USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2 topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints

[Andy Burnelli]

USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving 2
topographic geoPDF quadrangles and iOS/Android plus GPX tracks & waypoints

a. We need a free ad free iOS/Android app to show our position on the map.
b. We need reliably accurate 1:24K or better geospatial geoPDF maps.
c. We need to stitch geoPDFs together & we need to add tracks & waypoints.

This is the first process I came up with to help a group of high school kids
navigate a backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta without
following trails (where the kids are on both iOS and Android).

The goals are to provide them with a process that they can navigate on the
phone under the common conditions that the phone has to be self sufficient.

Here's the first process I came up with but I ask for improvements from all.

1. Install Avenza Maps <https://www.avenzamaps.com/mobile-maps>
Android: <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Avenza>
iOS App: <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id388424049>
2. Obtain a geospatial PDF (with or without your desired waypoints & tracks)
(see one method below)
3. Load those GeoPDFs into Avenza (using the yellow "plus" button)
That's it. When the kids hike, their position shows up on the geoPDF.

When the kids hike, their position shows up on the geoPDF on their phones.
When they move out of one quadrangle, they can switch quadrangles.
It's not pretty. It doesn't have tracks. Nor waypoints. But it works.

They can even add a GPX track of where they've been onto the existing maps.
Here's the process I used to obtain the specific geoPDFs from the USGS.

1. Go to the USGS Store "Map Locator" to find the quadrangle to download.
<https://store.usgs.gov/map-locator>
And search for the quadrangle of interest.
For example, I searched for:
a. Mount Madonna
b. Loma Prieta

2. On each desire quadrangle perform this process to obtain the geoPDFs.
a. Doubleclick on the middle of the desired quadrangle
b. That will insert blue teardrop & show a blue "View Products" button
c. Press the "View Products" button to obtain the desired geoPDF

3. "View Products" will provide a long list of current & historical maps.

For Mount Madonna, I chose the following 2018 topographic map.
MOUNT MADONNA, CA TNM GEOSPATIAL PDF 7.5
<https://store.usgs.gov/product/496218>
<https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/USTopo/PDF/CA/CA_Mount_Madonna_20180905_TM_geo.pdf>
Name: CA_Mount_Madonna_20180905_TM_geo.pdf
Size: 64360685 bytes (61 MiB)
SHA256: 8AD221503568F28F534E28767681CC7326E88C0B26058DB86870F8B9063D8289

For Loma Prieta I chose the following 2018 topographic map.
LOMA PRIETA, CA TNM GEOSPATIAL PDF 7.5X7
<https://store.usgs.gov/product/494076>
<https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/USTopo/PDF/CA/CA_Loma_Prieta_20180905_TM_geo.pdf>
Name: CA_Loma_Prieta_20180905_TM_geo.pdf
Size: 67062849 bytes (63 MiB)
SHA256: 4C822EB88CC2799288A0BF9BE41D884FA0CB05861BC1AF9EA93DE432E8ED075A

At this point each kid can load the maps above into his iOS/Adroid phone
and Avenza will show his current position on those geospatial PDF maps.

This works, but the process can be improved by a lot.

We need a few things that others who know more than I do can help with.
A. Is there any other Android/iOS free app that works as well or better?
B. How can we most easily stitch the maps together into a single map?
C. How can we most easily add desired waypoints & desired gpx tracks?

[Andy Burnelli]

Your problem is the "free" part. You can do this with an app like All
Trails, importing gpx tracks and downloading offline maps. But to do it
for free requires a lot more work.

I don't completely disagree with you but only because iOS is involved.
Not only should the results be free, but they should be ad free too.

I know of free ad free Android backcountry map apps using USGS topo maps.
But I have to also find iOS apps (these kids are more on iOS than Android).

I found a problem with Avenza that it only tracks inside of _three_ geoPDFs.
It warns you on the fourth that you need to pay for the pro version.

So I'm still looking for a good free ad free geoPDF map app for iOS/Android.
Since the kids are hiking tomorrow morning, I'm working all night on this.

I found _another_ set of excellent USGS topographic geoPDFs which are even
_newer_ than the 2018 versions found otherwise where these are dated 2021.

As always, here are the steps since I had to write them up for the kids
anyway (as the maps are 65MB each which is too large to email to them).

I post this hoping others will benefit, since I'm a good person overall
(I always want to give and get back in return, so everyone wins together).

1. Go to the USGS National Geospatial Topographic Maps Program web site
<https://www.usgs.gov/programs/national-geospatial-program/us-topo-maps-america>
2. Press on the green "Get Maps" button
<https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery/topographic-maps>
3. Press the clear "Launch" button, which takes you to the downloader
<https://apps.nationalmap.gov/downloader/#/>
4. Check the box for "US Topo" and in the right type into the search bar
"mount madonna" or "loma prieta"
5. That should zoom to the desired adjacent set of USGS quadrangles
The steps are tricky as the web site really stinks for finding the links.
6. Zoom into the map area until only the desired quadrangles are visible.
(I'm not sure if this step is needed as I did it hoping I could right
click on the map to download it but you can't. But at least it lets
you know that you are on the correct quadrangle by name.)
7. In the "Datasets" tab on the left side, make sure the following are set.
[x]US Topo
[x]US Topo Current
[x]7.5x7.5 minute Data Extent
[x]GeoPDF File Formats
8. Then, in the "Datasets" tab on the left side, run the "Keword" search:
"mopunt madonna" or "loma prieta"
9. That search should result in the "Products" tab showing the desired map:
For "mount madonna" my "Keyword Search" found:
US Topo 7.5-minute map for Mount Madonna, CA
Published Date: 2021-11-19
Metadata Updated: 2021-11-23
Format: Geospatial PDF, Geospatial PDF
Extent: 7.5 x 7.5 minute
When you press on the blue link titled "Download Link (PDF)", you get:
<https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/USTopo/PDF/CA/CA_Mount_Madonna_20211119_TM_geo.pdf>
Name: CA_Mount_Madonna_20211119_TM_geo.pdf
Size: 48491507 bytes (46 MiB)
SHA256: 1027FA6289C5F76484A087AEC69D53FB055DDC9996B2301A6F9FA6D92C994E45

For "loma prieta" my "Keyword Search" found:
US Topo 7.5-minute map for Loma Prieta, CA
Published Date: 2021-11-19
Metadata Updated: 2021-11-23
Format: Geospatial PDF, Geospatial PDF
Extent: 7.5 x 7.5 minute
When you press on the blue link titled "Download Link (PDF)", you get:
<https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/USTopo/PDF/CA/CA_Loma_Prieta_20211119_TM_geo.pdf>
Name: CA_Loma_Prieta_20211119_TM_geo.pdf
Size: 50061089 bytes (47 MiB)
SHA256: 94F7E94F18D71885EEEB0E838FD2DDCA1BC872AF59213923F1749E2FF39F8BFF

10. Load that into Avenza and you are able to track your current location.
Note that Avenza free only allows tracking in three maps though.

What we need is a free iOS/Android app that can track any number of geoPFDs.
Do you know of any free ad free iOS/Android app that uses geospatial PDFs?

[Andy Burnelli]

Why bother with a silly app? You're probably not going to have any
internet connection and the battery will run out.

Everything will work offline. It has to.
Bear in mind these are kids. They don't plan ahead.
They asked me at the last minute.
And they love their phones (mostly iPhones by the way).

But to your point of the paper PDF, check this out (it lasts 7 days).
<https://caltopo.com/p/62GGH> I just made this paper map for them

Best just to get ye olde paper-based maps instead (or even better are
plasticised ones that won't tear easily when wet) - they'll work no
matter where you are.

Paper sucks when printed on a black and white printer at 8.5x11 inches.
Plus these are kids. They were born with a phone in their cradle.

They may have cellular signal on the 4000 foot peaks but not in the ravines.
I told them to keep the phone off or at least in airplane mode.

I thought of printing a paper map which could be tiled and then spliced.
One way to do that is the following, which does most of the work for you.

1. Visit any geospatial map generator that can create custom geoPDFs.
I used Caltopo but many generate geoPDFs <https://caltopo.com/map.html>
2. Zoom into the areas of interest (search by location or by coordinates)
Loma Prieta:
<https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.10831,-121.84426&z=15&b=mbt>
Mount Madonna:
<https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.0112,-121.70288&z=15&b=mbt>
3. If desired right click on any spot to "add" (named) markers or tracks
(Press the Export button to export waypoints/tracks to GPX/KML.)
Note in some browsers you can only export once due to a bug I guess.
(You can also import tracks from other apps onto this topo map.)
Note that this exported GPX/KML file is separate from the map,
but when you load it into your map program later, it shows up there.
Note that you can check elevations at any point with a right mouse
click and you can easily measure distances (e.g., Mount Madonna to
Loma Prieta is 16.64km or 10.34 miles as the crow flies). You can
draw a "range ring" or measure area, or get an elevation profile
between two points, or a bearing line which you can insert into
your bearing app (which we'll talk about later).
4. Click the Caltopo "Printer" icon button & set page size, scale, etc.
(e.g., 1:24,000, 8-1/2x11, etc.)
The free caltopo won't print to larger than A4 so to print a
larger size we'll need to post process multiple PDFs using tricks.
5. Add as many map pages as needed to cover the desired hiking area
(Note when you click "Add Page", Caltopo assumes the new page is
in the middle of your viewing area where you have to move that
new page to the desired location by grabbing the center red button.)
Note that you can re-align the map pages as desired at any time.
Note that you can set the scale as desired (e.g., 1:24,000).
6. When you've sectioned out the desired areas, press "Generate PDF"
That generates a whole bunch of things including a multi-page geoPDF
& URL for anyone to access it & even a QR code for others to access

Note the free Caltopo can only save a PDF for 7 days so get it fast.
<https://caltopo.com/p/62GGH>

Note that it's trivial to copy the resulting map onto your phone if
you're on Android but it's always a little harder if you're on iOS.

The easiest way therefore to get the resulting map into Avenza that both the
Android & iOS users can use is to simply point Avenza to the generated URL.
7. Start Avenza on your phone & press the yellow "plus" button
8. Press "From the Web" & enter the URL provided to the multipage geoPDF
<https://caltopo.com/p/62GGH> <=== *this link only lasts 7 days!*

In summary, the advantage of Caltopo is not only that you can run all sorts
of calculations but that you can also plan out your route and then export
that route in any number of common formats (e.g., gpx) that any map app will
read later.

Another advantage of Caltopo is that you can create a geoPDF of anything
contiguous and it will be a multipage PDF (such as the four page geoPDF
created above) which you can later stitch together separately using
something like posterazor or even Adobe Acrobat to print to paper format.
<https://sourceforge.net/projects/posterazor/>

The disadvantage of Caltopo is that the free version is limited so if you
know of a better web site for the kids to create a multi-page geoPDF, please
let all of us know as the goal is to help them and all of us do it better.

[Andy Burnelli]

You want an established trail, because that makes it easier to
predict when you will arrive. This time of year, you lose the light
early.

Thanks for your advice as you are always purposefully helpful
(and often funny in the way you are seasoned and sarcastic about things).

These kids don't want to follow any "established trail" and I don't blame
them as I wouldn't want to follow any trail anyone else made for me either.

If you've ever hit "heavy brush" (which won't show on a map), then
you will know what "impassible" means.

This is exactly why the OSM maps suck horribly when compared to USGS topo
maps in rugged country such as these Santa Cruz Mountain ranges are.

Everyone knows I love the OSM concept, and for roads, it works pretty well,
but for accurate terrain features, OSM sucks like you can't believe.

If OSM would work I would have told them to download OSMAnd~ (at least it's
free on Android - I don't know if OSMAnd~ is even on iOS which is
unfortunately always greatly limited in free ad free app availability).
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.osmand.plus/>

Small animals will cut a trail
through that stuff, but for you to pass, you travel on your hands
and knees along their trail.

A game trail is fine though, but often in chaparral you can only go over or
under, but not through it (which only people in chaparral would know).

Some of these hills are so steep that you can see even the deer slipped.

These kids will all be carrying a harness and climbing gear and they have
opted only for 100 feet of rope which they will re-use as needed on cliffs.

And a couple hundred feet of that,
is experience enough thanks. You couldn't do a mile of that stuff.
And you can't stand up and run away screaming, because... you can't
stand up in it. It's impossible to stand up. It's too thick.

The ravines out here are so steep and soft sided that I make the analogy
that to enter a ravine is like how the Japanese and Germans entered WWII.

You can always enter anywhere you like on your own terms, but once you are
in the ravine, then you can't leave the war on your own terms anymore.

The ravine controls where you will finally find peace, and that's usually
at a body of water at the bottom which, thankfully, is flat or at least
not clogged with impenetrable poison oak (you hope).

That's why you use a proper trail. You want the experience to be
enjoyable, not an "ode to exercise". When I went on that trip,
I wasn't expecting to go through heavy brush.

These kids _want_ the challenge of taking their bearings at one mountaintop
and then descending down the mountain into the depths of the ravines to find
their way, by compass and topography, back to another high mountain point.

To that end I made sure they had a few key free ad free compass type apps on
Android that I haven't had a chance to find on iOS yet for free.

*Azimuth Compass* (which is just a fast simple easy to use compass app).
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ro.overwrite.azimuthcompass>

*GPS Waypoint Finder* (points to objectives & gives distance information)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.keuwl.gpswaypoints>

*mvglasow SatStat* (does nav stuff but also gives them cellular tower info)
<https://github.com/mvglasow/satstat>

Going through heavy brush is fine if you're on your own property,
and the purpose of the trip is to "cut trail". You can take your
time, and do a couple hundred feet per day. The stuff I was going
through, I think I'd want a battery chainsaw, rather than a
machete.

I know rather well what you speak of as the greasewood and coyote brush are
easy to traverse but it gets worse in manzanita & toyon thickets and even
worse when the buckeye, canyon maple, madrones & oaks change to horridly
spiny ceanothus bushes which are the nastiest things this side of poison oak
vines coming out of the ground as thick as your forearm such that your feet
are a foot above the ground until they crash through and then you trip over
if you have any forward momentum (as you might on a hill).

Established trails are boring, but they exist for a reason.

Between you and me, I doubt these kids will get anywhere near where they
"think" they will, as it's 10 miles point to point and they only have 3 days
to do it, but they have no idea how difficult this terrain is.

The parents are dropping them off at Mount Madonna and they are supposed to
call them for a pickup at the radio towers on Loma Prieta but I doubt
they'll make even half the distance.

Luckily you can drink the water in the streams out here (I drink it all the
time for example) and there aren't too many bugs to speak of. The mountain
lions will see you but you'll never see them. Rattlers aren't a problem and
neither are the coyote or bobcats so they're relatively safe as long as they
don't get too cold and wet crossing or walking in the cold water streams.

Just in case, they each have a tiny bottle of bleach (two drops per liter),
and they each have a knife and a physical compass and a first aid kid.

They came to me after having planned this for months where my job was merely
to supply them with iOS and Android apps that they could synchronize on.

I'm trying to find an iOS & Android free ad free _offline_ star chart
program for them at this moment where the three on Android I'm testing are
*Sky Map*
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.stardroid>

*Star Chart*
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.escapistgames.starchart>

*Stellarium Mobile*
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.noctuasoftware.stellarium_free>

Since the goal is to help the kids and to help others learn how to navigate
completely offline using their iOS & Android smartphones, if anyone knows of
a free ad free iOS app that does the same thing as those above, let us know.

[Andy Burnelli]

I use Gaia, it's free, and really works great. Used it from the Rockies
in Canada, , Glacier Park in Montana, desert southwest, and always when
I hike locally in the midwest. Most areas already have marked trails to
follow, or you can make your own, or simply record where you go and
create your new gpx file. It really does it all for free.
There are other options you can pay for, but I've found the free stuff
works great for me.
https://www.gaiagps.com/

Thanks for pitching in since no one person knows everything about both iOS
and Android free ad free registration free navigation apps for the kids.

A great thing about GAIA GPS is that it apparently works on both platforms
which is great because most of these kids are on iOS and not on Android.

Android Gaia GPS
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.trailbehind.android.gaiagps.pro>
iOS Gaia GPS
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gaia-gps-hiking-offroad-maps/id1201979492>

Unfortunately, when I installed Gaia GPS on my devices (I have plenty of iOS
and Android devices to test things on), like Avenza it asked for a login,
but unlike Avenza, it didn't have an "X" button or "skip" option that I
could find.

It said "Gaia GPS is now a part of the Outside family. Creating an account
with Gaia GPS also gets you an account with Outside along with all the
benefits that an Outside member has" which is all well and good, but it's
really bad form to force an account upon a person for _any_ app.

As you may well be aware, almost nothing on a phone should require a login
account, and as you may be aware, the main reason a company forces such
unnecessary things is to keep tabs on you (which is why my Android phone
works just fine with _zero_ accounts set up on it for example).

We're trying to teach these kids how to use a phone just as much as we're
trying to supply these kids with only the best most private apps possible.

Given any offline navigation app that requires a login is completely
worthless, can you let me know if I made a mistake in not finding something
as simple as a "skip" button when I tried to install Gaia on my devices?

[Andy Burnelli]

Install Osmand and track recording for it.
When they get back they can upload their track and mark thing they found
on the Openstreetmap.

Given the goal is to help these kids and, at the same time, to enable anyone
on either iOS or Android to perform the basic task backcountry hikers need,
I thank you for the advice to use OSMand~ which has excellent tools to
a. Display an OSM topographic map offline
b. Show the current location & route on that OSM topo map
c. Show a planned route on that OSM topo map
<https://osmand.net/>

The free OSMAnd iOS app is here, I think:
<https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd-iOS>
And, I think, here on the Apple App Store:
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id934850257>
While the payware iOS OSMAnd+ app is here, I think:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmand.plus>

Likewise, the free FOSS Android OSMAnd~ app (almost OSMAnd+) is here:
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.osmand.plus/>
Where that OSMAnd~ is almost exactly the same as the OSMAnd+ payware.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmand.plus>

I've been using OSMAnd~ for many years and I love the concept of open street
maps that don't require an account to work just fine completely offline.

What I love about OSMAnd~ is that it saves tracks and it displays them on
the map and it copies your current coordinates easily for use elsewhere.

But what's unfortunate about OSMAnd~ is the OSM contour maps are crap
compared to those of the USGS within the United States. For areas _outside_
the United States, the contour maps may be the best that is available.

But inside the USA where contours are everywhere (this is very rugged hilly
steep landslide fault line topography), unfortunately, OSM contour maps suck
for anything other than blindly following already well established trails.

