Jump to content

Expansion. Is there any?


Recommended Posts

It is no longer available. It was once available for viewing at http://nextelnetwork.sprint.com/ until Sprint remove it.

 

Damn, I think I can correlate the co-located towers based on signal strength on the Nextel maps and the zoom-able maps in the sponsor section. Trying to figure out how my parents coverage will be once NV is in place. I had to get them an AirRave for in home use. They always had really good Nextel coverage, just trying to figure out if they have a Nextel only tower that is being eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I think I can correlate the co-located towers based on signal strength on the Nextel maps and the zoom-able maps in the sponsor section. Trying to figure out how my parents coverage will be once NV is in place. I had to get them an AirRave for in home use. They always had really good Nextel coverage, just trying to figure out if they have a Nextel only tower that is being eliminated.

 

It would only be a very general guideline. AJ recently posted that Nextel iDEN 800 produced a pretty poor signal and could not be useful as far of a distance as CDMA on 800 will. Additionally, Sprint CDMA 800 (and ultimately LTE 800) will have RRU's which will also have greater signal gain.

 

Robert

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why i love CT they have a website that shows you ALL the carriers towers and when they last updated them and what they did in the update.

 

CT?

 

It would only be a very general guideline. AJ recently posted that Nextel iDEN 800 produced a pretty poor signal and could not be useful as far of a distance as CDMA on 800 will. Additionally, Sprint CDMA 800 (and ultimately LTE 800) will have RRU's which will also have greater signal gain.

 

Robert

 

Robert, what I was doing was looking at the Nextel map and where it had a dark blue circle for "Best Nextel" I then looked at the Sponsor map here and in some cases, there was a Sprint tower dead in the middle of that best coverage. I assume that to be a co-located tower. Other times there was not and I assume that to be a Nextel only tower and prolly eliminated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would only be a very general guideline. AJ recently posted that Nextel iDEN 800 produced a pretty poor signal and could not be useful as far of a distance as CDMA on 800 will.

 

iDEN does not transceive a "pretty poor signal" as much as it does a more complex signal. Since iDEN uses only 25 kHz channels, it requires 16-QAM to achieve sufficient throughput within such narrowband channelization. The downside is that 16-QAM makes iDEN signals more susceptible to fading, noise, and interference.

 

For a layman's analogy, imagine that someone a block or two away repeatedly holds up a sign with a single letter on it. In one scenario, the letter is one of only four: Q, R, S, or T. In a second scenario, the letter is one of 16: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, or P.

 

In the first scenario, you can likely make out the letter each time the sign goes up because Q, R, S, and T are all quite orthogonal. In other words, even at a distance, their "signals" remain quite distinct.

 

In the second scenario, however, you can likely make the letter sometimes but not other times, as B and E, C and O, F and P, I and L, for example, are not as easily distinguishable at a distance.

 

Now, the first scenario represents QPSK, a four symbol RF modulation scheme that CDMA1X uses, while the second scenario represents 16-QAM, the 16 symbol RF modulation scheme that iDEN uses. Below, you can see how the layman's visual analogy applies, as these are the symbol constellations for QPSK and 16-QAM, respectively:

 

200px-QPSK_Gray_Coded.svg.png

 

200px-16QAM_Gray_Coded.svg.png

 

In short, it is more difficult for a receiver to tell apart each of the 16 symbols in the 16-QAM constellation than it is the four symbols in the QPSK constellation. This is especially true as the signal is increasingly degraded by fading, noise, and interference. And that is basically why, despite a much lower frequency, iDEN 800/900 is generally similar to CDMA1X 1900 in site spacing and successful propagation distance.

 

AJ

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iDEN does not transceive a "pretty poor signal" as much as it does a more complex signal. Since iDEN uses only 25 kHz channels, it requires 16-QAM to achieve sufficient throughput within such narrowband channelization. The downside is that 16-QAM makes iDEN signals more susceptible to fading, noise, and interference.

