Jump to content
clbowens

Coverage map updated 3/9/2018

Recommended Posts

At least for the Cleveland area, it seems like there's more "holes" showing up on the coverage map, which I think is more accurate.  And hopefully this is a step to them fixing the holes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LTE Plus coverage is broken in NYC again. A lot of the city is lacking it on the map when most of the city is covered in it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LTE Plus coverage not showing in Shentel territory

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not all; I note some of the newer Shentel coverage--which was found in a previous version of the map--is now missing.  Not sure how that happened.

There are also individual LTE Plus towers missing in the DC area--some are Clear sites that have been there a very long time.

That said, since the last time I looked at coverage in this area, the map has gotten more accurate.  It now shows holes that I know exist because I travel through them on a regular basis. 

- Trip

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paynefanbro said:

LTE Plus coverage is broken in NYC again. A lot of the city is lacking it on the map when most of the city is covered in it.

If you’re aware of specific locations in NYC that are wrong on the coverage map, you should post them in the Sprint Subreddit Coverage Map thread and tag /u/Craig-S who interfaces with the Map Team. He does a great job following up on this stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chamb said:

LTE Plus coverage not showing in Shentel territory

Where in the territory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedSpark said:

Where in the territory?

Central Pennsylvania -  Harrisburg, York, Carlisle, Chambersburg, Waynesboro.

Maryland -  Hagerstown

West Virginia -  Martinsburg   

Probably more than I mentioned.  Does not look like any Shentel data has been upgraded for a long time. That is a shame

since the service is great. The mapping should reflect that, but it does not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really broke the Missouri market. Looks like they turned off Band 26 again. And it looks like they tried to make B41 coverage more realistic, but in the process, shrank it *too* much. Previously it covered way too much ground. Now they're not showing coverage where I know there is a pretty decent B41 (3xCA) signal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the information is a lot more accurate now in the South SF Bay and Central Valley. Or at least a lot more specific than it was previously.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it is over conservative for a lot of the Cleveland Market, actually.  Basically any site that has received B41 since the beginning of 2017 is not showing on the map.

Another couple map updates, and we'll be right back to the Cleveland area having hardly any B41. GRR! :mad:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://rf.jwmaloney.name/sprint-coverage.html

 

If I select 3G & More and LTE Plus (No 3G) I see lot more B41 coverage.  The two B41 towers that are new near me are shown.  Manhattan is shown correctly. Shentel B41 is shown. The B41 I saw in Huntsville is shown.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, red_dog007 said:

https://rf.jwmaloney.name/sprint-coverage.html

 

If I select 3G & More and LTE Plus (No 3G) I see lot more B41 coverage.  The two B41 towers that are new near me are shown.  Manhattan is shown correctly. Shentel B41 is shown. The B41 I saw in Huntsville is shown.

Great Find concerning the Shentel LTE Plus Coverage. The jwMaloney maps even show the difference between inside and outside LTE Plus coverage.  You now have one vote for making the jwmaloney maps the official Sprint Maps.

The B-41 coverage shown on the Maloney maps appears to be fairly accurate too. 

How can the Sprint managers see these jwmaloney maps and then look at the official Sprint maps and feel good about their products they place out for public consumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, red_dog007 said:

https://rf.jwmaloney.name/sprint-coverage.html

 

If I select 3G & More and LTE Plus (No 3G) I see lot more B41 coverage.  The two B41 towers that are new near me are shown.  Manhattan is shown correctly. Shentel B41 is shown. The B41 I saw in Huntsville is shown.

 

It's not accurate everywhere.  It's says now that nearly every site in Nebraska has B41 live on it.  Even in rural GMO and microwave sites.  And it's not true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S4GRU said:

It's not accurate everywhere.  It's says now that nearly every site in Nebraska has B41 live on it.  Even in rural GMO and microwave sites.  And it's not true.  

Not to mention, many NEW Nebraska sites, many in BFE towns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at LA and San Diego on the new map and was somewhat shocked. The amount of 3G only/roaming spots in some of the densest parts of LA seems hard to believe. Are there any folks down in LA that can confirm that this is accurate?

 

Thanks!

coverage.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thomas L. said:

I was looking at LA and San Diego on the new map and was somewhat shocked. The amount of 3G only/roaming spots in some of the densest parts of LA seems hard to believe. Are there any folks down in LA that can confirm that this is accurate?

 

Thanks!

coverage.png

That's their attempt to show in building coverage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Thomas L. said:

I was looking at LA and San Diego on the new map and was somewhat shocked. The amount of 3G only/roaming spots in some of the densest parts of LA seems hard to believe. Are there any folks down in LA that can confirm that this is accurate?

 

Thanks!

coverage.png

 

11 minutes ago, Dkoellerwx said:

That's their attempt to show in building coverage. 

They have done this in downtown Seattle too and I think it’s stupid. It makes coverage look completely awful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chamb said:

Great Find concerning the Shentel LTE Plus Coverage. The jwMaloney maps even show the difference between inside and outside LTE Plus coverage.  You now have one vote for making the jwmaloney maps the official Sprint Maps.