I must caveat that statement with the fact that I _love_ the concept of open
street maps, and I use OSM frequently for offline road maps, but if you've
ever compared a USGS map with an OSM map in hilly terrain, you'd know what I
know about OSM maps not being anywhere near the usability of the USGS maps.

[Andy Burnelli]

https://www.gaiagps.com/

Can you create a gpx file, in advance, and import it into the program?

I see that you can do that. It looks similar to All Trails. Alas,
offline maps are not included in the free version.

This may be similar to what Steve may be asking for in creating tracks from
scratch. I don't know as the kids are now already on their way so I stopped
looking a few hours ago but this seems to maybe allow folks to draw tracks.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wolfgangknecht.sketchatrack>

You bring up an excellent point, as you often do, that one set of tools we
have so far only discussed from the PC perspective are those tools that
allow folks to _draw_ GPX tracks onto the map and then export those drawn
tracks (and waypoints) to a GPX file (e.g., Caltopo) which is then imported
into the smartphone nav app.

But we haven't discussed yet tools on the iOS/Android smartphone itself
which allow the user to draw the tracks and export it as a GPX file.

The goal, of course, would be to be able to do on both iOS & Android:
a. Offline, free, no login, no ads, etc.
b. Draw tracks & save the results in a variety of formats, including GPX
c. Import tracks and modify the results before saving to a new GPX file
(If conversion is needed, then GPSBabel may be needed though.)
<https://www.gpsbabel.org/download.html>

Here is a free tool that purports to let you draw tracks, but it has ads.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lapacadevs.justdrawit>

This also purports to draw what you input, but maybe it's only waypoints?
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.psyberia.offlinemaps>

Perhaps here is where OSMAnd~ can excel in drawing tracks on the smartphone?
<https://osmand.net/features/trip-planning>

This purports to be a GPX viewer and editor so it may also work:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wolfgangknecht.sketchatrack>

I couldn't figure out how BRrouter works with Locus but I know Poutnik uses
it a lot so maybe he can explain if "the wanderer" is still lurking about.
<https://docs.locusmap.eu/doku.php?id=manual:faq:how_to_navigate_offline>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=btools.routingapp>
<https://www.locusmap.app/>

Grasshopper apparently does "route planning" but it required a signup.
<https://www.graphhopper.com/>

Anyway, they're on their way, but it's still a useful endeavor to find the
best iOS and Android (or even Windows) free track sketching tool so that
other people can plan a back country route and then see how well they're
keeping to that planned route.

[Andy Burnelli]

Untrue. But you already knew that.
Look at the actual FCC maps for cellular coverage in that area (from
<Loading Image...>.
Look at the actual WhistleOut maps for cellular coverage in that area
<Loading Image...>.
Indeed, T-Mobile coverage is extremely spotty. AT&T coverage is a bit
better. Verizon coverage is excellent. And I've personally experienced
this as well at Mount Madonna and Mount Umunhum though not at Loma
Prieta Peak.

In this thread about iOS/Android backcountry offline free registration free
ad free navigation tools, I'm not going to argue cellular coverage for a
couple of rather pragmatic reasons, one of which is that for the topic of
backcountry navigation, we have to _assume_ that cell coverage isn't
assured.

And given I've emailed the map information mostly to the kids who are on
@vtext.com accounts (verizon) & some are one @txt.att.net accounts (AT&T)
and even one person is on a @tmomail.com account (t-mobile)... what that
means, practically speaking, is that coverage has to be there for all the
major carriers for me to give up on trying to find offline navigation tools.

The goal is for all of them to map together, so if even _one_ carrier (most
likely T-Mobile is what you're saying and I'm fine with that for this
purpose), then we _still_ need to give them fully offline navigation tools.

Yet another reason why coverage doesn't matter for this thread even if it
very well may be that the areas in question are _not_ backcountry areas in
terms of (oh, say, Verizon) cellular coverage is that coverage in any one
spot doesn't change the _second_ reason for this thread, which, as always,
is to help _others_ (who may be in completely different areas of the USA).

At least, for the safety of the children, go get a Verizon/Total
Wireless SIM card, for $1, and activate a $10/120 day account on
Verizon/Page Plus, so they'll have coverage in case of emergency
(assuming they have a phone that is compatible).

The kids are already on their way as they all met up at the break of dawn.

One thing I'm actually worried about is that the weather at this time of
year can get at least to freezing at night, and these kids can be soaking
wet since you can't possibly hike this area without ending up in a ravine.

But that's up to all the parents to worry about where I'm just trying to
find suitable best-in-class navigation apps that the kids can make use of.

Here is a coverage comparison for southern Alameda, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties: <Loading Image...>. Again
the coverage differences, outside of the urban areas, are enormous. All
the experts agree that if coverage in rural areas is important that you
should stick with Verizon (or at least have a Verizon back-up phone).
Also see the document: Prepaid Phone Service for Foreign Visitors to
the United States at <https://tinyurl.com/us-prepaid-foreign>.

It's OK that you feel the coverage is better for some carriers than others
in the rugged mountains between Loma Prieta & Mount Madonna, but that
doesn't change the goal one bit for fully offline backcountry nav tools.

One necessary functionality we didn't cover in depth for backcountry use is
a breadcrumb logger, where I already know OSMAnd~ has a fine trip recording
plugin. <https://osmand.net/features/trip-recording-plugin>

Since I'm always all about team efforts, and since I always want everyone to
benefit from the tremendous knowledge imparted by everyone in every thread,
here are some breadcrumb trackers I was able to begin testing for them.

Since I was pressed for time, I only researched Android breadcrumb apps.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.osmtracker>
<https://www.basicairdata.eu/projects/android/android-gps-logger/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ilyabogdanovich.geotracker>
<https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.dennisguse.opentracks/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.maptrek.lite>

Even though it's too late for this set of kids' hike, if you know of good
iOS free login free ad free breadcrumb apps, let us know so that everyone
can make use of the information in this thread (especially since the "rich
kids" in this hike are mostly on iOS & Verizon anyway).

[Andy Burnelli]

[Steve is] the very opposite of honest and [he] shills for verizon.

I'm not exactly sure why Steve is even bringing up Verizon coverage versus
AT&T and T-Mobile because the whole point of "back country navigation" is
that you can't ever assume that a cell tower will be within reach.

Nonetheless, I gave them apps which will show the nearest cell tower on an
OSM map (not the Internet kind of tower lookup but a real estimate) so if
they need to "head toward" a tower, they can and they can easily tell which
tower is closest (Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile) simply by which phone shows the
closest tower on the OSM map inside that FOSS non-Internet tower-lookup app.
<https://github.com/mvglasow/satstat>

the differences between the big three cell carriers are not 'vast' and
there are plenty of areas in the santa cruz mountains where there is no
service at all, not even verizon.

The kids must be within coverage because I received a text from them at 11am
regarding their progress hiking in the hundred acre wood since daybreak.

Moving forward on the thread topic so that everyone can benefit from what we
all collectively can add to the mix, these are a bunch of the free ad free
login free smartphone map-creation apps I didn't get a chance to test out.

*Trail Sense* smartphone hiking toolkit by Kyle Corry
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kylecorry.trail_sense>
It can place beacons so you can navigate back to them without the net.
It will tell you when the sun will set so you know when to pitch the tent.
Without the Internet, it says it can even predict the weather.

*Paper Maps* by Abbro Inc (this seems to be an Avenza clone perhaps?)
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.abbro.androidmap>
This implies it will open almost any map format no matter what.

*Custom Maps* by Marko Teittinen
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.custommapsapp.android>
This implies it can make a custom map out of almost any image you have.

*Magic Earth* offline routing app by General Magic
<https://www.magicearth.com/>
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/magic-earth-gps-navigation/id1007331679>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.generalmagic.magicearth>
This claims to have 3D maps with 3-inch accuracy on both iOS and Android.
But unfortunately it uses underlying OSM maps.

*All-In-One Offline Maps* by Psyberia
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.psyberia.offlinemaps>
*AlpineQuest Off-Road Explorer (Lite)* by Psyberia
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=psyberia.alpinequest.free>
This app claims to have topographic maps all stored offline.

*SatMap Xplorer* supposedly accurate mapping software
<https://www.satmap.com/pages/xplorer-gps-app>
<https://apps.apple.com/am/app/satmap-xplorer-gps/id1473009894>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.satmap.xplorergps>

Please note that I haven't tested these apps but they were on my list to
test for these kids, but time ran out and the kids are on the mountain as we
speak.

Tonight will be a test for some of them who have never camped out before.

Let's hope they don't have to stop in a spot so steep they have to tie their
legs around a tree not to roll down the hill (oh, those were the days).

[Andy Burnelli]

I realize you normally post absurd scenarios in your never ending quest to
make Apple look bad.

I tell the truth about iOS and Android and Windows and Linux.

Doesn't it ever occur to you that it's only on the Apple platform that the
truth is verboten to be spoken? Nobody worries about the truth about Google
in an Android newsgroup, for example. Nor Microsoft in a Windows newsgroup.

Only the Apple newsgroups hate whenever someone tells the truth, even as in
this situation, I said many times that most of these high school kids are on
iPhones so that's why this thread has to cover both iOS and Android apps.

My first reaction is: here we go again. You will
follow this up with 'we had to cancel the trip because there were no free
iOS apps that met my artificial, carefully-constructed requirements, while
of course there were millions of Android apps'

What you whooshed on is I _started_ the topic testing Avenza, which works
_exactly_ the same on iOS as it does on Android (AFAIK), and yet you're
apparently complaining that there are free ad free cloud free login free
apps on iOS now?

I realize that you're from the Apple side so to you it's a strange thing
indeed to have a free, ad free, login free, cloud free app that works.

But that's always the goal (even on Windows or on Linux) so it's not just
Android users that benefit from a plethora of free ad free login free apps.

If this scenario is actually true, then depending on the answers to my
questions in the first paragraph this could range from difficult to
disaster.

The goals have never changed that we _always_ want free ad free login free
fully functional apps on _all_ platforms (it doesn't matter if it's iOS or
Android or Windows or Linux).

Hell, on Windows I don't need to log into _any_ mother ship to do work.
Same with Linux. And certainly the same with Android.

Why is it that _only_ on iOS you must log into the mother ship so that they
can track every app you download and what you do with that installed app?

Why can't iOS work with the privacy inherent in _every_ other common OS?

A 3 day hike WITH KIDS is not something to undertake lightly. Plan.
Research the area, particularly if no one hiking is familiar with it.
Don't expect to have Google maps working 24/7.

Um... that's what this thread is all about.
The kids wanted to have good apps.
They asked me for help and advice.
I asked _you_ for help and advice.

It's how intelligent kind-hearted purposefully helpful people do things.
Isn't it?

Carrier coverage and app availability should be the least of your concerns.

What's interesting is that only you and nospam think that it was my concern.
I never once said that carrier coverage was a concern.

In fact, I specifically mentioned _many_ times that it's _not_ a concern.
What is a bit disconcerting is that you and nospam don't even realize that.

It makes me wonder a bit about your lack of intelligence, but I'll try to be
nice in the new year so I will simply say that if you think I cared about
carrier coverage even in the least, then I have to wonder why you fabricated
that belief system out of the exact opposite in terms of obvious facts.

That they seem to be SO important means either the people planning
this are utterly clueless OR you are - in fact - doing your usual trolling.

What's scary is you fabricated that entire belief system out of nothing.

And then, after you created your own scarecrow, you beat it with the word
"trolling" even as your _entire_ premise was fabricated by you out of
nothing.

I'm truly trying to be nice when I simply state that the fact you fabricated
your entire belief system sans even a single fact makes me apprehensive
about attempting to carry on an adult conversation with people like you are.

I see the despicable cruel sadistic heartless nospam has agreed with you.
I hope the rest of the ng, adults we can hope, can see the facts you can't.

Moving on, there are still a bunch of navigation apps to test, where the
"Paper Maps" Avenza replacement is what I'll test next for the ng team.

Notice that "Paper Maps" (like Avenza) works on both iOS and Android.
iOS app: <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/paper-maps/id1147385120>
Android: <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.abbro.androidmap>

Given that both Avenza & Paper Maps work on both iOS & Android, they fit the
test criteria of free, ad free, login free, offline topographic nav apps.
<https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/39.98/-99.93>'
(which allows us to test USGS geoJPEG, geoTIFF, geoPDF, & KMZ formats)

Here's what I tested for the team (so that everyone may benefit).
1. Download Paper Maps onto your smartphone.
2. Press the black "Plus" button at the bottom.
3. Select "Import Map (PDF TIFF)"

At this point I connected the phone to Windows over USB so that I could
slide all the files into the storage space on the phone to test Paper Maps.

A. First I tested the USGS geoPDF files.
"Paper Maps" showed my location on those USGS topographic files.
B. Then I tested the USGS geoTIFF with the same good first test results.
C. The geoJPEG showed up in Paper Maps but a bullseye didn't locate me.
D. The KMZ didn't read in (Paper Maps seems to seek a KML file instead).

The first map I imported into "Paper Maps" freeware was a previous geoPDF.
<https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/>
When I pressed the location bullseye, it found my location on that geoPDF.
But it didn't do much else that I could tell (it edits the map a bit).

The nice thing about the variety of geoTIFF files that were downloaded from
the ngmdb.usgs.gov site was that you can track yourself on a satellite
imagery map (apparently) in addition to tracking yourself on a geoPFD.

There "seems" to be a tracking feature in "Paper Maps" much like that which
was in "Avenza" but I wasn't able to test it out more fully before writing
this up for you.

The good news is that "Paper Maps" doesn't seem to have the 3-map-limit that
"Avenza" has so in that respect, "Paper Maps" is better than Avenza.

However at least on a quick inspection, Avenza seems to be a more functional
app than is Paper Maps in terms of being a good cross platform (both iOS and
Android) free USGS map interpreter on the cellphone offline.

If others have more knowledge than I do on the differences between Avenza
and Paper Maps, the knowledge you impart would be beneficial to us all.

[Andy Burnelli]

Since
my "kid" also went backpacking this week, I thought it was an
interesting post.

The goal is to either learn from others or to impart knowledge to others.
I think about two dozen (or so) very good apps were tested in this thread.
That's _value_ in and of itself, is it not?

A couple of months ago we were in Maine and found AllTrails very helpful
and it has the capabilities he wanted, but it's definitely not free. But
it's so straightforward to use that for us it was worth it to subscribe.
We could have created gpx files and uploaded them and then known if we
were going off-route. This would be useful in areas with no trails, and
the route between Loma Prieta and Mount Madonna is not a route with
trails the whole way, or even most of the way.

What's wrong with having two dozen hiking-related apps which are:
a. Fully functional
b. Free
c. Ad free
d. Login free
d. Cloud free
etc.?

What on earth do you have against fully functional free apps Steve?

Only you, the Campbell troll, and the nospam troll complained that these
fully functional free apps exist on both Android and on iOS Steve.

The fact that Avenza and Paper Maps works beautifully, for example, isn't
something you should be repeatedly complaining about, is it?

My daughter went backpacking with her friend to a huge park in Santa
Clara County this week, Henry Coe. It's not really a park you want to
backpack in in the summer because it's very hot, but this is a good
time. You can see the big differences in mobile coverage at
<Loading Image...>, though even Verizon doesn¢t have
complete coverage.

I know the park well as do most people in the Silicon Valley who hike.
The one thing I don't like about it though is there is no shade.

Personally I prefer the Santa Cruz mountains because there's more variety.

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

Rest assured I understood two things about your carrier coverage comments:
a. They don't matter for the case of intentional offline nav functionality
b. They do matter if 911 is your major concern (it's not for me though)

I'm not saying 911 wouldn't be a major concern in an emergency situation,
but I'm an old man Steve, with almost fully grown grandchildren and I've
never needed to call 911 in my entire life (hiking all over the place).

Again, I'm not saying access to 911 isn't a great thing but I am saying that
if the purpose of the thread is to ask for advice on _offline_ apps that
work both on iOS and Android, your posts extolling the virtues of Verizon
seem out of place, don't they?

Especially as I said most of the kids are on Verizon and on the iPhone.
They're "rich kids" after all.

[Andy Burnelli]

Post by Andy Burnelli
Hell, on Windows I don't need to log into _any_ mother ship to do work.

windows 11 home requires an msa account. it's *not* optional.

I'm on old equipment so I'm not allowed by M$ to be on Win11 yet. :)

But yes, nobody on Windows likes that Microsoft (as Apple has always done)
keeps tabs on them with the requirement for a login in Windows 11 now.

Post by Andy Burnelli
Same with Linux. And certainly the same with Android.

false.
android also requires a google id unless someone is willing to jump
through numerous hoops and give up substantial functionality in doing
so.

I'm going to try to be nicer to people like you, nospam, in the new year,
where it's amazing that you think something as simple as pressing "skip" is
"jumping through numerous hoops".

Just as with not having iTunes on a Windows computer gives you _more_
functionality than having it on your system, you're not capable of
understanding that _not_ having a Google Account set up on the phone gives
you _more_ privacy and functionality than you ever thought possible.
a. Google Play search filters become far _more_ functional.
b. YouTube functionality becomes _vastly_ more functional.
c. Your contacts and that of your children _remain_ private.
etc.

you have claimed to have done that, except that not having a google id
does absolutely nothing to stop google from tracking you. it actually
has the opposite effect, for reasons you also do not understand.

Again, I'm going to be nicer to people like you who say idiotic things that
you have no concept of since you've _never_ even done something as simple as
hit the "skip" button in the Android setup, so I'll just refer you to the
fact that there are Google apps on your iOS device also, and, given it's
impossible on the crippled iOS to _not_ have to log into the mother ship to
obtain your apps, Apple has _better_ track of you than does Google in most
situations.

Post by Andy Burnelli
Why is it that _only_ on iOS you must log into the mother ship so that they
can track every app you download and what you do with that installed app?

that is simply false.
ios users do not 'log into the mother ship' and it's impossible for
apple to track what someone does with 'that installed app', if they
even cared (and they don't).

We've covered this in detail where Apple keeps _tons_ and tons and tons of
data about you which you simply can't avoid since with Android you can just
hit the "skip" button and you never need to log into a Google server again.

Back to the point of the mothership keeping tabs on the kids, not a single
parent has heard from the kids since 11 am where even then they weren't all
that chatty with us. They were descending down the mountain at 11 am so they
must have traversed a few ravines by now.

