<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Calibri">Yes, of course, but the nooks and crannies
will affect all carriers.</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">Also, </font><font face="Calibri"><font
face="Calibri">apparently </font>none of them are
broadcasting high-band out here. From the article:</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">"In the Bay State, AT&T still reigns
supreme with its 5G network, offering 28.1% coverage, followed
very closely by T-Mobile, though, who—as the nationwide 5G
leader—still puts up a respectable 24% coverage in
Massachusetts. Both carriers employ low-band 5G technology,
which allows them to reach a wider area with their networks—but
at the detriment of their speeds. Low-band 5G is just slightly
faster than 4G LTE.<br>
<br>
Verizon is the only carrier currently using exclusively
high-band 5G, which reflects what many consider to be "true" 5G
speeds and connectivity. But while high-band may be fastest, its
frequencies are also the shortest and can't penetrate through
walls, leading to severe coverage limitations. The nation's 4G
LTE leader puts up the worst showing with its 5G network,
offering just 0.01% coverage in Massachusetts with a single
outdoor hotspot located in Boston."</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">Thanks,</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">Mik</font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Mik Muller, president
Montague WebWorks
20 River Street, Greenfield, MA
413-320-5336
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://MontagueWebWorks.com">http://MontagueWebWorks.com</a>
Powered by ROCKETFUSION</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/19/2022 2:22 PM, Robert Heller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20221019182235.E91FD2230D4@sharky4.deepsoft.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Some things to consider (and that the cell companies are not going to talk
much about):
In sparsely populated rural areas, the cell towers are also sparse. This
means lots of random "dead" spots. None of the carriers are going to put up
"lots" of cell towers in sparsely populated rural areas -- there are not
enough subscribers to get the revenue from to pay either the capitial cost or
the maintaince costs. Business finance 101.
Tree foliage atenuates cell signals (block, scatter, etc.).
5Ghz (5G "ultawideband") has 1/2 the range of 4G and is more atenuated by tree
foliage. This means you can basically forget about 5G ultawideband in
sparsely towered places.
Oh, and cell signals don't go through granite (eg mountains). You can expect
poor cell service in "deep" valleys or the "wrong" side of hills and ridges.
Hills + forests are *bad* for cell coverage and 5G is worse than 4G. EM wave
physics 101.
The coverage maps are probably not going to be very detailed (not high res)
and probably don't show all of the nooks and crannies where coverage is
lacking or poor.
At Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:11:46 -0400 Michael Muller <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tech@montaguewebworks.com"><tech@montaguewebworks.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Hey hidden folks,
I are considering moving my cell service off Verizon to AT&T, partly
because we now go to Warwick a lot and have zero Verizon service out
there. We've seen people getting texts and calls out near Moore's Pond,
while we can't.
Anyone currently have AT&T or Sprint/T-Mobile and have comparative
stories to tell about coverage in the "fringe" towns of Western Mass?
I don't want to say price is not important, but I'm nervous about using
a sub-carrier/MVNO that rides on someone else's network. Especially
because those services sometimes have less data available, and we use a
lot of data.
This website, below, seems to show coverage maps, and declares: "AT&T
has the widest network reach in Massachusetts for both 4G LTE and 5G
coverage, and takes the title for the best network in the state. Verizon
comes in second for 4G LTE coverage, with T-Mobile following very
closely behind in third place—though the Un-carrier's 5G coverage is
almost neck and neck with AT&T's state-best network."
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Coverage-in-Massachusetts-USA">https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Coverage-in-Massachusetts-USA</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Coverage-in-Massachusetts-USA"><https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Best-Coverage-in-Massachusetts-USA></a>
Is that everyone's experience?
Does anyone use Boost Mobile, Metro or Cricket Wireless, and what's your
experience?
Thanks,
Mik
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>