T-Mobile Updated Coverage Viewer

[cellular_freak]

I went to T-Mobile's Coverage Viewer today Unsupported Browser and noticed that they updated it. I must say that it gives them a little too much credit. I think it might have to do with something similar to why Verizon doesn't show us a better signal breakdown. I liked T-Mobile's coverage viewer before, now it's pretty lame.

[Yankees368]

:-( T-Mobile has always been the one carrier with what seemed like the most honest maps. You could see, even in dense urban areas, the rings around towers and the gaps in between. Now t-mobile has taken the AT&T/Verizon route and basically filled in the gaps with pretty green paint. This stinks!

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by cellular_freak

I went to T-Mobile's Coverage Viewer today Unsupported Browser and noticed that they updated it. I must say that it gives them a little too much credit. I think it might have to do with something similar to why Verizon doesn't show us a better signal breakdown. I liked T-Mobile's coverage viewer before, now it's pretty lame.

Not a good move, T-Mobile...

[Yankees368]

oh sorry, didn't see the original post.

So, when does sprint start to pull this crap? They are the only carrier with honest maps now.

I have to add though, to mobile mikes comment "not a good move', or is it? The average person looking for a new carrier does not visit these forums, has never seen a coverage map before, and could care less what a cell tower is, or where the nearest one is. This style map makes potential new customers think "hey, green! green is the color of money, and green is the color of good coverage! sign me up!"
Why should T-Mobile and sprint be honest on their maps, when AT&T and Verizon paint the entire country orange/red with coverage. It just hurts them in the long run.

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by Yankees368

oh sorry, didn't see the original post.

So, when does sprint start to pull this crap? They are the only carrier with honest maps now.

I have to add though, to mobile mikes comment "not a good move', or is it? The average person looking for a new carrier does not visit these forums, has never seen a coverage map before, and could care less what a cell tower is, or where the nearest one is. This style map makes potential new customers think "hey, green! green is the color of money, and green is the color of good coverage! sign me up!"
Why should T-Mobile and sprint be honest on their maps, when AT&T and Verizon paint the entire country orange/red with coverage. It just hurts them in the long run.

Good point. I guess because they've had such good maps for so long, it's a shame they've decided to go cheap, but in this economic time, I shouldn't be surprised.

Maybe T-Mobile doesn't need such detailed maps, but it was definitely a benefit for new customers wanting to get a generally accurate measure of whether T-Mobile will work in their area.

For those of us who follow stuff like this, it isn't a good move at all, but for novices out their, I guess they'll never notice the difference.

[Yankees368]

And I think there used to be 4 levels of coverage before, now just 3.
Also, the maps no longer show a difference between 850 and 1900 roaming. Ouch!

[Matt]

There may have been 5 levels of coverage before. I liked the old way, but as noted above for most people it won't matter.

I'm not sure the difference of 850 and 1900 roaming matters much anymore either. TM has had 850 for a couple of years, and been selling phones with 850 probably since 2006. I'm guessing they know how much roaming they do on each, and since there's no difference in cost, as a postpaid customer it only invites questions.

[bakeec]

For a case and point, according to their new maps, I have good coverage where I live (with their old maps I was in a no-coverage zone)... I liked how detailed and fairly accurate the maps were, and so I went with T-Mobile (albeit mostly because of their Hotspot@Home, but also...) because I felt more at ease knowing what to expect in terms of coverage --- the maps offered to me a lot more trust than AT&T's and Verizon's (both of which show even larger areas of "pretty colors" around my house - but neither of which actually have service here.

It's a shame they (most all wireless providers) are fooling people like that who don't know much beyond how much they will be paying for their new service... or fooling those who want to check to see if they will have good coverage where they go on vacation, etc... It's all a shame.

[ilyabyk83]

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

Not a good move, T-Mobile...

Booooooooooooooo T-Mobile!!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bakeec

For a case and point, according to their new maps, I have good coverage where I live (with their old maps I was in a no-coverage zone)... I liked how detailed and fairly accurate the maps were, and so I went with T-Mobile (albeit mostly because of their Hotspot@Home, but also...) because I felt more at ease knowing what to expect in terms of coverage --- the maps offered to me a lot more trust than AT&T's and Verizon's (both of which show even larger areas of "pretty colors" around my house - but neither of which actually have service here.

It's a shame they (most all wireless providers) are fooling people like that who don't know much beyond how much they will be paying for their new service... or fooling those who want to check to see if they will have good coverage where they go on vacation, etc... It's all a shame.

The problem is your reaction wasn't the common reaction. More people say they weren't in the "darkest green" area for coverage (which was much smaller on the old maps) and didn't sign up. Why should they, when they can look at the maps for AT&T and Verizon, for example, and have coverage "Everywhere".

It was a good idea for T-Mobile, but the competitive realities are that the coverage maps and slogans of the other carriers were more effective. Accurate or not is a different issue. So T-Mobile said "if you can't beat them, join them" essentially.

[Jerro]

To all the carriers: Why Lie? To TMobile: Bring back the honest maps.

[tmobileman]

Originally Posted by Jerro

To all the carriers: Why Lie? To TMobile: Bring back the honest maps.

Our map says now and alway has even when it was previous version....coverage depicted is approximate and may differ this is as honest as it gets

[cellular_freak]

Originally Posted by tmobileman

Our map says now and alway has even when it was previous version....coverage depicted is approximate and may differ this is as honest as it gets

Right, but to people like us who pay attention to things like this, we can tell it's all a sham. When I look at the coverage maps of the nearest city that has T-Mobile service to me (Saginaw, MI), the city was fairly accurately depicted coverage wise. Now, they show almost the entire Saginaw metropolitan area as being in the "dark green". That's a total lie. Especially with T-Mobile using the 1900 MHz band exclusively as well as GSM. There is no way their coverage got that good that quick. They would have had to go on a mass tower-building spree throughout the country. Not believing it.

[KyleAndMelissa22]

The coverage map looks even worse in the Carolinas.
Most of the entire Carolinas are now in dark green,
but in reality, about half of the dark green has very low, or no signal.

I can't believe they did this, now I'll have to find a new way to hunt for their towers...

[cellular_freak]

Originally Posted by KyleAndMelissa22

The coverage map looks even worse in the Carolinas.
Most of the entire Carolinas are now in dark green,
but in reality, about half of the dark green has very low, or no signal.

I can't believe they did this, now I'll have to find a new way to hunt for their towers...

I know, in the Saginaw, MI area there made areas that previously showed "no coverage" to have "dark green"!! How does that even make sense?

[Yankees368]

I took the following picture today on the long island rail road. Good thing their maps now show coverage everywhere. I guess they will be preventing less sales now