They have down sleeping bags, a closed-cell bedroll, small 1 and 2 man
tents, plastic bags as all-purpose tarps or raincoats, a very small amount
of water (they can drink from the creeks), a tiny bottle of pool bleach & an
eyedropper, wool socks and polypropylene wicking long johns, wool caps and
hats and cloth gloves, a second change of dry clothes in plastic bags, a
camp flint, a knife, a handle-free easy packing pot with a separate
collapsible pot holder, one set of climbing gear amongst the group with a
short length of about 50 feet or so of rope, and I had noticed vibram-soled
Justin boots for some of them, however most are in sneakers or light Merrels
but some were in sturdier Timberlands, almost all are using internal frame
backpacks (although my kid is using my external frame Jansport from the
seventies) which can hold a 3-person tent along the external upper rails and
the lighter sleeping gear on the lower rails, TP, etc.

what you further fail to comprehend, despite having it been explained
to you on more than one occasion, is that third party app developers on
all platforms can and do use any of several analytics packages that
*do* track what you do, and in some cases, with very fine granularity.

How is that Android app going to report back to the mother ship when the app
has no access to Internet via either the wi-fi or cellular on a app-by-app
basis by virtue of the fantastically functional NetGuard FOSS firewall that
iOS simply lacks the functionality of (all by its itty bitty self)?
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard>
* Simple to use
* No root required
* 100% open source
* No calling home
* No tracking or analytics
* No advertisements
* Actively developed and supported
* Android 5.1 and later supported
* IPv4/IPv6 TCP/UDP supported
* Tethering supported
* Optionally allow when screen on
* Optionally block when roaming
* Optionally block system applications
* Optionally notify when an application accesses the internet
* Optionally record network usage per application per address
etc.

It's only iOS (of all common consumer operating systems) which lacks the
basic functionality of a system wide firewall (all by its itty bitty self),
which is required in today's day & age what with telemetry data tracking.
*Tech Giants Apple and Google Track User Telemetry Data Without Consent*
<https://www.vpnranks.com/blog/tech-giants-apple-and-google-track-user-telemetry-data-without-consent/>
"Both devices connect to their back-end servers every 4.5 minutes."

The difference is Apple _requires_ the poor unsuspecting iOS users to have
that easily tracked mothership account; Google can't.

since you don't understand how any of that works, you are unable to
block it, which means you *are* being tracked and data mined, despite
thinking you are not. your ignorance actually puts you in a worse
position than you otherwise would have been had you done nothing.

In the new year I will simply note that you Apple apologists can't fathom
that it's _only_ iOS (of all common consumer operating systems) that lacks
the system-wide functionality of a FOSS firewall such as NetGuard provides.

With respect to GPS location radios, you apologists _hate_ that iOS can't do
something as simple as set a mock location in the system settings (all by
its itty bitty self) which Android easily does as of the past few releases.
<https://www.virtuallocation.com/fake-location/allow-mock-locations.html>

Can you imagine _Apple_ giving you that power to fake your location so
easily using the phone all by its itty bitty self working with the OS?
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegpsdonate>

The fact you hate is that Apple tracks your location without your consent.
*How Apple tracks your location without consent, and why it matters*
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/04/how-apple-tracks-your-location-without-your-consent-and-why-it-matters/>

Heck, no other system but iOS requires an entire second computer just to do
something as simple and basic as list all the user-installed apps into an
editable text file, to give you an idea of how crippled Apple made iOS.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.onyxbits.listmyapps>

For some reason you apologists _hate_ that Apple's crippled iOS can't do
even these, the simplest of basic tasks that _every_ other common consumer
operating system easily does (even that expensive Apple PC can do what
Android easily does - which shows it's just iOS which is crippled by Apple).

Bear in mind the iPhone hardware isn't all that far behind the Android
hardware in terms of functionality (save for the missing essentials such as
jacks and expansion memory) but it's simply that Apple cripples what apps
the user can put on the phone (such as spoofing your actual location).
*Apple Apps Continuing to Track Users Despite Apple's Privacy Prompt*
<https://www.macrumors.com/2021/06/07/apps-continuing-to-track-users/>

Google can't stop the user from installing apps that Google themselves hates
so much that they won't allow them on the Google Play repository, such as
this YouTube app or this Google Play client or even the fully functional
ad-blocking NetGuard firewall (the Google Play version is crippled).
YouTube on steroids <https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe>
App Manager on steroids <https://github.com/MuntashirAkon/AppManager>
Firewall on steroids <https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard>
Google Play on steroids <https://github.com/whyorean/AuroraStore>
etc.

Post by Andy Burnelli
Why can't iOS work with the privacy inherent in _every_ other common OS?

because that would be a step backwards, making it *less* secure, the
very opposite of what you claim to want.

The fact remains that Apple _requires_ you to have their cloud account which
they keep tabs on and whose information even Apple admits they provide to
others as they see fit for profit or for reporting purposes, whereas on
Android, the fact remains you simply hit the "skip" button and the phone
works just fine without an account on the mothership keeping track of you
like Apple does in spades.
*Apple Apps Track User Despite Refusing Consent - Here's Why*
<https://www.techtimes.com/articles/261515/20210616/apple-apps-track-user-despite-refusing-consent-heres-why.htm>

Back on topic since the purposefully unhelpful fear mongering Apple
apologists _hate_ that Android has so much free, ad free, login free, FOSS
app functionality, the news so far is the kids are, at this very moment, on
the mountain somewhere, almost certainly in a ravine (gravity rules),
enjoying their 3-day backpacking adventure in the hundred acre wood.
<https://caltopo.com/p/62GGH> (this free map will only last for 7 days)

No parent has heard from any of them (to my knowledge) since 11am when they
were still on the side of the mountain, but luckily the night is relatively
calm and clear at the Mount Umunhum (aka hummingbird) weather station
with lows in the 30s and 40s (which is no problem if they're dry).
<https://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Umunhum/forecasts/1062>

Happy New Year and thanks go out to all the purposefully helpful
good-hearted people who simply wanted to help out in suggesting fully
functional free ad free login free offline iOS & Android navigation apps.

Given our children and grandchildren are on both iOS and Android, the two
cross platform nav apps which seem to be keepers (since they can work on
almost any map that you have in your possession) seem to be "Avenza" and
"Paper Maps", but certainly more testing is needed for me to confirm which
is better for back country off road off trail hiking navigation purposes.

iOS/Android *Avenza* <https://www.avenza.com/avenza-maps/>
iOS/Android *Paper Maps* <https://www.paper-maps.com/>

[Andy Burnelli]

T-Mobile also includes taxes
and fees in the price (on some plans) which can be a big savings if you
live in an area with high taxes, though it seems like subscribers in
low-tax areas are subsidizing those subscribers in high tax areas

I pay $100/month on T-Mobile for unlimited everything (even in Europe except
calls are 20 cents per minute in Europe) with about $16 in CA taxes & fees.
<Loading Image...>

Where T-Mobile was really poor was in the Santa Cruz mountains where we
spend a lot of time in state and county parks. The coverage maps from
the FCC and Whistleout confirm this, see <Loading Image...>.

I live in the outskirts of the Santa Cruz mountains where all three carriers
aren't the greatest in signal strength simply because there are no towers
within miles.... <Loading Image...>
but all three will give you for free (if you ask nicely) a femtocell or a
microcell which gives you _perfect_ coverage inside the home.

The carriers used to offer three different types of augmentation
1. A femto cell (which plugs into your router)
2. A repeater (which sits in an upstairs window) & transmitter
3. A wi-fi router (nowadays they're all wi-fi enabled though)
But now most of them seem to prefer the femto cell (or micro cell).

Since they're free, you may as well get them (I've talked all three carriers
into giving them for neighbors), where the T-Mobile 5G speeds outside have
been getting better and better lately for some reason (mine are at 250Mbps).
<Loading Image...>

Dunno about other carriers' 5G speeds in the Santa Cruz Mountains though but
I know T-Mobile sells a $55/month wireless Internet box for some areas
(but not yet for mine where we don't even have the option of cable so we
have to get our Internet from an access point which is miles away over LOS).

<https://www.t-mobile.com/responsibility/consumer-info/policies/internet-service>

To always be helpful to others, and while it's impossible to obtain
graphical wi-fi or graphical cellular signal strength data on iOS, the
Android free ad free google free Android apps I like best is this one.
<https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z&c=apps>

[Andy Burnelli]

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

All I know is that two Verizon and one T-Mobile kid is still on the hike
where the others who turned back (admittedly most were on Verizon) found
some way to call their parents so they must have had cellular signal.

The Mount Umunhum (mt. hummingbird) weather station is showing 4 to 7 degree
(about 40 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit) which isn't all that bad to sleep in.
<https://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Umunhum/forecasts/1062>

What would be on topic and useful to add value in the new year is to list
free ad free iPhone and Android apps which can queue up an sms/mms message
so that the kids can set up that sms/mms message at any time and then the
app will repeatedly try to send that sms/mms message even if it only has a
one minute (or whatever) window of cellular coverage in sight.

Having never considered the task before, how do most iOS and Android mms/sms
messaging apps handle a message when the user attempts to send it at a time
when there is no cellular coverage, and then later, a coverage window opens?

[Andy Burnelli]

"Time 12:00pm 37.1107807°N,-121.8446759°W, 3,766 feet (1,148 meters)"

Even better might be an app which provides a clickable time stamp Google URL
link to where they are in the SMS app to a satellite image from about the
500 meter AGL view (preferably all this is settable in the emergency SMS/MMS
app settings). It could provide this time stamp location ever (settable)
hours which would help us keep tabs, on a daily basis anyway, of the status.
<https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1101072,-121.8413141,500m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4>

BTW, we just heard from them according to phone calls I've been getting.
Apparently they did call at 12 (they called their own parents, not me) where
piecing together the news I think they made it to triple falls before giving
up.

One of those kids' parents are heading off to a nearby place called Uvas
Canyon County Park which is apparently available by road and which is only a
bit more than half way of the 10 miles as the crow flies they were trying to
backcountry hike.

Here are some photos from just one of the kids who had turned back earlier.
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>

[Andy Burnelli]

The difference in coverage is not debatable.

I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.
It's also not relevant when we're asking for cross platform apps.
It's especially not relevant when you have a gaggle of kids.
Each of whom may be on iPhones (mostly) or Verizon (mostly).
But maybe not.

The question was which cross platform free ad free apps do hiking best.
The answer is in this thread, which the kids made use of before they left.

What we need now is simply a good free ad free cross platform SMS app.
That app would queue up a message or a location stamp at settable times.
That app would continually try to send the message if there is no signal.
The _instant_ they have signal, the queued up messages would be sent off.

That way we'd know roughly where they are without them needing to stop.
It might use up a lot of battery though (which they won't have much of).

Anyway, all the kids are back. Safe & sound, I'm told.
They completed their three-day adventure in the hundred acre wood.
Almost on schedule (they apparently kept to the route most of the way).
The only problem was they only went about three quarters of the goal.

But that's good enough considering some of these kids never hiked back
country before where I must repeat it's rather steep in these mountains.

Overall this one picture sums up this type of trip in a succinct way.
<Loading Image...>

Thanks everyone for all your help and advice choosing the best cross
platform apps for people to use on both iOS & Android for offroad hikes.

[Andy Burnelli]

While no carrier has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to
more remote areas, like National and State Parks, or if you are going to
be driving through rural areas, or if you're visiting the outskirts of
urban areas (often called the 'greenbelt'), then you'll want to avoid
T-Mobile and choose AT&T or Verizon.

Speed matters too...
<Loading Image...>

To always be objective about all facts that reasonable people present,
Steve's coverage maps did show Verizon & AT&T covered the deep ravines
better'n T-Mobile in these coverage maps between Loma Prieta & Mt. Madonna
<Loading Image...>

Steve didn't get to cherry pick the coverage areas so we have to take his
maps at face value since a bearing from Mt. Madonna to Loma Prieta was set.
<Loading Image...>

However, what matters is not only cellular coverage but data speeds too.
*Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>
"For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles,
speed-testing AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities,
towns, and rural regions all over the US. We found a radically
new landscape - and a surprising winner."

Also, if you care about 5G, that coverage matters also to some people.
*T-Mobile Marks 5G Milestones*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/t-mobile-marks-5g-milestones-promises-expansion>

Where this is my data speed at home in the same mountains the kids hiked in.
<Loading Image...>

And this is my cellular signal strength with the femtocell turned off.
<Loading Image...>

However, we have to be careful to be testing cellular and not wi-fi speeds.
<Loading Image...>

BTW, no longer does 5G eat up your battery, apparently, according to this.
*On Verizon and T-Mobile, It's Time to Turn 5G Back On*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/on-verizon-and-t-mobile-its-time-to-turn-5g-back-on>

[Andy Burnelli]

Post by Andy Burnelli
Where this is my data speed at home in the same mountains the kids hiked in.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg>
And this is my cellular signal strength with the femtocell turned off.
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg>
However, we have to be careful to be testing cellular and not wi-fi speeds.
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg>

I accidentally referenced the wrong screenshot for the cellular signal
strength graphs where anything above about ~-90 to ~-105 decibels is decent.
<Loading Image...>

Note that unfortunately, this kind of information is _impossible_ on iOS
even as it's trivial to accurately & graphically debug cellular on Android.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

Also note that the _reason_ such powerful functionality is impossible on iOS
isn't that the iPhone hardware can't accomplish the task - it can.

It's impossible on iOS because Apple limits what apps the market can provide
while Google not only doesn't limit the functionality that the market can
provide but in some cases (such as YouTube or Ungoogled Chromium), Google
can't limit what the market can provide.

Since Apple can and does severely limit what functionality the market can
provide for iPhones, this type of functionality exist in droves in Android
and yet there isn't a single app that gives this functionality on the Apple
iOS app store (despite nospam fabricating numerous times that it does).

I'll believe nospam only after an Apple iOS App Store URL shows up to an iOS
app that can do what this free ad free gsf free app already does on Android.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

Unfortunately, nospam's claims are never backed up with even a single fact.

[Andy Burnelli]

Post by Andy Burnelli
I get it that you feel Verizon is better in terms of coverage.

No, how anyone "feels" about coverage is immaterial. You need to look at
the actual coverage. Fortunately there are multiple ways to do that.

Rest assured that I explained to you quite a few times already that while
this thread isn't about coverage, I _did_ look in detail at your coverage
maps, and, in fact, I even plotted out the bearing the kids planned out.
<Loading Image...>

You should know by now that I've never stated an incorrect fact on Usenet in
decades of posting simply because my belief systems are _based_ on facts.
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fXYpgSt/approximatepath.jpg>

Hence, I already re-posted your screenshots and agreed that the coverage
along a bearing these kids had planned shows dramatic coverage differences.
<https://i.postimg.cc/qvTLtvxF/orl84Fb.jpg>

In fact, I also referenced a country-wide scientifically run PC-Magazine
test of all important _speeds_ of the major networks run earlier this year.
*Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>
"For our 12th annual test, we drove more than 10,000 miles,
speed-testing AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 4G and 5G in cities,
towns, and rural regions all over the US. We found a radically
new landscape - and a surprising winner."

Two things about me Steve that you won't find in many others on Usenet.
*Not only am I rather intelligent but I'm objective about facts*

Those observable traits already put me far and above almost all whom you are
conversing with (not that a bar of "Lewis" or "nospam" is all that high).

Bearing in mind that I'm nothing like those Apple apologists who are
despicable people who lie about everything (just as Apple does) in their
defense of everything Apple (no matter what), I understand that you also
have much experience with _both_ iOS and Android devices (as I do also).

That means we can be more objective and correct about the differences when
it comes to finding free ad free google free navigation apps for the kids.

[Andy Burnelli]

neither does sms.
t-mobile coverage is nowhere near as bad as he claims, from people who
have actually used it.

It would be helpful if people didn't quote either Alan Baker or Rod Speed
when responding in a thread that only _adults_ should be partaking in.

Nobody who is anybody does not have both of those idiots plonked long ago.

Getting back to coverage, while Steve hijacked a thread about cross platform
app functionality for backcountry hiking in the Santa Cruz mountains, if we
objectively _look_ at Steve's coverage maps, a priori, they do show
differences in the bearing that these kids had planned (which Steve didn't
cherry pick because the mountain objectives were chosen by these kids).
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fXYpgSt/approximatepath.jpg>

Looking at Steve's coverage maps, I do seem to see objective differences.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wBFsj6wD/0Nn3C2P.jpg>

Don't you?
<https://i.postimg.cc/qvTLtvxF/orl84Fb.jpg>

I think Steve is trying to point out that in _some_ places, Verizon coverage
is better'n that of T-Mobile (and/or AT&T) which you agree with in the main
in that _every_ carrier has their own unique set of dead zones & hot spots.
*Where Are the Mobile Dead Zones (and Hotspots)?*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/driving-10000-miles-across-the-us-where-are-the-mobile-dead-zones-and-hotspots>

Of course, what matters for most people when it comes time to _choose_ their
cellular provider isn't necessarily the coverage in Uvas Canyon so much as
the coverage at the outside of their house, as shown here for my signal.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

And, let's be clear, not only does signal strength over time matter, but so
does cellular data speed matter, where this is a data speed at my house in
the _same_ Santa Cruz Mountain range that these kids just hiked for days in.
<Loading Image...>

Being objective to both nospam's and even to Lewis' point that T-Mobile is
pretty good, both those indications and that of the countrywide test by PC
Magazine earlier this year show overall T-Mobile coverage & speed is good.
*Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>

Couple that decent coverage and speed with decent prices, and that's why I'm
currently on T-Mobile although I've had both Verizon & AT&T in the past.
<Loading Image...>

[Andy Burnelli]

T-Mobile wins the 5G Download Speed award for the fourth time in a
row, increasing once again its lead on Verizon and AT&T, with our
T-Mobile users¹ average 5G download speeds breaking through the 100
Mbps mark.

Coverage is important, which, AFAIK, manifests itself objectively as
a. Signal strength over time
b. Cellular data speeds over time

Unfortunately Android can't test cellular coverage for any but the one
carrier whose SIM card is inserted, where I just ran a quick signal strength
and cellular data speed test just now on my free T-Mobile Samsung A325G
from my office inside the house with the phone wi-fi turned off.

1. I don't want apps with ads, and there are plenty of free gsf free ad free
speedtest apps but I figured people would trust "okla" so I installed it
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.zwanoo.android.speedtest>

3. Inside the house, my 5G speeds (wi-fi off) from the Santa Cruz Mountains
to Las Vegas (I had my gps spoofing app turned on) are about 60 down,
7 up & 39ms ping, with 4ms of jitter at as shown in the screenshots below
<Loading Image...>

4. The cellular signal strength from the tower was nicely nested between
-80 dBm and -100 dBm which is a decent cellular signal strength for
inside the house and for being miles away from any cellular tower.
<Loading Image...>

Those are actual numbers tested just now inside the house in the same Santa
Cruz Mountains that Steve claims the T-Mobile coverage sucks. Given that I
can only test T-Mobile, I'd like to ask Steve to run the _same_ tests for
Verizon where he lives (on the same California Santa Cruz Mountains range).

