk about the home and
yard while Android does. I brought two of the affected iPads to the
Apple Store but the blue shirts (at that time they didn't wear red shirts)
didn't even know what a decibel was (they confused dBm with megabits per
second just like Jolly Roger & nospam do).

In keeping with the kind-hearted purposefully helpful connection watchdog
advice that Big Al offered, if you need to have a watchdog on your cellphone
for not only Internet connectivity (which the opening post described),
you can also easily set up a watchdog for your cellphone cellular signal.

I'll write up a post separately for the best free ad-free gsf-free
Google-free (often open source) apps that do the job above, where I'll
add a nicety of the ability to tap once on an icon shortcut inside
your network folder which will enable/disable (or just enable, or just
disable) a specific access point that you tend to access frequently.

This feature is especially useful for people who have privacy setups
like I do where my home access points do not broadcast for privacy reasons
(not for security reasons!) to keep the dumb "other people" from uploading
my GPS location and unique access point BSSIDs to Google/Mozilla/Kismet/etc.
public databases simply as a result of them not knowing how to configure
their phones as they drive by my home.

Given my SSID's are "hidden" (again, don't tell me it's not for security
as I know that), I also have my devices set up to NOT reconnect when the
signal is lost (otherwise they shout out the SSID as they _look_ for APs,
which defeats the whole privacy point of having a hidden SSID in the main).

Given my phones don't _look_ for access point SSIDS for privacy reasons
when away from home, it's nice to have a single-tap icon inside my network
folder which makes the connection for me when I'm at home (where it is needed).

This is getting long so I'll put more detail in another kind-hearted
purposefully helpful post where these are the free tools I tested recently.

*Cellular-Z* by JerseyHo, 4.0, 1,700 reviews, 100K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

*Fake GPS location* by Lexa, 4.6 out of 500K reviews, 10M+ downloads
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegps>

*Tell Me - Text To Speech* by Simply Complex Apps, 4.1, 500K+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplycomplexapps.ASTellme>

*Cellular Connection Monitor* by Pavel Borzenkov, 4.0, 10K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>

*Internet Status* by Infinities, 100+, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Infinities.InternetStatus>

*Internet Status Message* by h2zonesp*, 10+, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.has.internetstatustoast>

*Check your internet connection* by Dogegames Freak, 50+, free, ad-free,
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.check.internet.connection.information>

*Internet Connectivity Tester* by Paul Rowe, 4.6, 10K+, free, ad free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.boxhead.android.internettest>

*Internet Connection Alert* by Blue Spectrum, 5K+, free, ad free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rakapps.internetconnectionalert>

*Wifi Shortcuts+* by OpenGait.NET 3.8, 10K+ downloads, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.opengait.wifishortcuts>
--
Usenet is a team sport where each of us pitches in to help all the others.

Here's another bit of purposefully helpful detailed kind-hearted advice for
the Usenet volunteer team, which is that most of the Android graphical Wi-Fi
and Signal Strength tools _require_ the GPS receiver radio to be turned on,
which you don't need for the tool, but for a Google requirement (let's not
go into why Google requires GPS as it's easy to prevent if you know how).
<https://i.postimg.cc/4xgmTTgm/wifi01.jpg> graphical radio debuggers

To save others time, and bearing in mind I only suggest the best and most
often downloaded and the highest rated free ad-free usually gsf-free always
google-free tools in the extensive Android APK arsenal in order to maintain
all my tutorials at the level that anyone can install them at this instant,
here is a link to just one of the many Wi-Fi and Cellular debuggers I use.
*Cellular-Z* by JerseyHo, 4.0, 1,700 reviews, 100K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

But I should note there are _plenty_ of graphical debuggers I use daily.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hn05bQwG/wifi02.jpg> Variety of graphical debuggers

Although it should be noted, for privacy reasons, I don't use a Google
Google Play client, but an open source Google Play client which scrapes the
exact same repo as does Google Play (and which doesn't require a login on
the device which is a critical privacy feature iOS completely lacks).
<https://auroraoss.com/>

Given privacy is _always_ a concern, on Android the free ad-free mock
location app I prefer is the one below which Android settings accept.
*Fake GPS location* by Lexa, 4.6 out of 500K reviews, 10M+ downloads
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegps>

Which, coincidentally, has the option to "spoof the Wi-Fi provider".
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdf8prL4/screenshot03.jpg> Spoof Wi-Fi Provider
If you're on iOS, tough luck (again), as iOS lacks this kind of privacy.

