[HN Gopher] Mobile LTE Coverage Map
___________________________________________________________________
Mobile LTE Coverage Map
Author : interweb
Score : 47 points
Date : 2021-09-28 19:39 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fcc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fcc.gov)
| ojagodzinski wrote:
| *for US.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| This map shows no coverage for T-Mobile at my house...
|
| which I can confirm is true!
|
| It also shows blanket coverage at my house by both Verizon and
| AT&T, which is definitely not true.
| cmg wrote:
| How trustworthy / realistic is this data, though?
|
| > The coverage map was created using data submitted voluntarily
| by the four mobile carriers using certain standardized
| propagation model assumptions or parameters that were established
| by the FCC as part of the Broadband Data Collection.
|
| > Please note: The map depicts the coverage a customer can expect
| to receive when outdoors and stationary. It is not meant to
| reflect where service is available when a user is indoors or in a
| moving vehicle.
|
| > Because the coverage map is based on propagation modeling, a
| user's actual, on-the-ground experience may vary due to factors
| such as the end-user device used to connect to the network, cell
| site capacity, and terrain.
| Underphil wrote:
| I can tell you it's lies in my area on AT&T. Extremely
| anecdotal though of course.
| ranon wrote:
| As of a couple months ago, the T-Mobile coverage maps have been
| very accurate for both 4G and low/mid band 5G in my areas, and
| from what I've seen from others on the subreddit.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| This should really be normalized as MB/capita. Basic data/voice
| coverage in the vast wilderness is important for safety, but
| speed is really more relevant in more populated regions.
| Geographic maps like this aren't useful, especially without more
| powerful filtering tools (e.g. specifying a minimum speed &
| showing that coverage).
| vortico wrote:
| These are charts for LTE coverage. You might be more interested
| in a 3G chart, which is sufficient for safety in wilderness and
| will have more coverage.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Specifically, it shows where customers can expect to receive
| 4G LTE broadband service at a minimum user download speed of
| five megabits per second (5 Mbps) and a user upload speed of
| one megabit per second (1 Mbps)
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I feel like this isn't a helpful quotation when I'm obviously
| saying "Now how do I see where minimum user download speed is
| 10 Mbps & upload is a minimum 3mbps"? A static map isn't
| useful for data analysis.
|
| It also doesn't address that geographic maps aren't useful
| for showing deployment of services for people.
| topspin wrote:
| This is "mobile broadband" only. Not wired broadband, the thing
| everyone is really interested in.
| mjevans wrote:
| This really should have a title update so it's clear.
|
| The AND in "broadband and LTE" part of the title is a huge hint
| that the and part is _not_ LTE (non-mobile) data.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Do you say "wired broadband" to mean non-mobile?
|
| I ask since satellite and even mesh network non-mobile
| broadband is a super performant and already deployed reality,
| evidently.
|
| example : https://tech.fb.com/terragraph-alaska/
| zachberger wrote:
| "Just" as in August 6th.
| Nicksil wrote:
| >"Just" as in August 6th.
|
| Keep fightin' the good fight, Zach.
| Maxburn wrote:
| The map is only a piece of the story too. Depriotitization is a
| thing you will encounter, mostly on MVNO's. I call it four bars
| of no data. Just moved from Mint back to AT&T Prepaid because of
| this situation. Your results will vary wildly regionally, and
| time of day.
| kube-system wrote:
| This map doesn't really have anything to do with MVNOs. These
| maps are just about the deployment of physical infrastructure.
|
| Nor is this a coverage map -- even carriers with physical
| infrastructure often have roaming agreements that extend their
| coverage beyond their own networks. It is expected that
| coverage maps differ from this map. And it is also expected
| that different network operators have different provisioning of
| those network services to different customers.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| > Nor is this a coverage map
|
| The first sentence,
|
| "This map shows the 4G LTE mobile _coverage_ areas of the
| nation's four largest mobile wireless carriers: AT&T
| Mobility, T-Mobile, UScellular, and Verizon."
|
| The next sentence further defines what coverage means, a
| cellular signal with a minimum bandwidth requirement.
