FACTUAL coverage comparison (Verizon's LTE comparison but using sensorly data)

[SWMich4G]

The Verizon coverage comparison commercials have bothered me for a while.  It bothers me that they claim their LTE network covers 95% of North Dakota & Nebraska, and 90% of South Dakota.  But it's expected they would wildly exaggerate their own network's coverage.  It irks me even more that while they are accurate (or even a little generous) on T-Mobile's and AT&T's coverage, they very noticeably understate Sprint's.  I was thinking about doing this earlier, but after Kevin Fitchard published the laughably pathetic "the State of LTE in the US" article, claiming Sprint has "the smallest coverage footprint" of the 4, I had to post this. 

 

This is using Sensorly data from 1/30/14.  On the full-screen zoom level I took every pixel that had coverage (purple), and filled in the appropriate solid color Verizon uses on their commercials.  This obviously ignores local density and signal strength, just like the Verizon charts.  So maybe I'm biased, but take a look and YOU tell ME who has "the smallest coverage footprint."

 

 

Actual pixels (big)

 

 

And in case those are too spread out to tell, here's an animated progression of T-Mobile, then AT&T, then Sprint, then Verizon:

 

[afazel]

Wall post?

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Wall post?

Possibly. Staff is in discussion -- especially in light of Gigaom's article. Regardless, this thread is top notch.

 

AJ

[Nickel]

Outstanding post. This is the exact kind of thing that should be discussed instead of the personal crap about how X wireless provider sucks in their area.

[jls203]

Great post!!! Enough said lol

[Fraydog]

The only issue I have is that deep in the sticks, people on Verizon don't use Sensorly because they don't know how lol. That said, there are plenty of areas where I fall off LTE to either 1X or EV-DO.

[radem]

I have seen this over and over again in articles and in commercials.  They are deliberately using a sprint map from what appears to be early 2013 to show poor coverage.  The other carrier maps are also likely from a similar earlier point in time where the company the commercial is about looks the most favorable and their competitors look the weakest.  While I do not think this is necessarily intentional by article writers referencing this information, it almost certainly is intentional in the commercials as this is a common commercial tactic to make yourself look better than your competitors.  The information is not slander as it was factually correct as of the point in time the data is from and the commercials likely display the point in time in fine print somewhere.

 

The article writers are likely using the commercials as their source.  The point of writing some of these articles is to compare and contrast the different companies and their coverage.  Why do research when it already has been done for you?  It would be good to set the record straight by giving the true current story some publicity.    I think many people would be shocked by these maps and the improvement that Sprint has gone through.  I would like to see the 3G maps displayed as well as they show the current voice coverage and areas where you can get slower data but still have full use of your mobile device.

[The Dave]

That Verizon commercial has always bothered me since I knew that Sprint has better coverage than Verizon was suggesting and didn't know how they could get away with portraying Sprint as being so thin. It is a shame that Sprint hasn't responded with a commercial showing their current state of LTE. It could help set the record straight. I have personally been really surprised and pleased by how often I am with LTE. It is nearly everywhere despite areas that are extremely rural or deep indoors. Sprint has a lot to brag about if you ask me.

[themuffinman]

Wow, this is outstanding.  Excellent work!!!

[Destroyallcubes]

I believe in the commercial Verizon shows T-Mobile with more coverage? They must of included hspa+ coverage on the commercial. Wonder why Verizon doesn't show ATTs hspa+ but I believe this isn't the first time Verizon has done shady things when it comes to maps in order to deceive the people. Seems like everyone is avoiding the truth about sprint LTE. Just like in the articles written about sprint. Most of the "proof" and quotes have been selectively Picked to show negative. Maybe sprint should do the same with Tmobiles 4g map, but color in areas people won't have LTE. See how much they don't have. Oh and that should eliminate a lot of hspa+ coverage too since most of their LTE is hspa+ overlay

[dnicekid]

Lets all chip in and try to get a full page ad in a major city!

 

This is the main reason Sprint always get @@@@ on, people see those maps, and run, somehow the truth needs to get out.

[Fraydog]

I believe in the commercial Verizon shows T-Mobile with more coverage? They must of included hspa+ coverage on the commercial. Wonder why Verizon doesn't show ATTs hspa+ but I believe this isn't the first time Verizon has done shady things when it comes to maps in order to deceive the people. Seems like everyone is avoiding the truth about sprint LTE. Just like in the articles written about sprint. Most of the "proof" and quotes have been selectively Picked to show negative. Maybe sprint should do the same with Tmobiles 4g map, but color in areas people won't have LTE. See how much they don't have. Oh and that should eliminate a lot of hspa+ coverage too since most of their LTE is hspa+ overlay

Verizon could do that to give TMUS the benefit of the doubt and TMUS would still trail Verizon's LTE network by 70 million POP's.

[Conan Kudo]

Verizon could do that to give TMUS the benefit of the doubt and TMUS would still trail Verizon's LTE network by 70 million POP's.