Can anyone say what the Verizon or AT&T signal strength & speeds would be?

Note: I don't like redacting much of the tower information so if anyone
knows what minimum tower information regarding privacy I can redact, please
let me know. <https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z&c=apps>

[Andy Burnelli]

It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.

Hi Steve,

I don't shill for any cellular carrier (I've had them all and they're about
the same where I live in the Santa Cruz Mountain range).

I'm aware you get paid by Verizon somehow to hawk their products, but I
don't care about that other than to simply ask you to back up your facts.

All I care about are the objective facts.

1. I just ran a quick test for you which I ask you to also objectively run.
a. Please install Cellular-Z freeware onto your Android phone.
<https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z&c=apps>
b. Please install Speedtest freeware onto your Android phone.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.zwanoo.android.speedtest>
c. Turn off Wi-Fi & run the two tests I just ran for you please.

2. Inside the house, my 5G speeds (wi-fi off) from the Santa Cruz Mountains
to Las Vegas (I had my gps spoofing app turned on) are about 60 down,
7 up & 39ms ping, with 4ms of jitter at as shown in the screenshots below
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg>

3. The cellular signal strength from the tower was nicely nested between
-80 dBm and -100 dBm which is a decent cellular signal strength for
inside the house and for being miles away from any cellular tower.
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg>

Those are actual numbers tested just now inside the house in the same Santa
Cruz Mountains that Steve claims the T-Mobile coverage sucks. Given that I
can only test T-Mobile, I'd like to ask Steve to run the _same_ tests for
Verizon where he lives (on the same California Santa Cruz Mountains range).

It will take you only a minute or three to run those tests that I ran.
If you do not run those tests, then we'll know exactly why you won't.

[Andy Burnelli]

First off, I never said anything about 911 but what I _did_ say was that
T-Mobile allows free roaming in the USA and in Europe.

As you are well aware, that's a highly misleading statement.

I only care about the facts, Steve.

Like most people, I don't care if T-Mobile or AT&T or Verizon comes out on
top simply because I have an open choice of all three. I'm not being paid to
shill any of them so I can objectively tell the truth about all of them.

The only thing that matters is the objective truths - one of which is that
T-Mobile has free roaming in the USA and in Europe - whether or not you
happen to like that objective truth.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=t-mobile+us+roaming+agreements+partners>

Running that search, the first hit is this "Domestic Roaming Data"
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data>
"In locations in the U.S. where we do not yet have network coverage,
we partner with other networks. When you travel outside of T-Mobile's
U.S. network areas, your phone automatically switches to use one of our
wireless network partners where available when you have data roaming
enabled. T-Mobile has two classifications of domestic roaming networks
based on the agreement we have in place with each partner, standard
and preferred."

Unfortunately that hit doesn't say when you'll know if/when you're roaming
and on which type of partner until you get to about 80% of your quota.

The next hit on that roaming search is the T-Mobile/AT&T roaming agreement.
<https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/t-mobile-usa-and-att-wireless-sign-roaming-agreement-expanding>
But it's so old as to be almost useless as who knows what's still in place.

Digging through the hits, there isn't much about T-Mobile Roaming Agreements
that is recent information where I'd like to see some of your references on
the matter so that I can make an objective assessment of the situation.

The technical problem is that while I can tell if I'm on roaming, it's a
bunch of button presses, and even if I create a Shortcut to the Android
Activity that controls and describes whether or not I'm roaming, I would
need to be pressing it all the time.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=diewland.settings.mobilenetworks>

What I'd need is a warning system that buzzes the phone whenever the phone
is roaming. Does that exist? Dunno. Let's look first.
<https://play.google.com/store/search?q=roaming%20notification&c=apps>

These are all free and ad free google free app hits related to roaming.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mobidia.android.mdm>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pyo.frtbitzandpixels.com.networknotification>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.glasswire.android>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.roysolberg.android.datacounter>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.radioopt.widget>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=aws.apps.networkInfoIi>
etc.

Note for those in the EU there is this free ad free gsf free data watcher:
EU Roaming Data Watcher, by Marcelo Araujo <com.martindoudera.euroaming>

I'll test some of them out to see if they can log when/if I'm connected to a
roaming tower given I have my free roaming turned on 100% of the time and
yet I've never received any notification from T-Mobile via SMS (as they
claim they will send) notifying me that I'm at 80% of my roaming max limit.

[Andy Burnelli]

You really need to concentrate on facts.

Hi Steve,

Don't play that game with me since I _only_ speak facts.

In fact, I provided you the most important facts of all, which was at 2pm
today in my office inside my house in the mountains you claim don't have
T-Mobile coverage, I attained a respectable (not great, but respectable)
a. 60Mbps cellular data download speed
b. -85dBm cellular signal strength

I'm still waiting for the facts from you which would take you all of a
minute or two to run the speed tests and signal strength tests I ran.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg>

We've been waiting for _years_ for you to provide those facts, in fact.

While -85Dbm is decent anywhere, certainly where you live your Verizon MVNO
should get far better signal strength & I would hope far faster speeds.

The fact you can't provide the facts is what worries me about your claims.
I would _hope_ after all this shilling you've done for your Verizon MVNO
that you would spend the same minute I spent running a speed & signal test.

And yet, you're apparently completely afraid to show us those facts, Steve.
That's a fact that I'm well aware of Steve.

Please post your cellular signal strength & speeds just like I did, Steve.
Those are the facts that matter.

[Andy Burnelli]

You really need to concentrate on facts.

the facts aren't what you claim them to be.
the *actual* facts, supported by numerous industry surveys as well as
customer reports, is that t-mobile 5g is consistently faster and far
more widely deployed than verizon 5g.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/t-mobile-is-the-reigning-5g-champ-new-te
st-results-claim>
T-Mobile is destroying AT&T and Verizon in 5G speed
...
For the 5G Availability award, T-Mobile proved itself the winner by
providing the most 5G coverage and connectivity. 33.1% of users
remained connected to 5G, while AT&T came in at 20.5% and Verizon
at 11.2%.
More importantly, T-Mobile handily beat its competitors with an
average download speed of 71.3 Mbps. The next closest was AT&T
with 54.9 Mbps, then Verizon trailing behind at 47.7 Mbps. 5G Upload
was a closer race, with T-Mobile on top with 15.2 Mbps, AT&T with 10
Mbps, and Verizon with 12.9 Mbps.
<https://www.usnews.com/360-reviews/services/cell-phone-plans/tmobile-vs-
verizon>
T-mobile¹s 5G network is currently the broadest in the U.S., covering
around 40% of the country compared to Verizon¹s 11%. While 5G is
still being rolled out across the country, T-Mobile has an edge due
to more coverage and faster speeds when comparing its 5G service
to Verizon¹s 5G Ultra Wideband.
<https://www.opensignal.com/reports/2021/10/usa/mobile-network-experienc
e-5g>
T-Mobile wins the 5G Download Speed award for the fourth time in a
row, increasing once again its lead on Verizon and AT&T, with our
T-Mobile users¹ average 5G download speeds breaking through the 100
Mbps mark. In our last report, T-Mobile more than doubled its lead
over second place from 16.3 Mbps to 35.2 Mbps. This time T-Mobile led
by an impressive 62.7 Mbps and with a 5G Download Speed that¹s more
than twice as fast as AT&T and Verizon¹s scores. Our T-Mobile users
saw average 5G download speeds of 118.7 Mbps, ahead of our users on
Verizon and AT&T which scored 56 Mbps and 51.5 Mbps, respectively.
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-mobile-keeps-crown-for-5g-coverage-
speed-opensignal>
T-Mobile dominated the latest 5G report from Opensignal, scoring
higher marks than rivals AT&T and Verizon across categories of reach,
availability, and upload and download speeds.
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/verizon-at-t-agree-to-faas-request-for-
a-two-week-delay-on-5g-expansion-plans/>
Verizon and AT&T have agreed to delay the launch of their upgraded
5G networks for two weeks, bowing to pressure from the Federal
Aviation Administration, the airline companies and Transportation
Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

You really need to concentrate on facts.

the facts aren't what you claim them to be.

Hi nospam,

While I am aware that you'll defend Apple to the death (no matter what),
what is surprising that Steve defends Verizon to the death (no matter what),
and he doesn't even _pay_ for Verizon (whereas at least I pay T-Mobile).

I must agree with you that Steve is not only cherry picking (e.g., picking
Death Valley, of all places) to make his point that Verizon is great and
that T-Mobile sucks.... but also Steve is _avoiding_ telling us the very
fact that matters most, and which I have asked him for _years_ to provide.
a. 60Mbps cellular data download speed (inside, today, to Las Vegas anyway)
b. -85dBm cellular signal strength (which is damn good inside the house)
c. As high as 255Mbps on my balcony outside (also damn good don't you think)

Those facts require only a minute to snapshot, as I did here for
badgolferman and the team many times, where the numbers fluctuate...
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> 125Mbps to 181Mbps
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> 60Mbps
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> -85dBm
<Loading Image...> 255Mbps
<Loading Image...> 80Mbps
<Loading Image...> 79Mbps to 81Mbps
etc.

Given that I'm in the boonies where we don't even have gas lines, water
lines, sewer lines, or even cable or DSL, and that the homes are so far
apart because of 40-acre zoning (i.e., you need 80 acres just to put _two_
houses up!), and comparing that with Steve's Cupertino location where houses
are jam packed together, it's shocking actually that Steve is afraid to post
his Verizon MVNO numbers.

What do you think Steve's Verizon MVNO numbers are if he's afraid that much?

the *actual* facts, supported by numerous industry surveys as well as
customer reports, is that t-mobile 5g is consistently faster and far
more widely deployed than verizon 5g.

I've been on Usenet well before I was on T-Mobile and certainly well before
I had a 5G cellphone where I can say that the fact which matters most is
what speeds and signal strength _I_ get, especially given I live in the far
off outskirts of the same Santa Cruz Mountains that Steve claims has no
T-Mobile coverage.

And yet, it's likely my coverage, way off in the boonies, is _better_ than
Steve's where he's in the same mountains but he's definitely in the suburbia
where they pack a hundred homes per acre instead of one home every 40 acres.

More importantly, T-Mobile handily beat its competitors with an
average download speed of 71.3 Mbps. The next closest was AT&T
with 54.9 Mbps, then Verizon trailing behind at 47.7 Mbps. 5G Upload
was a closer race, with T-Mobile on top with 15.2 Mbps, AT&T with 10
Mbps, and Verizon with 12.9 Mbps.

My T-Mobile speeds in the boonies (there are days when you can hike our
streets for miles and not a single vehicle passes you buy) where I live in
the same Santa Cruz Mountains Steve says has no T-Mobile coverage is at
least at those averages inside the house (and well above if I go outside).

T-Mobile wins the 5G Download Speed award for the fourth time in a
row, increasing once again its lead on Verizon and AT&T, with our
T-Mobile users average 5G download speeds breaking through the 100
Mbps mark.

What I find interesting is how afraid Steve is of posting his factual data.

I can only suspect that his Verizon MVNO claims are not backed up by the
facts where those screenshots I've posted above you've seen before (save for
the ones taken today) so you know those are my actual speeds.

When someone is _hiding_ the data, I have to begin to ask myself why.

I'm not afraid of posting the speeds I get on T-Mobile in the boonies.
<https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg>

Why is Steve afraid to spend a minute to snapshot his Verizon MVNO speeds?

[Andy Burnelli]

[8 quoted lines suppressed]

LOL, you may "care about facts" but you post nearly as much incorrect
information as nospam!
But I am willing to help educate you.
Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons>
The Three U.S. Networks-They Are Not Created Equal
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
AT&T and Verizon evolved from legacy cellular networks over the years,
and built out a large network, acquiring smaller regional and rural
carriers along the way. T-Mobile was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with
mainly urban coverage. All three networks work acceptably well in urban
areas. While no carrier has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to
travel to more remote areas, like National and State Parks, or if you
are going to be driving through rural areas, or if you're visiting the
outskirts of urban areas (often called the "greenbelt"), then you'll
want to avoid T-Mobile and choose AT&T or Verizon. Even non-tourists
that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a second phone with
an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling outside urban areas,
just in case of emergency.
<Loading Image...> (data is from
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>). You can also
use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>. These are the
maps for each networks' native coverage. If you sign up for postpaid
service directly from the carrier, you also get some off-network roaming
on smaller, more rural carriers, but the carriers' prepaid services, and
their MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators), often do not include
off-network roaming (though sometimes they do).
What About "Free Roaming"
-------------------------
Some carriers advertise "free roaming." But understand that when a
carrier touts "free roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every
other carrier, everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911
service).
You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
<Loading Image...>, but MVNOs usually won't roam even if
their maps show roaming.
In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.
The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).
In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
AT&T's and Verizon's MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless).
Checking Network Coverage-Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can check
the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more of
rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.
Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.
It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.
Network Speed, Coverage, and Quality
------------------------------------
"We're fastest." "No, we're fastest." "You have fake 5G." "Our 4G is
faster than your 5G." "We have the most 5G." "We have the most real 5G."
"Your coverage sucks." "No one needs coverage in Podunk, Idaho." "You
get free tacos if you choose us." "We have the happiest customers."
I received an email requesting that I add information regarding network
speed. Rather than parrot the absurd and conflicting marketing claims of
the carriers, I am adding the results of the most recent independent
surveys.
<https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021>
* Data Speed: 1. AT&T. 2. Verizon. 3.T-Mobile.
* Reliability: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
* Accessibility: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
* Calls: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
* Texts: 1. Verizon & AT&T. 3.T-Mobile.
<https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2021-us-wireless-network-quality-performance-study-volume-2>
* Verizon was ranked first in every U.S. region
* T-Mobile was ranked second in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
West regions
* AT&T was ranked second in the North Central, Southeast, and
Southwest regions
I added several examples of coverage differences because often there are
"fanbois" of a carrier that will insist that "all carriers are created
equal," and get very upset when anyone points out any coverage
differences. Some fanbois insist that foreign visitors would be unlikely
to ever go outside of urban areas, where coverage is usually okay on all
carriers, but the reality is that foreign visitors often want to visit
places like state and national parks. So I've included a bunch of
examples of coverage differences that I've personally experienced.
* One area that I go through often is the Sierra Nevada mountains on
California State Highways 88, 4, 108, and 120, and the FCC map
highlights the very large differences in coverage in those areas; here
is a map comparing coverage in the central Sierras, a popular area for
<Loading Image...>.
* One area we visit frequently is the southern part of San Mateo County.
In my younger days I used to do a lot of bicycling in this area, now
it's more hiking and road trips. Verizon has the best coverage of
course, but surprisingly T-Mobile beats AT&T in the town of Pescadero (I
recommend Duarte's restaurant). Sadly, T-Mobile doesn't even have
coverage on the major state highway, 84, between La Honda and the coast.
See <Loading Image...>.
* Another area I go through often is the San Mateo and Santa Cruz coast
on California Highway 1; here is a map comparing coverage in that area,
where Verizon is superior, AT&T is a distant second, and T-Mobile an eve
further distant third: <Loading Image...>.
* A very popular route for foreign tourists is the coastal road between
Los Angeles in San Francisco; here is a map comparing coverage in the
popular Big Sur area (bottom left): <Loading Image...>.
* The Pacific Northwest, (Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and
especially the coastal areas) is another popular destination for
<Loading Image...> where you can see the vast differences
in coverage, in the inland areas but especially along the coast.
* Someone on Reddit/NoContract inquired about service in Montana so I
added that map set as well, see <Loading Image...,
* Yosemite is a place we visit one or two times per year, often staying
in the "Yosemite West" area (technically outside the park boundary but
you have to go into the park to get there). One time we arrived in a
snowstorm and the key to our lodging wasn't left out. Thankfully I had
Verizon service so I could call the management company. AT&T and
T-Mobile have no coverage (Sprint used to roam on Verizon, but no more).
Verizon had acquired a small regional carrier, Golden State Cellular
upon which they used to roam. See <Loading Image...>.
* An example of the the San Francisco Bay Area's "greenbelt," up to the
northwest corner of Marin County and Point Reyes National Seashore
(highly recommended), is at <Loading Image...>:, you can
see the gaps in coverage on AT&T and especially on T-Mobile.
* Muir Woods is another highly-recommended tourist destination in Marin
County and you can see how poor T-Mobile coverage is in that area, see
* This is part of the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties' greenbelt,
and again you can see the big advantage in coverage enjoyed by Verizon
subscribers, see <https://i.imgur.com/1w58JJA.png>
* Here is the area around Pinnacles National Park (highly recommended)
* Someone I know lives in one of the mountain communities of the Santa
Cruz Mountains. I did a comparison of that area. You can see the huge
advantage of Verizon, and how poor T-Mobile is at
* I grew up in South Florida, and still visit, so coverage there is of
interest to me, see <Loading Image...>.
* Someone mentioned that their children were hiking between Loma Prieta
Peak and Mount Madonna so I did the coverage maps for that area, see
<https://i.imgur.com/0Nn3C2P.png>. You can see how tremendously better
Verizon coverage is in that area. It's especially important to have
coverage when in areas away from roads. At the very least take along a
phone that's on a prepaid Verizon service.
* A huge park in Santa Clara County is Henry Coe. You can see the big
differences in coverage at <https://i.imgur.com/g61Ss5T.jpeg,though even
Verizon doesn't have complete coverage.
LOL, you may "care about facts" but you post nearly as much incorrect
information as nospam!

Steve,
Please don't turn into a child just because you don't like the facts.
I get it the only way you can combat facts is with ad hominem attacks.

The fact is you can't back up that claim above with even a _single_ fact.
If you could, I challenge you to *name just one*.

Worse, you've _never_ shown even a _single_ fact from me to be wrong.
In _decades_ of posting hundreds of facts each & every week, Steve.
Not even one.

Which means your entire belief system is _completely_ fabricated Steve.
You can't back up what you just said with even a _single_ fact, Steve.

So don't blindly claim all facts are wrong simply because you hate facts.

And don't pull this ad hominem shit again with me just because you have no
_adult_ defense to the facts which I clearly presented in this thread.

Your claims are either completely fabricated, Steve, or they are facts.
If _any_ of your claims are _not_ fabricated - let's _see_ the facts Steve.

Here, I'll give you that chance right now Steve to be an honest man.
Name just _one_ fact I've stated in this thread you say is wrong.
*Name Just One*

HINT: An assessment is not the same as a fact, where the trolls like nospam
will say something like it's wrong to say that iOS is less functional than
Android where that's an assessment.

