T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion

[WiWavelength]

I'm on mobile.

Is there a checkbox to only show b2 or only b12?

Nope there's not. If you click on a b2 lte area, te popup will say "click here to see compatible devices"

Lame.

There should be a enable disable checkbox for b2 and b12 lte

 

The revised T-Mobile multi band map is a disappointing half measure.  The need to drop a pin on the map in every little town in order to distinguish band 2 LTE and/or band 12 LTE from band 4 LTE smacks of obfuscation.  It is the same old same old -- as in the need to drop a pin on the map in order to distinguish "4G" caliber W-CDMA from "3G" caliber W-CDMA.  T-Mobile also needs to have a W-CDMA only map layer to depict where band 2 W-CDMA is available, especially where it does or does not underlay band 2 LTE.

 

In all honestly, the current T-Mobile multi band situation is a bit of a mess, since it affects large swaths of coverage across the country.  By comparison, the Sprint multi band situation is more stable, as it affects mostly LTE data speeds, not coverage.

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

Sorry AJ, I am not really sympathetic to the proliferation of UHF stations all running reruns of the same hit series.

 

Straw man argument.  So many big network affiliates have retained their VHF virtual channels but moved to UHF physical channels because of a lower noise floor and smaller antenna size.

 

AJ

[milan03]

There has to be an empty channel between wireless and TV because the relative power difference between the two is huge.  If you're near a TV transmitter (up to 1000 kW) then the TV signal will stomp on the wireless transmissions (up to 1 kW/MHz from the base station, I think, but usually much less, and not more than a few watts max on the phone side).  The reverse is also true if you're far away from a TV transmitter; the wireless transmission from the phone will be so much higher in power than the received power level of the TV signal that the TV receiver won't be able to handle it.

 

As for TV-to-TV, there doesn't necessarily have to be an empty TV channel between the two as long as the stations are geographically close together.  In your area, WOOD is on channel 7 and WWMT is on channel 8 without issue.  Where there is a problem is when there is distance between the two stations such that areas exist where one station will be more than about 30 dB stronger than the other, causing receivers to be unable to decode the weaker signal.

 

- Trip

By any chance, do you have any idea if Ch 51 WNJN out of Montclair, NJ has reduced their broadcast footprint? The reason I'm asking is because many of us in NYC can access it OTA anymore, leading us to believe that they've worked out some kind of an agreement with T-Mobile.

 

Since August, on WNJN's own website viewers have been complaining that they can't access their OTA broadcast anymore. WNJN is still present on cable/FiOS.

 

Thanks!

[lou99/maximus1987]

Subject to explicit protections for tv stations, why shouldn't the fcc's guiding philosophy be "let them have satellite"?

[Trip]

Not aware of any changes to WNJN.  Until about two weeks ago, I had a TV tuner I could remote access at my grandma's house in Fair Lawn.  Two days after she left for a two-month vacation, the computer it was connected to stopped responding.  If it was still working, I'd have a look for you.

 

Since you say the change was in August, my data covers that much.  I don't see any changes in signal level during that time.  http://www.rabbitears.info/tvdx/signal_graph/10343612/tuner1/WNJN

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

Why isn't eminent domain a valid way to do this? With the kelo vs new London decision, supremes said its constitutional to take private property and give it to another corp if it increases tax revenue.

[milan03]

Not aware of any changes to WNJN.  Until about two weeks ago, I had a TV tuner I could remote access at my grandma's house in Fair Lawn.  Two days after she left for a two-month vacation, the computer it was connected to stopped responding.  If it was still working, I'd have a look for you.

 

Since you say the change was in August, my data covers that much.  I don't see any changes in signal level during that time.  http://www.rabbitears.info/tvdx/signal_graph/10343612/tuner1/WNJN

 

- Trip

Ah thanks for the link. Is it even technically possible to reduce the transmission facing east (towards NYC), and is there a technical explanation why it became impossible to access WNJN in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn. We still have access to PBS on Ch 13 WNET.

