But I'm confused. How is Verizon's misleading map Walmart's fault.
OP might be inside a Walmart when they took the screenshot. Walmart either uses building materials that impede the signal or actively block it. I also can never get full 5G inside a Walmart, and sometimes I wonder if they are doing it on purpose to encourage using their local wifi. The only other time being inside a building messes with my phone is at the hospital, and I know they have a ton of equipment that could be responsible for that.
I'd imagine that's part of it. But it's also a big metal building, farady cage and all.
Walmarts are big windowless boxes. A cell signal has to go through masonry walls to get out.
5G Ultra Wideband, which is what OP's map is showing to be in the area, and what he's upset about not getting, uses millimeter-wave frequencies, which are fast if they have a clear line to the tower...but don't penetrate material well.
On the challenging side of the equation, millimeter waves don’t propagate as far as low-band or mid-band signals, so there is a much smaller target area used to receive a signal, compared with sub-6 GHz signals. In addition, millimeter wave signals are subject to more diffused scattering when in contact with large objects, and they receive higher signal loss from foliage, object penetration, and from the atmosphere. This means you have to put a lot more millimeter wave signal repeaters around, so you get good mmWave coverage.
I suspect that if WalMart wants, they could maybe pay to run femtocells inside the store or something to get more coverage, but if (a) they already have 4G coverage in the store and (b) they're also providing WiFi access, they probably aren't gonna be putting even more network infrastructure in.
I get it bad in any large store, mainly because its a very large metal box. Its basically a faraday cage.
Nope. I know they do that. This was taken in the parking lot. I am starting to suspect there is something on the roof that is disrupting good cell signal.
Or maybe the service is degraded because there are thousands of people connecting to the same cell and Verizon can't justify the $$$ of placing more transceivers/bandwidth in a supermarket placed in the middle of nowhere with zero residents.
I don't think Walmart is willing to pay millions in fines from the FCC by installing an illegal 5g jammer because reasons
You make a couple of good points, however you may want to double check your knowledge of Eastern Massachusetts population densities. I also don't think Walmart gives two shits about paltry FCC fines, because forcing you into their wifi where you are required to agree to a ridiculous amount of data sharing, is certainly a lucrative proposition for them.
Life pro tip:
You can totally anonymously connect to Walmart WiFi...
It's registered in their system as Anonymous Human
I set that anonymous "account" up a couple years ago just for my more or less anonymous phone that has never been signed into Google.
You or anyone else is welcome to use that for Walmart WiFi, fuckem, milk that WiFi!
You should check out dispostable.com itself. That's kind of exactly what their email site was made for, disposable email, for when companies or services have no business with your email anyways.
That would be highly illegal on a federal level.
This is more likely a coverage issue than Walmart illegally blocking wireless signals (per to FCC regulations).
Report the coverage issue to Verizon and your local Walmart. Both of which will want to increase coverage of where people are gathering. This is because if bad coverage areas are in places where people gather this will cause affected people to switch services or stop going to those gathering areas if there's alternatives.
Right, I thought that might be what you were referring to. This is where we get into weeds technically:
Those regulations apply to active jamming, which is the use of an electronic device(s) to emit signals that interfere with lawfully approved channels. It is important to note that this holds no practical bearing upon structures as they by definition cannot engage in active jamming, only in passive blocking or coincidental interference.
What's being experienced with Walmart's lack of 5G is likely due to the fact that 5G does not penetrate walls very well. Combine this with the fact that you have hundreds of devices in the same enclosed space trying to talk to the same tower some miles away on the lower bandwidth 5G channel that can penetrate walls, and you can see how 5G access is effectively being "denied" simply by the nature of the business. Walmart could implement an on-premises 5G relay to solve the issue, but why would they want to take on that tech debt? All they are required to do by law is make sure E911 is not impeded by the building or operations of the business. They don't owe you access to other radio waves when on their premises.
If this regulation were to somehow be applied to passive blocking like what I've described, then Faraday cages would be illegal-- which aren't, again as long as E911 is not impeded. This would also make high security bamk vaults illegal due to the thick wall construction.
OP mentioned this also happened outside in the parking lot and was implying active blocking.
There's ways for stores to work with telecoms to get service broadcast inside the warehouse/building as well to get around the natural passive blocking from the building materials.
I was well aware of the difference between active and passive blocking.
Haha. My partner has Verizon, and they have parts of Marlborough where it just completely cuts out. I know that Wal*mart, and it's just over the city line. AT&T is slightly better.
Is you 5G connection faster than 4G anyways? In my country you don't really get above 150Mb/s either way
Significantly actually. In fact my home internet is also Verizon 5G, and I usually get about 300 down and 20 up. LTE is unusable at this point in my experience, which is weird to me, because it used to be the hotness.
