Jump to content

Network Vision/LTE - Tucson/Yuma Market


jasper7821

Recommended Posts

QUESTION! if yuma and tucson are obviously having work done why doesnt sprint officially say that 4g will be here soon like it does other cities

 

Because Sprint has a set timeframe for when it is announcing new cities in groups. Otherwise they would be announcing new cities that are coming soon every few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Sprint has a set timeframe for when it is announcing new cities in groups. Otherwise they would be announcing new cities that are coming soon every few days.

 

Damn, the wait is killing me! I wish they would just get them up and running once they finish with the upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is the sprint tower by my house a 4g tower,

 

edit: nevermind i cant post anymore pictures, the tower in question is PH29XC532

 

i have pictures of clearwire and sprint equipment, but oh well! anyone have info on the above site?

Edited by CaveCam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4G LTE lit up on I-15 by Mission Road, up until about Rainbow Valley Blvd. I did map it on Sensorly but I was getting unusable speeds.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

Sorry, I submitted that info in the wrong region. :wacko:

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing really trustworthy, a sprint rep at broadway and craycroft said the first lte signals in Tucson would be detectable in 2-3 weeks but i think this is false

 

Same here in Yuma, the store is saying LTE will start going live in about 3 or 4 weeks. That was the store close to a tower that has been upgraded so that might not be too far off.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend works for sprint, believe me, they don't have any more inside info than this site does..

 

Very true, and I too have friends at a corporate store and I feed them more info than what the state rep tells them. But sometimes they do feed then accurate info that makes sense.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped by the tower near me in Tucson (Mountain and Prince), didn't see any activity or one of those signs posted indicating dates and activity, etc. I really hope something happens soon, so that I can actually use my cell phone at my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more tower had their equipment dropped off yesterday afternoon here in Yuma. I will post the site number later. The location is 32nd street and Ave A.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sucks that Yuma has all that movement, There's like 40 people in Yuma lol

 

Don't hate, appreciate. I don't think it sux. Besides, I'm just touching the surface of all the 18 towers here in Yuma. I'm reporting on the ones that surround my casa

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this rate it feels like Tucson will be dead last.. its not like we have over half a million people here or anything. At least the 3G has been faster O_o

 

At least you guys have fast 3g, we still behind on that, though some towers are being fed new backhaul.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least you guys have fast 3g, we still behind on that, though some towers are being fed new backhaul.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

I just wish they would hurry! I already ordered my new phone so im stuck with them for another 2 years.. I really hope i made the right choice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yuma only has a handful of towers in comparison. Tucson has the bulk of the towers in all of southern AZ.

 

Yuma and the freeway leading towards Casa Grande only have about 18 towers total, 1/3 of which are in the Interstate, so that leaves only about a dozen in Yuma and the surrounding area. Tucson metro has about 130 or so, I'm too lazy to count them all myself.

 

There are 15 currently open Network Vision tickets in the event board for the Tucson metro area, and that doesn't even match up with some of the info S4GRU has gotten about towers being worked on currently (other info I have access to does match up with S4GRU so it is legit, just the NEB doesn't). There are more towers being actively worked on than open Network Tickets for the average minimum-wage Care rep to look through.

 

Considering work only just started a couple weeks ago, they're averaging about 1 tower a day in Tucson and the surrounding area. Keep in mind, this is 1900 CDMA only. Which is ok, a stable 3G network to fallback on while testing 4G is better than an unstable 3G to fallback on and testing 4G. For the average person, stable 1+ Mbps 3G with a low ping is all they need.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yuma only has a handful of towers in comparison. Tucson has the bulk of the towers in all of southern AZ.

 

Yuma and the freeway leading towards Casa Grande only have about 18 towers total, 1/3 of which are in the Interstate, so that leaves only about a dozen in Yuma and the surrounding area. Tucson metro has about 130 or so, I'm too lazy to count them all myself.

 

There are 15 currently open Network Vision tickets in the event board for the Tucson metro area, and that doesn't even match up with some of the info S4GRU has gotten about towers being worked on currently (other info I have access to does match up with S4GRU so it is legit, just the NEB doesn't). There are more towers being actively worked on than open Network Tickets for the average minimum-wage Care rep to look through.

 

Considering work only just started a couple weeks ago, they're averaging about 1 tower a day in Tucson and the surrounding area. Keep in mind, this is 1900 CDMA only. Which is ok, a stable 3G network to fallback on while testing 4G is better than an unstable 3G to fallback on and testing 4G. For the average person, stable 1+ Mbps 3G with a low ping is all they need.

 

Thats about what i have been getting (the 1Mbps speed). Hell of alot better then the 0.25-0.05 Mbps i have been getting since i got sprint. So do they have to upgrade every tower with 3g before they even start 4g?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Thats about what i have been getting (the 1Mbps speed). Hell of alot better then the 0.25-0.05 Mbps i have been getting since i got sprint. So do they have to upgrade every tower with 3g before they even start 4g?

 

 

They don't have to, but that's what Alcatel Lucent does. 3G first then 4G later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have to, but that's what Alcatel Lucent does. 3G first then 4G later.

 

I see. Sorry to ask but do you have an estimate or prediction of when they will finish and start working on the 4g part? Also do they do any work involving 4g when they upgrade the 3g equipment or do they just work on 3g only. I ask because it would make sense to just get a start on 4g so they can get through the 4g quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I see. Sorry to ask but do you have an estimate or prediction of when they will finish and start working on the 4g part? Also do they do any work involving 4g when they upgrade the 3g equipment or do they just work on 3g only. I ask because it would make sense to just get a start on 4g so they can get through the 4g quicker.

 

 

Alcatel Lucent seems to do LTE 60-90 days after. Most of the equipment is the same, panels are already up since the same panel is used for both, but 4G RRUs usually have to be installed still and upgraded backhaul as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcatel Lucent seems to do LTE 60-90 days after. Most of the equipment is the same, panels are already up since the same panel is used for both, but 4G RRUs usually have to be installed still and upgraded backhaul as well.

 

Ah, good to know! Thanks for all the helpful info man! You rock :tu:

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

    • I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • 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.
  • Recently Browsing

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