Forum Discussion
T-Mobile coverage map vs. FCC Coverage map ... with T-Mobile provided data
As a point of notice .. many have claimed this in the past. I have even written about T-Mobile's coverage maps and its overly 'positive' coverage where none seems to exist.
The FCC has in the past 6 months created a new coverage map site, and those looking for specific local coverage may wish to validate areas of issue with .. the FCC’s maps, which use carrier provided data.
I have a couple of cases in point. Some that have had issues for as long as I've had service with T-Mobile. FCC's map pretty much indicate it.
Eg. Main Street Cambria (West Village) + Park Hill + Happy Hill
Note: FCC's coverage map claims 'outdoor' coverage, and for the town of Cambria .. is quite accurate. Also, you'll have to zoom in A LOT to get to see deadzones vs. percentage coverage.
Just as a current point of notice, the FCC's map is good for 'limits' of where service exists, more than what you may actually get. Eg. n41 → n71 → LTE isn't always easy to control on a device (easier on Samsung devices), but the cutoff of LTE → No Service is one that is fairly accurate in my travels. This may be more of use for those using TMobile Home Internet for service of how poor/good service is in your area. As this is listed as 'Outdoor Stationary', it should be seen as 'its as good as you're going to get' coverage.
In the few areas where I get 'No Service' (whether it is Cambria, CA, Gaviota State Beach CA (was 2G, now 'No Service'), or Sierra Highway from Sleepy Valley to Acton … the 'No Service' on the FCC is the closest that T-Mobile has provided to accurate coverage. Unfortunately, much of these 'No Service' areas are shown as coverage.
I highly recommend for those with coverage issues to use the FCC map over T-Mobiles. Also, you can compare AT&T and Verizon. Lastly, these are kept up to date.
