You’re Being Lied To About 5G: Hype vs. Reality

Detecting Phantom Coverage: How Starlink Can Win Over Frustrated Mobile Users

Phantom coverage occurs when a carrier’s map shows service in a location but users still experience weak signal, slow data, or dropped calls. This guide explores how Starlink can identify and solve these gaps to win over dissatisfied mobile customers.

What Is “Phantom Coverage”?

What State Has the Worst Cell Phone Coverage? A Comprehensive Analysis

In today's digital age, staying connected through our cell phones has become a necessity. Whether for work, social interactions, or emergencies, reliable cell phone coverage is crucial. However, not all states in the United States offer the same level of service. In this article and video, we will conduct a comprehensive analysis to identify the state with the worst cell phone coverage, exploring the factors contributing to its challenges and offering insights for users in that region.

How Accurate Are Cell Phone Coverage Maps?

Cell phone coverage maps can provide a general indication of the expected coverage in a given area, but their accuracy can vary. 

Why all the Lies About Cell Phones On Airplanes?

Using Cell Phones on Airplane Myth

Cell Coverage in Yellowstone National Park

Yellowstone National Park, located primarily in Wyoming but extending into Montana and Idaho, is a vast and geographically diverse wilderness area known for its natural wonders, geysers, and wildlife. However, due to its remote location and rugged terrain, cellular coverage in Yellowstone National Park can be limited or unreliable. Here's some information regarding cell coverage in Yellowstone National Park:

Verizon Has 5X More Lies Than AT&T

Verizon Dead Zones Map Showing Where They Lie

AT&T to FCC: "I Am Not A Crook"

AT&T continues to lie about the T-Mobile acquisition that should not be allowed.  Here are 5 lies from their merger submission to the FCC.     

#1) AT&T (NYSE: T) does not consider the current incarnation of T-Mobile USA to be a real competitor and points to smaller rivals like MetroPCS Communications (NYSE: PCS), U.S. Cellular (NYSE: USM), Leap Wireless (NYSE: LEAP),  Cellular South Inc. and Cincinnati Bell Wireless (NYSE: CBB), who combined have about 60% of T-Mobile USA’s customer base.  Read more.

#2) AT&T also claims to lack enough spectrum to launch UMTS in some markets. Spectrum shortage exaggeration.

#3) AT&T claims channel pooling for GSM services will increase capacity by as much as 15% in some areas.     How to relieve 3G data congestion.

#4)  T-Mobile's removal from the marketplace will not have a significant competitive impact.  AT&T says it is more focused on Verizon and Sprint than on T-Mobile USA, and AT&T too is seeing increased competitive threats from rapidly growing mavericks like MetroPCS and Leap and other providers.  Wireless competition

#5)  No mention of CDMA vs GSM handset competition

Carriers Releasing WiFi Security Propaganda to Promote 4G

4G Wireless Propaganda is a PR strategy aimed at influencing the attitude of consumers towards believing the accessing data over WiFi is not secure and 4G is.  The carriers have to start releasing articles like his one "Amazon cloud can help hack WiFi networks - expert" to promote fear into the minds of wireless consumers.  Carriers are not presenting the facts about WiFi because it would be a disservice to their business models which are essentially competing with free.   Carriers are hoping to change the groundswell of WiFi users in order to influence the industry towards their expensive and often inferiors solutions for data connectivity.  WiFi vs 4G is now in the early stages of political warfare and I hope that all geeks understand this and read every "fear" article with a grain of salt.

We attending CES this week and 4G is now starting to get heavily promoted to consumers but I am not seeing a groundswell of people that are convinced their pricing models are going to hold up.  I am a bit of a contrarian which it comes to 4G being the next product for carriers to boost their margins and expand their customer base.  Does 4G have any credibility when 3G still sucks?  Here is an article on the 4G BS and some other posts that will help you understand our position on the topic of 4G vs Free WiFi and carriers promote LTE by discounting the reliability of WiFi.