The B-41 coverage shown on the Maloney maps appears to be fairly accurate too. 

How can the Sprint managers see these jwmaloney maps and then look at the official Sprint maps and feel good about their products they place out for public consumption?

At least they're finally using Google Maps officially now. No excuse for not making that change years ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RAvirani said:

 

They have done this in downtown Seattle too and I think it’s stupid. It makes coverage look completely awful. 

So this isn't a map-wide change? Are they just doing this is downtown areas? It makes it hard to figure out exactly what they're trying to show with all the changes and when they don't tell you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thomas L. said:

So this isn't a map-wide change? Are they just doing this is downtown areas? It makes it hard to figure out exactly what they're trying to show with all the changes and when they don't tell you!

They've been doing it on a market by market basis in urban areas. Like, I noticed it in the Kansas market late last year. They just added it to the Colorado market in last months update. They only seem to do it for the biggest cities, largest buildings and surrounding areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've done it all over NYC, not just the densest areas. For what it's worth, the areas where it says there is no coverage or just 3G are mostly correct. However, they are missing a ton of Band 41 coverage that exists in these giant bright yellow patches. I'm hoping all of the complaints will make Sprint fix it soon.

gaGXto2.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thinking but I would imagine having a super accurate map like this, while potentially being bad because it looks like you have poor coverage, could be good for when VoLTE comes around. You'll have a better idea of which areas VoLTE won't work or will struggle in.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Paynefanbro said:

They've done it all over NYC, not just the densest areas. For what it's worth, the areas where it says there is no coverage or just 3G are mostly correct. However, they are missing a ton of Band 41 coverage that exists in these giant bright yellow patches. I'm hoping all of the complaints will make Sprint fix it soon.

gaGXto2.png

I would consider all of NYC to be dense... more dense that most of the other areas I was talking about in previous posts. So I stand by the point that they are doing this to dense urban areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 2:11 AM, JWMaloney said:

At least they're finally using Google Maps officially now. No excuse for not making that change years ago.

Agreed. Glad they made this transition to Google Maps for the Coverage Map.

When you Report a Network Issue in the My Sprint Mobile App for iOS, Sprint actually uses Apple Maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • I've seen TMobile roaming around Portland, so its well into West Michigan.  It's not consistent, but its filling gaps
    • AT&T roaming was live in Estes Park, CO when I was there in July.
    • https://uslivegame.de/belgiumvsiceland/
      Belgium vs Iceland
      Iceland vs Belgium
      Belgium vs Iceland Live
      Belgium vs Iceland Live Stream
      Iceland vs Belgium Live
      Iceland vs Belgium Live Stream
      https://uslivegame.de/kazakhstanvslatvia/
      Kazakhstan vs Latvia
      Latvia vs Kazakhstan
      Kazakhstan vs Latvia Live
      Kazakhstan vs Latvia Live Stream
      Latvia vs Kazakhstan Live
      Latvia vs Kazakhstan Live Stream
      https://uslivegame.de/andorravsgeorgia/
      Andorra vs Georgia
      Georgia vs Andorra
      Andorra vs Georgia Live
      Andorra vs Georgia Live Stream
      Georgia vs Andorra Live
      Georgia vs Andorra Live Stream   https://uslivegame.de/austriavsbosniaandherzegovina/
      Austria vs Bosnia and Herzegovina
      Austria vs Bosnia
      Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Austria
      Bosnia vs Austria
      Austria vs Bosnia and Herzegovina Live
      Austria vs Bosnia and Herzegovina Live Stream
      Austria vs Bosnia Live
      Austria vs Bosnia Live Stream
      Bosnia vs Austria Live
      Bosnia vs Austria Live Stream
    • I think T-Mobile has a point with 5G on 600Mhz which is expect to double its relatively slow speeds.  Sprint is expected a 5 fold increase in Band 41, however I personally think the real difference will be in upload speeds given 100Mhz will be available for upload as compared to today's typical 20Mhz that most Sprint customer observe.  T-Mobile's plan given merger approval is to use the spectrum to shift customers around while it upgrades each band to 5NR starting with Band 41 (doing this on a market by market basis).  This is according to publicly available plans and comments.  Since those were released the plans have been revised.  My guess is the FCC is pushing T-Mobile - Sprint towards a Shentel - nTelos type of deal where coverage must remain the same, customers must end up with a phone in some fashion that fully supports the new network, some divesting of spectrum, and they must report back to the FCC on progress towards these goals.  The only  area that is really new is the MVNO possible conditions.  To placate possible opposition and appeal to FCC stated goals, wireless internet is thrown in, at least for rural areas, which is also a shot across the bow for cable companies getting into wireless.  Doing 5G earlier would allow the new T-Mobile a longer time frame to depreciate these assets.  It is also expected that new "must have" applications will be developed as a result of the increased speeds.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×