9 ms·

Mobile LTE Coverage Map

120 points by interweb 5y ago

jsjohnst 5y ago
I’m so tired of maps that are grossly inaccurate like this. Since Christmas last year I’ve been traveling across the US working remotely from my RV. I’m very meticulous about checking over a dozen sources and still have been bitten by campgrounds without any (let alone useable) cell coverage on any carrier, despite having a high gain directional antenna. I spot checked a bunch of the places I’m aware of and just like all the other maps out there, this is just flat misleading and inaccurate.
- pid-1 5y ago
  I've worked in a few projects for telecos in Brazil and I learned that most carriers didn't know basestation locations nor coverage accurately. A lot of that info was gathered via on site inspection and spreadsheet filling. Also most software used to organize access network information sucked hairy balls.
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  Funny, I bet Apple and Google have a very accurate idea of this from location and cellular modem data.
- silisili 5y ago
  Yeah, it's not accurate. My house has zero Tmobile signal. Lake Nona FL I remember also being completely devoid of signal. Both show as pink shaded on the map.
topspin 5y ago
This is "mobile broadband" only. Not wired broadband, the thing everyone is really interested in.
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  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/ https://tech.fb.com/terragraph-alaska/
- mjevans 5y ago
  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.
- tannhaeuser 5y ago
  Is it? I guess in US with its vast land mass and relatively low population density wired is very important, but I can tell you in many parts of Europe LTE and up are slowly becoming the norm even for high-volume, high-bandwidth usage such as for video streaming (not at 4k though ofc).
  - sgt 5y ago
    But surely most houses near cities in Europe has at least the option to get a fiber connection these days? Given the choice between LTE and fiber, I will choose fiber every day because otherwise you are basically competing with the radio spectrum and users thereof.
- HaloZero 5y ago
  I don't know. My manager (household of 3) just switched to using Verizon 5G for their home internet. She's getting like pretty good speeds compared to what Xfinity offers (which was the only alternative).
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Because xfinity wired broadband is garbage. They probably have 10Gb down/ 30Mb up connection allocated to 1,000 houses.
- tguvot 5y ago
  there are "local" broadband maps. like https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/ https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/
zachberger 5y ago
"Just" as in August 6th.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >"Just" as in August 6th. Keep fightin' the good fight, Zach.
Maxburn 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      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 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.
vlovich123 5y ago
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).
- kube-system 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      That's a pretty difficult question to answer, and the source data for this map certainly does not contain that information. To even begin to answer that question, you have to define the problem a little more specifically first: What does minimum upload/download speed mean? The minimum ever observed? By who? The minimum over a period of time? Through the entire network, or to the tower? Prioritized or deprioritized? Under what testing conditions? Under what usage patterns? About the closest you're going to get is this: https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/ https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/
      - vlovich123 5y ago
        Well the map is generated by a propagation model based on where the towers are, so if anything it should be even easier for them to generate such things than if it was driven by data collection.
cmg 5y ago
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 5y ago
  I can tell you it's lies in my area on AT&T. Extremely anecdotal though of course.
  - grosswait 5y ago
    Mine too. Says I am blanked with Verizon coverage but I assure you I am not
- ranon 5y ago
  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.
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  It’s definitely not accurate. I can show screenshots of over a dozen places with no service at all on AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon where this map claims coverage (and it’s supposedly filtered to be areas that have useable data, not just “coverage”).
ojagodzinski 5y ago
*for US.
LeoPanthera 5y ago
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.
shadowtree 5y ago
Interesting how much wider Verizon covers the west vs. AT&T. I am on AT&T and motorcycle quite a bit through the backcountry and use a real GPS navi for that reason. Trusting your phone is useless. Such a change coming from Europe where I stay connected on any pass through the Alps.
- MikeKusold 5y ago
  There is nothing wrong with using your phone for GPS. You just need to also use a mapping program that is optimized for offline usage such as OnX [0]. [0]: https://www.onxmaps.com/ https://www.onxmaps.com/
- xxpor 5y ago
  I hoped the FirstNet build out would have helped... but nope, not really.
fastaguy88 5y ago
Interesting map, but entirely fictional on US Rt2 between East Glacier and West Glacier for ATT. There is no ATT coverage for 60+ miles, yet the map suggests complete coverage. Correct for Verizon and T-Mobile.
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  Yep! That’s one of the areas I spot checked as I experienced zero coverage there too.
- StillBored 5y ago
  Yah, just looking at the signal edges should tell you a couple of those maps are "fictional". The tmobile map at least looks like a signal propagation map in areas that are flat, where they have a tower the map is roughly a circle, and in cities/mountain areas there are dark spots where there is a hole despite being entirely surrounded by signal. The other two maps look like BS to me, considering a couple years ago I was carrying two phones from differing carriers and driving around in unpopulated areas in the midwest and there were plenty of holes despite the advertised maps at the time showing perfect coverage in the areas in question. The surprising thing is that the fcc is buying some of that crap and republishing it rather than asking for raw tower data (location/freq/antenna directions/power/etc) and doing the modeling themselves. Even if the modeling is pretty poor the results are likely better than the best case crap they are getting from att.
