Jump to content

NV 3g, do you see better coverage?


Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by doug526
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

 Share

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Here is how many competitive permits are "remaining" in each state after round 27: (bonus points: reply with the states/territories/districts that are already "settled".) AL 4 AR 1 AS 2 AZ 5 CA 2 CO 53 DE 2 FL 5 GA 48 GU 3 HI 3 IA 40 ID 19 IL 7 IN 19 KS 113 KY 22 LA 9 MA 3 MD 11 ME 1 MI 48 MO 54 MP 10 MS 27 MT 33 NC 12 ND 22 NE 8 NH 1 NJ 2 NM 26 NV 17 NY 6 OH 24 OK 9 OR 2 PA 2 PR 1 SC 12 SD 47 TN 17 TX 36 UT 23 VA 8 WA 22 WI 22 WV 2 WY 11
    • Almost 89% and $250 Million after round 27.
    • Pace picks up a bit.  Round 23.  About 86% now "uncontested" and $223 Million total.  Down to 159 licenses without bids.
    • https://www.lightreading.com/5g/the-quiet-brilliance-of-t-mobiles-5g-spectrum-strategy/a/d-id/779589? Basically Money savings on 2.5 mostly rural auction are funding 600MHz purchases.  Also mentions continuing purchases of 2.5 outright. Likely understates the amount of MHz. Auction going slightly faster with 4 auction sessions per day now, but still less than 80% "settled".  After 18 rounds it is at $190 Million, with $400 to $800 Million expected. could go on for another month.  check here for updates about 1 hour after each round: https://www.sashajavid.com/FCC_Auction108.php#county_details_table_overlay
    • Yeah, I went up to Kitsap on Friday. Was able to connect to several n41 sites as SA only in Port Orchard, Bremerton and Silverdale.  However, I could not get any throughput.  It would say Mobile Data Suspended.  n41 NSA would throughput just fine. Was pushing 500-800 Mbps. I don't know if it was the network at the time or my device causing the failure for data throughput. It was the exact same result on every site I connected to.  I'm on a normal Tmo Postpaid SIM.  Nothing unusual.  LG V60. Robert n41 SA   n41 NSA
  • Recently Browsing

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