Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: FCC map: Large areas not covered by mobile broadband - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

FCC map: Large areas not covered by mobile broadband

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:30 PM

Post your comments for FCC map: Large areas not covered by mobile broadband here
0

#2 User is offline   jpellino 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 224
  • Joined: 27-March 05

  Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:30 PM

Uh huh. Have the FCC ever driven through oh, say, Wyoming? You can drive for several hours without seeing a gas station, much less worry about being able to tweet in real time. And Maine? There's a chunk of Maine the size of Connecticut that's served by four "real" roads coming in from N/S/E/W that were simply gated off in winter. Couple hundred loggers and some Mainers "upta camp" getting Red Sox scores a moneymaker? Bid away!
0

#3 User is offline   icerabbit 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,530
  • Joined: 28-March 02

  Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:40 PM

[edit] missed that first link. Clicked on the American Roamer link.

I'm interested in a few places around Maine & Florida where I've experienced coverage issues with VZW. They're head and shoulders above AT&T but I think the towers are still spread too thin and the capacity too low.

Looking at the map, I think they were a bit optimistic in a few areas missed a few spots. I recognize some places as pretty dead, but other spots may officially have 3G but it is really isn't there or isn't usable.

This post has been edited by icerabbit: 10 February 2012 - 02:44 PM

0

#4 User is offline   tln1ltj2 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 25-August 09

  Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:52 PM

Let's hope this money isn't wasted like rural broadband millions were in getting OpenRange off the ground only to watch them fold. They spent far too much of their government money paying outrageous salaries and building posh houses for the higher ups. There wasn't enough left in the funnel to drip out after all the cream was taken off the top.
0

#5 User is offline   Inkling 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 07-December 06

  Posted 10 February 2012 - 05:16 PM

Comments on the Comments:

jpellino is right. There are parts of the U.S. where the touch of man is rather light. It's not cost effective to give those areas 3G coverage, particularly given that the costs of all that unused service will be borne by those who do use 3G and would rather it be cheaper. That's exactly tln1ltj2's very valid point.

icerabbit might look around in some of those unmapped dead spots. Forests aren't good for radio waves operating at the near-microwave frequencies of most 3G data. And fixing that is nigh unto impossible short of a blimp high overhead. You simply can't get a tower higher than all those 120+ foot trees around you. Even satellite radios have trouble in those locations.

My own comment is that quite a few people who live in those dead-to-3G areas either lived there to get away from an always connected society or they could care less about such things.

I doubt these inside-the-beltway FCC bureaucrats really understand all this. They're too caught up in thinking we should be like flat, people-dense Holland. They want to mandate this and require that will little sense of the value of it all.

And don't get me off on all this money being wasted. We're running trillions in the hole each year and DC wants to blow away yet more money on political boondoggles like this.
0

#6 User is offline   omrudi 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 04-December 07

  Posted 10 February 2012 - 06:57 PM

As jpellino notes, there are many desolate areas where there is no need of service. However I am one of those living in upstate NY where there are huge swaths of uncovered terrain, including where I live with a medium density of population. It seems like $300 million is a drop in the bucket, but I do hope it's put to good use! Here's a more informative map: http://www.cellmaps.com/
0

#7 User is offline   Rowanova 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 10-February 12

  Posted 10 February 2012 - 07:42 PM

I live in the western Us, and have traveled through many more areas of this part of the world. A huge percentage of the areas identified in black (no cell service) are wilderness areas, National Forest lands, BLM lands, States Forests, ect, ect. In other words, they are uninhabited, and will remain that way.

Thereby rendering this enire article a mute point.
0

#8 User is offline   n4hhe 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 305
  • Joined: 13-June 05

  Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:19 AM

Broadband? Plain old voice coverage is not as good as this map indicates broadband availability. Perhaps one should get the basics covered first?
0

#9 User is offline   Block_Head 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 24-October 07

  Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:05 PM

Wow, Alaska!
0

#10 User is offline   TeaEarleGreyHot 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 1,425
  • Joined: 29-September 05

  Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:40 PM

The whole notion that 3G is "broadband" is a joke most of the time anyway. In the modest city where I live I typically can not achieve over 100 kbps (up or down) on my Verizon 3G hotspot, according to Verizon's "speed test" site. Most commonly I'm running at around 60 kbps down. Which is around dialup speed. And for hours at a time, sporadically during the month (including an hour today) I could not even acquire a 3G signal, the phone was showing "1k" and I couldn't even load a speed test page. Yes, my hardware is fine, and when traveling, sometimes I get up to 1 Mbps, and it's great. But there is too much congestion in my home neighborhood. Boo-hiss!

It's scandalous, really! When we're paying for service, as I am, there should be a guaranteed minimum, and we should be credited when that is not delivered. Otherwise it's simple retail dishonesty and the phone companies get away with it!

PS: Verizon's helpline investigated this a few months ago, and said it's simply too much usage at my local cell tower. They plan to do nothing about it!

This post has been edited by TeaEarleGreyHot: 11 February 2012 - 03:45 PM

0

#11 User is offline   herbert harper 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 15-January 08

  Posted 11 February 2012 - 05:37 PM

As a resident of Montana, I'm torn. I know the value of all of us having the best access, but $300 million will not make my part of the map look any different. If you eliminate wilderness and other unoccupied public lands there wouldn't be much to see at that scale. A closer look shows counties the size of Connecticut with unserved populations in the dozens or low hundreds; probably less than some counties in Connecticut proper. Getting broadband to the last 201 people in Petroleum County will cost an exceptional amount of money, and somehow I doubt that this a culture which is demanding last-mile 3G at taxpayer expense. Does the cost make sense? It's an interesting issue I will have to think more about.
0

#12 User is offline   Macnutjohn 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,011
  • Joined: 07-December 09

  Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:49 PM

Where I live in north-central Indiana, there is no 3G available. And our area isn't indicated on that map either. It's frustrating to hear the carriers pushing 4G when here in the heart of the country, we can't get anything better than Edge. You walk into the AT&Terrible store and there are 4G posters plastered all over the walls, yet they don't even have 3G available.
0

#13 User is offline   jeffeyer 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 09-September 02

  Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:57 AM

It's good that it is not spreading around in our country. Be nature and peace...

In fact, bees and Canada geese have hard time to navigate where they want to go due the airwave interfere them in the air.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users