 

For a layman's analogy, imagine that someone a block or two away repeatedly holds up a sign with a single letter on it. In one scenario, the letter is one of only four: Q, R, S, or T. In a second scenario, the letter is one of 16: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, or P.

 

In the first scenario, you can likely make out the letter each time the sign goes up because Q, R, S, and T are all quite orthogonal. In other words, even at a distance, their "signals" remain quite distinct.

 

In the second scenario, however, you can likely make the letter sometimes but not other times, as B and E, C and O, F and P, I and L, for example, are not as easily distinguishable at a distance.

 

Now, the first scenario represents QPSK, a four symbol RF modulation scheme that CDMA1X uses, while the second scenario represents 16-QAM, the 16 symbol RF modulation scheme that iDEN uses. Below, you can see how the layman's visual analogy applies, as these are the symbol constellations for QPSK and 16-QAM, respectively:

 

200px-QPSK_Gray_Coded.svg.png

 

200px-16QAM_Gray_Coded.svg.png

 

In short, it is more difficult for a receiver to tell apart each of the 16 symbols in the 16-QAM constellation than it is the four symbols in the QPSK constellation. This is especially true as the signal is increasingly degraded by fading, noise, and interference. And that is basically why, despite a much lower frequency, iDEN 800/900 is generally similar to CDMA1X 1900 in site spacing and successful propagation distance.

 

AJ

 

AJ, I'd like to schedule some training with you lol

 

Dude I've learned so much from your posts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iDEN does not transceive a "pretty poor signal" as much as it does a more complex signal. Since iDEN uses only 25 kHz channels, it requires 16-QAM to achieve sufficient throughput within such narrowband channelization. The downside is that 16-QAM makes iDEN signals more susceptible to fading, noise, and interference.

 

Pardon my poor choice of words to describe a difficult situation. My word selection was partly caused for the need of brevity in reply on my part and partly due to ignorance. Thank you for the clear explanation and the very easy to understand analogy. :tu:

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that is what I like to call, breaking it down "barney style." You made it so that just about anyone can understand a complex situation. :goodpost:

 

I call that breaking it down to construction paper and crayons

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all i can say right now is nextel has better coverage where i live right now. Will 800mhz be just as good as VZ 700mhz because everything is mounted behind the antennas?

 

According to Sprint Lab testing, they estimate less than a 3% difference between Verizon 700MHz LTE and Sprint 800MHz LTE coverage difference. That is virtually nothing. If a Verizon LTE signal would travel 15 miles, Sprint's LTE 800 would still be more than 14.5 miles. And at those kinds of distances, there are other factors that would likely be obstructing both signals. For most realistic deployments, you would see no appreciable difference.

 

Robert

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...I understand the whole 16QAM vs. QPSK side of things, but from what I've seen iDEN does actually propagate quite a bit farther than PCS CDMA. You have to remember that lower channel widths also translate into less susceptibility to noise, as well as higher power density for transmission (these are reasons why a 40MHz 802.11n channel will tend to have less coverage than a 20MHz one).

 

Another data point: LTE uses QPSK, 16QAM or 64QAM (respectively 2, 4 or 6 bits per symbol). My guess is that, with RRUs etc., 64QAM will still net similarly usable signals (so a few db higher SNR) on PCS to what QPSK CDMA was before. Could be wrong though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Sprint Lab testing, they estimate less than a 3% difference between Verizon 700MHz LTE and Sprint 800MHz LTE coverage difference. That is virtually nothing. If a Verizon LTE signal would travel 15 miles, Sprint's LTE 800 would still be more than 14.5 miles. And at those kinds of distances, there are other factors that would likely be obstructing both signals. For most realistic deployments, you would see no appreciable difference.

 

Robert

 

Good to hear, for areas where Sprint can deploy a full 5x5 LTE carrier anyway. My bet is that the 3% also accounts for the more robust properties of a narrower carrier (see my previous post re: iDEN).