It looks like Verizon is including the soft-launched LTE zones that TMUS has scattered throughout the country. For example, the blobs in central Mississippi and the west edge of Texas are not in areas currently announced by T-Mobile as having LTE. But they are indeed there.

 

That being said, T-Mobile does have the smallest LTE footprint, announced or otherwise.

[The Dave]

It is just odd. It seems as if Sprint's LTE coverage and speed is about on par with AT&T's. AT&T is regarded as a successful nationwide LTE network with great speeds but Sprint is regarded as being slow and useless. It's like Sprint is the hot "other sister" to the popular girl who gets all the attention. Usually the popular girl gets knocked up or ends up with herpes. Sprint deserves a little more recognition and hopefully will come out the better network once everything is said and done.

[SpenceSouth]

This is awesome!

[Fraydog]

It is just odd. It seems as if Sprint's LTE coverage and speed is about on par with AT&T's. AT&T is regarded as a successful nationwide LTE network with great speeds but Sprint is regarded as being slow and useless. It's like Sprint is the hot "other sister" to the popular girl who gets all the attention. Usually the popular girl gets knocked up or ends up with herpes. Sprint deserves a little more recognition and hopefully will come out the better network once everything is said and done.

Sprint is severely limited by 5x5 bandwidth. That's why TD-LTE is so important. Sprint needs to come out swinging harder on TD-LTE. While I think the e-peen swinging is getting to be a bit ridiculous, Sprint can still swing the largest, so it's time to come out hard with TD-LTE.

[Destroyallcubes]

Verizon could do that to give TMUS the benefit of the doubt and TMUS would still trail Verizon's LTE network by 70 million POP's.

well of course they would haha. I bet though if something Luke this got out people would try and find something to try and shoot sprint down....it is sad. I guess the reporters must not want to see sprint successful

[swintec]

In those comparison commercials they use each carriers coverage maps as of whatever date they put in the fine print.  I think that is how they get away with it.  They retrieve the OFFICIALLY released and available coverage map from each carrier on Jan. 15th for example and then slap on the screen, coverage claims based on data as of Jan 15th.

 

We know Sprints actual coverage is ahead of what they publish on the coverage maps until an area is officially launched but what is the solution?  Only use sensorly data for one carrier and not the other three?  Use a combination of sensorly and carrier maps for all 4?

 

Remember, there is a very huge push here for sensorly mapping of sprints network as it comes online.  Probably more than any other carrier. If I didnt have Sprint i would have no interest in mapping to sensorly.

 

Another issue I never thought of, I brought up coverage of Sprint network with another user in a forum and he mapped a lot of Southern California on sensorly.  Unfortunately, his phone had issues and continued to say he had LTE when there was no connection at all.  Sensorly accepted this for some reason and mapped it and now there is no way to remove or edit it.

 

I think the only ideal solution is for sprint to update their coverage maps in a more real time manner.  If LTE is accepted and usable (on a tower or a cluster) maybe reflect this on the official coverage maps and nto wait some number of months before they do.

[irwinshere]

Interesting. What can we do?

 

Jim, Sent from my Photon 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

[Fraydog]

T-Mobile also has the smallest 3G footprint as well... that was my greater point. 

[S4GRU]

Another issue I never thought of, I brought up coverage of Sprint network with another user in a forum and he mapped a lot of Southern California on sensorly.  Unfortunately, his phone had issues and continued to say he had LTE when there was no connection at all.  Sensorly accepted this for some reason and mapped it and now there is no way to remove or edit it.

 

This does happen.  But it's not common and it doesn't overstate coverage in very many places.  What we are seeing on a national zoom out level for Sprint is accurate.  It's not overstating whole cities or regions.  When it happens, it overstates a street.

 

Robert

[SWMich4G]

Here's what Verizon shows for coverage in their newest commercial for those who haven't seen the January version:

 

 

It pretty clearly shows Sprint in last place for total footprint, which I do not believe to be the case.

[swintec]

Here's what Verizon shows for coverage in their newest commercial for those who haven't seen the January version:

 

 

It pretty clearly shows Sprint in last place for total footprint, which I do not believe to be the case.

 

The sprint map they used looks like it was sourced before sprint updated the map for the most recent cities they launched the week before last.  According to Sprints official map "Coverage updated on: 1/21/14"  All i remember is parts of NH were launched in this most recent round and the map you posted above do not reflect it yet but sprints does as of the 21st.

 

Is there any way to get Sprints official coverage map to show just the LTE similar to above, at a country wide view?

[S4GRU]

The sprint map they used looks like it was sourced before sprint updated the map for the most recent cities they launched the week before last.  According to Sprints official map "Coverage updated on: 1/21/14"  All i remember is parts of NH were launched in this most recent round and the map you posted above do not reflect it yet but sprints does as of the 21st.

 

Is there any way to get Sprints official coverage map to show just the LTE similar to above, at a country wide view?

 

Los Angeles launched almost a year ago and Orange County last October, and their coverage is not shown on the map above.

 

Robert

[bakedc4]

The current January commercial says "Competitor information gathered prior to December 5, 2013"