Jump to content

Uh, oh...AT&T's Network Deployment hits a major snag :)


bigsnake49

Recommended Posts

Can we make this thread the AT&T Network Discussion thread like the old T-Mobile thread (RIP)?

I considered that. However, the discussion was about how AT&T stopped deployment. And we're talking about the things we have seen that show they are still deploying by our observations.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I considered that. However, the discussion was about how AT&T stopped deployment. And we're talking about the things we have seen that show they are still deploying by our observations.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

I get that, but we need our fearless leader's thoughts on the competitors network!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that, but we need our fearless leader's thoughts on the competitors network!

 

 

Why?

 

Jim, Sent from my Photon 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I was just kidding about needing his thoughts.

 

Nickel humor. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just kidding about needing his thoughts.

 

A Nickel for your thoughts...

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I considered that. However, the discussion was about how AT&T stopped deployment. And we're talking about the things we have seen that show they are still deploying by our observations.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

The original post was about them stopping their Sprint MV like deployment because it was getting way too expensive and with all the RRUs and panels was getting too heavy for the original rack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you 110% — I much prefer the ease of sim swaps with AT&T… sadly in my area AT&T is typically overloaded so VZW it was :-(

 

 

Rapid City was an early Band 4 market for Verizon. They installed a 15MHz carrier here last October. It was needed as VZW has a whopping 70 share here.

Before the new Band went live, VZW LTE 750 was suffering. At times well below 1Mbps at busy sites. Since coming online, VZW LTE 750 runs about 7-8 Mbps steadily. VZW Band 4 started out between 40-60 Mbps around here. But now has settled around 20-30Mbps.

I don't use VZW because I prefer the open device ecosystem on AT&T. I really like being able to pop in a AT&T, Tmo or Sprint SIM into my Nexus 5 as needed. And AT&T meets my needs for the most part. And it's much cheaper. I can have an AT&T, Sprint and Tmo service for the cost of Verizon.

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I nearly drove off the road when I saw Band 5 on my LTE Engineering screen Friday evening. I wasn't expecting it. They had Band 4 active there for the past month. But Band 5 just went active in Kadoka this past week. It's the first time I've seen Band 5 myself.

 

Both Band 4 and Band 5 are only 5MHz channels there. But that should be ample for a town that size. In fact, one 5MHz LTE carrier would be enough.

 

7eguba3e.jpg

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but today's Sprint triband phones do have the ability to roam on Band 5 due to their support of Band 26, correct? (Of course pending any LTE roaming agreements with AT&T or U.S. Cellular)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but today's Sprint triband phones do have the ability to roam on Band 5 due to their support of Band 26, correct? (Of course pending any LTE roaming agreements with AT&T or U.S. Cellular)

 

Yes.  I was using a Nexus 5 with an AT&T SIM card in it in this instance.  However, if AT&T and Sprint had an LTE roaming agreement, it would have been possible for me to roam on that AT&T Band 5 site with my Nexus 5 using Sprint service.  US Cellular is much more likely to allow LTE roaming for Sprint than AT&T, though.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 LBS? Didn't realize they weighed that much. Then again I always see them on top of the tower so they look smaller then they are. How much do the antennas weigh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but today's Sprint triband phones do have the ability to roam on Band 5 due to their support of Band 26, correct? (Of course pending any LTE roaming agreements with AT&T or U.S. Cellular)

 

Im curious to.  how is this phone on band 5?  or is this not a sprint phone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nevermind disregard my last Robert.  I forgot that you are not in a sprint market.  lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 LBS? Didn't realize they weighed that much. Then again I always see them on top of the tower so they look smaller then they are. How much do the antennas weigh?

 

20-30 pounds. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you know why there was a weight concern on ATT's NV equivalent. Between the RRUs and the panels particulalrly the multiple low frequency panels, it adds up.

There's an AT&T store near me that's built in the center of a jug handle exit ramp. And it has a tower in the back of the store. When you're sitting on the ramp at a red light you can get a pretty good view of the equipment which is only about 10 feet (?) off the ground - it's a two story building but it doesn't even go over the roof.

 

I'm always surprised by the massive amount of equipment on there. Why does AT&T require so much? Just not as sleek as Sprint, or they haven't done a rip and replace so they just keep adding stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an AT&T store near me that's built in the center of a jug handle exit ramp. And it has a tower in the back of the store. When you're sitting on the ramp at a red light you can get a pretty good view of the equipment which is only about 10 feet (?) off the ground - it's a two story building but it doesn't even go over the roof.

 

I'm always surprised by the massive amount of equipment on there. Why does AT&T require so much? Just not as sleek as Sprint, or they haven't done a rip and replace so they just keep adding stuff?

It is probably not a rip and replace site. They started doing that but had to stop it because of both cost and weight concerns. Follow the link in the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 LBS? Didn't realize they weighed that much. Then again I always see them on top of the tower so they look smaller then they are. How much do the antennas weigh?

Those typical RFS antennas that Sprint uses for NV are also right at 50 lbs IIRC. They are larger than you think as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is probably not a rip and replace site. They started doing that but had to stop it because of both cost and weight concerns. Follow the link in the original post.

I still don't buy anything on that article. Maybe if someone has some official docs to back it up. AT&T knows how much it costs to do things. This isn't their first rodeo of network upgrades. There was a PBS special a while back on how tower upgrades were paid and all the middle men involved. AT&T says this is what we pay for the work, do it or someone else will do it. It's not like you could turn around and bill them more. The OEM bids, then the tower company bids the OEM. I think that article was blown out of proportion by some ex-employee or someone tied somehow to their upgrades that pissed them off. There is probably some merit to AT&T stopping and making changes during this first test rollout. They probably pissed someone off and cost them money. So they made up some crap to piss them off back via the media.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't buy anything on that article. Maybe if someone has some official docs to back it up. AT&T knows how much it costs to do things. This isn't their first rodeo of network upgrades. There was a PBS special a while back on how tower upgrades were paid and all the middle men involved. AT&T says this is what we pay for the work, do it or someone else will do it. It's not like you could turn around and bill them more. The OEM bids, then the tower company bids the OEM. I think that article was blown out of proportion by some ex-employee or someone tied somehow to their upgrades that pissed them off. There is probably some merit to AT&T stopping and making changes during this first test rollout. They probably pissed someone off and cost them money. So they made up some crap to piss them off back via the media.

Maybe they it was a test deployment and they saw that it costs too much and adds too much weight. So they stopped the deployment before it even started.

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...