Note a fact would be something like when I say there isn't a single app on
the iOS App store that can graph wifi signal strength for all access points
over time such as what Cellular-Z easily does for Android.
<https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cellular-z&c=apps>

Until you back up your claims with facts, there's no sense in continuing.

[Andy Burnelli]

ftfy

I don't consider the "ftfy" an _adult_ response to what Steve claimed.

Nor do I consider Steve's cherry picking of Death Valley coverage (of all
things) representative of T-Mobile, particularly when even his vaunted
Verizon whom he shills for uses the same roaming agreements overall (based
on Steve's own documents).

Nonetheless, Usenet is water under the bridge, every single day.
All I ask of anyone, including Steve, is to state the actual facts.

Specifically I ask Steve to snapshot his current Verizon MVNO speeds.
How hard can that be?

Steve (a) runs the tool, and (b) snapshots it, and then (c) posts it.
It takers only a minute for Steve to back up his own claims, does it not?

*All Steve needs to do is post _his_ actual speeds on his Verizon MVNO.*

I already posted mine on T-Mobile from the middle of the same Santa Cruz
Mountains that Steve lives in and where Steve claims has sucky tmo signal.

Since I'm not afraid of fact, here they are again where speeds fluctuate.
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps to 181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *60Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> -85dBm
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *80Mbps
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps to 81Mbps*
etc.

FACT: Steve has _not_ posted the speeds he gets on his vaunted Verizon MVNO.
ASSESSMENT: I suspect Steve's speeds on that Verizon MVNO suck compared to
tmo on the _same_ mountain range and where Steve is clearly in a vastly more
urban area than I am (where it's 40 acre zoning per house where I live).

[Andy Burnelli]

You need to stick to factual data.
So far you have not done that in this thread.

Steve,

Don't pull shit with me as I'm rather well educated and I hope you at least
have an undergrad BA degree so you should be able to comprehend basic facts.

What is your response to conclusions in this _recent_ study of the topic?
*Fastest Mobile Networks 2021*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>
"_We found a radically new landscape and a surprising winner_."

Note that if you continue to completely _ignore_ all those facts, then it
will be a fact that you've ignored those facts for a reason unknown to me.

An assessment of _why_ you ignore facts that don't fit your pre-defined
narrative could be that you'd shill for Verizon no matter what, as you once
told us, I believe, you have a vested interest in Verizon financially so.

FACT: I do not have any financial interest in any of the major carriers,
other than I happen to be on T-Mobile but I've used all three in the past.

A _fact_ I've presented over and again are the speeds I get in the boonies.
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps to 181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *60Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> -85dBm
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *80Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps to 81Mbps*
etc.

What speeds do _you_ get in the _same_ mountain range on Verizon MVNO Steve?

[Andy Burnelli]

Never follow any of sms's links to his bullshit.

The facts that Steve keeps dancing about are simple and obvious and correct
a. Steve has still not taken the effort to snapshot is Verizon MVNO speed.
b. Steve has not responded to PC Magazine testing & finding T-Mobile best.

Personally I don't care which cellular service comes out best in the
country, nor what the other carriers have than what I'm on, but Steve keeps
pasting his old decrepit data instead of simply addressing current facts.

1. In the mountains Steve claims has sucky T-Mobile signal, mine is fine
(and in my area, houses are so sparse you can't put two on 79 acres).
2. In the country Steve claims has sucky T-Mobile signal, PC Mag says it's
not only fine, but actually better than both Verizon and AT&T overall.

I only care about the facts.

Steve needs to respond to these two factual requests made of him.
A. What speed does Steve get on his vaunted Verizon MVNO in the _same_
Santa Cruz Mountains that I have been posting the T-Mobile speeds for?
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg> *255Mbps*
B. What does Steve think of the PC Magazine tests showing T-Mobile overall
better than both Verizon and AT&T in the most recent countrywide tests?
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>

[Andy Burnelli]

I pointed out that Death Valley is one of the few areas where T-Mobile,
and the other two nationwide carriers, actually provide roaming. It's
because a small rural carrier is the only provider in that area.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for explaining _why_ you chose Death Valley (of all places) to make a
point, where at least you can tell I _read_ what you posted, and I _read_
your references, which is why I pointed out that Verizon had the _same_
agreement as T-Mobile, which you've confirmed above.

Thanks for being an adult on clarifying facts, which is a rarity on Usenet.
Much appreciated.

Some people have implied that "free roaming" is a panacea for a
carrier's lack of native coverage--it isn't, because "free roaming"
doesn't mean "roaming on any available network no matter where I am
without native coverage," far from it (except for 911 service).

When you say "some people" I think you're pointing to "me", where I did
_ask_ for data on how the T-Mobile free roaming works when we are in an area
that might not have coverage.

Based on the paucity of references I found, not a lot of people are asking
that same question, so I was clear that I'm not sure what the answer is.

I did point out that T-Mobile sends an automatic text message when you reach
80% of your "free roaming" allotment, which is an SMS I've never received.

Also remember that MVNOs usually don't get the same roaming coverage
that the parent carrier receives, and often prepaid services directly
from the carrier don't get the same roaming that postpaid receives.

Personally, I find it untoward of you to have claimed that your time is
worth too much for you to look at freeware - and then - you spend an ungodly
amount of time finding and switching between Verizon MVNOs which, let's be
honest - I don't spend since I've been on T-mobile ever since I left AT&T a
decade ago, and I was on Verizon from the start of cell phones until I left
for AT&T.

My point being you apparently spend an ungodly amount of effort to find
inexpensive Verizon MVNOs, which is all well and good, but you then blast me
for easily finding free software (remember, I have far better filters than
you do for such things since I don't use Google Play but I use Aurora).
<https://auroraoss.com/download/>

Maybe you too have filters that make your choice of Verizon MVNO less time
intensive (like I do for finding only the best freeware in my searches), but
the fact you don't even use Verizon and yet you shill for Verizon means you
should, in all fairness, at least make that point known to the hapless
readers.

Bear in mind that it doesn't bother me so much that you shill for Verizon
(why would I care) but that you don't seem to take into account _recent_
facts about the other carriers when you incessantly shill for Verizon.

At least all my references are facts I gleaned myself on my own phone, or
the links I posited were all recent links of reliable country wide testing.

For
example, look at Mint (T-Mobile MVNO) coverage in Alaska (or don't look
at it because there isn't any!). Alaska is a place where an AT&T MVNO is
your best bet because AT&T has the best native coverage in Alaska of the
three nationwide carriers (Verizon has only a small LTE-only network,
and T-Mobile has no native network) (I can already picture the fanbois
angrily insisting that almost no one ever would go to Alaska!,
pre-pandemic Alaska had over 2.25 million visitors per year).

Steve... I don't get your logic (since you are the one who said you wouldn't
spend time finding good freeware) when you claim AT&T has the best coverage
in Alaska but then you'd recommend an AT&T MVNO when all you're doing is
talking about coverage?

Think about the fact I already noticed your statement lack logic.
Put more directly, if _coverage_ is what you want from AT&T, why on earth
would you say that the AT&T MVNO is the way to go? Makes no sense.

Why not go with AT&T instead?

HINT: I presume you're ignoring cost when you talk about coverage and I can
presume you're including cost (but ignoring customer service) when you
recommend the MVNO - but my point is that you are being illogical.

If you're going to recommend AT&T for coverage - that's fine.
But how the hell will an AT&T _MVNO_ give you any better coverage?

It can't. Right?
Or am I missing something about how MVNO's garner coverage?
(e.g., do they pool various carriers' towers?)

Also remember that even where roaming exists, there are often severe
limits of the quantity of data, see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data>.

I'm the one who brought up that T-Mobile will send you an automatic text at
80% of your limits, where I've _never_ received that text in over 10 years.

On my plan, there are no roaming limits on data when I'm traveling in Europe
but for USA travel there are limits of 5MB to 200MB depending on the plan.

I agree that's not a lot in any case since I never disagree with facts.
(BTW, only an idiot disagrees with facts, which is why I find the Apple
apologists to be idiots, in general, since they disagree with facts.)

Post by Andy Burnelli
Nonetheless, Usenet is water under the bridge, every single day.
All I ask of anyone, including Steve, is to state the actual facts.

LOL, the problem is that you don't like the actual facts when it comes
to coverage.

You can claim that I don't like the coverage facts, but I already agreed
with you on the fact that in the Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta backcountry,
clearly T-Mobile was much less than was the Verizon & AT&T coverage.

Did I mention yet that only an idiot disagrees with facts?
I didn't disagree with _that_ fact, which you presented, did I?

In fact, I even drew the bearing that proved I didn't disagree with them.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wBFsj6wD/0Nn3C2P.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/qvTLtvxF/orl84Fb.jpg>

So stop saying that I don't like facts when the real problem is _you_ can't
agree with the facts, Steve. I've got too much education over you to fall
for that shit. The Apple Apologists try that crap all the time.

I assume you have at least a bachelor of arts Steve, where I'm assuming that
anyone who has even that little of a minimum education knows that facts are
what you should be basing your belief systems upon.

If I haven't mentioned it yet, only an idiot disagrees with proven facts.

There are a _lot_ of idiots on Usenet Steve, but I was hoping you're not one
of them so stop handing me shit as I am trying to respect your acumen.

Post by Andy Burnelli
FACT: Steve has _not_ posted the speeds he gets on his vaunted Verizon MVNO.
ASSESSMENT: I suspect Steve's speeds on that Verizon MVNO suck compared to
tmo on the _same_ mountain range and where Steve is clearly in a vastly more
urban area than I am (where it's 40 acre zoning per house where I live).

No problem. Here are the speeds on Total Wireless/Verizon (technically
not an MVNO anymore since Verizon owns Total Wireless now) and on
RedPocket/T-Mobile, see <Loading Image...>. Taken in my
living room at 9:35 a.m. on January 7th, 2022. Both tests are on LTE
since I have no 5G devices.
Verizon/Total Wireless: Ping: 25ms, Down: 266 Mb/s, Up: 27.8 Mb/s
T-Mobile/RedPocket: Ping: 52ms , Down: 8.3 Mb/s, Up: 0.16 Mb/s

OK. Thanks. I'll believe those numbers, a priori. 266Mbps & 8Mbps.
The 266Mbps is better than my T-Mobile average, which is commendable.

Bear in mind where I live the houses are so far apart we aren't allowed to
put two houses on 79 acres due to 40 acre zoning, so it would be _expected_
that your speeds _should_ be greater than mine in that there are probably
thousands greater numbers of customers per mile in the area you live than in
the area I live (which doesn't even have cable service or DSL service yet).

Thank you for finally providing those numbers as I know on Usenet it takes a
brave person to back up their speeds as I did also for my area as you know.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*

Bear in mind both speed and signal strength can vary greatly, and one
affects the other (as nospam pointed out to you on 'no signal, no speed').
<Loading Image...> *82Mbps & -88dBM*

Of course one test, in one location, isn't all that meaningful, all it
means is that T-Mobile 4G coverage and speed at my house is poor.

I can say that recently the T-Mobile 5G coverage has skyrocketed our speeds.
Is it _because_ of 5G? I don't know. I just know it's super fast at times.
It's almost never slow, as you can see from a variety of my past tests.
<Loading Image...> *125Mbps*
<Loading Image...> *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg> *125Mbps to 181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcsyc4Vn/speedtest04.jpg> *82Mbps & -88dBM*
<https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg> *254Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg> *255Mbps *
<Loading Image...> *130Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *81Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps to 81Mbps*
<Loading Image...> *96Mbps to 109Mbps*
<Loading Image...> *109Mbps*
<Loading Image...> *88Mbps to 102Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> *130Mbps to 255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps to 181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *54Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> *60Mbps & -85dBm*

I can
look out the back of my house and see a fake tree tower shared by AT&T
and Verizon, see <https://goo.gl/maps/9AHZgpWaeXEHbhVG9>. The closest
T-Mobile cell is not much further away but it's nothing like that fake
tree tower. A half-mile away I was getting 80 Mb/s down on my T-Mobile MVNO.

Hmmmmm... something is illogical about that; however we're missing detail.

For example, you can have two towers in your back yard, one pointing toward
you and the other pointing in the other direction, so the location, in and
of itself, isn't the only datapoint we need to know about to compare them.
<Loading Image...>

Also the transmit strength is important, where, as you know, I get my
Internet from a WISP from miles away and my speeds instantly jumped when I
switched from a nanobeam to a 2.4GHz rocket and then again to a 5GHz rocket.
<Loading Image...>

What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
an anecdotal reports.

Please don't forget I listed early on the PC Magazine tests which covered
the entire country, both city & rural, and you _know_ this, so stop it with
the anecdotal shit.

The only anecdotal facts I provided were my own coverage in the same
mountains _you_ said has crappy T-Mobile coverage, which is relevant for two
reasons, one of which is it debunks what you claim (whether you like that
fact or not), and the other is it's all I _can_ do to test your claims.

There's a narrative that one carrier's salespeople often use, when
potential customers ask about coverage limitations, of 'no carrier has
100% coverage;' with the implication of 'all carriers are equal since
they all provide less than 100% coverage.' It's an absurd argument, but
you often see it repeated by fanbois.

I think the PC Magazine was pretty clear that the T-Mobile _coverage_ is
just fine for most of the country (and the speeds were great too).

I'm not the one saying that Verizon is shit though, nor AT&T.
All I ever ask of you are the facts, and if you present a fact, I look at
it, just as if I present a fact, I _expect_ you to look at it also.

Only after we agree on the facts can we even attempt to discuss them.
Did I mention yet that anyone who disagrees with facts is an idiot?

Prior to signing up for service, it's important to ensure that the
network that you choose will provide coverage in the areas that you plan
to visit or pass through. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
has a nice tool that compares the coverage of the different networks. Go
to <https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can
also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>. Both are
convenient for comparing actual coverage.
You can further educate yourself by reading: "Coverage Differences
Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon" at
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>.

Steve,

Just so you know, I've been on Usenet for decades where I haven't been shy
all those years about saying I was on Verizon, and then AT&T and then
T-Mobile, all in the Silicon Valley, where I found the coverage for all
three to be... wait for it... *about the same* (which is where I live).

You also live in the Silicon Valley so I would find it surprising if you
claim the coverage in the Silicon Valley is vastly different between them.

[Andy Burnelli]

As to coverage on interstates, there are gaps on T-Mobile that don't
exist on AT&T or Verizon, such as I-80 in most of Nebraska,

that is simply false.

Is Nebraska still a state?

It's interesting how Steve is flailing to find the worst places on the
planet (like Death Valley) to cherry pick (What's next? Siberia?).

Still... this is a thread about COVERAGE, and specifically COVERAGE
COMPARISONS, so let's take an objective look at those vaunted coverage maps.

Looking it up, this first hit (from August 2021) explains how lousy the FCC
coverage maps really are (they don't take into account _any_ 5G for
example).
*FCC Puts Out Its First Mobile Coverage Maps: Why They Differ From Carrier
Maps*

<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fcc-puts-out-its-first-mobile-coverage-maps-why-they-differ-from-carrier>

The FCC maps are calculated based on voluntary information provided to them
(that does not include 5G data) by each of the carriers.
"The FCC knows where the towers are, which frequencies are being used,
and what the terrain is like. Using mathematical modeling, the commission
projects coverage at distances from towers and put it on its maps.
So this [i.e., an FCC map] isn't on-the-ground measurement."

Still, the FCC maps should be better than nothing, right?

While the article brings up a "huge hole" in T-Mobile 4G coverage in one
area of Upper New York State and some "potential holes" in AT&T's coverage
in similar areas, the authors rationalize that the FCC maps don't show _any_
T-Mobile 5G nor even any of AT&T's 3G coverage anywhere, so we have to take
_all_ the FCC maps with a grain of salt (as they're not the true story).

Yikes. That sucks.

Worse perhaps, the article says that the carriers' own maps are also
incorrect in that the article claims the carrier 4G coverage maps tend to
show greater coverage than the 4G coverage that actually exists.

OK. That sucks even more.

Anyone well educated and logical can see what that means, not the least of
it being that PC Magazine is prepping us for their actual tests around the
country being more accurate for the areas they tested than either the
calculated FCC 4G-only FCC maps or the optimistic carrier coverage maps.

As an interesting flip of what Steve said, it may very well be that the only
accurate measurements are _not_ the crappy FCC maps (which omit 5G
apparently, and even 3G) nor the even crappier carrier maps (which are
apparently overly optimistic), but the actual real world tests in the wild.

[Andy Burnelli]

T-Mobile wins the 5G Download Speed award for the fourth time in a
row, increasing once again its lead on Verizon and AT&T,

All I care about is the objective truth on the topic of cellular coverage.

I need to point out what I just learned so that anyone with more knowledge
than I have (which should be most people, right?) can augment what I say.

As always, I don't care _who_ is better/worse.
I only care to have objective facts assessed.
(That's because my belief systems are _based_ on facts.)

To that end, please take a quick look at this August 2021 PC Magazine
article about why FCC coverage maps differ from carrier coverage maps.
*FCC Puts Out Its First Mobile Coverage Maps: Why They Differ From Carrier
Maps*

<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fcc-puts-out-its-first-mobile-coverage-maps-why-they-differ-from-carrier>

Bear in mind the following potentially important objective facts.
1. PCMag says the FCC maps suck as they don't cover 5G at all (nor much 3G).
2. PCMag says carrier maps aren't much better as they're overly optimistic.
3. PCMag says the only true test is an independent scientifically run test.

Of course, there is an "assessment" of those facts, which is subjective.
4. PCMag is prepping us to accept their subsequent on-the-ground tests.
5. Where a flaw in PCMag tests is likely that they can't test everywhere.

What this means, overall, is that I've been hugely misinterpreting the maps
that Steve has been posting in that they omit fundamental information in the
FCC case (given, for example, the fact that T-Mobile is expanding 5G and
Verizon is by all accounts way behind) - and yet - they also express
unwarranted optimism in the case of the carrier maps.

So perhaps, maybe the only true test is, as PCMag claims, independent tests.

What are other independent scientifically run tests that we collectively
know of that we can use to better characterize the true nature of coverage?

[Andy Burnelli]

Also, your Pixel 2 doesn't support LTE band 71 (600 MHz) which would
probably help your coverage.

One of these days I'm going to learn about bands, but the knowledge
probably won't be all that personally useful...

I'm going to agree with The Real Bev that I too have never bothered to even
try to understand this 'band' stuff so I don't know what my free Samsung
A325G phone supports (although I must say it works just fine for me).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

To that end, I just pressed "*#0011#" on my phone keypad, which brings up
what's the current connection (field test mode of sorts), but not the bands.

Running a free google-free gsf-free ad free app search for "MTK" finds this
shortcut to the standard Android MTK Engineering Mode Activity page
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Go.EngModeMtkShortcut>
But unfortunately it was built for older Android than mine (Android 11).

