Jump to content

Network Vision and Spark EARFCN logging thread


Recommended Posts

Let me see what I can do about a screen shot...

 

That would be great.  But be precise about location.  Said engineering screen cap basically would need to come from St. Louis proper to be conclusive -- because the Chicago MTA extends surprisingly close to St. Louis exurbs on the Illinois side.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • EARFCN 8615 (downlink) [Chillicothe, Ohio (Ross County)]
  • EARFCN 26615 (uplink) [Chillicothe, Ohio (Ross County)]

source: http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4742-columbus-market-mapspreadsheet/page-187&do=findComment&comment=411896

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply replying to the post above mine that basically the 2nd LTE carrier is more widespread across this region than South Bend.

 

 

 

Let me see what I can do about a screen shot...

I haven't seen any reports of a second carrier in the St. Louis area.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ, here's another 40254 like a few posts up from the Chicago market second carrier FIT.

084cee12d654fd053f2f3717b6b4b8c8.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

Keep an eye on that TX value. I don't have an iphone, so I can't keep an eye on it myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep an eye on that TX value. I don't have an iphone, so I can't keep an eye on it myself.

I always do, although I'm not sure if I should. One of our knowledgable staff members would know more than me if MIMO would be part of this phase of network vision.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I haven't seen any reports of a second carrier in the St. Louis area.

 

This is my error. First time being outside a Samsung market. Apparently Sector 03 doesn't translate as a 2nd LTE carrier outside of Samsung.  :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

41176 no longer restricted to Kansas City, also Zanesville Ohio for their b41 second carrier:

0e4e4654abefaa3f9356d35546d7ba2e.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

2nd PCS LTE carrier found in Flint,  MI

 

 

 

It translates to 1876.8 / 1956.8 MHz which is within the the 30 mhz 1870-1885 / 1950-1965

 PCS B block allocation that Sprint has in East Michigan. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2nd PCS LTE carrier found in Flint,  MI

attachicon.gifScreenshot_2015-07-05-13-27-04.png

It translates to 1876.8 / 1956.8 MHz which is within the the 30 mhz 1870-1885 / 1950-1965

 PCS B block allocation that Sprint has in East Michigan. 

 

Top post updated.  Band 41 spreadsheet updated.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

B25 second carrier, Danville, IL

bdc83eb000c1a09358b955d38d67dc2f.jpg243453461eca314a4672fba1e9a18a6d.jpgb596310a25638d40a9f84fa85eb3f42c.jpg

 

Possible 10x10 between Indianapolis and Ohio border after Cincinnati market:

0cf787277761f1b171cf82cde15f36cb.jpg7a5356474896826d68f91aa3fe9f771f.jpg966a7e76a7c7a4f34f1a95574e01f229.jpg

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normal, IL: 918152f095cf4b62e22d0c1adf5857c0.jpg

 

Plus lots of second carrier set various points since Danville.

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that 8315/26315 second carrier when I was making a delivery down in Danville a few weeks ago, and I meant to ask about it. That's the same spectrum used in the Chicagoland area for a second carrier. Did the USCC purchase include this area, too?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOLA B41

 

First carrier 40978

Second carrier 41176

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Screen shots are best

 

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOLA B41

 

First carrier 40978

Second carrier 41176

Screen shots are best

 

Either way, does not really matter.  Those are run of the mill band 41 EARFCNs across numerous markets.  So, they do not really tell us anything new, though it is nice to know that New Orleans has two band 41 carriers running, probably 2x CA, too.

 

AJ

  • Like 2
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...