Free WiFi Hotspots Growing 5X Faster than Cell Towers

There are 72,000+ US hotspots growing at an average rate of 40% per year.  Theses hotspots are located at restaurants, train stations, airports, military bases, libraries, hotels, hospitals, coffee shops, bookstores, fuel stations, department stores, supermarkets, RV parks and campgrounds, public pay phones, and other public places. Many universities and schools have wireless networks in their campus.  Below is a list of 80,859 US cell phone towers growing at around 8% per year and the 14 companies that manage them.  One major US carrier Verizon is not included on the list because they are not actively pursuing co-location opportunities.

Rank - Towers - Company - Stock Symbol / Owner
1 - 22,321 - CrownCastle.com - $CCI
2 - 20,594 - Americantower.com - $AMT
3 - 10,792 - Att.com/towers - $T
4 - 8,588 - Sbasite.com - $SBAC
5 - 7,000 - T-mobiletowers.com -
6 - 3,700 - Gtpsites.com - Macquire Group
7 - 3,058 - Mobilitie.com
8 - 3,000 - Towerco.com
9 - 489 - Pegasustower.com
10 - 350 - Insitewireless.com
11 - 310 - Diamondcomm.com
12 - 305 - Subcarrier.com
13 - 250 - Horvathcommunications.com
14 - 102 - Tarpontowers.com

Verizon's Arrogance Now Rules the Air

According to Boy Genius - Verizon dropping “Can you hear me now” from marketing campaigns? This horrendous marketing campaign for a new even more egotistical slogan.  Can You Hear Me Now is now "Rule the Air - Verizon".  According to this USA today article the advertisement was a hit with potential consumers back in 2004.  Verizon might be the most arrogant company on the planet and it permeates throughout the management team.  These two comments below are very typical from all employees throughout the company . . .

VZW Rep Blog Comment:  Look we employees really don’t give a nuns c*nt about you customers a.k.a transmitters. In fact, when we finish up with you on the floor we go back to the inventory room and make fun of you and talk about how your wife was giving me the f*ck me eyes lol Then she took my business card when you weren’t looking. Anyway, we offer you premium services, you’re going to be paying premium prices. If you don’t like that, go to t-mobile you cheap f*cks. So tired of reading comments from our whiney customers on here. Stfu and pay up or leave, we don’t need you.  We are the best cell service available. You will do what we feel fit. Accept that or leave our service. Stop coming in to stores and b*tching about prices of phones. Stop asking for free sh*t, we are not a non profit organization. Buy some accessories, I don’t want to hear your cheap skate shpeil about how you can get a car charger online for five bucks. Meet me in the middle here and I will pull out of your wife after she texts me asking to meet up when your working. If you don’t, I’m going to leave you a slimy present, all though you’ll just think she’s all wet for you lol.

This time its going to come back in bite them in the ass and its going to be free Wi-Fi that is going to do it as they begin to role out expensive LTE.  Verizon won't rule the air very long when wireless technology researches perfect the much needed Wi-Fi "hand-off" capabilities.  There will soon millions of open Wi-Fi networks around the world and it will draft the cell phone towers.

What Does 1G 2G 2.5G 3G 3.5G 4G 5G Mean?

With the announcement of the new iPhone 4 there is a lot of confusion about what is 3G and 4G.  Here is a great video which explains the evolution of the technology and what AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint use on their networks.  The first iPhone 3G used a technology called EGDE and the new iPhone 4 is using the the HSPA technology.  Here are the protocols explained so that when someone says they have a 4G iPhone you can correct them.

Generation - Definition - Technologies - Speeds
1G - Original analog cellular for voice (AMPS, NMT, TACS) 14.4 kbps
2G - Digital narrowband circuit data  (TDMA, CDMA) 9-14.4 kbps
2.5G - Packet data onto a 2G network (GPRS, EDGE) 20-40 kpbs
3G - Digital broadband packet data (CDMA, EV-DO, UMTS, EDGE) 500-700 kbps
3.5G - Replacement for EDGE is (HSPA) 1-3 mbps
4G - Digital broadband packet data all IP (Wi-Fi, WIMAX, LTE) 3-5 mbps
5G - Gigabit per second in a few years (?) 1+ gbps

FCC Could Ban Cell Signal Boosters = Bad Idea

People Don’t Seek Solutions Unless There Are Problems!