|
| I'll listen to you though.
|
| What is missing but would be useful is how many users it can
| support at that minimum bandwidth.
| kube-system wrote:
| I'm not saying anything in conflict with the words on this
| page. This page maps the coverage of services provided by
| infrastructure that the carriers own. That is not
| (necessarily) the same as the coverage map of where
| subscribers can get connectivity.
|
| As the page mentions:
|
| > The coverage maps on these service providers' websites
| may be based on different parameters and assumptions, such
| as roaming, and may therefore differ from the information
| shown here.
|
| It also mentions that the data is generated from Form 477
| data. This form only includes data from operators who _own_
| their infrastructure. This means it will not include
| information about services provided through partnerships.
|
| Seriously -- look at the USCellular map layer. This is not
| a map of the service area that a USCellular customer would
| expect, because USCellular makes a significant use of
| roaming under contract with other carriers (labelled
| 'partner coverage' on their own maps).
| https://www.uscellular.com/coverage-map/voice-and-data-maps
|
| Also, my reply was in response to a comment about MVNOs,
| which may or may not provide services equivalent to the
| carriers they virtualize their network through.
| mfer wrote:
| I find the map to be inaccurate for Verizons network where I
| live. There are places with known dead areas that they say has
| coverage. I don't mean recent dead zones... I mean they have
| been around for over a decade.
|
| I wonder how accurate they really are.
| Arrath wrote:
| This wouldn't surprise me at all. I ran into the same issue
| with AT&T during the switch from 3G to 4G. Suddenly, signal
| at my house went to absolute crap. Couldn't make or get
| calls. Texts would never send, texts would arrive in a random
| burst overnight.
|
| Repeated visits to the AT&T store to complain were met with
| them pulling up a google maps like coverage map and saying
| "Nope see you have fine coverage at your house, go away
| please."
| zokier wrote:
| I'd guess the map is computed based purely on cell tower
| location+geography.
| clone1018 wrote:
| I'm on a MVNO provider and frequently experience issues where I
| have full signal like you mention, but nothing "works". Are you
| aware of any tools that can test the signal strength in
| comparison to... I guess download speed? Would be interesting
| to plot it out!
| weirdalb wrote:
| That sounds like it should be illegal, is it advertised as
| lower priority from the MVNO? Do the MVNOs agree to this?
| yangl1996 wrote:
| A nice reference for traffic prioritization on major mobile
| networks. https://coveragecritic.com/2019/06/19/prioritized-
| and-deprio...
| akira2501 wrote:
| If you're on a budget MVNO, sure. There are higher quality
| providers in the space, but you will pay significantly more for
| them.
|
| The provider I have is data only at $120/mo for up to 1TB of 4G
| data. I'm not certain, but it seems like they'll move my SIM
| through different accounts on their backend to ensure that I
| always have full speed transfer within that limit... as when
| I'm getting close to a transfer threshold, my speeds will slow
| down, my modem will reboot at some time during that day, and
| then afterwards I'm back to full speeds.
|
| So far, never had an issue.
| MrLeap wrote:
| Seconding needing a provider. This would save my business. :)
| zacharycohn wrote:
| Who is your provider!? I pay that much for an MVNO that
| deprioritizes me around 100gb. Would love to switch, it's
| interfering with my work.
| fossuser wrote:
| I use Visible which is a Verizon subsidiary (MVNO-like, but
| not an MVNO) - I think they used it to test out stuff or
| something?
|
| Either way it's $25/mo unlimited everything with the tradeoff
| being that you can be deprioritized. In the bay area though
| it works fine and that's a great price for no contract.
|
| As a bonus there are no stores and you sign up via the app,
| I've been happy with it.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Visible is a Verizon subsidiary used to capture price
| sensitive customers.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I'm on Google Fi and I don't think I've ever experienced this.
|
| Of course, this is just anecdata, and maybe I haven't
| experienced it because I just don't tend to use a lot of data
| (< 3 GB/month), and rarely go to areas that will have highly-
| crowded cell towers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-28 23:00 UTC)