 

Thanks again! 

[Trip]

Ah thanks for the link. Is it even technically possible to reduce the transmission facing east (towards NYC), and is there a technical explanation why it became impossible to access WNJN in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn. We still have access to PBS on Ch 13 WNET.

 

Thanks again! 

 

If the signal strength had been cut toward New York, the link I provided would show it since short of physically replacing the antenna, the only way to reduce the power to New York would be to reduce the total power.

 

In any case, looking at the NJTV website, it appears the complaints are from all four transmitters, not just WNJN.  My guess is that something changed in the way the signal is being encoded, but without access to my tuner, I couldn't tell you what.  There's plenty of ways that bad encoding could have broken something. 

 

- Trip

[lordsutch]

Honestly (although I think we're edging WAY off topic) there are solutions for over-the-air TV; the UK and Ireland have both terrestrial and satellite free-to-air options (Freeview/Freesat) with better use of spectrum, including HDTV. It just requires the broadcasters to work together and multiplex signals rather than every affiliate trying to figure out what to do with its 6 MHz allocation on its own.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Honestly (although I think we're edging WAY off topic) there are solutions for over-the-air TV; the UK and Ireland have both terrestrial and satellite free-to-air options (Freeview/Freesat) with better use of spectrum, including HDTV. It just requires the broadcasters to work together and multiplex signals rather than every affiliate trying to figure out what to do with its 6 MHz allocation on its own.

How did they get some sat channels to be free?

This is definitely relevant to tmobile as an out if the box solution may be required if the fcc doesn't want to use eminent domain.

[Conan Kudo]

Honestly (although I think we're edging WAY off topic) there are solutions for over-the-air TV; the UK and Ireland have both terrestrial and satellite free-to-air options (Freeview/Freesat) with better use of spectrum, including HDTV. It just requires the broadcasters to work together and multiplex signals rather than every affiliate trying to figure out what to do with its 6 MHz allocation on its own.

FYI: Broadcasters in Europe have 8MHz channels, not 6MHz. And there are fewer broadcasters per country, as well. On a per state basis, we still have slightly more operating broadcasters than any individual European country, but we do have fewer "transmitters" than they do.

[WiWavelength]

Honestly (although I think we're edging WAY off topic) there are solutions for over-the-air TV; the UK and Ireland have both terrestrial and satellite free-to-air options (Freeview/Freesat) with better use of spectrum, including HDTV.

 

Totally different animal.  The UK requires any TV household to pay roughly $200 annually for a TV license, which goes to support free broadcasting.

 

AJ

[lordsutch]

Totally different animal. The UK requires any TV household to pay roughly $200 annually for a TV license, which goes to support free broadcasting.

Actually it only supports the BBC, which runs fewer than 25% of the free-to-air channels. The rest of the companies, including divisions of US media conglomerates, make do with advertising (and less of it than is allowed here). And other European countries do similar things without a TV license fee.

 

The point is It Can Be Done if the political will is there to rationalize OTA TV, particularly since I doubt the next round of ATSC will be backward compatible with current OTA reception anyway.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Actually it only supports the BBC, which runs fewer than 25% of the free-to-air channels. The rest of the companies, including divisions of US media conglomerates, make do with advertising (and less of it than is allowed here). And other European countries do similar things without a TV license fee.

 

The point is It Can Be Done if the political will is there to rationalize OTA TV, particularly since I doubt the next round of ATSC will be backward compatible with current OTA reception anyway.

Why don't we just go with lte broadcast for tv?

Remove all tv stations and require the winners of the spectrum to provide lte briar cast tv on their spectrum?

[WiWavelength]

Why don't we just go with lte broadcast for tv?

Remove all tv stations and require the winners of the spectrum to provide lte briar cast tv on their spectrum?

