T-Mobile updates 5G coverage map


Together with its continued 5G network expansion, T-Mobile has revised its online coverage map to show accurate information. This way, its subscribers can know where to find mid-band “Ultra Capacity” 5G network in their vicinity. 

As revealed in the coverage map, T-Mobile’s Ultra Capacity 5G network is mostly available in mid-sized cities with populations of 10,000 to 50,000 in its neighborhood. Right now, T-Mobile says that its Ultra Capacity 5G network is able to cover 165 million people in the US. Most of these individuals live in densely populated areas. 

Apart from Ultra Capacity 5G, T-Mobile offers nationwide low-band 5G. This speed is able to deliver download data speeds that are at par with its 4G LTE network. Low-band 5G runs on T-Mobile’s 600MHz low-band spectrum. The good news about this network though is that its signal is capable of traveling far enough to provide 5G service to the rest of the country. 

If you would like to know if your area is covered by T-Mobile’s Ultra-Capacity 5G network, you can check out its updated coverage map here.


Source: 1

Tags: ,

  • Glenn Gore

    Man, these are pitifully small dots of Ultra Capacity, barely a one-mile in diameter footprint. The Kansas City are looks like a measles-infected swath. If this is all Ultra Capacity is capable of, then it’s just another urban/city/town technology that has no utility outside those areas at all.

    • Terry Whitt

      I can’t attest to the “small dots of Ultra Capacity,” but I think we can conclude that 5G has been oversold so far. With that said, T-Mobile low band 5G recently showed itself in the rural upstate NY (Catskill Mounrtains) community where I live. This morning, my tests show a download speed of 101 mbps and upload speed of 38 mbps, an improvement over the LTE speed of 68 mbps down and 9 mbps up. Personally, I’m happy, even thrilled with either. Most of us don’t need any more speed than that. Coverage and reliability are far more important to me. I plan to move about 100 miles west to a community with T-Mobile Ultra Capacity and get nearly 200 mbps down there, but 8 miles from there there is no service at all. That is more of a problem for me.

    • Chimphappyhour

      The name says high capacity. Which one would only really need for population dense areas. Meanwhile, there are areas outside of those spots still labeled 5G. The kicker though is that the drive between KC and Denver looks to have a lot more roaming than it did a few years ago.

  • Joe

    As someone who frequents many of the locations where the map says there is coverage, I can tell you they are highly inaccurate. I could only hope for such coverage in eastern Washington and the mountain passes

    • marque2

      I agree, I just drove the coast of Northern California, and it shows full coverage. The reality is that the gaps are in the 100 mile range.

  • Joe

    It says that they’re is ultra capacity 5g in a ton of places that are just CA low band 5G with lte.

    • Trevnerdio

      For the uninitiated, they probably wouldn’t be able to tell all that much of a difference, tbh

  • TenEightyPeePee

    Went to San Diego over for 4th of July weekend… (from Phoenix)… and the service in San Diego was ABYSMAL!

  • Eric A

    Ridge, Maryland shows 4G LTE. There is barely voice service there – NO data.

  • NotFooled

    This has to be a joke! Nothing has changed with the addition of 5G. Coverage isn’t extended or does it penetrate buildings. However, there are a few places that I’ve downloaded over 600mbps which does nothing for the average user! Totally wasted my money on a new 5G phone

  • Shaun Michalak

    Not sure about anyone else, but I tried to check things out on that new map.. If I go to the T-Mobile site, it takes forever to load.. Something like 30 seconds or so.. and that is just the basic page.. Hit the + sign 5 times to zoom in, and half the time, it crashes.. If it does not crash, then you could easily be waiting a full minute or more for it to load..

    When you go to their Metro prepaid page and check out coverage, that one actually runs halfway decent.. You can actually get to see the coverage, and it has not crashed on me even once yet.. Only the version on the actual T-Mobile page has.. But what makes me wonder is why is Metro not comparing themselves to Verizon in coverage?? You go to their “compare coverage” page on Metro, and they compare Metro and Cricket only.. T-Mobile has Metro.. AT&T has cricket.. and Verizon has Visible.. The only comparison that you can find is if you compare actual 5G that is installed, and then they will compare T-Mobile to Verizon or AT&T on their main page.. But no comparison for 4G.. Hmmmm..

    • Glenn Gore

      From the looks of the size of these dots of coverage, about one mile is about all you can expect decent coverage to reach out. That is pretty poor and not much better than mm-wave, with the sole benefit being that it will actually be able to penetrate a window or tree leaves. They might get to a 300 million level of coverage eventually, but I don’t see this frequency getting them much more, it just does not have the range, With their standard 20-mile site spacing, they just won’t be able to get more than that.

      They do have one site here Band 41-enabled, but it is located outside the city limits and only covers a very small portion of the city according to these new maps. The only other T-Mobile site is out west of the city and if it were Band 41-enabled, would only cover a small portion as well. So new sites would have to be built IN the city, like AT&T and Verizon already have, to provide meaningful 5G coverage. T-Mobile already had Band 71 5G, but it goes away more than 3 miles from the sites, not covering the entire city either. T-Mobile could put sites on those towers, but for some reason they have not.

