Blog | Page 3 of 33 | Coverage Critic

Verizon Now Has Full Access To Its C-Band Spectrum

August 15, 2023August 15, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

Verizon shared a press release indicating it’s now able to use of all of the C-Band spectrum it purchased licenses for two years ago:

Today, Verizon announced that it now has access to the total amount of 5G C-band spectrum awarded at auction in March 2021 – four months ahead of schedule. This allows Verizon to more quickly expand and enhance its 5G Ultra Wideband network nationwide, more than doubling and, in some markets, tripling the 5G bandwidth available to serve customers.

Verizon already deployed a lot of hardware that can use the newly available C-Band spectrum. Improved network quality should hit consumers almost immediately. Here’s another bit from the press release (emphasis mine):

Verizon has been deploying equipment that is capable of the full 200MHz of bandwidth, so with a mere software update, customers will start to see the effects of this dramatic increase in bandwidth in the immediate next few days and weeks.

Verizon’s network has increasingly been plagued by congestion issues. I hope the new spectrum will have a material affect on the performance seen by subscribers in some congested areas.

Screenshot from Version 2 of Coverage Critic's coverage map

Coverage Map V2 Beta

August 14, 2023August 14, 2023 Christian 2 Comments

A beta of version 2 of Coverage Critic’s map is now available.

I’ll discuss the changes in more detail when the map comes out of beta, but the new version includes:

A more recent round of data from the FCC
Data for two more networks (Dish & US Cellular)
New features accessible from the settings menu

Additional features and bug fixes will be added before the map comes out of beta, but I wanted to share something now.

What Happened To Opensignal’s Reach Metric?

August 11, 2023August 11, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

Say a country has two cellular networks. Network A offers coverage nearly everywhere. Network B offers a much smaller coverage footprint. You could crowdsource data from ordinary subscribers on the networks and track what proportion of the time users are connected to their networks.

If you compare the availability metrics for both networks, I’m unsure what insights you glean. Conventional crowdsourcing doesn’t involve random samples of people within a country. Even if Network B is crummy and has a small coverage footprint, people who use it will tend to live within its coverage footprint. People living elsewhere will opt for Network A and its larger coverage footprint. It’s a classic case of selection bias.

Even if the people you’re crowdsourcing data from represent a random sample of people within a country, a 95% availability metric wouldn’t indicate that a network covers 95% of the country’s land. People concentrate in certain areas. Although urban areas comprise a small fraction of the US, 80% of people live within them.

Opensignal’s Conundrums

Opensignal is arguably the leader in crowdsourced assessments of networks. To Opensignal’s credit, it acknowledges the limitations of its crowdsourced availability metrics:

Our availability metrics are not a measure of a network’s geographical extent. They won’t tell you whether you are likely to get a signal if you plan to visit a remote rural or nearly uninhabited region.

At some point, Opensignal started publishing another coverage metric called “Reach.” As far as I can tell, Opensignal only used this metric in the US for its 5G assessments.¹

Here’s how Opensignal explains Reach:

5G Reach measures how users experience the geographical extent of an operator’s 5G network. It analyzes the average proportion of locations where users were connected to a 5G network out of all the locations those users have visited.

Reach addresses part of my concern with the crowdsourced availability metric. Interestingly, the metric doesn’t appear in the most recent reports on 5G performance in the US. I wonder why.²

Boost Infinite’s Networks

August 10, 2023August 10, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

Dish, the company behind Boost Infinite, is building its own network. The company also has deals that could allow it to put customers on either T-Mobile’s network or AT&T’s network.

Initially, Boost Infinite put most (perhaps almost all) subscribers on AT&T’s network. Recently, the company quietly shifted to placing most new subscribers on T-Mobile’s network.

Rumors suggest that a small handful of subscribers are getting multi-network service that involves Dish’s own network and at least one partner network. For the moment, multiple-network service is probably limited to a few markets and/or retail channels.

Give Consumers Clarity

Boost Infinite’s website tells prospective customers they’ll get coverage from one of America’s top networks.

While it’s true that Boost Infinite service will use “one of America’s top networks”, it’s a nearly meaningless statement. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon are America’s top networks. Basically every carrier relies on one of those networks.¹

While carriers are often prohibited from explicitly stating the names of their partner networks, they sometimes come up with some kind of nomenclature that makes it clear to consumers that there are different underlying networks. For example, US Mobile brands its Verizon-based service as Warp 5G and its T-Mobile-based service as GSM. When carriers use this kind of nomenclature, subscribers that have a good experience can recommend a specific network to their friends or neighbors.