Comments on the RCR Wireless Article FCC to address cellphone boosters, jammers and is the FCC losing its' authority and credibility based on this court ruling?

The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a law that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are deployed by a wireless operator (DCZ:  Wireless operates hate signal boosters b/c they are not under their control)  or with the consent of a wireless operator, a move that could impact thousands of end-users already owning such devices.  (DCZ:  What problem are they trying to solve that the network operators have not dealt with for years?)

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before the FCC addresses an ongoing controversy within the wireless industry and could impact devices like MagicJack (DCZ: this product is not a booster its VoIP.  However, they have a product called FemtoJack under development) and other femtocell solutions, as well as local and state governments that want to be able to use cellphone jammers to prevent prisoners from unauthorized use of cellphones. (DCZ:  Or schools who want their kids paying attention to the teacher)  Depending on whose argument you believe, the eventual ruling could even have an impact on net neutrality rules.  (DCZ:  I don't see how this applies to Net Neutrality)  One proponent of signal boosters and jammers said that making boosters illegal won’t address the products already in the market, nor will it stop the sale of signal boosters.  (DCZ:  There are a handful of big companies and thousands of people employed by them with hundreds of thousands of devices already on the market.)

Wireless industry trade association CTIA in 2007 filed a petition for a declaratory ruling at the FCC, asking that it outlaw the sale and use of any device that can enhance or impair cellphone calls. (DCZ:  Might have worked under the previous corrupt Bush Administration)  The petition was a surprise to some third-party retailers, who called RCR Wireless News at the time and thought the story had to be wrong. Therein lies the crux of the problem: a cellphone booster can enhance coverage for a customer, but also has the potential to interfere with someone else’s signal (DCZ:  How often and how can they prove this?). Yet, cellphone boosters have been marketed to carriers and end-users alike as a way to improve the cellular signal in areas where coverage is less than satisfactory – and the reality remains that cellphone coverage in some locations is spotty.  (DCZ:  Carriers need to get their act together with Femtocells first before they decide to outlaw something like this. Signal boosters provide a lot of value in the car.)

The FCC’s definition of signal boosters is fairly broad as it includes amplifiers, repeaters, boosters, Distributed Antenna Systems, and in-building radiation systems that enhance CMRS signals or Part 90 signals. CTIA is asking that the commission rule that companies must have an FCC license to operate a signal booster or have the consent from an FCC licensee (i.e., operator), and that the sale and marketing of devices to unauthorized parties (i.e., end-users or commercial building owners) is illegal.

CTIA also says that wireless microphones, jammers, and new products like the MagicJack femtocell device also are threats to the network.  (DCZ:  What happened to let entrepreneurs create technology to help the industry progress?)

“Unlike wireless handsets, which are under the control of the wireless licensee’s base station, signal boosters cannot be controlled by wireless licensees. However, it is clear that the commission’s rules require carriers to control and govern the use of signal boosters and amplifiers. In fact, this control contemplated in the commission’s rules exists for very good reasons. Signal boosters, because they are not controlled by the base station, do not operate at the lowest possible power. Rather, these devices are intended to operate at much higher power, which raises the noise floor, harming spectrum efficiency and causing interference that leads to degraded or dropped calls unless the devices are properly installed and overseen by the carrier,” CTIA said in comments on the NPRM.

“To address the harm caused by unauthorized signal booster operation, the commission must affirm its existing requirements, which prohibit the sale or marketing of signal boosters to unauthorized users. Currently, many manufacturers and retailers market and sell these products to end-users with the knowledge that these devices do not and cannot comply with the commission’s licensing and interference control obligations. Under FCC rules, the use of signal boosters is only permitted by licensees or parties authorized by licensees. However, illicit sale and operation of these devices will continue to proliferate – and will be impossible to effectively enforce – if the commission does not take prompt action to affirm these requirements.”

Not everyone agrees. Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna, said a blanket “make them illegal” mandate doesn’t solve the problem. It will just force end-users in need of a solution to buy products overseas. “People don’t go out seeking a solution unless there is a problem.”

