NV 3g, do you see better coverage?

[frankt3]

It has been mentioned that once a tower has been upgraded you might see a better signal up to 20% in some cases. Those of you that have the new 3g NV upgrades (not the band-aid fixes) have you seen better reception in those places where you had a weak or poor signal?

[nahum365]

Not really. There won't be much extra coverage until CDMA 800 is deployed.

[cripton805]

Im a new cusomer, so I cant say. My 3g speeds aren't that great. My voice coverage is ok.

[darnell89]

I haven't either, its still pretty bad, and weak. It has its moments getting a little over 1 mbps from time to time. Hope to see better coverage in early 2013.

[dmchssc]

I think I've noticed a very marginal effect. My phone hasn't switched to roaming while I'm at home as much as it was doing before. The improvement definitely isn't super noticeable. It might be enough to have increased the indicated strength on phones that show like seven bars by one.

[omega]

It has been mentioned that once a tower has been upgraded you might see a better signal up to 20% in some cases. Those of you that have the new 3g NV upgrades (not the band-aid fixes) have you seen better reception in those places where you had a weak or poor signal?

 

You are correct with the RUUs mounted at the top and the new fiber cabling there will be a coverage increase when completed 1900mhz included.

[DaQue]

Once they get most of an area upgraded before you notice more bars and better signal penetration. I read that they will increase the down tilt 10 degrees when an whole area is done and that will help make the signal stronger in the range the tower was ment to cover but cut the extended range to trying cover a non upgraded tower next door. Kind of like aiming a flash light closer to you on a path at night, it looks brighter but you can't see quite as far. The antenna panels have remote down tilt adjustment so they don't have to climb the tower again. Not sure if its a on the ground at the tower adjustment or if a signal can be sent over the backhaul to it from some "undisclosed secure location".

[TheForce627]

I can say I've seen a definite improvement. From around -95dbm rssi to around -84dbm

[chamb]

I can say I've seen a definite improvement. From around -95dbm rssi to around -84dbm

 

I have seen about a 5 DB improvement and even more depending on exactly where I am at. I have coverage in my basement and before the 3G upgrade, this was not something that was ever a consideration. Everybody will not necessarily have the same exact experience, but everybody probably will see some improvement.

[theg00ds0n]

I have not experienced true NV upgrades yet in Milwaukee, but 3G has definitely improved here. Inside my building it's not so great, but when I step out my front door I have greatly improved signal strength and speed. I'm starting to think some NV upgrades have been completed ahead of the real work. (Hoping anyway...)

[EvoMania]

It would be hard to judge the improvement. Most people arent in an active market let alone had enough towers upgraded around them to notice the improvement in service.

[supert0nes]

It would be hard to judge the improvement. Most people arent in an active market let alone had enough towers upgraded around them to notice the improvement in service.

 

BINGO!! These are all anecdotal reports. Very likely chances are the LTE tower people connect to right now is not the closest tower to them. The only place with a great 3g footprint is the Chicago suburbs, not even the city proper yet. I would say the book is definitely out still on whether 3g improvements will be as good as w are expecting. Your best bet would be to find individual posts of members who were able to do speed tests of towers with guaranteed 3g upgrades. Robert even suggested once getting close proximity to a tower + line of site and then putting your back against the wall of a big building to guarantee connectivity to a certain tower for 3g.

[Cubbiefan82]

I am split between kansas city and chicago(work and family). I can say that in my apartment in kansas city area, I went from having a hard time keep a conversation in the middle of my apartment and having to be by a window before nv. Went they upgraded to nv, I can have a conversation all though my apartment without a problem. Yet until smr 850, we won't see in-buliding signal that everyone wants. I can't want for it either, One of the reasons I bought the galaxy III. I knew it wouldn't be out of date phone in a year when they start rolling that out.

