Coverage rankings for Plumas County, CA
Verizon currently ranks first for coverage in this area, with a coverage score of 35.0. Compare Wireless Carriers uses FCC broadband map data to estimate and calculate coverage scores. More on that further below.
| Rank | Carrier | Score | Overall | 4G LTE | 5G | Fast 5G | Average Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Verizon | 35.0 | 51.8% | 51.8% | 3.5% | 1.1% | -99 dBm |
| 2 | T-Mobile | 35.0 | 26.4% | 25.6% | 24.7% | 18.1% | -91 dBm |
| 3 | AT&T | 28.7 | 36.2% | 36.2% | 18.0% | 10.3% | -118 dBm |
Scores include coverage area, network type, and average signal strength.
Cell phone coverage map for Plumas County, CA
Zoom in for local detail. Tap or click a colored area to see coverage and signal details. On mobile, use two fingers to move the map.
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, © CARTO. Rendered with MapLibre. FCC BDC mobile coverage processed by Compare Wireless Carriers.
Loading coverage map...
Cell phone coverage by network in Plumas County, CA
Verizon
- Overall
- 51.8%
- 4G LTE
- 51.8%
- 5G
- 3.5%
- Fast 5G
- 1.1%
T-Mobile
- Overall
- 26.4%
- 4G LTE
- 25.6%
- 5G
- 24.7%
- Fast 5G
- 18.1%
AT&T
- Overall
- 36.2%
- 4G LTE
- 36.2%
- 5G
- 18.0%
- Fast 5G
- 10.3%
Coverage varies by neighborhood. Your carrier shouldn’t.
US Mobile lets you switch between all three major networks, so you can choose the one that works best where you actually use your phone.
Pricing, network access, switching terms, and home internet availability may vary.
Coverage by city in Plumas County, CA
Cities and towns are shown for county-level comparison. Coverage percentages use land-area only coverage.
| City | Verizon | AT&T | T-Mobile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Almanor, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -95 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 72.7% 27.3% -119 dBm | 50.0% 50.0% 27.3% 4.5% -101 dBm |
| Beckwourth, CA | 92.4% 92.4% 1.1% 0.0% -97 dBm | 79.4% 79.4% 55.2% 37.5% -120 dBm | 72.6% 71.1% 71.5% 61.0% -88 dBm |
| Belden, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -100 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Blairsden, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -84 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 92.3% 15.4% -111 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -82 dBm |
| Blairsden Graeagle, CA | 66.9% 66.9% 0.0% 0.0% -99 dBm | 47.4% 47.4% 29.4% 21.7% -118 dBm | 45.0% 43.6% 41.9% 29.2% -91 dBm |
| Bucks Lake, CA | 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% -106 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| C-Road, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -98 dBm | 90.2% 90.2% 67.2% 57.4% -117 dBm | 98.4% 98.4% 96.7% 73.8% -90 dBm |
| Canyon Dam, CA | 86.9% 86.9% 0.0% 0.0% -100 dBm | 88.6% 88.6% 54.7% 12.2% -118 dBm | 32.7% 32.2% 28.2% 18.8% -95 dBm |
| Canyondam, CA | 52.9% 52.9% 0.0% 0.0% -102 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 17.6% 0.0% -114 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Caribou, CA | 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% -110 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Chester, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -88 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 92.8% 25.4% -119 dBm | 99.4% 99.4% 98.9% 93.9% -85 dBm |
| Chilcoot, CA | 64.8% 64.6% 10.8% 5.0% -95 dBm | 58.4% 58.3% 43.7% 31.8% -114 dBm | 44.0% 43.2% 42.4% 34.8% -89 dBm |
| Chilcoot-Vinton, CA | 77.8% 77.8% 0.0% 0.0% -95 dBm | 94.9% 94.2% 83.9% 61.4% -109 dBm | 76.5% 75.2% 70.7% 55.6% -94 dBm |
| Clio, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -103 dBm | 63.6% 63.6% 36.4% 36.4% -117 dBm | 72.7% 72.7% 63.6% 45.5% -94 dBm |
| Crescent Mills, CA | 87.6% 87.6% 0.0% 0.0% -105 dBm | 56.2% 56.2% 10.5% 2.9% -117 dBm | 67.6% 62.9% 66.7% 36.2% -92 dBm |
| Cromberg, CA | 49.3% 49.3% 0.0% 0.0% -90 dBm | 4.1% 4.1% 1.4% 0.0% -119 dBm | 5.0% 5.0% 2.7% 0.9% -100 dBm |
| Delleker, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 47.0% 33.3% -91 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 62.1% 3.0% -116 dBm | 100.0% 98.5% 100.0% 97.0% -83 dBm |
| East Quincy, CA | 94.8% 94.8% 8.6% 5.5% -91 dBm | 71.0% 71.0% 31.7% 21.4% -114 dBm | 71.4% 65.9% 70.7% 55.5% -85 dBm |
| East Shore, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -87 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 66.7% 0.0% -117 dBm | 74.1% 70.4% 70.4% 51.9% -95 dBm |
| Gold Mountain, CA | 93.1% 93.1% 2.1% 0.0% -101 dBm | 82.8% 82.1% 37.9% 34.5% -117 dBm | 86.9% 84.8% 84.1% 67.6% -89 dBm |
| Graeagle, CA | 80.2% 80.2% 0.0% 0.0% -95 dBm | 69.6% 69.6% 58.6% 50.2% -117 dBm | 71.9% 70.3% 68.8% 54.0% -89 dBm |
| Greenhorn, CA | 23.0% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% -108 dBm | 3.7% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% -120 dBm | 5.0% 4.3% 3.7% 1.9% -95 dBm |