A persistent filter search (which is impossible on iOS AFAIK) for "network
bands" garners a few more free ad free gsf free google free related apps,
the first of which that brought up the desired bands on my phone was
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ljh.networkmodesamsung>

That brought up the following 34 bands that I could select from I guess.
<Loading Image...>

What does all that mean? I don't know (because I never asked the questions).
<Loading Image...>

Someone who actually knows whether that's useful information might be able
to tell us why we should care how many bands my free phone supports when it
works just fine for whatever my current needs happen to be (so far anyway).

[Andy Burnelli]

I created a document to help educate you (and others) about the
significant coverage differences between carriers.

all of your 'documents' have been debunked.

It should be clear by now that, unfortunately for Steve's argument, almost
his _entire_ premise was based on what we now know to be faulty data.

It's kind of surprising Steve was unaware the FCC maps didn't contain _any_
3G or 5G data given Steve's arguments _depended_ on that flaw just to exist.

What I haven't seen yet though is an apology by Steve that he was unaware
that his _entire_ argument was based on faulty data.

Even if we give Steve the benefit of the doubt, only two options exist:
a. Either Steve was unaware he was basing his arguments on that bad data
b. Or Steve was knowingly using that bad data (hoping we'd not notice)

[Andy Burnelli]

I received two e-mails regarding my document "Coverage Differences
Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon"
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/> and have updated the
document accordingly.

All of us could have guessed, years in advance, you'd claim Verizon is great
and that T-Mobile sucks) but you can't base that assessment on faulty data.

You need to *re-state your case that Verizon is great & T-Mobile sucks*, but
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).

Personally, I don't care who is better; but I also don't care to be snowed.

One e-mail pointed out that the FCC maps show only 4G coverage, not 5G.
That is true (though the Whistleout Maps let you select 3G, 4G, and/or 5G).

At least we now know that you were innocently unaware the FCC maps didn't
show _any_ 3G or 5G coverage, which means your entire argument is based on
faulty FCC data, through no fault of your own (being unaware of the error).

What that means to any adult is that you'd restate your argument given that
bad FCC data wasn't only crucial to your argument, but it was your argument.

The important thing to understand is the 5G coverage is virtually always
a subset of 4G coverage (as the Whistleout maps show). There are
probably some cases where a mmWave 5G cell has been deployed in a place
where there is a 4G dead spot, but that would be extremely rare. mmWave
5G cells are very short range, and very high speed, and are intended to
provide "wireless broadband" to subscribers.

It's OK that you were unaware that the FCC maps didn't show _any_
improvement in the T-Mobile 5G coverage, as we can all make mistakes.

You must be aware by now given that T-Mobile may have retrofitted thousands
of their old towers to mmWave 5G, you might even have seen what would appear
to be _worse_ coverage (as an artifact of you not understanding the data).

However, now that you are aware of the fatal flaws in your previous
argument, you need to _restate_ your argument, but you can't also discount
the mmWave towers T-Mobile has put in place over the past couple of years.

To ignore mmWave coverage would be disengenuous - and I know you don't want
to do that. What you _need_ to do is _restate_ your argument taking into
account that the FCC maps don't show _any_ 3G or 5G coverage at all.

In the future, as 5G phones become dominant, it's certainly possible
that a carrier might deploy a new cell with 5G only service, but that's
at least several years out. I know that one carrier makes a huge
marketing deal out of the fact that they have the most 5G coverage, but
the reality is that all that 5G coverage is a subset of their 4G
coverage, and in many cases their low-band 5G is comparable in speed to
4G LTE.

You can dance all you want around the fact that your _entire_ argument
hinged on what you now know was completely erroneous data, Steve.

If I assume you have at the very least the lowest common denominator of a
bachelor's degree, we can liken this to the fact you _failed_ a logic test.

However, a bachelor's degree is 120 credits (or 135 as mine was), where
you're redeemed by submitting to a retest using _correct_ data this time.

Simply *re-state your case that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks*, but by
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).

In any case, I added a map as an example of 5G versus 4G coverage see
<Loading Image...>.
One e-mail asked me to add a coverage comparison in Alaska.

Alaska? Is Alaska still part of the United States, Steve?
Why not cherry pick Siberia Steve?

First you cherry pick Death Valley, and then when we look at your own data
we find out you were trying to snow us given Verizon coverage is the same in
Death Valley as T-Mobile's coverage (given they both share a tower).

Now you cherry pick Alaska?
How many people live in all of Alaska anyway, Steve?
700,000 people in toto.

There are ten times as many people in the fifty miles surrounding you and me
than in all of Alaska Steve, so stop talking about the middle of nowhere.

Simply *re-state your case that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks*, but by
using _accurate_ data this time (not data that omits T-Mobile's strength).

I'm aware you're paid by Verizon Steve, so I'll allow your advertising below
so that the others can see what you wrote in case they missed the original.

Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>
The Three U.S. Networks-They Are Not Created Equal
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has three nationwide carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
AT&T and Verizon, the two top-tier networks, evolved from legacy
cellular networks over the years, and built out a large network,
acquiring smaller regional and rural carriers along the way. T-Mobile,
the second tier network, was a PCS (1900 MHz only) network with mainly
urban coverage.
All three networks work acceptably well in urban areas. While no carrier
has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to more remote areas,
like National and State Parks, or if you are going to be driving through
rural areas, or if you're visiting the outskirts of urban areas (often
called the "greenbelt" or "exurban"), then you'll want to avoid T-Mobile
and choose AT&T or Verizon.
Even non-tourists that use T-Mobile as their main carrier often carry a
second phone with an AT&T or a Verizon prepaid SIM when traveling
outside urban areas, just in case of emergency. As PC Magazine stated
"And if you're out in the countryside and don't often head to the city,
T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you. The carrier is doing
great in the nation's biggest metro areas, but when we look at small
cities and areas away from interstate highways, especially in the
western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more work to get better
coverage," (see <https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021>).
If your phone supports dual-SIM (either two physical SIM cards or one
physical SIM and one eSIM) then you can use the eSIM for your primary
carrier and the physical SIM for when you're traveling outside urban areas.
<https://i.imgur.com/irqFqyP.png> (data is from
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>). You can also
use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>. These are the
maps for each networks' native coverage. If you sign up for postpaid
service directly from the carrier, you also get some off-network roaming
on smaller, more rural carriers, but the carriers' prepaid services, and
their MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators), often do not include
off-network roaming (though sometimes they do).
There's a false narrative that one carrier often uses, when potential
customers ask about coverage, of "no carrier has 100% coverage;" with
the implication of "all carriers are equal since they all provide less
than 100% coverage." It's an absurd argument, but you often see it
repeated by fanbois.
Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
Checking Network Coverage-Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>. You can check
the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more of
rural areas are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You can
also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>.
What's really important is for people to check the coverage maps for
places that they are likely to travel to, or pass through, and not rely
on anecdotal reports since there are too many individuals giving out
false information.
Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.
What About "Free Roaming"
-------------------------
Some carriers advertise "free roaming," attempting to allay potential
customers' concerns about the lack of native coverage in many areas by
implying that customers can roam onto whatever network is available in a
specific area. That is highly misleading. When a carrier touts "free
roaming" it doesn't mean "free roaming on every other carrier,
everywhere, no matter what" (except for emergency 911 service). The
usual case is that roaming is only available on small rural carriers and
not on any other of the three nationwide networks.
You can look at the carrier's maps and they'll explicitly show where
roaming is available. For example, in the Death Valley Area, all the
carriers roam onto Commnet, see the T-Mobile map at
<https://i.imgur.com/Ew4qf8I.jpeg/>, but MVNOs usually won't roam even
if their maps show roaming.
Be especially careful about MVNOs because they will often have huge
areas of no coverage because of a lack of roaming. For example, compare
T-Mobile in Alaska (all roaming) with a T-Mobile MVNO is Alaska (no
coverage at all).
In California, there are only two very small areas where T-Mobile has
any roaming: in the far north there's a little roaming on U.S. Cellular
and in Death Valley there's roaming on Commnet. There is no longer any
roaming on AT&T or Verizon. If you are in an area where AT&T and/or
Verizon are the only carriers then you will not have any coverage on
T-Mobile. Nor will AT&T or Verizon roam onto each other, or onto T-Mobile.
The problem for T-Mobile is that their native coverage is very small in
rural areas but they usually only roam onto small rural carriers and not
AT&T or Verizon. You can see some examples of the vast coverage
differences in the maps below (all taken from the FCC maps).
In fact T-Mobile complained to the FCC that AT&T and Verizon were
gouging for roaming services while AT&T and Verizon insisted that since
they incurred the capital expenditures of providing more ubiquitous
coverage that they should be able to charge a lot for it. T-Mobile was
especially upset that AT&T and Verizon were charging T-Mobile more than
AT&T's and Verizon's MVNOs were being charged; AT&T and Verizon argued
that their MVNOs were not using roaming simply to fill in gaps in
coverage in areas that would be expensive to expand coverage to (see
AT&T, Verizon challenge FCC's data roaming ruling that sided with
T-Mobile | Fierce Wireless or
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/at-t-verizon-challenge-fcc-s-data-roaming-ruling-sided-t-mobile/>.
Also understand that roaming data is often very limited because of the
high cost to the carrier. T-Mobile limits roaming data to 200MB per
month for postpaid accounts created after 11/15/2015 and less for older
accounts (see
<https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/domestic-roaming-data/>).
200MB is very little data if you're doing things like GPS navigation or
sending or receiving photos or video. While roaming is nice to have, you
really want a network with the most native coverage.
In the early days of mobile service in the U.S. there was a lot more
roaming between top tier carriers. Sprint roamed extensively on Verizon
and T-Mobile roamed extensively on AT&T. But this roaming was very
costly for Sprint and T-Mobile and roaming was limited in quantity and
eventually roaming agreements ended. When Sprint was acquired by
T-Mobile, all of the roaming that Sprint did on Verizon went away and
Sprint customers lost a great deal of geographic coverage that was not
replaced by T-Mobile.
What About 5G? The FCC Maps Show Only 4G
----------------------------------------
5G coverage is virtually always a subset of 4G coverage, at least for
mobile phones. 5G equipment is added to existing 4G cells to provide
more capacity and higher speeds. The exception are mmWave 5G cells used
to provide home broadband service (Verizon and AT&T are especially
active in this arena). mmWave 5G is very short range and cells are
usually placed on streetlight poles. You can see an example of the
difference in 5G and 4G service, for the Santa Cruz Mountains in
California, at <https://i.imgur.com/dEuUkuJ.jpeg>.
Issues with MVNOs
-----------------
While MVNOs often provide service at lower cost, there are some
drawbacks. MVNOs will usually not have roaming agreements with smaller
rural carriers so you won't get any coverage in those areas (like all of
Alaska for T-Mobile MVNOs, like Mint or Optimum) but also in some
popular rural tourist destinations, and even on some interstate
highways, in the lower 48. MVNOs will usually not have any provision for
international roaming (other than sometimes for Canada and Mexico).
MVNOs usually don't support eSIMs. Customer service on MVNOs can be a
nightmare. MVNOs do not subsidize phone purchases to the extent that
carriers do. Choose MVNOs carefully, keeping in mind the areas you're
likely to visit or go through.
Checking Network Coverage-Use the Tools from the FCC and WhistleOut
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to signing up for service, tourists should ensure that the network
that they choose will provide coverage in the areas that they plan to
visit. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a nice tool that
compares the coverage of the different networks. Go to
<https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map/>. You can
check the various boxes for the different networks and see how much more
of rural areas that are covered by AT&T and Verizon versus T-Mobile. You
can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage/>.
Checking coverage is important because foreign tourists to the U.S.
often want to visit not just big cities, places like State and National
Parks which are usually located outside of urban areas.
Note that while the FCC maps reflect 4G LTE coverage, 5G coverage is
essentially identical. No carrier has been installing 5G only cells,
except in the case of mmWave 5G, and mmWave has very limited reach. If
you go to the carrier's coverage maps you'll see that 5G coverage is
always a subset of 4G LTE coverage.
It often upsets T-Mobile aficionados when vast differences in rural
coverage are shown, but I feel that it's important to be honest about
the differences in networks since it's a matter of both convenience as
well as a matter of safety.
Network Speed, Coverage, and Quality
------------------------------------
"We're fastest." "No, we're fastest." "You have fake 5G." "Our 4G is
faster than your 5G." "We have the most 5G." "We have the most real 5G."
"Your coverage sucks." "No one needs coverage in Podunk, Idaho." "You
get free tacos if you choose us." "We have the happiest customers."
I received an email requesting that I add information regarding network
speed. Rather than parrot the absurd and conflicting marketing claims of
the carriers, I am adding the results of the most recent independent
surveys.
<https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021/>
* Data Speed: 1. AT&T. 2. Verizon. 3. T-Mobile.
* Reliability: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
* Accessibility: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
* Calls: 1. Verizon. 2. AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
* Texts: 1. Verizon & AT&T. 3. T-Mobile.
From J.D. Power: <https://tinyurl.com/JDPowerNetworkQuality/>
* Verizon was ranked first in every U.S. region
* T-Mobile was ranked second in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
West regions
* AT&T was ranked second in the North Central, Southeast, and
Southwest regions
It should be stated that small differences in data speeds are pretty
meaningless for mobile phone users. If you were using mobile data for
home broadband then you'd want to choose a carrier that has deployed
mmWave 5G since it provides data speeds comparable to fiber. But 4G LTE
versus low-band 5G doesn't have enough, if any, of a speed difference to
make a noticeable difference. T-Mobile has made a very big deal of the
fact that they have added low-band 5G to existing cells at a faster rate
than other carriers. Meanwhile Verizon is busy installing mmWave 5G
cells in cities, hoping to sell "wireless broadband" to compete against
Xfinity and AT&T fiber to the home. What matters most to mobile phone
users is coverage, not small speed differences.
It's also vitally important that people understand that Speed ¡Ú
Coverage. Recently, PC Magazine said that T-Mobile had the highest
average 5G speed (though not the maximum speed). But what they also
said, which is key: "And if you're out in the countryside and don't
often head to the city, T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you.
The carrier is doing great in the nation's biggest metro areas, but when
we look at small cities and areas away from interstate highways,
especially in the western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more
work to get better coverage." T-Mobile is the least expensive postpaid
carrier, and they also have the least expensive MVNOs, but there is a
definite trade-off of price versus coverage.
As to "reliability" that's a metric that many carriers claim, but you
really need to look to independent studies for an accurate gauge of
reliability. In fact, T-Mobile recently got into a little trouble
regarding this, and had to stop advertising that it had "the most
reliable network," see
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-cant-advertise-most-reliable-5g-says-nad.
I added several examples of coverage differences because often there are
"fanbois" of a carrier that will insist that "all carriers are created
equal," and get very upset when anyone points out any coverage
differences. Some fanbois insist that foreign visitors would be unlikely
to ever go outside of urban areas, where coverage is usually okay on all
carriers, but the reality is that foreign visitors often want to visit
places like state and national parks. So I've included a bunch of
examples of coverage differences that I've personally experienced.
* One area that I go through often is the Sierra Nevada mountains on
California State Highways 88, 4, 108, and 120, and the FCC map
highlights the very large differences in coverage in those areas; here
is a map comparing coverage in the central Sierras, a popular area for
<https://i.imgur.com/uBD7ZQA.png/>.
* One area we visit frequently is the southern part of San Mateo County.
In my younger days I used to do a lot of bicycling in this area, now
it's more hiking and road trips. Verizon has the best coverage of
course, but surprisingly T-Mobile beats AT&T in the town of Pescadero (I
recommend Duarte's restaurant <http://www.duartestavern.com/>). Sadly,
T-Mobile doesn't even have coverage on the major state highway, 84,
between La Honda and the coast. See <https://i.imgur.com/OgL844m.png/>.
* Another area I go through often is the San Mateo and Santa Cruz coast
on California Highway 1; here is a map comparing coverage in that area,
where Verizon is superior, AT&T is a distant second, and T-Mobile an eve
further distant third: <https://i.imgur.com/QOqnAVP.png/>.
* A very popular route for foreign tourists is the coastal road between
Los Angeles in San Francisco; here is a map comparing coverage in the
popular Big Sur area (bottom left): <https://i.imgur.com/ataZAOP.png/>.
* The Pacific Northwest, (Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and
especially the coastal areas) is another popular destination for
<https://i.imgur.com/qX5rz0Q.png/> where you can see the vast
differences in coverage, in the inland areas but especially along the coast.
* Someone on Reddit/NoContract inquired about service in Montana so I
added that map set as well, see <https://i.imgur.com/Jk6XmCs.jpeg/>,
* Yosemite is a place we visit one or two times per year, often staying
in the "Yosemite West" area (technically outside the park boundary but
you have to go into the park to get there). One time we arrived in a
snowstorm and the key to our lodging wasn't left out. Thankfully I had
Verizon service so I could call the management company. AT&T and
T-Mobile have no coverage (Sprint used to roam on Verizon, but no more).
Verizon had acquired a small regional carrier, Golden State Cellular
upon which they used to roam. See <https://i.imgur.com/9zJhPUq.png/>.
* An example of the the San Francisco Bay Area's "greenbelt," up to the
northwest corner of Marin County and Point Reyes National Seashore
(highly recommended), is at <https://i.imgur.com/BCRhffC.png/>, you can
see the gaps in coverage on AT&T and especially on T-Mobile.
* Muir Woods is another highly-recommended tourist destination in Marin
County and you can see how poor T-Mobile coverage is in that area, see
* This is part of the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties' greenbelt,
and again you can see the big advantage in coverage enjoyed by Verizon
* Here is the area around Pinnacles National Park (highly recommended)
* Someone I know lives in one of the mountain communities of the Santa
Cruz Mountains. I did a comparison of that area. You can see the huge
advantage of Verizon, and how poor T-Mobile is at
* I grew up in South Florida, and still visit, so coverage there is of
interest to me, see <https://i.imgur.com/SoWWEk8.png/>.
* Someone mentioned that their children were hiking between Loma Prieta
Peak and Mount Madonna so I did the coverage maps for that area, see
<https://i.imgur.com/0Nn3C2P.png/>. You can see how tremendously better
Verizon coverage is in that area. It's especially important to have
coverage when in areas away from roads. At the very least take along a
phone that's on a prepaid Verizon service.
* A huge park in Santa Clara County is Henry Coe. You can see the big
differences in coverage at <https://i.imgur.com/g61Ss5T.jpeg/>,though
even Verizon doesn't have complete coverage.
* We sometimes meet up with extended family members to hike in the east
Bay hills of the San Francisco Bay Area. See
<Loading Image...>. This is an area where you really want
to be on Verizon.
* Alaska is a very popular tourist destination. For a long time, of the
three nationwide networks, only AT&T had native cellular coverage in
Alaska. In 2013 Verizon finally deployed an LTE-only network in more
populated areas (initially LTE data only, but then VoLTE as well), and
roams in less populated areas. T-Mobile has no network in Alaska and is
100% roaming (direct T-Mobile subscribers only). These days, if
traveling to Alaska, it's best to use AT&T or an AT&T MVNO. AT&T has a
native network in more populated areas but also provides roaming that is
also available to their MVNOs. Verizon has an LTE-only native network
which provides very limited coverage for MVNO customers, though
Verizon's own postpaid and prepaid customers are able to roam (but not
Visible customers). T-Mobile has no native coverage at all so T-Mobile
MVNO customers will have no coverage. Both T-Mobile and Verizon offer
off-network roaming in Alaska, but not to prepaid MVNO customers. See
<Loading Image...>. This is another reason why, for
Alaska especially, Red Pocket's AT&T service can be the best choice in
terms of price and coverage, or H2O at higher cost.

