Franklin County, MA Cell Phone Coverage Map & Network Rankings (2026)

Find the best cell phone network and plan to use in Franklin County, MA

Coverage rankings for Franklin County, MA

AT&T currently ranks first for coverage in this area, with a coverage score of 64.9. Compare Wireless Carriers uses FCC broadband map data to estimate and calculate coverage scores. More on that further below.

RankCarrierScoreOverall4G LTE5GFast 5GAverage Signal
1AT&T64.984.4%84.4%49.6%37.0% -116 dBm
2Verizon54.086.8%86.7%11.5%5.5% -98 dBm
3T-Mobile50.856.4%56.4%37.6%21.9% -97 dBm

Scores include coverage area, network type, and average signal strength.

Cell phone coverage map for Franklin County, MA

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.

Coverage Key
Less covered More covered
Darker areas mean the carrier covers more of that location.

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 Franklin County, MA

#1

AT&T

Coverage Score 64.9
In Franklin County, MA
Overall
84.4%
4G LTE
84.4%
5G
49.6%
Fast 5G
37.0%
Average Signal -116 dBm
#2

Verizon

Coverage Score 54.0
In Franklin County, MA
Overall
86.8%
4G LTE
86.7%
5G
11.5%
Fast 5G
5.5%
Average Signal -98 dBm
#3

T-Mobile

Coverage Score 50.8
In Franklin County, MA
Overall
56.4%
4G LTE
56.4%
5G
37.6%
Fast 5G
21.9%
Average Signal -97 dBm
Sponsored US Mobile

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.

Choose your network
Dark Star Light Speed Warp 5G
Unlimited plans from
$22.50/mo
Phone + home internet bundle from
$47/mo
Shop US Mobile

Pricing, network access, switching terms, and home internet availability may vary.

Coverage by city in Franklin County, MA

Cities and towns are shown for county-level comparison. Coverage percentages use land-area only coverage.

