That's hard to see on my phone, so I'll look at it this afternoon when I get home. On Wednesday, May 6, 2015, Tom Hayward <tom@tomh.us> wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Don Sayler <don.sayler@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','don.sayler@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Oh, the water tower obscures the horizon to the east, but west is clear. And we probably have 70-80 feet available on the tower.
That's no good. Here's the link prediction from my last message plotted in Google Earth. Looks like the water tower blocks the shot to Haystack. Is that tower location correct?
I've attached the .kml so you can see it in 3d.
Snohomish County DEM (north) and Capitol Park (southwest) are also options. They're predicted at about -70 dBm.
By the way, the coverage map is digital (coverage or no coverage). A red pixel indicates coverage better than -70 dBm. Anything less than that we don't plot. Any shading you're seeing is just how it's displayed--it's not indicating a different signal level. A signal level of -70 dBm will give you "full speed" on the network. The modem can maintain a connection down to about -88 dBm, but it won't be as fast. The map is conservative in that nothing between -70 and -88 dBm is plotted. Also keep in mind that the map doesn't know what trees or water towers exist around your property. (It does some primitive land cover adjustments, but I've found binoculars or Google Earth to be more accurate.) Tom