Jump to content

Chicago and Boston LTE discoverable on Sept 21


Rasta Cheesehead

Recommended Posts

How do you know which towers have been upgraded to support LTE.

Look at the "close up pictures of panels and RRUs" thread, and if you see similar stuff on a tower near you, it may be upgraded already . Or the EASY way is to become a sponsor and look at the completed sites map :)

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/1195-information-about-s4gru-sponsorship-levels-and-how-to-become-a-sponsor/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicagoland update. The 4G LTE bubble on coverage.sprint.com is very accurate. I drove on Lake-Cook Rd and then NW on 12. to Lake Barrington. 4G signal is solid and consistent. When leaving this "bubble" only 3G is available. So this coverage map is very accurate. In fact, the small area on highway 14 in Palatine worked and then went to 3G after leaving this area.

 

 

How do you post images here?

 

screenshot2012092412514.png%20%20Uploaded%20with%20ImageShack.us"]http://screenshot2012092412514.png Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url]

Edited by abepilot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicagoland update. The 4G LTE bubble on coverage.sprint.com is very accurate. I drove on Lake-Cook Rd and then NW on 12. to Lake Barrington. 4G signal is solid and consistent. When leaving this "bubble" only 3G is available. So this coverage map is very accurate. In fact, the small area on highway 14 in Palatine worked and then went to 3G after leaving this area.

 

 

How do you post images here?

Edited by dhunt4949
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Batavia, IL yesterday for a 5k and there was plenty of LTE. My fastest speedtest was achieved at the Costco parking lot in St. Charles.

 

 

screenshot2012092409332.png

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Did you map out your 5k run with sensorly for all us coverage nerds?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got LTE at 167th & I-355. Full 5 bars 16.3 mb down 18mb up. Thank you Sprint!

 

With a 16Mbps speed, you probably had less than full bars. Probably more like 4 out of 5. But your signal strength indicator never shows LTE signal strength even when the 4G icon is shown. We have written about it here: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/2040-bars-lie-for-lte-signal-strength-how-to-determine-your-actual-lte-signal-strength/

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a 16Mbps speed, you probably had less than full bars. Probably more like 4 out of 5. But your signal strength indicator never shows LTE signal strength even when the 4G icon is shown. We have written about it here: http://s4gru.com/ind...ignal-strength/

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

You can make your signal strength indicator show LTE by putting your phone into forced LTE only mode. Yeah, you wont be able to make calls or texts, but if you really want to see some bars this is a good way of doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can make your signal strength indicator show LTE by putting your phone into forced LTE only mode. Yeah, you wont be able to make calls or texts, but if you really want to see some bars this is a good way of doing it.

 

I've done that on my EVO 4G LTE and it just displayed no bars, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done that on my EVO 4G LTE and it just displayed no bars, period.

Thats odd, my GS3 actually shows bars with it turned on.

 

Nothing odd, really, because there is no standard whatsoever. Handset OEMs, carriers and even custom ROM developers are free to display whatever "bars" they want, based on whatever metrics and intervals they want.

 

Bars = BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Nothing odd, really, because there is no standard whatsoever. Handset OEMs, carriers and even custom ROM developers are free to display whatever "bars" they want, based on whatever metrics and intervals they want.

 

Bars = BS.

yup always a nice feature of custom roms to have the bars tweaked to display ACTUALLY signal reception as opposed to carrier lies haha

 

~ TF101 on Revolver4.2.1

Currently OC'ed to 1.4, with Guevor's v22.6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! first post here! Got the iPhone 5 the 21st. Exchanged it last Wednesday for the SGS3 cuz the iPhone was having a terrible time staying connected to LTE and holding a signal all together. the S3 hangs onto LTE MUCH better then the iPhone did.

 

Here's some speeds I saw on the iPhone and then a shot of the S3.

 

First photo is right near a tower, second is in my bedroom and the third was taken while driving out of my neighborhood

 

photo-1.PNG photo-2.PNG Screenshot_2012-09-30-12-35-38.png

Edited by gusherb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • 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...