[lilotimz]

I am split between kansas city and chicago(work and family). I can say that in my apartment in kansas city area, I went from having a hard time keep a conversation in the middle of my apartment and having to be by a window before nv. Went they upgraded to nv, I can have a conversation all though my apartment without a problem. Yet until smr 850, we won't see in-buliding signal that everyone wants. I can't want for it either, One of the reasons I bought the galaxy III. I knew it wouldn't be out of date phone in a year when they start rolling that out.

 

SMR is 800. Sprint doesn't have any 850.

[Cubbiefan82]

SMR is 800. Sprint doesn't have any 850.

opps! I mean to type 800 smr, not 850 thanks for the correction.

[doug526]

opps! I mean to type 800 smr, not 850 thanks for the correction.

 

Semantics..

 

"SMR 800" is 806-824 MHz on the uplink and 851-869 MHz on the downlink. So it does encompass frequencies in the 850 range.

 

Cellular 850 as we know it -

A Block = 824-835 and 869-880 MHz

B Block = 835-849 and 880-894 MHz

 

So, literally speaking, saying SMR 850 is more accurate than Cellular 850!

 

Source(s):

http://niviuk.free.fr/lte_band.php

http://wireless2.fcc...&channelBlock=A

http://wireless2.fcc...&channelBlock=B

http://wireless2.fcc...?licKey=1953338

 

EDIT: It's literally, not technically. Thanks, Robert and AJ.

Edited December 31, 2012 by doug526

[S4GRU]

So, technically, saying SMR 850 is more accurate than Cellular 850!

 

And yet it's not.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

So, technically, saying SMR 850 is more accurate than Cellular 850!

 

Not really. Then, would you call it Cellular 900 MHz??? But that does not really make sense.

 

Remember, a decade ago, Cellular 800 MHz was common nomenclature. It still is unfortunately prevalent in some sources. So, Cellular 850 MHz is a definite clarification.

 

AJ

[doug526]

And yet it's not.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Then what is it?

[doug526]

Not really. Then, would you call it Cellular 900 MHz??? But that does not really make sense.

 

Remember, a decade ago, Cellular 800 MHz was common nomenclature. It still is unfortunately prevalent in some sources. So, Cellular 850 MHz is a definite clarification.

 

AJ

 

Again, semantics.

 

None of the Cellular A/B bands use anything in 850-859MHz. SMR does. So what is technically 850?

 

I wouldn't call Cellular 900 unless I was in Asia or Europe or various other continents/countries. Here in the states, unlicensed cordless telephones typically use the 900mhz range.

 

I really don't know why they decided to settle on Cellular 850 as what people commonly know as the Cellular A & B Blocks which don't use anything in the 850 range... But if someone could clear that up once and for all....

[S4GRU]

 

Then what is it?

 

Technically it is 800 SMR and Cellular 850. Because technical autocrats of technology have technically deemed it so. Technically and literally are two distinct concepts.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[doug526]

LOL.

 

The guy above corrected someone for saying SMR 850... Cellular 800, SMR 800, they all use frequencies that are 800 MHz and above. For simplicity, there's no reason to do that, because SMR 850 is literally more accurate than saying Cellular 850. Now can we for once put this age-old technocratic discrepancy to rest?

[WiWavelength]

Now can we for once put this age-old technocratic discrepancy to rest?

 

No, not at all. To illustrate, CDMA1X 850 and CDMA1X 800 are two different band classes. The distinction is very important -- even if you do not personally think that distinction is very accurate.

 

AJ

[doug526]

No, not at all. To illustrate, CDMA1X 850 and CDMA1X 800 are two different band classes. The distinction is very important -- even if you do not personally think that distinction is very accurate.

 

AJ

 

You're not getting the point at all.

 

If you're trying to be accurate then you should label them by their Band Classes and not the 800/850 reference.

[WiWavelength]

I have been at this a long time. This is the spectrum band nomenclature that I have decided upon and am consistent with...

 

Lower 700 MHz

Upper 700 MHz

SMR 800 MHz

Cellular 850 MHz

PCS 1900 MHz

AWS 2100+1700 MHz

BRS/EBS 2600 MHz

 

AJ