I mean, yeah - fuck Walmart in general.
But I'm confused. How is Verizon's misleading map Walmart's fault.
OP might be inside a Walmart when they took the screenshot. Walmart either uses building materials that impede the signal or actively block it. I also can never get full 5G inside a Walmart, and sometimes I wonder if they are doing it on purpose to encourage using their local wifi. The only other time being inside a building messes with my phone is at the hospital, and I know they have a ton of equipment that could be responsible for that.
I'd imagine that's part of it. But it's also a big metal building, farady cage and all.
Walmarts are big windowless boxes. A cell signal has to go through masonry walls to get out.
5G Ultra Wideband, which is what OP's map is showing to be in the area, and what he's upset about not getting, uses millimeter-wave frequencies, which are fast if they have a clear line to the tower...but don't penetrate material well.
https://www.5gamericas.org/here-comes-millimeter-wave/
I suspect that if WalMart wants, they could maybe pay to run femtocells inside the store or something to get more coverage, but if (a) they already have 4G coverage in the store and (b) they're also providing WiFi access, they probably aren't gonna be putting even more network infrastructure in.
I get it bad in any large store, mainly because its a very large metal box. Its basically a faraday cage.
Nope. I know they do that. This was taken in the parking lot. I am starting to suspect there is something on the roof that is disrupting good cell signal.
Or maybe the service is degraded because there are thousands of people connecting to the same cell and Verizon can't justify the $$$ of placing more transceivers/bandwidth in a supermarket placed in the middle of nowhere with zero residents.
I don't think Walmart is willing to pay millions in fines from the FCC by installing an illegal 5g jammer because reasons
You make a couple of good points, however you may want to double check your knowledge of Eastern Massachusetts population densities. I also don't think Walmart gives two shits about paltry FCC fines, because forcing you into their wifi where you are required to agree to a ridiculous amount of data sharing, is certainly a lucrative proposition for them.
Life pro tip:
You can totally anonymously connect to Walmart WiFi...
irrelevant@dispostable.com
The password is Walmart1
It's registered in their system as Anonymous Human
I set that anonymous "account" up a couple years ago just for my more or less anonymous phone that has never been signed into Google.
You or anyone else is welcome to use that for Walmart WiFi, fuckem, milk that WiFi!
You should check out dispostable.com itself. That's kind of exactly what their email site was made for, disposable email, for when companies or services have no business with your email anyways.
That would be highly illegal on a federal level.
This is more likely a coverage issue than Walmart illegally blocking wireless signals (per to FCC regulations).
Report the coverage issue to Verizon and your local Walmart. Both of which will want to increase coverage of where people are gathering. This is because if bad coverage areas are in places where people gather this will cause affected people to switch services or stop going to those gathering areas if there's alternatives.
which FCC regulations in particular?
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement#:~:text=Jamming%20Prohibited&text=The%20use%20of%20a%20phone,classroom%2C%20residence%2C%20or%20vehicle
Right, I thought that might be what you were referring to. This is where we get into weeds technically:
Those regulations apply to active jamming, which is the use of an electronic device(s) to emit signals that interfere with lawfully approved channels. It is important to note that this holds no practical bearing upon structures as they by definition cannot engage in active jamming, only in passive blocking or coincidental interference.
What's being experienced with Walmart's lack of 5G is likely due to the fact that 5G does not penetrate walls very well. Combine this with the fact that you have hundreds of devices in the same enclosed space trying to talk to the same tower some miles away on the lower bandwidth 5G channel that can penetrate walls, and you can see how 5G access is effectively being "denied" simply by the nature of the business. Walmart could implement an on-premises 5G relay to solve the issue, but why would they want to take on that tech debt? All they are required to do by law is make sure E911 is not impeded by the building or operations of the business. They don't owe you access to other radio waves when on their premises.
If this regulation were to somehow be applied to passive blocking like what I've described, then Faraday cages would be illegal-- which aren't, again as long as E911 is not impeded. This would also make high security bamk vaults illegal due to the thick wall construction.
OP mentioned this also happened outside in the parking lot and was implying active blocking.
There's ways for stores to work with telecoms to get service broadcast inside the warehouse/building as well to get around the natural passive blocking from the building materials.
I was well aware of the difference between active and passive blocking.
Haha. My partner has Verizon, and they have parts of Marlborough where it just completely cuts out. I know that Wal*mart, and it's just over the city line. AT&T is slightly better.
Is you 5G connection faster than 4G anyways? In my country you don't really get above 150Mb/s either way
Significantly actually. In fact my home internet is also Verizon 5G, and I usually get about 300 down and 20 up. LTE is unusable at this point in my experience, which is weird to me, because it used to be the hotness.