- bsder 5y ago
  It's fictional for Verizon as well. Check the corridor from San Antonio to El Paso along I-10. I regularly get zero service along that path for dozens of miles at various points. And, it's not even the fault of towers--there is some weird "roaming" agreement in that area so Verizon doesn't want to carry the calls but still wants credit for that being "in coverage".
sushisource 5y ago
Apparently the government doesn't test on Firefox
- kiwijamo 5y ago
  It works fine for me on Firefox/Mac.
- cozzyd 5y ago
  works fine on Firefox + Fedora for me...
joecool1029 5y ago
>The coverage map was created using data submitted voluntarily by the four mobile carriers using certain standardized propagation model assumptions Eh? Why link or even talk about this. Here's 3rd party coverage collected by members over at Cellmapper. It's not perfect or complete but it's real data without 'assumptions' being made: https://www.cellmapper.net https://www.cellmapper.net At least there's a site for Canada that has exactly where every single tower is located: https://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html https://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html
- slobotron 5y ago
  I don't know how reliable that Canadian towers site is, it shows seemingly ridiculous number of towers in some suburban blocks?
  - bhc 5y ago
    It's based ISED's bimonthly CSV data dump of licensed radio transmitters. Heavy concentration of cellular antennas in some blocks might be because ISED's database lists even nano/picocells. http://sms-sgs.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sms-sgs-prod.nsf/eng/h_00010.html http://sms-sgs.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sms-sgs-prod.nsf/eng/h_0001...
- isaack 5y ago
  There's a similar site that shows towers and coverage around the world! And everyone can contribute data too! Sadly you can only contribute on Android but not iOS. http://www.cellmapper.net/ http://www.cellmapper.net/
  - Terretta 5y ago
    Isn’t that the main link in the post you’re replying to? Or did you mean to paste a different site but had the parent URL on your clipboard?
- geenew 5y ago
  For one, their map isn't restricted to areas that have paved roads or are otherwise regularly occupied by people, unlike the cellmapper map. Radio propagation maps are used when siting new cell towers, for example. I'm not a radio wave propagation modeller, but my understanding is that 'assumptions' include things like treating trees as columns with a height equal to tree height and a diameter equal to tree crown diameter, for example. Accuracy depends on the type and resolution of input data (eg photo-derived elevation models vs lidar point clouds). See [1] for some examples. I have no affiliation with them, it's just a site I have bookmarked. [1] https://www.forsk.com/propagation-modelling https://www.forsk.com/propagation-modelling
ece 5y ago
It's funny that US Cellular is listed here, and Dish/Boost isn't. Neither is Sprint, but it's LTE network is still relatively separate and something most T-Mobile customers can't access yet. Pretty useless map. Maybe comparing this with how much spectrum these companies have in an area might give more incentive to build where there's demand.
- jsjohnst 5y ago
  > Dish/Boost Boost is an MVNO. Look at the T-Mobile map and you are effectively looking at Boost’s map. It’s the same reason Cricket (AT&T), GoogleFi (T-Mobile/US Cellular), Metro/Mint (T-Mobile), Republic (T-Mobile), Spectrum (Verizon), Visible (Verizon), Xfinity (Verizon), etc aren’t listed. > Neither is Sprint Sprint is effectively T-Mobile now. Yes, they haven’t fully merged in all areas, but breaking Sprint only out wouldn’t be very useful for very long.
  - ece 5y ago
    The point I was trying to make is Dish has spectrum, MVNOs do not. Dish has artificially increased the cost of spectrum by holding on to it and not building their own network, and in the process also increased the cost of building a network for others.
sparker72678 5y ago
Coverage maps like these are no longer useful. I have "4 Bars" with extremely slow data rates constantly. My average speeds are about 1/10th what they were 7ish years ago (1.5 Mbps down vs 15 when networks were less loaded, "LTE" networks) as device density and usage has gone up. We need data throughput maps, maybe even by time of day. Having "coverage" doesn't mean you can actually do anything with it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
I question what the point of making this map was, when it isn’t even remotely accurate in so many places. I guess it makes the FCC feel like they did something and the carriers can continue saying how awesome they are and how they have brought broadband to the citizens as promised.
Mup_TIpekpaceH 5y ago
wow
mdip 5y ago
For those using these maps to determine the service you can expect from an MVNO operating on these providers, beware. I've been using Google Fi and tried a few others with Visible being the one that I found to be the most difficult to sort out. Visible uses Verizon's network (IIRC, they're owned by Verizon). In the thumb of Michigan, there's a large spot at the tip that Verizon post-paid customers have service (via the Extended Network[0]) but Visible does not. In fact, Lexington and Port Huron, with about a 5 mile buffer, were the only places service functioned similarly to home (albeit LTE rather than 5G) where coverage is solid. And it's not a matter of "there was really poor/slow/spotty service", there was simply nothing from just north of Lexington up M-25 to Port Austin and for much of M-59 from Armada to Port Austin[1]. Over the summer that I had this service, my mental model of the map would have the entire thumb empty with a few bursts of service over a some of the more populated areas, much like T-Mobile indicates. And that's curious -- the T-Mobile map looks a whole lot more like I'd expect for most of the service. Even the post-paid Verizon/AT&T service isn't great in a lot of places -- effectively or actually no service, but according to AT&T and Verizon's maps, I should be working almost everywhere. [0] Which, if I understand things correctly, is Verizon buying service from someone else. [1] We hit the dark sky park in Port Austin using Waze which caused me to pay closer attention, one route up, one route back; on M-25, I'd pick up service briefly enough to get a routing update but it sat "looking for service" with the circle/slash (No) symbol matching it. On M-59, it was dead except for Sandusky.

