Vermont official fact-checks mobile carriers' coverage maps, proves they're lying like crazy


Originally published at:


Only 656 days until the 2020 elections, folks!

I’m not sure i will survive that long


Great study, not sure the FCC is all that in to facts though. Other small states should do the same to really build up the case about lyin’ mobile providers.


It’s ok…no one lives in Vermont anyway. Except for Ben, Jerry, Bernie, Christopher Kimball, and a shit-ton of cows.


“Knowing that sunlight is the best disinfectant, Chase then urged Vermonters to tweet, text and generally spread the word and the maps he’d generated to force the hand of the corrupt and lackidaisical FCC. Unforntunately, no one had a fucking signal.”

Aaaaaand my own joke makes me cry realizing Trump literally controls the potential for communication and grassroots organizing in the US.


Ajit Pai to McConnel: “I’ve been asked to find out how we can shut down the Vermont Department of Public Service. Who? Oh, nobody. A stakeholder, wink wink.”


And Luis Guzman.


Remember when there weren’t any cell phones? I do…



I had to look that up because I was all “NO WAY!”

1 Like

I know, right?


Well, at least that means they can’t get any of Trumpty Dumpty’s tweets.

(I’m still waiting for that big fall, though.)


Of course you can get a Verizon signal in Warren, you just have to hike to the top of Mt. Abe.


I don’t doubt that carriers’ coverage maps are misleading, at best.

But putting six phones in contact with each other and in close proximity to a bundle of low-quality AC converters is probably not helping their radio reception much.

1 Like

Yeah, all that.

I mean if that really is their test setup color me not surprised. Realistically anywhere you have mountains or lots of elevation changes cell signals are going to get murdered. The technology is improving but it is still limited by several laws of physics.

1 Like

Excellent dude has excellent taste. I should not be surprised, yet, I am. Assuming you mean this guy, natch:

1 Like

That’s the guy!

1 Like

Yeah. I think “lying” is a bit of a strong term. I’m guessing their coverage maps are based on some very optimistic assumptions about atmospheric conditions, interference, quality of the radio hardware in the handset, etc.

So in theory if the stars aligned just right, you could get the level of service they claim, but in the real world, you won’t see it.

Ultimately radio communications are just really complicated, and simplifications like coverage maps or the “bars” indicator on a phone are never going to accurately describe the reality of the situation.


At the risk of a grumpy farmer or rich ex-New Yorker spray painting “take back Vermont” on my house, let’s put some cell towers on top of some wind turbines on some hills.

closed #20

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.