I’d like to see Boost Infinite adopt something similar.

Visible Brings Back $25 Unlimited Plan

August 1, 2023August 1, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

For much of 2023, Visible offered its standard unlimited plan for $25 per month. The deal was framed as a promotion or limited-time offer, but Visible pushed back the promotion’s end date a number of times.

In July, Visible ceased extending the offer. The cost of the standard plan shifted to its supposed normal price of $30 per month. As of today, the $25 per month rate is back, and it’s no longer being framed as a limited-time offer.

Will Visible+ Come Down To $35/Mo?

For most of the time Visible offered its standard plan for $25 per month, the company also offered the premium Visible+ plan for $35 per month (a $10 discount from the regular price of $45).

As of today, the Visible+ plan still comes with a $45 price tag. Through August 31, there’s a promotion running where customers who bring their own device and use a coupon code can get the plan for $35 per month. I wonder what we’ll see happen when that promotion ends. I’m a big fan of Visible+, and I’d be pleased if it becomes broadly available at $35 per month.

Astound Mobile Launching On T-Mobile’s Network

June 14, 2023June 15, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

Update: Some more complete info about plans and pricing is available on Astound’s website.

Internet service provider Astound Broadband announced it will launch an MVNO running over T-Mobile’s network. Astound Mobile will heavily rely on infrastructure from Reach.

Like the other carriers operated by cable companies, Astound Mobile will limit its offerings to the company’s internet customers. Rollout of the new service across Astound’s customer base will be gradual:

The service will be exclusively available to Astound home internet customers who are eligible residents in Massachusetts and Corpus Christi, Midland-Odessa, Temple, and Waco Texas in June. The company plans to continue to launch Astound Mobile in its remaining markets by the end of the year.

Today’s announcement was fairly vague about Astound Mobile’s offerings:

Astound will offer two ‘pay by the gig’ plans and two unlimited talk and text plans. Customers can choose a plan whereby they only pay for the data they need or they can expand to an unlimited plan with data allotted to each user.

Poking around Astound’s website, especially in legal details and disclaimers, I found a few hints about plans for Astound Mobile. I also found a few contradictions, so all this should be treated with a grain of salt.

Astound Mobile’s Plans

One disclaimer gives clues about the data allotments on the four plans:

After monthly threshold is reached, 1.5GB & 3GB plans data will be capped; Unlimited & Unlimited Plus, speeds reduced to 768 Kbps.

Since it’s possible to reach a threshold on the unlimited plans, I expect Astound will follow the industry norm of labeling some plans “unlimited” in a somewhat bogus fashion. To Astound’s credit, 768Kbps speeds are far more usable than the 128 – 256Kbps throttles often seen on other MVNOs’ “unlimited” plans.

On another page, I found a somewhat different description of Astound’s plans:

The 20 Gigabyte plan offers high-definition (‘HD’) streaming; the 1 Gigabyte and 3 Gigabyte plan offer solely non-HD streaming.

Combining these two disclosures, I presume the threshold after which Astound throttles speeds is 20GB on one or both of the unlimited plans. I’m unsure what to make of the discrepancy around the size of the plan with the smallest data allotment. Will turn out to be 1GB or 1.5GB?

Devices

On one page of legal details, Astound emphasizes this text:

Astound Mobile does not provide Mobile Devices – Customers must bring their own Mobile Devices to use Astound Mobile Services.

However, “Device financing (through third party)” is listed as a feature in an FAQ item on Astound Mobile’s web page about coverage.

Other Details

Astound’s website gives a few more details, though I wouldn’t treat any of this information with confidence:

International roaming outside of the US, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands appears unavailable.
WiFi calling is listed as a feature on the coverage page.
A legal document explains that only Astound Broadband Internet customers are eligible to sign up for mobile services, but subscribers are not “required to maintain the Astound Broadband Internet plan to continue Astound Mobile Services”.

Abstract image representing the internet

Fixed Wireless Availability – Accuracy Issues

June 13, 2023June 13, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

Earlier today, I tried to order Verizon’s 5G Home Internet. According to Verizon’s website, my address was eligible for service.

A few minutes after placing my order, I received an email explaining that my order couldn’t be completed. Here’s an excerpt:

Dear Valued Customer,

Thank you for choosing Verizon. We were unable to complete the order you recently submitted.

We are sorry, but after further review, it was determined that we are unable to provide home internet service at your address at this time. Prior to qualifying service for any specific location, Verizon evaluates a number of factors to ensure we can provide new and existing customers the best possible experience.