| Greenville, CA | 66.8% 66.8% 0.0% 0.0% -105 dBm | 81.6% 81.6% 28.4% 10.5% -114 dBm | 74.7% 70.5% 72.6% 54.2% -90 dBm |
| Hamilton Branch, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -88 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 82.1% 3.6% -111 dBm | 32.1% 32.1% 25.0% 14.3% -100 dBm |
| Indian Falls, CA | 54.5% 54.5% 0.0% 0.0% -99 dBm | 18.2% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% -120 dBm | 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% -88 dBm |
| Iron Horse, CA | 97.3% 97.3% 19.5% 5.9% -98 dBm | 98.9% 98.9% 29.7% 11.4% -113 dBm | 95.1% 86.5% 95.1% 82.7% -87 dBm |
| Johnsville, CA | 53.3% 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% -103 dBm | 48.8% 48.8% 20.2% 20.2% -120 dBm | 33.3% 31.8% 27.7% 15.8% -96 dBm |
| Keddie, CA | 5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% -110 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | 5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% -110 dBm |
| La Porte, CA | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | 77.1% 77.1% 0.0% 0.0% -110 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Lake Almanor Country Club, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -90 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 69.2% 0.0% -117 dBm | 60.0% 60.0% 58.5% 38.5% -94 dBm |
| Lake Almanor Peninsula, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -92 dBm | 95.9% 95.9% 77.0% 6.8% -113 dBm | 66.2% 66.2% 58.1% 23.0% -99 dBm |
| Lake Almanor West, CA | 98.1% 98.1% 0.0% 0.0% -96 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 76.9% 13.5% -119 dBm | 65.4% 65.4% 53.8% 28.8% -95 dBm |
| Lake Davis, CA | 90.7% 90.7% 0.0% 0.0% -96 dBm | 79.1% 79.1% 59.7% 58.9% -120 dBm | 75.2% 72.1% 75.2% 65.1% -87 dBm |
| Little Grass Valley, CA | 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% -106 dBm | 43.0% 43.0% 0.0% 0.0% -111 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Mabie, CA | 96.7% 96.7% 3.3% 0.0% -96 dBm | 87.0% 87.0% 72.8% 58.7% -119 dBm | 96.7% 92.4% 93.5% 70.7% -92 dBm |
| Meadow Valley, CA | 67.5% 67.5% 0.0% 0.0% -99 dBm | 6.8% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% -120 dBm | 4.4% 4.4% 3.4% 1.5% -98 dBm |
| Mohawk Vista, CA | 89.7% 89.7% 0.0% 0.0% -97 dBm | 83.8% 83.8% 54.5% 36.9% -118 dBm | 76.6% 73.1% 76.2% 56.2% -90 dBm |
| Paxton, CA | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Plumas Eureka, CA | 86.6% 86.6% 0.0% 0.0% -104 dBm | 59.8% 59.8% 27.8% 22.7% -118 dBm | 71.1% 71.1% 58.8% 16.5% -99 dBm |
| Portola, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 39.5% 29.5% -92 dBm | 96.1% 96.1% 51.9% 30.2% -116 dBm | 89.9% 87.6% 89.9% 79.8% -83 dBm |
| Prattville, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -97 dBm | 100.0% 100.0% 53.3% 26.7% -119 dBm | 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 13.3% -90 dBm |
| Quincy, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 37.4% 35.4% -90 dBm | 99.0% 99.0% 60.6% 44.4% -112 dBm | 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 81.8% -82 dBm |
| Spring Garden, CA | 31.3% 31.3% 0.0% 0.0% -102 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Taylorsville, CA | 68.8% 68.8% 0.0% 0.0% -108 dBm | 35.0% 35.0% 22.5% 1.3% -118 dBm | 33.8% 33.8% 31.3% 26.3% -87 dBm |
| Tobin, CA | 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% -111 dBm | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A | N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A |
| Twain, CA | 51.8% 51.8% 0.0% 0.0% -97 dBm | 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% -120 dBm | 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 1.2% -92 dBm |
| Valley Ranch, CA | 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% -94 dBm | 89.7% 89.7% 65.5% 62.1% -115 dBm | 93.1% 93.1% 89.7% 69.0% -87 dBm |
| Vinton, CA | 86.7% 86.7% 33.0% 13.8% -95 dBm | 75.2% 75.2% 68.9% 65.1% -118 dBm | 71.0% 70.5% 68.4% 60.9% -92 dBm |
| Warner Valley, CA | 72.5% 72.5% 0.0% 0.0% -98 dBm | 57.8% 57.6% 9.2% 6.5% -118 dBm | 25.5% 23.4% 25.3% 11.6% -96 dBm |
| Whitehawk, CA | 84.7% 84.7% 0.0% 0.0% -97 dBm | 67.8% 64.4% 44.1% 40.7% -119 dBm | 96.6% 96.6% 93.2% 71.2% -89 dBm |
About The Coverage Data
Coverage and signal estimates are derived by Compare Wireless Carriers from carrier-reported data in the FCC’s National Broadband Coverage Map, last updated in June 2025. “Percent covered” shows how much of the city or ZIP code area has a carrier signal, whether weak or strong. Signal bars show the estimated average signal strength in areas of Plumas County, CA where that carrier has coverage.
If a carrier says you should have service but you do not, run a challenge test with the FCC Mobile Speed Test App. The FCC uses those results to check carrier-submitted coverage data and requires a carrier response when enough tests show a pattern of inaccurate coverage reporting.