CityVerizonAT&TT-Mobile
Ashfield, MA 79.7% 79.4% 8.2% 3.6% -103 dBm 91.1% 91.1% 44.4% 24.8% -116 dBm 20.7% 20.7% 7.8% 2.2% -103 dBm
Bernardston, MA 95.6% 95.6% 11.2% 5.8% -96 dBm 94.6% 94.6% 68.1% 52.1% -114 dBm 64.9% 64.9% 51.5% 37.7% -92 dBm
Buckland, MA 79.3% 79.3% 0.0% 0.0% -106 dBm 93.1% 93.1% 75.9% 69.0% -111 dBm 34.5% 34.5% 17.2% 3.4% -103 dBm
Charlemont, MA 83.9% 83.8% 1.6% 0.1% -98 dBm 73.3% 73.3% 39.9% 38.0% -117 dBm 44.5% 44.5% 29.9% 16.3% -98 dBm
Colrain, MA 75.8% 75.8% 15.2% 8.4% -100 dBm 69.3% 69.3% 38.4% 32.4% -116 dBm 10.1% 10.1% 2.8% 1.4% -104 dBm
Conway, MA 98.7% 98.7% 11.2% 4.3% -99 dBm 93.9% 93.9% 29.9% 21.2% -117 dBm 37.5% 37.5% 18.1% 7.8% -101 dBm
Deerfield, MA 100.0% 100.0% 45.2% 42.9% -85 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 88.1% -112 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 81.0% -89 dBm
Erving, MA 93.0% 93.0% 7.6% 3.7% -94 dBm 79.6% 79.6% 44.8% 33.8% -114 dBm 69.2% 69.2% 44.5% 30.2% -92 dBm
Gill, MA 100.0% 100.0% 23.9% 6.1% -93 dBm 96.6% 96.3% 55.2% 35.0% -117 dBm 89.6% 89.6% 50.3% 22.7% -99 dBm
Greenfield, MA 100.0% 100.0% 56.7% 33.4% -94 dBm 99.8% 99.8% 91.3% 77.7% -114 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 97.0% 80.6% -88 dBm
Heath, MA 90.5% 90.5% 4.1% 0.9% -103 dBm 60.3% 60.3% 30.3% 25.9% -118 dBm 20.5% 20.5% 10.1% 4.4% -102 dBm
Lake Pleasant, MA 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% 28.6% -96 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 28.6% 0.0% -120 dBm 85.7% 85.7% 0.0% 0.0% -107 dBm
Leverett, MA 64.5% 64.5% 0.4% 0.0% -103 dBm 87.3% 87.3% 32.9% 23.3% -119 dBm 41.2% 41.2% 16.5% 2.6% -104 dBm
Millers Falls, MA 100.0% 100.0% 4.2% 0.0% -87 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 95.8% 95.8% -112 dBm 95.8% 95.8% 29.2% 12.5% -98 dBm
Monroe Bridge, MA 56.9% 56.9% 2.0% 1.6% -103 dBm 28.1% 28.1% 8.7% 5.9% -120 dBm 9.9% 9.9% 5.1% 3.2% -101 dBm
Montague, MA 88.8% 88.8% 21.7% 13.7% -95 dBm 99.4% 99.4% 69.3% 27.3% -118 dBm 70.4% 70.4% 51.7% 29.0% -96 dBm
New Salem, MA 80.3% 80.3% 0.6% 0.1% -101 dBm 88.2% 88.2% 34.7% 18.8% -118 dBm 75.7% 75.7% 48.9% 26.4% -98 dBm
Northfield, MA 100.0% 100.0% 4.8% 0.0% -91 dBm 94.2% 94.2% 76.9% 70.2% -113 dBm 76.9% 76.9% 69.2% 44.2% -93 dBm
Orange, MA 95.1% 95.1% 4.9% 0.7% -98 dBm 96.5% 96.5% 51.4% 26.8% -118 dBm 90.8% 90.8% 67.6% 43.7% -96 dBm
Rowe, MA 78.8% 78.8% 2.1% 0.7% -104 dBm 31.0% 31.0% 7.1% 5.3% -119 dBm 12.9% 12.9% 4.6% 1.9% -104 dBm
Shelburne Falls, MA 100.0% 100.0% 63.9% 26.2% -97 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 93.4% 91.8% -110 dBm 83.6% 83.6% 55.7% 37.7% -96 dBm
Shutesbury, MA 57.4% 57.4% 0.0% 0.0% -105 dBm 87.2% 87.2% 45.9% 32.2% -117 dBm 59.8% 59.8% 28.5% 7.7% -102 dBm
South Deerfield, MA 97.3% 97.3% 32.4% 16.2% -95 dBm 94.6% 94.6% 87.8% 68.9% -110 dBm 94.6% 94.6% 67.6% 35.1% -97 dBm
Sunderland, MA 96.1% 96.1% 0.3% 0.0% -93 dBm 98.8% 98.8% 76.6% 63.2% -115 dBm 78.7% 78.7% 65.6% 50.0% -90 dBm
Turners Falls, MA 100.0% 100.0% 47.6% 26.2% -91 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 76.2% 47.6% -106 dBm 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% -87 dBm
Warwick, MA 94.8% 94.8% 20.1% 8.0% -98 dBm 86.1% 86.1% 55.2% 47.5% -116 dBm 68.8% 68.8% 47.8% 21.5% -98 dBm
Wendell, MA 61.9% 61.9% 1.9% 0.4% -104 dBm 72.4% 72.4% 19.5% 10.3% -119 dBm 26.3% 26.3% 9.5% 3.1% -104 dBm
Whately, MA 93.3% 93.3% 0.0% 0.0% -95 dBm 97.1% 97.1% 72.4% 32.4% -116 dBm 58.1% 58.1% 47.6% 26.7% -96 dBm
Amherst Town, MA 99.8% 99.8% 34.9% 21.3% -94 dBm 99.8% 99.8% 73.4% 69.3% -113 dBm 99.4% 99.4% 91.8% 58.5% -93 dBm
Athol, MA 99.5% 99.5% 2.5% 0.5% -92 dBm 98.5% 98.5% 87.5% 72.0% -114 dBm 98.0% 98.0% 91.5% 69.0% -91 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 Franklin County, MA 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.