The availability of home internet products may change in the future so we encourage you to stay updated on your eligibility status by visiting https://www.verizon.com/5g/home/ . You can click the “check availability” button and sign up for alerts to stay in the know on when eligibility in your area may change.

According to the FCC’s Broadband Map, my address is eligible. According to the initial screening system on Verizon’s website, my address is eligible. Yet Verizon has some secondary system that quickly and automatically rejected my address. I’m unsure why these different systems are out of sync.

The bit about staying updated on eligibility via verizon.com/5g/home/ isn’t helpful. The info on that page was wrong. That’s why I got far enough to get my rejection email.

Fixed Wireless Availability Conundrums

With fixed wireless services like Verizon 5G Home, network congestion needs to be carefully managed. Perhaps Verizon is regularly tweaking the availability of 5G Home Internet based on how much spare capacity the network has in different areas. While tweaking of that sort wouldn’t explain why one of Verizon’s systems clears my address while another rejects the address, it could explain the mismatch with the FCC’s data.

With the FCC only collecting availability data twice per year, recent changes in availability may not be captured. I’m not sure that explains my experience, but it’s a meaningful limitation of the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection, regardless.

It may be rare for a cable internet provider to suddenly decide a region is oversubscribed and reject new subscribers. However, that kind of behavior will be more common for internet providers using technologies that aren’t resilient in the face of congestion (e.g., fixed wireless and satellite). With fixed wireless and satellite internet gaining market share, this problem will become more relevant.

The Coverage Critic Coverage Map

May 31, 2023May 31, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

Earlier this year, I quietly released an interactive coverage map that shows the strength of cell signals from the three nationwide networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile). I’ve now polished the map to a point where I’m ready to make an official announcement.

If you want to cut to the chase, try the coverage map now. The rest of this post details how the map works, its limitations, and improvements I’ll release going forward.

Map Structure

The information surfaced in Coverage Critic’s map is richer than what’s typically found on carriers’ own maps.

Here’s what the map looks like when representing T-Mobile’s coverage in Vail, Colorado:

Each hexagon is the size of a few city blocks. Darkly shaded hexagons indicate where T-Mobile’s network is predicted to have a strong signal. Lighter shades indicate weaker signals. No coverage is expected in areas in white.

Compare Networks

Map users can toggle between different networks and technologies with a single click.

After selecting a specific hexagon, users are presented with details about coverage within the hexagon:

With a few more clicks, users can compare coverage within the hexagon across the major networks:

Zoom Levels

In rural and remote areas, the map can be informative from a zoomed-out perspective. However, in dense cities, the zoomed-out view becomes chaotic due to a plethora of cellular antennas and tall buildings that block signals.

In big cities, I recommend initially entering an address or the name of a neighborhood. The map will automatically zoom to the selected spot at an appropriate zoom level.

Data Sources

The base data underlying the maps comes from the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection program. I adjust the data from the FCC based on the results of in-house testing.

For the moment, the adjustment procedure is relatively simple, but I have more ambitious plans in the works. In the future, I’ll share more about my in-house testing and my intention to incorporate data from third parties.

Limitations

The map shows predicted signal strengths rather than on-the-ground measurements of signal strength.

While signal strength is a decent proxy for service quality, it’s imperfect. As the map evolves, I’ll account for additional factors that affect performance.

Known Issues

The map has a few major issues:

Coverage data is unavailable in Michigan and Alaska
Verizon’s LTE coverage is not correctly represented in portions of the Northeastern United States
Coverage information is sometimes missing around bodies of water and state borders

Upcoming Improvements

At the moment, the map draws on FCC data that reflects networks’ coverage as of mid-2022. A newer data set, reflecting coverage at the end of 2022, was released yesterday. As I build a new version of the map incorporating the latest data, I’ll also resolve some of the issues.

Additional networks, including US Cellular and Dish, will be included in an upcoming version of the map.

Acknowledgments

The map relies on the work of an awful lot of other people. I’d particularly like to thank the FCC’s Broadband Data Task Force, the folks that build and maintain the H3 geospatial indexing system, and contributors to OpenStreetMap.

I’d also like to thank my audience for helping me get this far. I’m enjoying the experience as Coverage Critic evolves into a more useful product.

Reflectons on Verizon’s myPlan

May 18, 2023May 18, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

Today, Verizon launched revamped plans with a new approach called myPlan. While existing subscribers are, for the moment, able to stick with their old plans, new postpaid subscribers have just two options for unlimited plans:

Unlimited Welcome – The Basic Plan
Unlimited Plus – The Premium Plan

Previously, Verizon offered six different plans with varying features.