 

Uh, that is one of the most technically foolish ideas I have heard in a while.  First, each ATSC channel runs 20 Mbps.  Second, huge areas of the country would lose all broadcast TV service.

 

AJ

[lou99/maximus1987]

Uh, that is one of the most technically foolish ideas I have heard in a while. First, each ATSC channel runs 20 Mbps. Second, huge areas of the country would lose all broadcast TV service.

 

AJ

Why do they need 20mbps? Are they using latest video encoding?

[WiWavelength]

Why do they need 20mbps? Are they using latest video encoding?

 

Why?  Because that is the net bit rate after error correction for a 6 MHz channel with 8VSB modulation at a baud rate of 10.76 million symbols per second.

 

And the "latest video encoding"?  Not possible.  It is MPEG-2.  The ATSC standard was set 20 years ago.

 

Are you really this ignorant on this topic?  

 

AJ

[lou99/maximus1987]

Why? Because that is the net bit rate after error correction for a 6 MHz channel with 8VSB modulation at a baud rate of 10.76 million symbols per second.

 

And the "latest video encoding"? Not possible. It is MPEG-2. The ATSC standard was set 20 years ago.

 

Are you really this ignorant on this topic?

 

AJ

Yes.

So why can't they switch to mpeg4, give out converter boxes like last time.

 

Extra towers would be erected for those losing broadcast coverage.

[Trip]

I'm glad you're volunteering to fund the production and distribution of converter boxes, installation of new encoders for broadcasters, and construction of extra towers to fill newly created coverage gaps.  Just as soon as you let everyone else know that you're taking on the billions of dollars in costs involved we can move forward.

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

I'm glad you're volunteering to fund the production and distribution of converter boxes, installation of new encoders for broadcasters, and construction of extra towers to fill newly created coverage gaps. Just as soon as you let everyone else know that you're taking on the billions of dollars in costs involved we can move forward.

 

- Trip

Who paid for the 2008 converter boxes? Wasn't it the auction proceeds?

[maxsilver]

Who paid for the 2008 converter boxes? Wasn't it the auction proceeds?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupon-eligible_converter_box

 

Wikipedia claims there was a shortfall in funding, some of it came from the FCC via auctions, but some of it came from other places (including part from the American Recovery/Reinvestment Act)

[lou99/maximus1987]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupon-eligible_converter_box

 

There was a shortfall in funding, some of it came from auctions, but some of it came from other places (including the American Recovery/Reinvestment Act)

Whatever. As long as tmus gets nationwide 700a, I don't think it needs more.

Its subs are already urban-centered.

[Trip]

Construction of thousands of new towers (plus their on-going costs like rent, power, backhaul, etc) plus thousands of new encoders for broadcasters would likely exceed auction proceeds.  And that's assuming you don't want to kinds of redundancy that makes broadcast much more reliable than most other media during disasters.

 

- Trip

[lou99/maximus1987]

Yes, but construction of thousands of new towers (plus their on-going costs like rent, power, backhaul, etc) plus thousands of new encoders for broadcasters would likely exceed auction proceeds. And that's assuming you don't want to kinds of redundancy that makes broadcast much more reliable than most other media during disasters.

 

- Trip

That responsibility should be for license winner in each given area.

Costs would be clear upfront and would be factored into the bidding process.

I'm not sayin it's cheap but if carriers REAAAAAALLY need more lowband, they'll pay it as the cost of doing business.

[Fraydog]

Think of all the bandwidth we could free up from flipping off ATSC to something else. That's the issue I have with a lot of this. Lots of broadcasters are stuck in 1985 - lots of crap channels that don't really air good content or religious broadcasters trying to shake down old ladies by soliciting donations on TV, the Benny Hinn's of the world if you will. I am all for converter box, round 2. Get TV to go to H.265 and that frees up lots of room for 1080p and broadcasters to share channels.

 

Look, I know there are technical issues with doing this now, but if someone would plan this right 3-4 years down the road the U.S. could have a better system.