120 points by interweb 5y ago

I’m so tired of maps that are grossly inaccurate like this. Since Christmas last year I’ve been traveling across the US working remotely from my RV. I’m very meticulous about checking over a dozen sources and still have been bitten by campgrounds without any (let alone useable) cell coverage on any carrier, despite having a high gain directional antenna. I spot checked a bunch of the places I’m aware of and just like all the other maps out there, this is just flat misleading and inaccurate.

pid-1 5y ago
I've worked in a few projects for telecos in Brazil and I learned that most carriers didn't know basestation locations nor coverage accurately. A lot of that info was gathered via on site inspection and spreadsheet filling. Also most software used to organize access network information sucked hairy balls.
nixpulvis 5y ago
Funny, I bet Apple and Google have a very accurate idea of this from location and cellular modem data.
silisili 5y ago
Yeah, it's not accurate. My house has zero Tmobile signal. Lake Nona FL I remember also being completely devoid of signal. Both show as pink shaded on the map.

topspin 5y ago

This is "mobile broadband" only. Not wired broadband, the thing everyone is really interested in.

jjtheblunt 5y ago
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/ https://tech.fb.com/terragraph-alaska/
mjevans 5y ago
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.
tannhaeuser 5y ago
Is it? I guess in US with its vast land mass and relatively low population density wired is very important, but I can tell you in many parts of Europe LTE and up are slowly becoming the norm even for high-volume, high-bandwidth usage such as for video streaming (not at 4k though ofc).
- sgt 5y ago
  But surely most houses near cities in Europe has at least the option to get a fiber connection these days? Given the choice between LTE and fiber, I will choose fiber every day because otherwise you are basically competing with the radio spectrum and users thereof.
HaloZero 5y ago
I don't know. My manager (household of 3) just switched to using Verizon 5G for their home internet. She's getting like pretty good speeds compared to what Xfinity offers (which was the only alternative).
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Because xfinity wired broadband is garbage. They probably have 10Gb down/ 30Mb up connection allocated to 1,000 houses.
tguvot 5y ago
there are "local" broadband maps. like https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/ https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/

zachberger 5y ago

"Just" as in August 6th.