      • Shaun Michalak

        I would have to disagree that it is like mmWave.. I think it is all about how it is set up.. I am not saying that you will get the full range like you can get out of 600 / 700 mhz frequencies.. But band 4 can go pretty far, and that uses 2100, which is not too far off of the 2500 range of band 41.. I will agree that they will need more towers then one every 10 or so miles.. No doubt about that.. But in the country, I think that they could probably get at least 50% coverage on band 41 then what they could with band 71, if set up right. Either way, even 1 mile is many times better then 1 block with mmWave..

        I did find one instance where they had band 41 setup, where it reached 5 miles.. But how good can and will it really reach in the country, we just do not know yet.. Since T-Mobile has not installed it in the country, and until we see real world results there, we just will not know.. and in the city, they never set them up for full range, so there is no way to go off of that as to how far it can or will reach.. But personally, I would expect it to be a bit shorter then band 4, but not too much less.

        • Glenn Gore

          41 is better than mmWaver, to be sure, but if these little dots of 1-2 miles of coverage are all that can be done with it, it will be of little utility on a very broad scale, that’s what I am saying. As you mention, performance should on a similar scale to Band 4.r

          Band 4 can reach 10-15 miles for sure, AT&T has some sites around here where that’s all they are using and it works quite well, I have been amazed by how well it works in a couple of hilly locations, it isn’t affected at all by the terrain.

          But that also begs the question as to why T-Mobile’s Band 71 5G only reaches out 2-3 miles before you are down to 1 bar of signal and then switched off to Band 2 LTE by 5 miles, in flat terrain where you can still see the tower in direct line of sight.

          There is a site outside the next town from here and most of the time while in that town I only have 1 bar of 5G signal and only be 2 miles from the tower, sometimes even dropping to LTE. I thought low-band was supposed to have long reach. Verizon is getting long reach with their 700 Mhz, so 600 Mhz should do a tad better than that, but T-Mobile’s performance is nowhere near Verizon’s for some reason.

          I just don’t understand why 600 Mhz is getting such poor performance. Are they running it at very low signal strength compared to Band 2? Is it because it is transmitting 5G?

        • Fraydog

          EN-DC limits range because 5G connections have to be paired with 4G. Range will be boosted when standalone 5G is paired with VoNR. Some places in North Dakota already standalone and those sites are 20+ mile sites. Where I live EN-DC pretty much dies at 12 miles as the crow flies. Granted the T-Mobile site here was wisely put on the tallest hill in Randolph County which was smart of the regional engineers who built the site in 2014 when T-Mobile expanded to this county. It’s a major change from when they only had B2 and signal died leaving Chester.

        • Glenn Gore

          That makes some sense. There are a couple of areas near here where I know that SA has been activated, T-Mobile sent out a press release about it a year or so ago when they were first rolling it out on a large scale, and the rapid signal level reduction over distance does not seem to be as severe in those locations as it is here. Having just one bar of signal only 2 miles from a tower is a bit ridiculous when that tower is meant to cover everything until the next tower takes over 20+ miles away. It is also ridiculous when the town that tower 2 miles away is expected to cover only has 1 bar of signal leval available for use.

          It would be nice if T-Mobile would indicate where SA is activated on their coverage maps, but that is definitely too much to ask for, hence the “blanket pink” of 5G coverage.

        • Shaun Michalak

          Not completely sure.. Fraydog did bring in some good points, and that would make sense if that is what it is.. Considering that T-Mobile said they had good tests with SA 5G VoNR well over a year ago, I would think that they would have had it fully up and running on all of their towers by this point in time.. But I would guess that it would have something to do with them not signing on to Ericson??? (the second company that they signed on to work on it) until something like jan of this year. I would guess that would be part of the hold up..

          I do know that they restrict (the FCC) the amount of power that you can use on a tower inside cities.. and of course, how T-Mobile aims their antennas makes a huge difference as to how far the signal will go to. and with this part, I am going to guess that is the problem.. Around here, on 4G, I have checked the coverage between Verzion band 13 towers, and T-Mobiles bands 12 and 71 towers.. In the country, where they are spaced far apart, they all seem to have around the same amount of coverage in distance from the towers. One might be a tiny bit farther then the other.. But mostly, it is all within about a 1 mile difference in range.. But that is in the country.. In cities.. I think they used a dart board and threw up darts to figure out where to set them up to stop coverage at.. In cities, it is just a bit screwy how they are set up..

  • Mark Cucchiara

    What I have found after playing with bands on my phone my area DOES have n41 as per the map. What it DOESN’T have is the backhaul to support speeds faster (or even as fast) as LTE. But, I am sure one day…BAM…n41 speeds will be what I am accustomed to outside my area. Waiting patiently…

  • Willie D

    The map is complete bull s in San Francisco. The supposed ultra high capacity it shows actually isn’t N41 at all it’s straight up N71 with literal pieces of streets and blocks that MAY have N41. Just a typical confusing map to consumers who think they’ll have great speed but find out in the real world that the new 5G map really has about 1/4 the UHC5G it shows. Nice try TMo.