Paynefanbro Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Am I the only one that likes to look at Verizon's coverage comparison tool. I think it gives a good idea of a carrier's generalized coverage as far as those cities that have been announced. However, it takes a while for it to get updated. I look at Verizon's map and think, no one will ever build an LTE network of that size. When I look at T-Mobile, I see a spotty, spread out network. AT&T is also spotty with a few highways covered here and there. Sprint seems to be more put together as in even if it is spotty, they are in blobs rather than random remote areas. I've also found a few places that Sprint has coverage in but not Verizon such as in southern Texas. http://www.verizonwireless.com/wcms/consumer/4g-lte.html 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickel Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Am I the only one that likes to look at Verizon's coverage comparison tool. I think it gives a good idea of a carrier's generalized coverage as far as those cities that have been announced. However, it takes a while for it to get updated. I look at Verizon's map and think, no one will ever build an LTE network of that size. When I look at T-Mobile, I see a spotty, spread out network. AT&T is also spotty with a few highways covered here and there. Sprint seems to be more put together as in even if it is spotty, they are in blobs rather than random remote areas. I've also found a few places that Sprint has coverage in but not Verizon such as in southern Texas. http://www.verizonwireless.com/wcms/consumer/4g-lte.html It's not super surprising that Verizon doesn't serve parts of Texas because that would have been an SBC area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWMich4G Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Unfortunately, it's overly generous for their own coverage (as all carriers' maps are) and is lacking quite a bit on the other carriers' maps. You can see they literally have a dot for every verizon tower when you look in areas like Montana and Wyoming, but then entire states like Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, and Nevada are left blank with sprint despite having the same or better coverage than AT&T in some of the cities in those states. There are also areas they filled in in their own map that I know from living in the area that they don't have LTE coverage. And I really don't believe they have that much LTE in the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas...there really have to be some LTE dead spots somewhere in the Dakotas. So like all carriers' maps, it needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefbal99 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Unfortunately, it's overly generous for their own coverage (as all carriers' maps are) and is lacking quite a bit on the other carriers' maps. You can see they literally have a dot for every verizon tower when you look in areas like Montana and Wyoming, but then entire states like Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, and Nevada are left blank with sprint despite having the same or better coverage than AT&T in some of the cities in those states. There are also areas they filled in in their own map that I know from living in the area that they don't have LTE coverage. And I really don't believe they have that much LTE in the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas...there really have to be some LTE dead spots somewhere in the Dakotas. So like all carriers' maps, it needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt. I have to agree 100%, I was working with a large County IT department in Michigan on a project and we got talking about their migration from Sprint to Verizon. Sprint wouldn't even talk to them about coverage gaps, so they are moving to VZW. They had been taking VZW engineers all over the county to dead/weak spots for 1X, EVDO/eHRPD, & LTE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug526 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 If I had the time and money I would independently audit the Verizon coverage in the Dakotas and Nebraska and Kansas. I mean, the population density is so low in those states, how could they possibly afford to cover them edge to edge with LTE? Methinks their map is showing licensed areas in those states rather than actual coverage. Hopefully if/when Sprint activates their 800 LTE, there will be a lot more green on their map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4GRU Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 As a Verizon customer, I can tell you their maps are overstated. I almost never get any signal in their Extended LTE coverage areas depicted. Even with a super strong performing MiFi. However, I will say this, driving from Denver to Rapid City via I-76 and the Nebraska Panhandle, I never lost a Verizon native signal. I had LTE all but 20 miles of the way, and it fell back to EVDO in those 20 miles. Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateck Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 In central/southwest Arizona, Verizon has Sprint beat dead to right. But,,,, it's at a cost. Now Sprint is slowly improving, so let's see in 6 months????? Most likely not. I went with cost in up-grading with the hope Sprint will continue to improve. Lateck, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Newhart Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I live in an area that has great Verizon coverage according to their maps, also great AT&T coverage. But of course the maps are both wrong with these carriers. T-Mobile's is a little ambitious, but more realistic. Sprint's is more realistic, especially since they updated their maps a few months ago removing many square miles of coverage here in WA. People do pay a premium for Verizon cell service, for a better coverage area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destroyallcubes Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I live in an area that has great Verizon coverage according to their maps, also great AT&T coverage. But of course the maps are both wrong with these carriers. T-Mobile's is a little ambitious, but more realistic. Sprint's is more realistic, especially since they updated their maps a few months ago removing many square miles of coverage here in WA. People do pay a premium for Verizon cell service, for a better coverage area. I can say all of them over estimate their coverage. I notice once sprint updated the maps with LTE in my area, the coverage grew, but They can not accurately tell where a dead spot is without going to most locations. But they widened the coverage a few miles out, which I wonder if they are saying that will be what LTE will look like after everything is done, including 800LTE? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozamcrew Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 If I had the time and money I would independently audit the Verizon coverage in the Dakotas and Nebraska and Kansas. I mean, the population density is so low in those states, how could they possibly afford to cover them edge to edge with LTE? Methinks their map is showing licensed areas in those states rather than actual coverage. Hopefully if/when Sprint activates their 800 LTE, there will be a lot more green on their map. Because these areas are FLAT FLAT FLAT with low population density (Maybe not the blackhills, but much of ND, SD and NE is) . A well situated cell site with CDMA 800 and LTE on 700 can cover a huge area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiWavelength Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Because these areas are FLAT FLAT FLAT with low population density (Maybe not the blackhills, but much of ND, SD and NE is) . A well situated cell site with CDMA 800 and LTE on 700 can cover a huge area. Not exactly. The LTE airlink is so relatively fragile that even LTE 750 will not usably cover as much footprint as you might think. AJ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinaDee Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 AT&T will have claim to over 300 million POPS of LTE by next year. Soon there should be a great blue map to match that great red map. Truth be told though: That red map is a bit too red for so many extremely remote areas and unless people are there to validate the accuracy of these maps there is just no way to tell for sure. I'm pretty sure some of these areas have little to no backhaul to support anything too fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozamcrew Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Not exactly. The LTE airlink is so relatively fragile that even LTE 750 will not usably cover as much footprint as you might think. AJ I think the map IS an exaggeration of their LTE coverage. I think they are assuming usable LTE 700 where they have usable CDMA 800 on the same site. I'm just saying you'd be surprised how much terrirory you can cover with both CDMA 800 and LTE on 700 with just a handful of towers. When you have a flat area with few people and low band spectrum, you can cover quite a bit of territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnwk Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I think this is the reason we need sensorly. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnys8913 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think this is the reason we need sensorly. 100% AGREE!! Sensory is the best out there in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 As someone who worked at Best Buy in the past, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Verizon's map is over exaggerated. Customers would constantly point to the fact that it was red where they lived & complain they dropped calls & data was slow... I would then show them that there was a white spot a few hundred meters from where they were talking & that it was the edge of signal before it dropped off. Verizon should do a better job having a gradiated map that shows signal strength & not just a red 'yes there SHOULD be some LTE there'. Not that all 3 other companies don't exaggerate, but most of the time they show iffy areas as 1 bar & say outdoor coverage or the always popular 'signal strength varies'. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.