Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I did..not even close to me,lol

 

They are approximate coordinates that your phone gave to the app at the time you did the test.

 

The accuracy may or may not be perfect, but at some point your phone was near that area and that is what was given to the app when it asked for the location.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got some LTE in my office last night for about 30 seconds then it vanished. This morning I got it for about a minute and then I completely lost service and no more LTE. Sounds like they are testing a new Glendale tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the SF Valley is off today too. Could be weather related tech issues. 3G won't even connect in Canoga Park. Says 'network unavailable' ever since 7 this morning. Works ok in Calabasas but once you get to Canoga Park, it vanishes. Also 1-0 bars of voice coverage there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LTE speeds this week have been mostly on par with 3g speeds in Downtown LA. And we Southern Californians are spoiled. Our perception of bad weather is what most other parts of the country consider great weather.

 

I would be disappointed if the towers built here are as fickle as the citizens.. :D

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screenshot_2012-11-08-13-00-08.png

LTE had been shutted down and 3G sucks right now.

This is the same exact thing that's going on at the tower near me that appear to be finished. Sucky 3G speeds right under the tower and no sign of 4G. I've never been able to connect to 4G from there, yet. But I think it's possible it was active for a short period of time while I wasn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a little treat this morning. My phone picked up LTE, albeit a weak signal, beginning at Eshelman and PCH. I tracked it to Vermont and PCH where the phone finally lost the signal. My assumption is the LTE signal was coming from the tower at Lomita Blvd and Western which sits at the lowest elevated point in that neighborhood. (NOTE: Who was the genius that either decided to place the tower there and have the tower height 25ft, maybe 30 feet, high.) Residents to the West, North, and about an 1/8 mile to the East and South are not obstructed. But any further East and South the land inclines, then plateaus which I figure would obstruct the tower signal's direct line of sight....if that makes sense at all. If these signals can bend when traveling, then disregard this.

 

The topography in the South Bay has to be a pain for wireless services. My home sits in a ravine where coverage is awful for all four big networks. Thankfully, an Airave gives an extra boost to get phone coverage in and around my home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a little treat this morning. My phone picked up LTE, albeit a weak signal, beginning at Eshelman and PCH. I tracked it to Vermont and PCH where the phone finally lost the signal. My assumption is the LTE signal was coming from the tower at Lomita Blvd and Western which sits at the lowest elevated point in that neighborhood. (NOTE: Who was the genius that either decided to place the tower there and have the tower height 25ft, maybe 30 feet, high.) Residents to the West, North, and about an 1/8 mile to the East and South are not obstructed. But any further East and South the land inclines, then plateaus which I figure would obstruct the tower signal's direct line of sight....if that makes sense at all. If these signals can bend when traveling, then disregard this.

 

The topography in the South Bay has to be a pain for wireless services. My home sits in a ravine where coverage is awful for all four big networks. Thankfully, an Airave gives an extra boost to get phone coverage in and around my home.

 

You said it was the lowest elevated point in the neighborhood. It probably was an added site because that little depressed area probably didn't get good coverage from the other sites. Since it is likely a fill-in site, it wouldn't need to travel very far. When the other adjacent sites go live, you probably won't notice it being such a small cell.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys I have a question. Do you know, regarding address 8501 Fallbrook in Westhills, how far away is the closest tower and would the nv upgrades make any difference given the distance. This is a business parl full with offices and I am consntantly switching between 1x, 3g and 1x verizon. Sprint's signal is very week inside and a tiny little bit better outside. I have grown very frustrated with this situation and I am on the verge of switching. If NV upgrade would make a difference I would stay, but if the distance is too big, it probably won't matter. So if someone has some knowledge to drop, please enlighten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the address is out of range from the nearest active LTE tower. You can check this info on www.sensorly.com. Like most things in life, the answer to your question is IT DEPENDS. The factors that Sprint controls are the tower location and signal(s) strengths.

 

If you donate some $$ to the site, you get Sponsored access to some very good intel. And you'll make Robert a happy camper too. Speaking of which, I need to drop a few coins in Robert's bucket. I can't believe I've been a member for over six months.

 

Hey guys I have a question. Do you know, regarding address 8501 Fallbrook in Westhills, how far away is the closest tower and would the nv upgrades make any difference given the distance. This is a business parl full with offices and I am consntantly switching between 1x, 3g and 1x verizon. Sprint's signal is very week inside and a tiny little bit better outside. I have grown very frustrated with this situation and I am on the verge of switching. If NV upgrade would make a difference I would stay, but if the distance is too big, it probably won't matter. So if someone has some knowledge to drop, please enlighten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the address is out of range from the nearest active LTE tower. You can check this info on www.sensorly.com. Like most things in life, the answer to your question is IT DEPENDS. The factors that Sprint controls are the tower location and signal(s) strengths.

 

If you donate some $$ to the site, you get Sponsored access to some very good intel. And you'll make Robert a happy camper too. Speaking of which, I need to drop a few coins in Robert's bucket. I can't believe I've been a member for over six months.

 

 

I know i am not close to LTE, I mapped the lte currently on sensorly on Fallbrook. My question was regarding any kind of service that would hold enough for a phone call or tune in stream. And regarding the donation - I don't like paying for bad news, and pretty convinced I will find out that the closest tower so far away that regardless of NV upgrades my service will still suck and probably hasten my move to another company.

 

The most frustrating thing is that everyone else here has descent service Verizon, ATT, and T-mobile. Only Sprint consider's ones place of employement a secondary priority. Mind you there are about 5000 people working on this address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that network vision should help you there. You can find the cell towers on this map.

 

https://network.spri...ch/los+angeles/

 

Thank you for this. The bad part is that the closest tower already hs NV and LTE and I still get nothing here. So decision made. T-Mo it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this. The bad part is that the closest tower already hs NV and LTE and I still get nothing here. So decision made. T-Mo it is.

 

This map link does not show all Sprint sites. Not even close. Only the ones with upgrades in the past six months. S4GRU maps show all Sprint sites in the country.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This map link does not show all Sprint sites. Not even close. Only the ones with upgrades in the past six months. S4GRU maps show all Sprint sites in the country.

 

Robert

 

So basically the only way for me to find out the likelyness of me getting better service is to pay a 3rd party. This speaks really bad for Sprint. I appreciate the work you guys have done collecting this information, I just don't believe that it should be your job to give me, as a customer of Sprint, any hope of staying and waiting better service. If their maps are so screwed that it makes me think that the closest tower was already upgraded, well then its their loss of a customer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So basically the only way for me to find out the likelyness of me getting better service is to pay a 3rd party. This speaks really bad for Sprint. I appreciate the work you guys have done collecting this information' date=' I just don't believe that it should be your job to give me, as a customer of Sprint, any hope of staying and waiting better service. If their maps are so screwed that it makes me think that the closest tower was already upgraded, well then its their loss of a customer.[/quote']

 

I understand your frustration. If Sprint doesn't meet your needs, but Tmo does, you should use their service. No hard feelings.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...