Nicksil 5y ago
>"Just" as in August 6th. Keep fightin' the good fight, Zach.

Maxburn 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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 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.

vlovich123 5y ago

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).

kube-system 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  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.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    That's a pretty difficult question to answer, and the source data for this map certainly does not contain that information. To even begin to answer that question, you have to define the problem a little more specifically first: What does minimum upload/download speed mean? The minimum ever observed? By who? The minimum over a period of time? Through the entire network, or to the tower? Prioritized or deprioritized? Under what testing conditions? Under what usage patterns? About the closest you're going to get is this: https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/ https://webcoveragemap.rootmetrics.com/
    - vlovich123 5y ago
      Well the map is generated by a propagation model based on where the towers are, so if anything it should be even easier for them to generate such things than if it was driven by data collection.

cmg 5y ago

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 5y ago
I can tell you it's lies in my area on AT&T. Extremely anecdotal though of course.
- grosswait 5y ago
  Mine too. Says I am blanked with Verizon coverage but I assure you I am not
ranon 5y ago
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.
jsjohnst 5y ago
It’s definitely not accurate. I can show screenshots of over a dozen places with no service at all on AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon where this map claims coverage (and it’s supposedly filtered to be areas that have useable data, not just “coverage”).

ojagodzinski 5y ago

*for US.

LeoPanthera 5y ago

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.

shadowtree 5y ago

Interesting how much wider Verizon covers the west vs. AT&T. I am on AT&T and motorcycle quite a bit through the backcountry and use a real GPS navi for that reason. Trusting your phone is useless. Such a change coming from Europe where I stay connected on any pass through the Alps.

MikeKusold 5y ago
There is nothing wrong with using your phone for GPS. You just need to also use a mapping program that is optimized for offline usage such as OnX [0]. [0]: https://www.onxmaps.com/ https://www.onxmaps.com/
xxpor 5y ago
I hoped the FirstNet build out would have helped... but nope, not really.

fastaguy88 5y ago

Interesting map, but entirely fictional on US Rt2 between East Glacier and West Glacier for ATT. There is no ATT coverage for 60+ miles, yet the map suggests complete coverage. Correct for Verizon and T-Mobile.

jsjohnst 5y ago
Yep! That’s one of the areas I spot checked as I experienced zero coverage there too.
StillBored 5y ago
Yah, just looking at the signal edges should tell you a couple of those maps are "fictional". The tmobile map at least looks like a signal propagation map in areas that are flat, where they have a tower the map is roughly a circle, and in cities/mountain areas there are dark spots where there is a hole despite being entirely surrounded by signal. The other two maps look like BS to me, considering a couple years ago I was carrying two phones from differing carriers and driving around in unpopulated areas in the midwest and there were plenty of holes despite the advertised maps at the time showing perfect coverage in the areas in question. The surprising thing is that the fcc is buying some of that crap and republishing it rather than asking for raw tower data (location/freq/antenna directions/power/etc) and doing the modeling themselves. Even if the modeling is pretty poor the results are likely better than the best case crap they are getting from att.
bsder 5y ago
It's fictional for Verizon as well. Check the corridor from San Antonio to El Paso along I-10. I regularly get zero service along that path for dozens of miles at various points. And, it's not even the fault of towers--there is some weird "roaming" agreement in that area so Verizon doesn't want to carry the calls but still wants credit for that being "in coverage".

sushisource 5y ago

Apparently the government doesn't test on Firefox

kiwijamo 5y ago
It works fine for me on Firefox/Mac.
cozzyd 5y ago
works fine on Firefox + Fedora for me...

joecool1029 5y ago

>The coverage map was created using data submitted voluntarily by the four mobile carriers using certain standardized propagation model assumptions Eh? Why link or even talk about this. Here's 3rd party coverage collected by members over at Cellmapper. It's not perfect or complete but it's real data without 'assumptions' being made: https://www.cellmapper.net https://www.cellmapper.net At least there's a site for Canada that has exactly where every single tower is located: https://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html https://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html