Add-Ons

With many of Verizon’s old plans, services like Disney+ or Apple Music were bundled in by default. Verizon’s new plans unbundle these services. Subscribers can instead pick and choose (or entirely opt-out of) various perks priced at $10 per month. Some of the perks are access to third-party streaming services. Other perks involve add-on features Verizon offers to enhance subscribers’ plans.

A few examples:

Disney Bundle (Hulu, Disney+, ESPN+)
Apple Music Family
100GB Mobile Hotspot Add-On
3 TravelPass Days (for international roaming)

Elsewhere, I dive in the weeds comparing Unlimited Welcome Vs. Unlimited Plus. For now, I only want to comment on the shift in Verizon’s approach.

Are The New Plans Good For Consumers?

The reactions to Verizon’s new plans have been pretty negative on Reddit and Twitter. If you try to make a myPlan subscription that’s more-or-less equivalent to some of Verizon’s old plans, you’ll likely end up with a higher price tag than those attached to Verizon’s old plans. Commentators are largely correct that the new structure of Verizon’s plans conceals a price increase.

Still, there’s something praise-worthy about Verizon’s shift. Things were getting out of hand with six different plans. Normal consumers couldn’t easily make sense of the offerings and compare all the different features. The plans didn’t even have a straightforward hierarchy from the lowest-cost plan to the most premium plan.

There’s something odd about cell phone services automatically bundling in a bunch of vaguely related third-party services or add-on features (many of which won’t be used by the typical subscriber). I prefer this new scenario where people who want something can pay a reasonable price to add it on, and others can opt-out.

Transparency Update

April 28, 2023April 28, 2023 Christian Leave a comment

I’m not unbiased. I have conflicts of interest. Throughout Coverage Critic’s history, I’ve tried to be transparent and let my audience make their own judgments about whether I should be trusted.

Old Approach

Previously, my transparency page usually listed both:

Names of companies I had financial relationships with
Details about the terms of those financial relationships

Here’s how I once described the relationship I had with the wireless carrier Ting:

Ting offers me a $25 commission for every new line of service activated.

Initially, Coverage Critic’s financial relationships with cell phone services all followed standard payment structures that were matters of public knowledge. For example, Ting ran an affiliate program that offered the same $25 per line rate to other website owners.

When I started Coverage Critic, it made sense for me to participate in carriers’ standard arrangements. From the perspective of cell carriers, my audience was too small to justify the time or effort involved in individualized negotiations.

New Approach

With Coverage Critic growing in popularity and influence, I’ve reached the scale where I can sometimes negotiate my own arrangements rather than taking whatever standard deal a company offers.

I’m hoping to preserve my editorial integrity without sacrificing too much of Coverage Critic’s revenue. My new approach isn’t perfect, but I think it strikes a good balance.

Here’s the gist:

Any company is eligible for exposure on my website. Financial relationships aren’t required.
Outbound links directing to companies’ websites are mostly reserved for carriers offering me financial terms that I deem adequate.¹
Companies lacking financial relationships will be named, discussed, recommended, etc., but my visitors will have to navigate manually to these companies’ websites.

Over the next year, I anticipate I’ll opt out of some companies’ standard programs that I currently participate in. In some cases, that’ll lead to me forming new agreements with better terms. In other cases, I expect I’ll be unable to form new agreements. That’s fine too.

New Transparency Page

Sharing the details of arrangements I negotiate isn’t as easy as sharing the details of standard arrangements that are already public knowledge. Both the companies Coverage Critic partners with and I have strategic interests in keeping the details of our financial arrangements private.

On my new transparency page, I no longer list details about the commission rates companies pay me. I simply list which companies I have financial relationships with and which I don’t.

I considered continuing to publicize commission rates I receive whenever I take a standard deal that’s already a matter of public knowledge. However, I worry that would create an illusion of transparency rather than genuine transparency.

In a sense, the custom arrangements I negotiate (and want to withhold details about) are the most interesting. That said, I’m not trying to hide the rates in the standard deals. You can see an archived copy of the old, more detailed transparency page here.

Reflections

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.Richard Feynman

I take Feynman’s point seriously. I welcome pushback from anyone who thinks I’m fooling myself. Please reach out if you ever think financial relationships are hindering the quality of my recommendations or making Coverage Critic a less useful site.

I took a stance of extreme transparency when taking that position was costless. It’s not lost on me that I’m pivoting to a less transparent approach at the same time that Coverage Critic reached a scale where reduced transparency could benefit me.