[Andy Burnelli]

Which test URLs do you set for your Lost Internet Connectivity alerts?

Every day I test Android, Windows, and iOS apps, where today I was testing
Network and Internet connectivity apps to speak out your current status.

I have a custom wav which says "You Lost Your Internet Connection"
whenever a watchdog ping fails but I'm curious what test URL(s) you use?

Most of the apps I'm testing at the moment for reporting connectivity loss
have the option of a settable ping site, but some do not, such as these:
*Internet Status* by Infinities, 100+, free, ad-free, etc.

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Infinities.InternetStatus>
*Internet Status Message* by h2zonesp*, 10+, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.has.internetstatustoast>
*Check your internet connection* by Dogegames Freak, 50+, free, ad-free,

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.check.internet.connection.information>
Hence those apps are only testing for "network connectivity" and not for
"Internet connectivity" as they can be fooled by a router with no Internet.

However, these have settable site(s) to ping to test Internet connectivity.
*Internet Connectivity Tester* by Paul Rowe, 4.6, 10K+, free, ad free, etc.

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.boxhead.android.internettest>
*Internet Connection Alert* by Blue Spectrum, 5K+, free, ad free, etc.

<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rakapps.internetconnectionalert>
Where the former can set multiple sites, but the later allows only one URL.

Given you have an infinite choice of URLs to ping to test connectivity...
Which test URL(s) do you set for your Lost Internet Connectivity alerts?

[Andy Burnelli]

Post by Andy Burnelli
Which test URLs do you set for your Lost Internet Connectivity alerts?

I don't set any, I just glance at the internet icon on the taskbar.

So you are in effect using
www.msftncsi.com and dns.msftncsi.com
as your network connectivity checks

Thank you Andy not only for your purposefully helpful response but for the
added value of which domains are common Windows 10 Internet test domains.

I was ignorant of how Windows tested it, but my ignorance was cured by you!
1. NCSI performs a DNS lookup on www.msftncsi.com;
then NCSI requests http://www.msftncsi.com/ncsi.txt.
2. NCSI expects a 200 OK response header with the proper text returned.
The ncsi.txt file contains only the text of "Microsoft NCSI".
3. If the response is never received, or if there is a redirect,
then a DNS request for dns.msftncsi.com is made.
4. NCSI then sends a DNS lookup request for dns.msftncsi.com.
This DNS address should resolve to 131.107.255.255.
5. If the address does not match, then test reports that it failed.

Incidentally, for privacy, you can set up your own nsci server:
<https://blog.superuser.com/2011/05/16/windows-7-network-awareness/>

You probably know all this, but those domains are all in the registry:
*Network Connectivity Status Indicator* (NCSI)
[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet]
Note that "EnableActiveProbing" apparently turns NCSI on or off.
Also note "ActiveDnsProbeContent" === 131.107.255.255
And note "ActiveDnsProbeHost" === dns.msftncsi.com
And "ActiveWebProbeHost" === www.msftconnecttest.com
Concomitant V6 domains "ActiveWebProbeHostV6" === ipv6.msftconnecttest.com
etc.

For privacy reasons, Ghacks suggests Windows users change the
address which then means that the question I asked that Unsteadyken clearly
ignorantly ridiculed as not being a Windows issue - is as much a Windows
privacy concern as it is for Android. (That's always the case with such
people who don't understand anything about privacy across platforms.)
*Disable or customize Windows' Internet Connection test to improve privacy*

<https://www.ghacks.net/2014/02/07/disable-customize-windows-internet-connection-test-improve-privacy/>

Note there are apparently other options such as "ipv4 checksum offload"
which can be set to "Tx & Rx Enabled", "Rx Enabled" or "Tx Enabled".
Disable-NetAdapterChecksumOffload -Name "*" -TcpIPv4

I will test by setting 'Internet Connectivity Tester' to both domains:
http://www.msftncsi.com
http://dns.msftncsi.com
And by setting 'Internet Connection Alert' to just the one domain:
http://www.msftncsi.com
But that assumes port 80 which you didn't mention the port Windows uses.

After you gave me the "ncsi" term, I found the NCSI Group Policy Editor:
Computer Configuration > Policies > Administrative Templates > System >
Internet Communication Management > Internet Communication Settings >
Turn off Windows Network Connectivity Status Indicator active tests =
Enabled/Disabled

As always with you Andy, you know far more than I ever will, but I'm happy
to report that you've edified me about what domains Windows uses to
determine network connectivity which I can test now on Android.

I was about to reply to the unprepossessing unsteadyken with a nastigram but
your polite correction of his chilish attitude negated me needing to do so.

[Andy Burnelli]

Why bother monitoring?

Why do I bother monitoring the Internet connection?

The question came up initially a few days ago when "micky" (who is also here
on Windows) asked for a free ad-free app that speaks a warning that "your
cell signal just dropped" and that verbally advises "your cell signal just
returned" when his phone in his pocket loses and regains tower connectivity
while hiking in the backwoods, where monitoring such things is a safety
concern.

Nobody knew the answer so, being the purposefully helpful kind-hearted
resourceful person I am, I dug around and it took even me a few hours to
find and test a good set of free ad-free gsf-free google-free highly rated
often downloaded app combinations which eventually resolved that issue:

1. You first need to create the text to speech warning alarms/notifications
2. Then you need to find an app that will test the cellular connectivity
3. And then that app has to be able to be set to speak your custom warnings

All using free ad-free apps that _anyone_ can use, as I often tell JP
Gilliver is a requirement since _all_ my kind-hearted tutorials are always
intended to greatly benefit everyone who wants to have the power we have.

Given Usenet is a team sport where volunteers pitch in where they can,
Steve, being an EE, kindly tested it inside an aluminum foil Faraday cage.

With that "lost cellular signal" problem resolved...

During the hours of testing I did out of the goodness of my heart for micky,
I found a few "Internet" testing tools, where they would use either the
Wi-Fi or the Cellular connection (or both, usually settable) as their test.

Of *those* tools, there were two kinds that I found in my searches:
A. Those that simply tested "network" connectivity
B. Those that more deeply probed "Internet" connectivity

Those that probed for actual Internet connectivity, require a domain.

As is almost always the case with cross platform Internet connectivity
solutions, I figured the Windows users must also have solved this problem.

Hence, my question to the two groups at large.

Is your connection so unstable?

Is my (one?) connection so unstable?

It is when hiking in the backcountry where signal is often flaky at best.
*Kids going hiking for three days from point to point in the mountains*
<https://groups.google.com/g/sci.geo.satellite-nav/c/KDtny69KRvg>
"USA backcountry hike from Mount Madonna to Loma Prieta involving
topographic geoPDF quadrangles & iOS/Android GPX tracks & waypoints"

However, on any platform, knowledge of Internet connectivity is crucial.

For example, I get my Internet over WISP because I'm so far in the Santa
Cruz mountain range that there is no infrastructure such as no cable, no
water, no natural gas lines, no sewage lines, and even a 40-acre zoning so
that nobody can put more than a single home on 79 acres of land out here.

They do that to keep the land pristine, of course, but my point is that
Internet connectivity is crucial when your WISP AP is 6 miles (10km) away!
<Loading Image...> AP is 6 miles away

So, to the point of this thread, we run on the radio the default watchdog.
<https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg> Typical range is about 10 miles

Which tells us when the radio has an issue (along with indicator lights).
<Loading Image...> Rocket M2 signal strength

As do the Android (but not iOS) devices using excellent debug utilities.
<Loading Image...> Wi-Fi debug channel graphs
<Loading Image...> This doesn't exist on iOS
<Loading Image...> But Android has many debuggers

Even extending to a variety of cellular signal strength debugging tools.
<Loading Image...> Wi-Fi & Cellular debugging

Given we all have dozens of acres of land, our pools, stables, barns, sheds,
and even our driveway gates are far from the house, so inside our homes we
typically have redundant routers that can handle switching multiple WISPs.
<Loading Image...> Peplink Balance 30 router

This is a photo of just _some_ of my home access points.
<Loading Image...> My home Wi-Fi APs

Where you'll note we also have cellular radio repeaters as shown here:
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg> My home Wi-Fi APs

In addition, alignment of our antennas is critical for good connections:
<Loading Image...> Align Mikrotik radio antenna
<Loading Image...> Align Ubiquiti radio antenna

We are usually radio savvy in the mountains, just as we get good at water
pump technology and horses and four wheel drive repairs and septic systems
such that we often run tests on the spectrum inside and outside of wi-fi.
<Loading Image...> Wi-Fi analysis
<Loading Image...> Spectrum analysis
<Loading Image...> Many Wi-Fi debug apps

Nonetheless, we're old men who do just fine with what we have at hand.
<Loading Image...> Desktop in shed with MikroTik

Where, like farmers do with old tractors, we learn to repurpose WISP CPE
<Loading Image...> WISP router transceiver

Which, even when bought new, cost about the same as crappy consumer routers
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg> Parts costs ~$150

Yet, for the same price, we can connect to a home AP hundreds of feet away
<Loading Image...> MikroTik -40dBm

For example, the barn desktop doesn't have a Wi-Fi card so out the Ethernet
port is connected a wireless wi-fi pseudobridge courtesy of MikroTik.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg> Desktop MikroTik pseudobridge

With distances to the barn being a hundred yards from the home router, you
begin to think about how to assemble a network out of available spare parts.
<Loading Image...> Desktop MikroTik WISP radios

Not desktops, but the laptops at the pool also require long range equipment.
<Loading Image...> Horns extend laptop Wi-Fi range

Where in the pool shed, we keep a spare linksys router & horn extender.
<Loading Image...> Laptop horn to router

Sometimes requiring a dish to throw the laptop signal a few hundred yards.
<Loading Image...> Laptop to dish antenna

Which, over time, gets extended even further with the addition of a switch.
<Loading Image...> Laptop horn to switch

And, with that switch, we can then add another more powerful access point.
<Loading Image...> AP

Although sometimes we set them up as a repeater instead of as an AP alone.
<Loading Image...> AP or Repeater

If not just as a basic bridge to bridge the computer to the SOHO router.
<Loading Image...> Bridge

But often the horn alone has enough transmit power & receiver sensitivity:
<Loading Image...> Laptop to horn

The point being that with all these radios and these distances, we kind of
do sort of get a disconnect on our desktop computers every once in a while
(even with radios connected to them capable of going over 10 miles LOS).

[Andy Burnelli]

Why bother monitoring? Is your connection so unstable?

I agree, I too am fortunate in having a fair connection
(not sure it's as good as yours, but its good).
On the whole, I'd say more reliable
than my electricity supply (I live in a rural area,
or at least what passes for one in SE England!).
I tend (if something's not working) to look at the light
on my router, and if it's not blue, I know things aren't right.
Or, I try
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ if I seem unable to connect
to a specific site; if I can't get downforeveryoneorjustme itself,
then I begin to think things are awry.
(Most times - and that not often - I find a restart of anything
up to my PC and/or router restores normality.)

I have a small util that just pings bing.com.
If I think I have issues I just launch the utility and see what's up.
ping -4 -c 5 bing.com

I gratefully thank JP Gilliver and Big Al for their kind advice,
where I too sometimes reset the power by disconnecting all my devices
starting the furthest away from "the wall" and moving toward "the wall"
(which is how I tell my wife to do it when I'm traveling away from home).

Given I have multiple wired and wireless repeaters, bridges, and access
points, there's a certain "perfect sequence" which is never achieved in
practice, particularly considering the lag time necessitated in bootup.

In theory, if not always in practice, I boot everything back up starting
with the devices closest to "the wall", such as the rooftop transceiver
(which would be a "modem" for most of you) and ending with the PCs & phones.
a. I start with the rooftop transceivers & outside & indoor access points
c. then move to the cellular repeaters and femtocells (of which I have both)
b. including multiple connected routers, switches, and the client bridges
d. culminating with then end devices being Windows, Linux, iOS & Android.

As end points, usually the iOS devices have the most trouble switching
between the many access points as I can hold in my hand an Android phone
& an iPad and see the iPad _not_ connecting as I walk about the home and
yard while Android does. I brought two of the affected iPads to the
Apple Store but the blue shirts (at that time they didn't wear red shirts)
didn't even know what a decibel was (they confused dBm with megabits per
second just like Jolly Roger & nospam do).

In keeping with the kind-hearted purposefully helpful connection watchdog
advice that Big Al offered, if you need to have a watchdog on your cellphone
for not only Internet connectivity (which the opening post described),
you can also easily set up a watchdog for your cellphone cellular signal.

1. You first need to create the text to speech warning alarms/notifications
2. Then you need to find an app that will test the cellular connectivity
3. And then that app has to be able to be set to speak your custom warnings

I'll write up a post separately for the best free ad-free gsf-free
Google-free (often open source) apps that do the job above, where I'll
add a nicety of the ability to tap once on an icon shortcut inside
your network folder which will enable/disable (or just enable, or just
disable) a specific access point that you tend to access frequently.

This feature is especially useful for people who have privacy setups
like I do where my home access points do not broadcast for privacy reasons
(not for security reasons!) to keep the dumb "other people" from uploading
my GPS location and unique access point BSSIDs to Google/Mozilla/Kismet/etc.
public databases simply as a result of them not knowing how to configure
their phones as they drive by my home.

Given my SSID's are "hidden" (again, don't tell me it's not for security
as I know that), I also have my devices set up to NOT reconnect when the
signal is lost (otherwise they shout out the SSID as they _look_ for APs,
which defeats the whole privacy point of having a hidden SSID in the main).

Given my phones don't _look_ for access point SSIDS for privacy reasons
when away from home, it's nice to have a single-tap icon inside my network
folder which makes the connection for me when I'm at home (where it is needed).

This is getting long so I'll put more detail in another kind-hearted
purposefully helpful post where these are the free tools I tested recently.

*Cellular-Z* by JerseyHo, 4.0, 1,700 reviews, 100K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

*Fake GPS location* by Lexa, 4.6 out of 500K reviews, 10M+ downloads
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegps>

*Tell Me - Text To Speech* by Simply Complex Apps, 4.1, 500K+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplycomplexapps.ASTellme>

*Cellular Connection Monitor* by Pavel Borzenkov, 4.0, 10K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>

*Internet Status* by Infinities, 100+, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Infinities.InternetStatus>

*Internet Status Message* by h2zonesp*, 10+, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.has.internetstatustoast>

*Check your internet connection* by Dogegames Freak, 50+, free, ad-free,
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=info.check.internet.connection.information>

*Internet Connectivity Tester* by Paul Rowe, 4.6, 10K+, free, ad free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.boxhead.android.internettest>

*Internet Connection Alert* by Blue Spectrum, 5K+, free, ad free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rakapps.internetconnectionalert>

*Wifi Shortcuts+* by OpenGait.NET 3.8, 10K+ downloads, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.opengait.wifishortcuts>

[Andy Burnelli]

Here's another bit of purposefully helpful detailed kind-hearted advice for
the Usenet volunteer team, which is that most of the Android graphical Wi-Fi
and Signal Strength tools _require_ the GPS receiver radio to be turned on,
which you don't need for the tool, but for a Google requirement (let's not
go into why Google requires GPS as it's easy to prevent if you know how).
<Loading Image...> graphical radio debuggers

To save others time, and bearing in mind I only suggest the best and most
often downloaded and the highest rated free ad-free usually gsf-free always
google-free tools in the extensive Android APK arsenal in order to maintain
all my tutorials at the level that anyone can install them at this instant,
here is a link to just one of the many Wi-Fi and Cellular debuggers I use.
*Cellular-Z* by JerseyHo, 4.0, 1,700 reviews, 100K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

But I should note there are _plenty_ of graphical debuggers I use daily.
<Loading Image...> Variety of graphical debuggers

Although it should be noted, for privacy reasons, I don't use a Google
Google Play client, but an open source Google Play client which scrapes the
exact same repo as does Google Play (and which doesn't require a login on
the device which is a critical privacy feature iOS completely lacks).
<https://auroraoss.com/>

Given privacy is _always_ a concern, on Android the free ad-free mock
location app I prefer is the one below which Android settings accept.
*Fake GPS location* by Lexa, 4.6 out of 500K reviews, 10M+ downloads
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegps>

Which, coincidentally, has the option to "spoof the Wi-Fi provider".
<Loading Image...> Spoof Wi-Fi Provider
If you're on iOS, tough luck (again), as iOS lacks this kind of privacy.

Moving forward, the next thing you might want is a text-to-speech converter
that saves _directly_ to a wav file suitable for the notification channel
(or for the alarm channel, which isn't muted when the phone is silenced).
*Tell Me - Text To Speech* by Simply Complex Apps, 4.1, 500K+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplycomplexapps.ASTellme>

Once you have the notification (or alarm) wav file saved, then you need an
app that will speak when you lose (or regain) your cellular connection.
*Cellular Connection Monitor* by Pavel Borzenkov, 4.0, 10K+ installs, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simple.axanor.simpleconnectivitymonitor>

Of all the apps I tested, that wasn't perfect, but it was the best, and to
their credit, Steve and micky tested it and found it to work as advertised.
<Loading Image...> Testing alert apps
<Loading Image...> Play Store client ratings
<Loading Image...> Custom verbal alert

When you have that set up, you might want to add a shortcut to a widget
(yes, I said a shortcut to a widget) that will connect and disconnect from
any of your many access points at a single touch of a button.

I have this need more than do most people because not only do I have many
access points sprinkled about my home and property such as these below.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg> Cellular repeater & home Wi-Fi APs

But I also have my SOHO routers set up to NOT broadcast the SSID to protect
my gps location and unique BSSIDs from being uploaded to Google & Mozilla
and Kismet (et. al) public databases (and no, "_nomap" doesn't do that).

