Jump to content

Sprint LTE Coverage Maps via Sensorly


Recommended Posts

 

I think the concern is that the GNex keeps and reports a much stronger LTE signal than other devices, so it will throw "true" coverage off for a majority of users.

 

No, it doesn't keep the signal it reports a wrong signal to the map than what it actually has. When the signal is actually falling off the Gnex is still reporting as full signal.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, it doesn't keep the signal it reports a wrong signal to the map than what it actually has. When the signal is actually falling off the Gnex is still reporting as full signal.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

Not on my phone bro. I have moderate lte signal in my house and when I mapped it it showed as midline purple corresponding to my signal.

 

Sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus rockin 4.2.2 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a bunch of wimax reporting yesterday and it hasnt shown up :(

 

Over 2500 new lte points yesterday and some layers updated within 15 min. I checked several hours later and almost all of the layers were updated.

 

Did your points upload?

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over 2500 new lte points yesterday and some layers updated within 15 min. I checked several hours later and almost all of the layers were updated.

 

Did your points upload?

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

Nope, was about 1,500 yesterday and 600 today, none have shown up.

 

Im mapping around zip code 08901 -wimax, not lte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps some statistical filtering could be used to screen bad data? Devices that consistently report perfect signal strength should not have their "measurements" added to the database.

We already do stuff like that on the phone and on the server. Maybe something got through ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already do stuff like that on the phone and on the server. Maybe something got through ?

 

In Boston (02115 zip code), there's been significant "perfect signal" pollution around the Back Bay. A good example is the dark purple spot on the north side of Copley Square. 4G has one bar there. Along Commonwealth Avenue, you can see that some pollution has been overwritten a bit, but you can tell because of the random dark purple spots amongst the weak signal reported by other devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, will take a look into this. Gotta find what phone reported that data. Any idea of when it was reported by any chance ?

 

My money is on GNex. We had a few users polluting up the New Orleans area with strong signal on the map when really it was a fringe signal.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please show me where is 4G WiMax sites in Colorado Springs .. How did you found it?

 

Robert has already done a ton of work to map the BRS 2600 MHz WiMAX license protection sites. Geez, pony up at least $40 to become an S4GRU sponsor. Give the man some credit for the massive unpaid work that he has done. Then, the information that you gain is practically priceless.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert has already done a ton of work to map the BRS 2600 MHz WiMAX license protection sites. Geez, pony up at least $40 to become an S4GRU sponsor. Give the man some credit for the massive unpaid work that he has done. Then, the information that you gain is practically priceless.

 

AJ

 

Actually your statement is not accurate. There are two sites in the Colorado Springs area.!!

He said that and I want to know where are they !! I have Galaxy SII and I live in Colorado springs !! This is Not an Attack or argument .. Just a question ok .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually your statement is not accurate. There are two sites in the Colorado Springs area.!!

He said that and I want to know where are they !! I have Galaxy SII and I live in Colorado springs !! This is Not an Attack or argument .. Just a question ok .....

 

How is my statement not accurate?

 

Yes, we know that there are two license protection sites in the Colorado Springs area. Robert has mapped both of them. The locations are known to S4RU sponsors.

 

The question then is: why are you not an S4GRU sponsor?

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is my statement not accurate?

 

Yes, we know that there are two license protection sites in the Colorado Springs area. Robert has mapped both of them. The locations are known to S4RU sponsors.

 

The question then is: why are you not an S4GRU sponsor?

 

AJ

 

lol ok .. my answer is I don't have time to become a sponsor. I'm in the Army and all my time is training ;)

 

BTW there is no Wimax in colorado springs ;)

Edited by coloradosprings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

lol ok .. my answer is I don't have time to become a sponsor. I'm in the Army and all my time is training ;)

 

BTW there is no Wimax in colorado springs ;)

 

And BTW you are not in the Army.

 

Sent from my little Note2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why they aren't uploading, mine were uploading just fine when I viewed the details screen.

 

Ive never had problems before. 95% of the wimax in that vicinity was mapped by me....

 

Still hasn't shown up.

 

Not accurate ..showing 4G WiMax in Colorado Springs. 3G only here

 

It is accurate. Those are known as protection sights, and they offer wimax but not " good" wimax. That is, dont expect to get the signal inside a building, and what has been mapped by sensorly may not be the full coverage that exists today. In Fresno, the protection site apparently had its power turned down or something, because you can only get the wimax in about 1/4 of the range indicated by previous users.

 

Im not sure why Wavelength is being so hostile, but to become a sponsor and see those maps is available for any size donation - not $40. I started out with a small donation (money was tight) and my second one was bigger. My next donation will be larger again. There is quite a good amount of info in the locked forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now kids, play nice, don't make me turn this short bus around. @coloradosprings check here http://www.clear.com/coverage, it can be seen "Clear" as day

 

Can you please stop arguing and call sprintor go to there website to check if SPRINT has 4G ( wimax or LTE) in Colorado springs.

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

    • 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...