How is it that at&t "covers 99% of America"

i totally agree with you they need way more towers

---

@DillPickel wrote:
But it doesnt cover Ada, Oklahoma. at&t or Verizon they both have crappy service here but I prefer at&t and Verizon over any other company the sad thing is we have an at&t in town you need more towers

---

That's really 99% of "Americans" as in population, not geographic area. Anyway, according to the coverage maps, Ada should have great coverage. Perhaps there is some issue going on or maybe your coverage issues are specific to your phone. I suggest you take this to the Network Coverage forum to see if others are experiencing the same. 

AT&T cover considers this if you get GPRS, EDGE, HSPA, HSPA+, OR LTE -- if you get any signal of any type, even if 2G service, that counts as "covered". AT&T has the worst rural coverage in the nation of any carrier.  Even if you half 1 bar of service that doesn't work or drops calls every second, AT&T counts you as covered. It's a lie. Also they mean population, NOT land-mass. AT&T doesn't care about rural people. they even admitted that. If you live in a rural area, DO NOT get AT&T. AT&T only puts towers in big cities and big counties. AT&T only cares about greed and money so AT&T ONLY puts towers ONLY in major cities to generate money. AT&T does NOT care about putting towers along rural highways and towns, even though MILLIONS of people will pass through these rural towns and highways constantly. But AT&T doesn't care, because there is less money to be made putting towers in rural areas, even though millions of people pass through these rural areas. What happens if they experience a car-break down? AT&T doesn't care about your safety or possibly life.  It's pathetic. If you EVER plan to travel, do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT use AT&T as if your car breaks down AT&T will leave you stranded with no cell coverage. Other carries (gasp, Verizon seem to have excellent rural coverage. I guess they care and are smart, AT&T isn't.)

So Example:

AT&T has 500 towers in Colorado. INSTEAD of spreading the towers out to provide coverage all over Colorado to covera all rural towns and rural highways (that would be AMAZING. Think how many lives could be saved when people get stuck on some rural highway with zero coverage but AT&T doesn't care). So instead AT&T puts 400 out of 500 towers ALL in the Denver area. All AT&T cares about is large population areas, they never have, and by the looks of it NEVER will care about rural areas. AT&T is BY FAR the WORST rural carrier in the nation.

There are still millions who don't live in Denver, and live in small towns of a few thousand spread small towns out ALL over the large state. Does AT&T care about them? NOPE, not at all. They don't generate as much money as big cities like Denver does. I live in Colorado, and there are MANY rural highays and towns here, and AT&T has zero service in I'd say 95% of ALL rural areas in Colorado. If my car broke down in a rural area in Colorado (and most areas in Colorado besides Denver county/Boulder/Colorado Springs are small rural areas), I'd be stuck because AT&T is greedy and refuses to put more towers SPREAD to cover rural areas. Oh, they have the towers, too, in fact AT&T has more towers than any carrier, even Verizon, but they flat out refuse to cover rural area people as AT&T doesn't want to spend money to invest back into it's network and cover rural people

Actually, if there is a small rural town with only 2 to 3 thousand people, then ALL that AT&T has to do is add 1-2 towers in the entire city, to at least provide SOME coverage instead of NONE at all!! I'm talking simply 2G voice coverage is all that is needed. They could put 1 tower in the center of the small city, and then 1 tower along the rural highway. This would provide coverage to the majority of the town, and yes the signal would be stretched thin BUT cell towers can actually travel MUCH farther than you think when they aren't being majorly overloaded, and in a rural town this is a non-issue. And along a rural-highway, having the tower "overloaded" is purely impossible along a rural highway, as only people passing through would ever use it.

DID YOU KNOW: One single cell tower can provide over 100km (62+ miles) with 3G at 850MHz and 900MHz, in good conditions. Now, even in average conditions a typical cellphone has enough power to reach a cell tower up to 45 miles away. This is perfect for rural areas and highways. Think about how much extra coverage they could provide to rural highways that currently have NO COVERAGE, yet still tens of thousands to maybe millions of people will pass through yearly. Like for example, highway i-70 that has 50 to 100 mile stretches with NO coverage at all! Why don't they just add at least 1 tower in that stretch? A single tower could cover up to 60% of the highway with at least basic coverage, or even better 2 towers could possibly cover the entire 100 mile stretch, especially in desert areas where there is nothing to block the signal. AT&T would still make profit from the roaming fees and all the people who pass through and use the towers. Sure they wouldn't make as much as a major city, but they need to think about rural areas too. Right now Verizon is really the only carrier who provides decent rural coverage. Maybe sprint, too.

Sprint might have better rural coverage than AT&T does. Sprint has not only more spectrum, but it roams onto Verizon, which Verizon has superior rural coverage. So this alone would likely mean Sprint has better rural coverage than AT&T. Also sprint's towers travel FURTHER than AT&T towers do allowing them to reach rural areas better. Look at sprint coverage map for VOICE COVERAGE only. For Voice coverage for Sprint it's HUGE, it actually kind of looks bigger than AT&T's voice coverage map. Now of course when it comes to data coverage, AT&T wins by far. But we aren't talking data coverage here, as on rural highways the most important thing is having AT LEAST a signal to make a voice call. It'd be nice if the tower at least had 3G ability so people could use their GPS if lost..

So if AT&T started to add towers to rural areas and highways to at least compete with Verizon, that would be great, because as of right now if you live in a rural area AT&T is basically useless from everything I've read and heard, unless you are lucky as AT&T rarely has service in rural areas, and if they do it's often a roaming partner. Nearly everyone who lives in a rural area has Verizon. Why AT&T doesn't start to add more coverage in rural areas is baffling, unless they really just don't care about rural customers and rural areas....

Josh177:

I would like to put my 2 cents worth in:) 

AT&T has better coverage overall then Verizon, Sprint, T-Mo. etc in rural and urban areas on average. However, that is not saying they have the fastest network or the best spectrum but rather coverage area. I respectfully disagree 100% with your statement that 3G at 850 MHz and 900 MHz can propagate over 62 miles from a cell site in any conditions. Digital standards on current devices won't even come close to 1/4 of that distance even on a 5 MHz carrier. Older analog GSM has a range of about 25 miles under perfect conditions.

All carriers have areas where they are better or worse than others but on average AT&T has the largest coverage area. You mentioned areas on I-70 with 50-100 miles of no coverage. Could you post a screenshot of such areas or exact locations because I can't find them.

 And Verizon has superior rural coverage? That is a fallacy. Here are screenshots from my phone depicting voice coverage for all 3. The large areas shown in very light yellow on AT&T's map in the mid-western/western U.S. are partner areas, not areas of no service. Look at the 3 maps, there are clearly many more areas of white or "no service" on Verizon and Sprint.

Actually you're wrong, tmobile has the worst rural coverage in the nation. AT&T and verizon have the best.