Doing that isn't for security but for privacy, but then you _also_ have to
set up each device to _not_ automatically try to reconnect when the signal
is lost, which means that having a shortcut icon to connect & disconnect is
a really nice click-saving feature given my devices are set for privacy.

Given I am extremely well organized on a computer or phone as shown here:
<Loading Image...> Android organization
<Loading Image...> Windows organization

You'll notice there is one homescreen page (ever!) on any device, even iPads
<Loading Image...> One home screen
(Note it's impossible to set up an iOS homescreen the way you want to!)

For this reason, I didn't want AP on/off widgets that wouldn't slide _into_
a homescreen folder, which is what this neat free app allows you to create:
*Wifi Shortcuts+* by OpenGait.NET 3.8, 10K+ downloads, free, ad-free, etc.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.opengait.wifishortcuts>

[Andy Burnelli]

Personally I have to wonder why micky is going off onto trails to go
hiking, but has his cell phone on. Isn't the point of venturing into
wilderness to get away from the din of civilization, not to have a phone
making noise and interrupting the experience?

I think micky made it clear the point is 911 _emergency_ communications.

But even outside an emergency, there's nothing wrong with sending updates to
your parents, your grandparents, your children, your mom, your aunt, etc.

Look at this thread which shows a perfectly valid use of a cellphone,
although, this perfect apropos usage doesn't require "cellular" signal.
*Using a cell phone for navigation & bearings during backcountry hiking*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/5c_iaS01eHM>

Oh yes, there's the emergency feature of a phone to call when you need
help. Um, handholding you in the wilderness takes away from the risk of
you going there. What would be the point of bungie jumping if there
were a quater-mile square 100-ft high air pad below? If he really is
enjoying wilderness, and he is turning off his phone to use only for
emergencies (especially since the phone's battery is crucial for that
intended emergency-only use, not to blather to friends or family), why
would he need an app to tell him when he's out of tower range while his
phone is off?

While some of the above may be tongue-in-cheek chastising micky, I will say
that my battery on my free Android phone is a whopping 5 amp hours, which,
let's be frank, lasts forever even with the radios running full time.

When we go camping, and if any kids are attending, we say before leaving
that they either agree to keep their phones off their during the entire
trip, leave them at home, or they stay home. The only noise I want to
hear when camping or hiking are the birds screaming to wake me before
the sun rises. I don't even want the people on the trip talking since
the point is to be in nature, not yakking away which can be done back
home.

That's fine but micky was asking about _emergency_ coverage, and not about a
staid quiet simple family camping trip where the worst thing that happens is
you get bitten by a mosquito.

I, for one, hike with climbing gear and clippers, where there is no way to
hike out here without ending up in a steep ravine, where you then have to
climb back out.

It's not the same thing as a picnic table tentsite campout for sure.

Just imagine how stupid it would be to go a scuba trip to suffer the
boobs that managed to use their phones underwater. Gee, how was the
trip? Oh, so-and-so texted me about their cat having kittens. Um, what
did that have to do with the scuba trip? Oh, I saw videos of the
Ukraine invasion. Um, did you see anything of the ocean when diving?

I think the most fantastic use of a smartphone while hiking is
a. It's fantastic for photos (and for communicating them to others)
b. It's fantastic for navigation (and for identifying stellar objects)
c. It's fantastic for plant & animal & sound identification
etc.

Here's a screenshot of just my backcountry "nature" folder, by way of
example, where you can see a compass, a bearing indicator, various geoPDF
apps, starmaps, heading calculators, gps-to-sms emergency apps, mushroom
identifier, bird sound identifier, plant identifiers, etc.
<Loading Image...>

[Andy Burnelli]

For the Usenet permanent record, there's a similar backcountry thread in
terms of _emergency_ calling capability going on in this cross reference:
*Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/3H9ConAZfcc>

Below is one relevant snippet containing useful offline app information...

There has to be coverage from at least one company.
If no company has any coverage, you are stuck, isolated.

While "coverage" is a broad term, and as such is correct, what really
matters most is the signal strength (although there are quality factors)
where the minimum signal strength also depends on the frequencies used
and a host of other typical conditions (such as weather & noise levels).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg>

*What is a Good Cell Phone Signal Strength?*

<https://www.accu-tech.com/accu-insider/what-is-a-good-cell-phone-signal-strength>
"Signal strengths can range from approximately -30 dBm to -110 dBm.
In general, anything better than -85 decibels is considered a
usable signal."

*What is Good Signal Strength for a Cell Phone?*
<https://www.wilsonpro.com/blog/what-is-a-good-cell-phone-signal-strength>
"Signals better than -85 decibels are considered usable and strong,
and you'll rarely see a signal stronger than -50 dBm.
At the other end of the spectrum, a signal that's weaker than -100 dBm
is likely too problematic to be useful - resulting in dropped calls
and incomplete data transmissions."

*What's considered "good" cell signal?*
<https://powerfulsignal.com/cell-signal-strength/>
"Excellent signal strength on the RSRP scale is anything stronger than
about -85 dBm; poor signal strength is anything less than -115 dBm.
If you're receiving less than -120 dBm RSRP, you'll probably have
difficulty making phone calls, sending or receiving text messages,
or using internet data.

Another factor to keep in mind is the quality of your cellular connection.
How much usable signal you are receiving vs. the amount of noise
(unwanted disturbances of the signal). There are ways to measure cellular
signal quality (RSRQ and SINR), but that's beyond our scope.

Just be aware that you can have strong cellular signal but still have
slow data and dropped calls because your signal quality is poor."

*What Is Strong And Weak Signal In DBm For 3G Vs. 4G?* (older)

<https://www.signalbooster.com/blogs/news/differences-between-3g-1x-vs-4g-lte-signal-strength-in-dbm>
Excellent: -70 dBm on 3G is considered excellent signal strength versus
-90 dBm on 4G or LTE network which is also excellent.
Good: -71to-85 dBm on 3G is considered good.
So is -91 to -105 dBm on 4G/LTE.
Fair: -86 to -100 dBm on 3G is fair and
-106 to -110 dBm on 4G/ LTE is also fair.
Poor: -101 to -109 dBm on 3G is poor and
-111 to -119 dBm on 4G is poor.
Dead Zone: -110 dBm on 3G network is practically a dead zone,
So is -120 dBm on 4G LTE network.

[Andy Burnelli]

For the Usenet permanent record, there's a similar backcountry thread in
terms of _emergency_ calling capability going on in this cross reference:
*Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/3H9ConAZfcc>

Below is one relevant snippet containing useful offline app information...

Nice you decided to pay an actual carrier for cellular service, and that
carrier gave you a repeater (booster) and femtocell for free.

I'm well aware that you're one of the very few people on this ng who has the
capacity to handle detail, so I won't spare that detail for you below.

However, my main observation remains the same as it was, assessed by me as:
*If you have any Internet, you have _fantastic_ coverage in your US home!*

Every major carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) in the USA, to my knowledge
and experience, will give you a repeater and/or a cell tower for free.

For example, here is my cellular repeater (aka booster) in the pool shed.
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg> Repeater (booster)

And here is my Ooma & femtocell connected to an old router in a side office.
<Loading Image...>

I have both, but my house is unusual in some ways as it's built to survive
an earthquake (given the fault line is very close indeed); but I still do
very much agree with you that you must pay at least one of the major
carriers for the basic service first and foremost, as you duly noted.

But you can't have much _less_ public infrastructure where you live than I.

Where I live the government doesn't want any more people living here, so
they limit our land to 40 acres, which means that anyone with under 80 acres
can only put a single house on the lot. It goes without saying that we don't
have the concept of public water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, or even
cable.

Like _everyone_ else in the USA, we do have telephone lines & electrical
power lines (but don't get me started on why virtually everyone installed
built-in propane gas generators due to PG&E unreliability & quite a few are
dropping off the grid entirely, via solar & batteries, as PG&E is unreliable
(we've had an outage a month for a day each for the past six years where
last summer we had three power outages a week on average for the entire
summer, consistently).

My point in explaining that is our infrastructure is likely almost as bad as
any others in the US due to intentional rules and unintentional neglect.

Given all of us have generators and that it's a given the telephone
connection is too far away for DSL, most of us dropped telephone long ago
(where I dropped Verizon because the taxes were half the total charges).

So all we have is Internet - and even that comes from 20 miles away by road,
but only about 6 miles as the crow flies given we are all on WISP radios.
<Loading Image...> Typical WISP range

My point is if I have _fantastic_ cellular service inside my house, given if
I turn off my repeater (aka booster), I _only_ have the femtocell tower
inside the house, why can't anyone in the USA who pays a postpaid bill to
any of the three carriers have the same as I do.

I'm not special. I am simply miles away from the nearest cellular tower.

That's
not true in many cases. To get a booster means the carrier has to
qualify you are in a low-coverage area.

I agree with you that they're not gonna give you your own booster or cell
tower inside your house if you _already_ have good signal. That's a given.

Although, I must mention that I _used_ to have crappy cellular signal until
T-Mobile gave me a set of half-price 5G iPhones and free 5G Android phones.
<Loading Image...> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone

Now my 5G signals _outside_ the house are fantastic as shown in these shots.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps* 5G speeds at home

But those fantastic 250Mbps speeds only happened with the advent of 5G tech.

Even so, 5G doesn't penetrate the house well (which is also solar protected
so signals bounce off the windows & doors which all have a metal haze
deposited on them, which is required by local code, I'm told).

Inside the house I use the femtocell tower & the cellular repeater signal,
along with a variety of powerful transceivers acting as APs and as bridges.
<https://i.postimg.cc/4xgmTTgm/wifi01.jpg> Multiple access points

To get a femtocell means you
have to get the one your carrier provides, and not all do.

In my experience, all three majors in the USA provide a free home tower.

For example, I called Verizon about a year ago (and I wrote it up at
the time) for one neighbor where Verizon tried to charge her a shipping and
handling fee and I was emphatic she should get it for free, and they gave it
to her for free.

On AT&T on another call they wanted a $400 deposit and I told AT&T that the
customer was theirs for a long time and wasn't going anywhere, so the
supervisor waived the fee.

Most recently for another neighbor, she called T-Mobile and they gave her a
hard time and she patched me in and they told me they no longer provide the
free wi-fi routers or the free boosters (aka repeaters), but they still
provide the femtocell tower, but at a $25 one-time charge. I was livid with
them, and after asking them to check with a supervisor I got T-Mobile to
credit her $25 for the $25 charge that they now charge - so she had to give
them her credit card, but they credited her bill the same amount so it was a
wash. (To T-Mo's credit, they did a similar $20 charge-credit for me when I
replaced my free Samsung under warranty just a few weeks ago, and I wrote
about that too - so that everyone benefits from knowing what they will do.)

My experience is the following:
a. The three carriers all provide free femtocells if you have bad signal.
b. They probably no longer provide free wi-fi routers or free repeaters.
c. They may ask for a deposit or a S&H charge but you can have them waive it

If you're using an MVNO, I don't know what they will do, as I don't know
anyone in the flesh who uses them (although I'm aware Steve uses them so ask
him).

Those using
MVNOs (e.g., Tracfone) are *not* customers of the actual carrier to
which the MVNO user is assigned, so they don't qualify for free, or even
paid, boosters or femtocells. Your experience does not dictate what is
available or usable to all cellular users.

I get four lines from T-Mo with unlimited almost everything, including
unlimited data, unlimited text, unlimited MMS, unlimited USA calls, etc.
(the only things limited is the 5GB/month/line of hotspotting & tethering)
for $25/month/line. I even get two iPads with 200MB/month free SIM service.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

You never get what you pay for, by the way, as stupid people get less than
what they pay for and only intelligent people get what they pay for. (Don't
even get me started on Apple's ungodly profits if I need to prove that
point.)

Stupid people will make stupid decisions, Vanguard; but my point was that if
you know what I know, then you have no business complaining about coverage.

If you have Internet in the USA, you have _fantastic_ coverage in your home!

While I'm all for saving money, I don't know _anyone_ who uses an MVNO, but
as I said, Steve, who always shills for Verizon but doesn't actually pay
them, is an expert in MVNOs and so you should be asking him what they
provide as I can't tell you what they provide.

However, if the MVNO has crappy signal, and if they won't give you a free
cellular tower for your home, my suggestion would be to change MVNOs as I'm
a believer that lousy service is a tax on the stupid, not on smart people.

Your point that stupid people buy crappy service is fine, but don't blame
the crappy service given I have experience with all three major providers.

[Andy Burnelli]

For the Usenet permanent record, there's a similar backcountry thread in
terms of _emergency_ calling capability going on in this cross reference:
*Are there places where you can't even make emergency calls*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/3H9ConAZfcc>

Here is another related post for the permanent record to provide to others.

Personally I have to wonder why micky is going off onto trails to go
hiking, but has his cell phone on. Isn't the point of venturing into
wilderness to get away from the din of civilization, not to have a phone
making noise and interrupting the experience?

I think micky made it clear the point is 911 _emergency_ communications.

But even outside an emergency, there's nothing wrong with sending updates to
your parents, your grandparents, your children, your mom, your aunt, etc.

Look at this thread which shows a perfectly valid use of a cellphone,
although, this perfect apropos usage doesn't require "cellular" signal.
*Using a cell phone for navigation & bearings during backcountry hiking*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/5c_iaS01eHM>

Oh yes, there's the emergency feature of a phone to call when you need
help. Um, handholding you in the wilderness takes away from the risk of
you going there. What would be the point of bungie jumping if there
were a quater-mile square 100-ft high air pad below? If he really is
enjoying wilderness, and he is turning off his phone to use only for
emergencies (especially since the phone's battery is crucial for that
intended emergency-only use, not to blather to friends or family), why
would he need an app to tell him when he's out of tower range while his
phone is off?

While some of the above may be tongue-in-cheek chastising micky, I will say
that my battery on my free Android phone is a whopping 5 amp hours, which,
let's be frank, lasts forever even with the radios running full time.

When we go camping, and if any kids are attending, we say before leaving
that they either agree to keep their phones off their during the entire
trip, leave them at home, or they stay home. The only noise I want to
hear when camping or hiking are the birds screaming to wake me before
the sun rises. I don't even want the people on the trip talking since
the point is to be in nature, not yakking away which can be done back
home.

That's fine but micky was asking about _emergency_ coverage, and not about a
staid quiet simple family camping trip where the worst thing that happens is
you get bitten by a mosquito.

I, for one, hike with climbing gear and clippers, where there is no way to
hike out here without ending up in a steep ravine, where you then have to
climb back out.

It's not the same thing as a picnic table tentsite campout for sure.

Just imagine how stupid it would be to go a scuba trip to suffer the
boobs that managed to use their phones underwater. Gee, how was the
trip? Oh, so-and-so texted me about their cat having kittens. Um, what
did that have to do with the scuba trip? Oh, I saw videos of the
Ukraine invasion. Um, did you see anything of the ocean when diving?

I think the most fantastic use of a smartphone while hiking is
a. It's fantastic for photos (and for communicating them to others)
b. It's fantastic for navigation (and for identifying stellar objects)
c. It's fantastic for plant & animal & sound identification
etc.

Here's a screenshot of just my backcountry "nature" folder, by way of
example, where you can see a compass, a bearing indicator, various geoPDF
apps, starmaps, heading calculators, gps-to-sms emergency apps, mushroom
identifier, bird sound identifier, plant identifiers, etc.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y0MZd55k/nature01.jpg>

Ask me about any of those as I've tested them all with my one-strike and
you're out rule (they can't require any login, for example, or have ads).

[Andy Burnelli]

Contacting emergency services if you, or someone you come across,
needs help.

Every app I suggest on this ng is almost always going to be free, ad free,
login free, often gsf free & almost always works offline, just so you know.
[It takes more effort but any idiot can suggest an app with ads and login
requirements but it takes intelligence to find the best apps that don't.]

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for smartphone usefulness hiking,
let's say while you were moseying along, you run across an injured person.

Instantly, you need to know an accurate coordinate location which apps like
this GPS-to-SMS app are designed to do for you at a single button tap.
*GPS to SMS - location sharing* by Tralchonok Labs, 100K+, 3.6, free
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.perm.trubnikov.gps2sms>

Downloading trail maps, especially in areas you're unfamiliar with.

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for downloading useful park maps,
what's _extremely_ useful is to download a PDF (even better, a geoPDF) of
the local park you're hiking in, as it may have more detail than the USGS
topographic geoPdfs, and that gives you the ability to use _that_ park map
with your GPS navigation on your phone (if you use the right apps).
*Avenza Maps: Offline Mapping* by Avenza, 4.7, free but limited to 3 maps
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Avenza>

*Paper Maps* by Abbro, 5K+, 2.8, free ad free & unlimited number of maps
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.abbro.androidmap>

You can even draw your own track on a geoPDF and your navigation software
will let you know at all times where you are in relation to the track.
*All-In-One Offline Maps* by Psyberia
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.psyberia.offlinemaps>

Finding the trailhead in the first place, though with offline mapping
you can still do this.

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for finding old trailheads,
what's really neat is downloading _historical_ geoPDFs from the USGS, which
will show you where you are in relation to long lost cities & trails.

For example, in the Santa Cruz mountains is a reservoir over an old town
from the 1940s, where you can tell where you are on the water with this.

Or you can find the old location of silver mines and cinnabar mines by
loading a geological USGS 1:24K topographic map (they're always free).
<https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/>

Finding other hikers in your party if you get separated

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for finding the rest of the group,
one way to do that _without_ having to log into anything is the GPS-to-SMS
app listed above where you simply create a group and schedule periodic
sending of the messages (or send them ad hoc) of your location.

I don't use these but there are plenty of friend-location apps such as:
*Whizz (SMS Locator)* by Green Machines
<https://whizzap.wixsite.com/whizz/downloads>
Note the Google Play app is just a placeholder.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.greenmachines.way.whereareyou>

Keeping track of the distance you're traveling and the number of steps

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for step counting & profiles,
I tested most of the free pedometer apps where very few had the privacy you
need which is required for all apps (if they need a login, they're no good).

The best one I found is from the privacy team at Secuso, which is this one:
*Pedometer (Privacy Friendly)* by SECUSO Research Group
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker>

One week a month my wife is on-call and needs to be reachable 24/7. We
can still go hiking even on those days but she has to be in an area with
coverage. Fortunately her employer provides her with an iPhone on
Verizon so it would be rare for her not to have coverage in the areas we
hike.

To add value to what Steve kindly noted for local coverage, there are
crowd-sourced cellular coverage map apps, but I don't use these apps myself:
*Coverage Map* by RootMetrics
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rootmetrics>