Howard said some of his clients are hospitals that have needed coverage but not been able to get satisfactory coverage from the carrier. Instead of a blanket mandate, the FCC should force signal-booster manufacturers to tighten the design specifications. He’s also advocated that a registry be created where people can register their signal booster with the FCC so in the event the signal booster is affecting the network, the carrier can know who or what is causing the problem. Melamed also joked in an interview with RCR Wireless News that he is a “persona non grata” within the wireless carrier community.

Wilson Electronics in its filing with the FCC argued that mobile amplifiers should not be subject to the same rules as larger, traditional fixed power boosters. Wilson also said the mobile boosters, designed for personal use in a car, for example, are an example of net neutrality initiatives at the FCC that are designed to allow any device to attach to the network.

CTIA disagrees with that assessment, as well as comments filed by The DAS Forum that recommend a code of conduct is followed, rather than more regulation.

Both CTIA and Howard agree that poor-quality boosters can cause problems. But Howard argues that not allowing U.S. companies to sell boosters that meet FCC certification standards will only lead people and businesses to buy poorer quality boosters overseas. Signal boosters are sold throughout the rest of the world, he said; the controversy only is occurring in North America.  (DCZ:  Pointing the finger in the wrong direction)

Jammer issues

But cellphone boosters are only half of the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking. The commission is also reviewing the sale of cellphone jammers, which block signals. Jammers can only be sold to federal authorities under the way the law reads today. Melamed argues that state and local authorities need to be able to use jammers, especially in a society where cellphones are used to remotely detonate bombs and are the No. 1 device illegally snuck into prisons. However, the FCC may not be the final authority on the use of cellphone jammers at the local and state levels. The Senate in October passed the Safe Prison Act, which allows the director of the federal bureau of prisons or the CEO of a state to seek FCC approval to deploy cellphone jammers in their jurisdictions to block wireless coverage in correctional facilities.

Jon Stewart & Rachel Maddow Take On Net Neutrality

Jon Stewart Takes On "Net Neutrality"

Jon Stewart took up the issue of 'net neutrality' and Senator John McCain's efforts to create one of those ironically named pieces of legislation that sounds like it is going to deliver something good -- in this case 'Internet Freedom' -- but would actually make the Internet suck out loud, forever and ever. As Stewart explains, everything on the Internet moves through what former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens famously called the 'series of tubes... at the same rate.' As Stewart explains, 'If you've got a packet of information from a major corporation like Google, that information gets exactly the same treatment as a packet from a little start-up company like

All of which makes sense -- even the part where people would want to see John Stewart's head on Mario Lopez's body carnally impaled by an onrushing unicorn. That's what 'net neutrality' allows for. But telecoms have been lobbying for changes in those rules so that Internet service providers would have the leeway to privilege their own content over the content of other sources by slowing or blocking access. In this cause, telecom lobbyists have found a friend in John McCain, author of the 'Internet Freedom Act.'

STEWART: The "Internet Freedom Act of 2009." Now I know it sounds like that bill is the opposite of what its name implies in the way that, say, George Bush's "Clear Skies Act" gutted environmental regulations or Larry Craig's "No Handjobs For Me, Thanks Act" -- which oddly enough allocated a million dollars in federal funding for... and I'm quoting here, "handjobs for Larry Craig." But it's not! What McCain is proposing is that AT&T and Verizon be given "freedom" to control what information passes through the Internet. Information like: John McCain is the number one recipient of donations from the telecom industry and its lobbyists for the past three years, that I looked up on Google, and it loaded pretty fast!

As Stewart points out, there's a hidden motive behind everyone who promotes net neutrality! And that is, naturally, advancing a radical socialist agenda by controlling the Internet! Set the telecoms free! Surely we can trust them!

Rachel Maddow, Boing Boing Editor On McCain And Net Neutrality

The Wiki for Cell Phone Coverage Complaints

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia also started in 2001, has rapidly grown into the largest reference website on the Internet. The content of Wikipedia is free, written collaboratively by people from all around the world. This website is a "wiki", which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Dead cell zones operate under the same "wiki" principles however it uses a database to easily contribute and search for information.