Moving forward, the next thing you might want is a text-to-speech converter
that saves _directly_ to a wav file suitable for the notification channel
(or for the alarm channel, which isn't muted when the phone is silenced).
*Tell Me - Text To Speech* by Simply Complex Apps, 4.1, 500K+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplycomplexapps.ASTellme>

Once you have the notification (or alarm) wav file saved, then you need an
app that will speak when you lose (or regain) your cellular connection.
*Cellular Connection Monitor* by Pavel Borzenkov, 4.0, 10K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>

Of all the apps I tested, that wasn't perfect, but it was the best, and to
their credit, Steve and micky tested it and found it to work as advertised.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Njw312j1/lostsignal01.jpg> Testing alert apps
<https://i.postimg.cc/x1Y5Tv6L/lostsignal02.jpg> Play Store client ratings
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zRjbV12/lostsignal03.jpg> Custom verbal alert

When you have that set up, you might want to add a shortcut to a widget
(yes, I said a shortcut to a widget) that will connect and disconnect from
any of your many access points at a single touch of a button.

I have this need more than do most people because not only do I have many
access points sprinkled about my home and property such as these below.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg> Cellular repeater & home Wi-Fi APs

But I also have my SOHO routers set up to NOT broadcast the SSID to protect
my gps location and unique BSSIDs from being uploaded to Google & Mozilla
and Kismet (et. al) public databases (and no, "_nomap" doesn't do that).

Doing that isn't for security but for privacy, but then you _also_ have to
set up each device to _not_ automatically try to reconnect when the signal
is lost, which means that having a shortcut icon to connect & disconnect is
a really nice click-saving feature given my devices are set for privacy.

Given I am extremely well organized on a computer or phone as shown here:
<https://i.postimg.cc/7LmRqXNn/organize01.jpg> Android organization
<https://i.postimg.cc/bN7bp2Bf/organize02.jpg> Windows organization

You'll notice there is one homescreen page (ever!) on any device, even iPads
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg> One home screen
(Note it's impossible to set up an iOS homescreen the way you want to!)

For this reason, I didn't want AP on/off widgets that wouldn't slide _into_
a homescreen folder, which is what this neat free app allows you to create:
*Wifi Shortcuts+* by OpenGait.NET 3.8, 10K+ downloads, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.opengait.wifishortcuts>
--
Every Usenet post should strive to add value in the body (not the headers).

VanguardLH wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carlos E.R. wrote:

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

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

*What is a Good Cell Phone Signal Strength?*

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

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

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

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

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

*What Is Strong And Weak Signal In DBm For 3G Vs. 4G?* (older)

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

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

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

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

Every major carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) in the USA, to my knowledge
and experience, will give you a repeater and/or a cell tower for free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you're using an MVNO, I don't know what they will do, as I don't know
anyone in the flesh who uses them (although I'm aware Steve uses them so ask
him).

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

I get four lines from T-Mo with unlimited almost everything, including
unlimited data, unlimited text, unlimited MMS, unlimited USA calls, etc.
(the only things limited is the 5GB/month/line of hotspotting & tethering)
for $25/month/line. I even get two iPads with 200MB/month free SIM service.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

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

Stupid people will make stupid decisions, Vanguard; but my point was that if
you know what I know, then you have no business complaining about coverage.

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

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

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

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

Subject	Author
USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic g	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli
Re: USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topograph	Andy Burnelli