 

All that said, I'd be surprised to see an LTE signal making it more than six or seven miles from the tower in decent condition, barring a high-gain antenna on the subscriber side. But since Sprint isn't trying (yet anyway) to do its own take on Verizon HomeFusion, that's fine...the point is to increase mobile coverage, particularly when it comes to in-building signals. Having the signal reach another mile or two in a rural area is an awesome bonus, but my bet is that that's gravy for Sprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to hear, for areas where Sprint can deploy a full 5x5 LTE carrier anyway. My bet is that the 3% also accounts for the more robust properties of a narrower carrier (see my previous post re: iDEN).

 

I think Sprint took everything into account when figuring that 3% number. Including the RRU advantage over VZW.

 

All that said, I'd be surprised to see an LTE signal making it more than six or seven miles from the tower in decent condition, barring a high-gain antenna on the subscriber side. But since Sprint isn't trying (yet anyway) to do its own take on Verizon HomeFusion, that's fine...the point is to increase mobile coverage, particularly when it comes to in-building signals. Having the signal reach another mile or two in a rural area is an awesome bonus, but my bet is that that's gravy for Sprint.

 

I don't think Sprint will plan on LTE distances much greater than 7 miles with 800 LTE. They may deploy it with very little downtilt in vast open areas like in the Western Rural Prairies and on Boomers in the Rural West for something a little farther.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sprint took everything into account when figuring that 3% number. Including the RRU advantage over VZW.

 

 

 

I don't think Sprint will plan on LTE distances much greater than 7 miles with 800 LTE. They may deploy it with very little downtilt in vast open areas like in the Western Rural Prairies and on Boomers in the Rural West for something a little farther.

 

Robert

 

I've seen the term "Boomer" a few different times around here. Is that some sort of a super tower?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've seen the term "Boomer" a few different times around here. Is that some sort of a super tower?

 

Its a tower that is really tall. Such as 300ft

 

Sent from my EVO LTE using Forum Runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the term "Boomer" a few different times around here.

 

Boomer...

 

0807_large.jpg

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boomer Sooner...

 

boomer-sooner_1_.jpg

 

AJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baby Boomer...

 

baby-boomers.jpg

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe you mean more like this kind of boomer...

 

400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVLY-TV_mast

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boooooooooomer...

 

Kxjb_tv_mast_pano.jpg

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe you mean more like this kind of boomer...

 

400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/KVLY-TV_mast

 

AJ

 

I'm sure glad they used a July shot. Wouldn't want North Dakota to get a reputation about their freezing cold winters.

 

Robert

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

  • Posts

    • Yet another "Carrier" move: T-Mobile users have only now discovered sneaky change made in May
    • Went to Hurricane Harbor again this past weekend, this time testing Verizon and T-Mobile. In my testing, Verizon is now the fastest carrier, at least on the Hurricane Harbor sector. Despite it being pretty overcast on Saturday with temperatures in the mid-80's the park was at full capacity.  Verizon had 160MHz of n77 and T-Mobile now has 160MHz of n41. On LTE I was seeing speeds in the range of 50-100Mbps while T-Mobile's LTE on was completely swamped, barely crossing 3Mbps. While both carriers only have a single high capacity sector (facing Great Adventure, Verizon benefits from having CBRS deployed on all sectors. This is an extra 60-100MHz of capacity that T-Mobile doesn't have. Maybe when T-Mobile gets around to deploying their C-band we'll see a boost in speeds again to be more competitive with Verizon. On the 5G side of things, T-Mobile's speeds were just over half that of Verizon.  That said, neither carrier was slow and I had zero issue using Xbox Cloud Gaming on T-Mobile despite their weaker upload speeds and higher ping.  
    • I think the newer ones have signal bars on them. I took a photo of one in Red Hook a month or two ago that had the same design.
    • Well well, looks like we found one of the two Link5G towers that might actually have 5G. Notice anything different? This one has the same signal bars icon that the pole mounted 5G oDAS units have. It’s in Chinatown at East Broadway and Forsyth St. It’s impossible to tell what carrier it is, though.
  • Recently Browsing

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