Not-Verizon coverage in the mountains?

Hi all,

Now that it's October and it's getting itchy over here... I'm looking to get rid of Verizon and replace it with a cheaper carrier: T-mobile or possibly one of the alternative companies that piggyback on the Sprint network. The only thing holding me back is my satisfaction with Verizon's rural coverage.

So, what's your experience with coverage on T-mobile or Sprint?

I hope this thread can be useful for everyone, but if it helps, I'm interested in hearing about the areas I'm likely to be, in and around (rougly in order): Steven's pass, Baker, Wenatchee, Crystal, Snoqualmie pass, and Rainier.

3 or more anecdotes equals anecdata, right?

T-Mo blows for coverage.

The only decent ones I've seen are Verizon and then Sprint being next. After that my luck has been with ATT and last TMo.

Sprint roams on Verizon for voice/sms.

I use an MVNO called Ting that runs on the Sprint network. Service most places has been roughly comparable to my friends with Verizon, except for data. I get reasonable data service at Snoqualmie near I-90 (not Alpy), but not much (anything?) at Stevens. Data works fine in Leavenworth/~Sultan. I don't recall how good service is at Paradise; might be spotty? I believe that I'll get the occasional text/call at pan point/Muir.

Verizon successfully connected an important phone call from low on the Wilson for which I'm permanently grateful.

I get TMO service at Stevens (only the frontside), Crystal (most places), Snoqualmie (spotty at Alpental). I don't remember if I get service at Baker. No service at Rainier. So yeah, the coverage basically blows.

I have TMO and it sucks for sure.

Since we're talking anecdata, Verizon has best coverage from what I see / hear

FWIW - I tried to call/text on Verizon from up high on Baker this year and was surprised that I couldn't even though my phone said it had signal. This was true on both the summit and at ~6000 on the Easton. I wonder if the newer 3g/4g systems aren't worse than the older technology in remote areas.

Thanks folks. I'm hearing what I expected, unfortunately. 

An anecdote about older tech coverage vs new.  I can't speak to up on Baker, but I have a 6 year old flip phone that only uses the old CDMA2000 network and I'm usually the last person in my group to lose service (can usually text but not call at the bottom of Steven's backside for example). 

Will probably go back to procrastinating cell phone change now.  Although I could use a new smartphone that gets hot enough to be a portable waxing iron. 

FWIW - I tried to call/text on Verizon from up high on Baker this year and was surprised that I couldn't even though my phone said it had signal.  This was true on both the summit and at ~6000 on the Easton.  I wonder if the newer 3g/4g systems aren't worse than the older technology in remote areas. 

This sort of effect seems to happen on the volcanoes with many different vendors and has been that way for a while (in my experience at least). It's not uncommon to hear people complaining that they "have four bars but can't make a call/text". My hypotheses include hitting so many towers that the network doesn't route correctly or that the signal strength measurement is aggregate recieved power in the band and not the strength of a single tower.

For example, see Amar's Rainier summit experience in 2008, where 3 of 49 attempted calls from Rainier's summit made it through. He had 2-3 "bars" of signal.