slobotron 5y ago
I don't know how reliable that Canadian towers site is, it shows seemingly ridiculous number of towers in some suburban blocks?
- bhc 5y ago
  It's based ISED's bimonthly CSV data dump of licensed radio transmitters. Heavy concentration of cellular antennas in some blocks might be because ISED's database lists even nano/picocells. http://sms-sgs.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sms-sgs-prod.nsf/eng/h_00010.html http://sms-sgs.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sms-sgs-prod.nsf/eng/h_0001...
isaack 5y ago
There's a similar site that shows towers and coverage around the world! And everyone can contribute data too! Sadly you can only contribute on Android but not iOS. http://www.cellmapper.net/ http://www.cellmapper.net/
- Terretta 5y ago
  Isn’t that the main link in the post you’re replying to? Or did you mean to paste a different site but had the parent URL on your clipboard?
geenew 5y ago
For one, their map isn't restricted to areas that have paved roads or are otherwise regularly occupied by people, unlike the cellmapper map. Radio propagation maps are used when siting new cell towers, for example. I'm not a radio wave propagation modeller, but my understanding is that 'assumptions' include things like treating trees as columns with a height equal to tree height and a diameter equal to tree crown diameter, for example. Accuracy depends on the type and resolution of input data (eg photo-derived elevation models vs lidar point clouds). See [1] for some examples. I have no affiliation with them, it's just a site I have bookmarked. [1] https://www.forsk.com/propagation-modelling https://www.forsk.com/propagation-modelling

ece 5y ago

It's funny that US Cellular is listed here, and Dish/Boost isn't. Neither is Sprint, but it's LTE network is still relatively separate and something most T-Mobile customers can't access yet. Pretty useless map. Maybe comparing this with how much spectrum these companies have in an area might give more incentive to build where there's demand.

jsjohnst 5y ago
> Dish/Boost Boost is an MVNO. Look at the T-Mobile map and you are effectively looking at Boost’s map. It’s the same reason Cricket (AT&T), GoogleFi (T-Mobile/US Cellular), Metro/Mint (T-Mobile), Republic (T-Mobile), Spectrum (Verizon), Visible (Verizon), Xfinity (Verizon), etc aren’t listed. > Neither is Sprint Sprint is effectively T-Mobile now. Yes, they haven’t fully merged in all areas, but breaking Sprint only out wouldn’t be very useful for very long.
- ece 5y ago
  The point I was trying to make is Dish has spectrum, MVNOs do not. Dish has artificially increased the cost of spectrum by holding on to it and not building their own network, and in the process also increased the cost of building a network for others.

sparker72678 5y ago

Coverage maps like these are no longer useful. I have "4 Bars" with extremely slow data rates constantly. My average speeds are about 1/10th what they were 7ish years ago (1.5 Mbps down vs 15 when networks were less loaded, "LTE" networks) as device density and usage has gone up. We need data throughput maps, maybe even by time of day. Having "coverage" doesn't mean you can actually do anything with it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

I question what the point of making this map was, when it isn’t even remotely accurate in so many places. I guess it makes the FCC feel like they did something and the carriers can continue saying how awesome they are and how they have brought broadband to the citizens as promised.

Mup_TIpekpaceH 5y ago

wow

mdip 5y ago

For those using these maps to determine the service you can expect from an MVNO operating on these providers, beware. I've been using Google Fi and tried a few others with Visible being the one that I found to be the most difficult to sort out. Visible uses Verizon's network (IIRC, they're owned by Verizon). In the thumb of Michigan, there's a large spot at the tip that Verizon post-paid customers have service (via the Extended Network[0]) but Visible does not. In fact, Lexington and Port Huron, with about a 5 mile buffer, were the only places service functioned similarly to home (albeit LTE rather than 5G) where coverage is solid. And it's not a matter of "there was really poor/slow/spotty service", there was simply nothing from just north of Lexington up M-25 to Port Austin and for much of M-59 from Armada to Port Austin[1]. Over the summer that I had this service, my mental model of the map would have the entire thumb empty with a few bursts of service over a some of the more populated areas, much like T-Mobile indicates. And that's curious -- the T-Mobile map looks a whole lot more like I'd expect for most of the service. Even the post-paid Verizon/AT&T service isn't great in a lot of places -- effectively or actually no service, but according to AT&T and Verizon's maps, I should be working almost everywhere. [0] Which, if I understand things correctly, is Verizon buying service from someone else. [1] We hit the dark sky park in Port Austin using Waze which caused me to pay closer attention, one route up, one route back; on M-25, I'd pick up service briefly enough to get a routing update but it sat "looking for service" with the circle/slash (No) symbol matching it. On M-59, it was dead except for Sandusky.