Jump to content

AT&T putting up new antennas and RRUs


caspar347

Recommended Posts

Nope, it won't, because it's AT&T and not Magic Magenta. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

Coming soon for girls, Bronies, and Magentans...

 

"My Little Pony: Magenta is Magic"

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming soon for girls, Bronies, and Magentans...

 

"My Little Pony: Magenta is Magic"

 

Or, as Robert likes to sing to his daughters...

 

My little pony, Legere's such a phony,

Pink horse shit should be shot on sight.

 

AJ

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, as Robert likes to sing to his daughters...

 

My little pony, Legere's such a phony,

Pink horse shit should be shot on sight.

 

AJ

 

:rofl:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also: the tech claimed that the ALU equipment around here sucks and the Ericsson stuff is better after I mentioned Sprint using Ericsson elsewhere in the US. I chuckled a bit and said "whatever." Is this the first positive review of Ericsson gear ever?

 

Ericsson gear doesn't suck. Ericsson management sucks. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ericsson gear doesn't suck. Ericsson management sucks. 

I was just puzzled about him saying ALU gear sucks. But good to know that the Ericsson gear itself doesn't necessarily suck. I just thought I remembered Digi saying otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just puzzled about him saying ALU gear sucks. But good to know that the Ericsson gear itself doesn't necessarily suck. I just thought I remembered Digi saying otherwise.

It was never about the equipment, it was the way it was installed (badly), and then tuned (not).

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alu gear does actually suck when compared to the other vendors equipment.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

It was never about the equipment, it was the way it was installed (badly), and then tuned (not).

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

Thanks for clarifying. Learning new stuff every day! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's much worse about it? I've only been in ALu areas so far (NYC, Boston, Greenville)  and my experience has been good. Improved coverage and no dropped calls whatsoever, but that's to be expected of Network Vision sites.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's much worse about it? I've only been in ALu areas so far (NYC, Boston, Greenville)  and my experience has been good. Improved coverage and no dropped calls whatsoever, but that's to be expected of Network Vision sites.

It's the combination of older release equipment, coupled with poor installation and network planning.

There is so much more, but here is some of the data from a third party research:

http://www.signalsresearch.com/Docs/SRG%20Antenna%20Workshop%20Presentation.pdf

 

XNv7wV5.png

 

EbklYcY.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just puzzled about him saying ALU gear sucks. But good to know that the Ericsson gear itself doesn't necessarily suck. I just thought I remembered Digi saying otherwise.

It was all about the maintenance, installers, and acceptance teams. AT&T uses Ericsson's gear here and it works just fine.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What's much worse about it? I've only been in ALu areas so far (NYC, Boston, Greenville) and my experience has been good. Improved coverage and no dropped calls whatsoever, but that's to be expected of Network Vision sites.

Oh, no. You can still drop calls in areas that are not 100% NV, which is most places. If an old 3G tower gets ahold of your call, all bets are off. Data issues are even worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no. You can still drop calls in areas that are not 100% NV, which is most places. If an old 3G tower gets ahold of your call, all bets are off. Data issues are even worse.

 

I understand that, but dropped calls have never been an issue with me on Sprint. Sprint's issues in my 4 years with them have always been data speed and reliability. They fixed the reliability part and speed is increasing day by day. Calls have never been blocked or dropped for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here it is.

 

So in addition to the AT&T work, Verizon showed up recently and replaced their old 700/CLR antennas with (what I assume are) better ones. They also added AWS AIRs.

 

http://imgur.com/a/W4XXm (11th image from the bottom is where the new photos start)

 

But more interestingly, AT&T crew came back (in fact I think both crews were working simultaneously at one point) and put some of the old antennas back up on one of the sectors and added another new antenna (from the ground it looks identical to the antennas I mentioned at the beginning of the thread) to two of the sectors. The guy I spoke to said something about the tower being overloaded. Also, the longer antennas pictured in my original post with identical connectors to the shorter ones are nowhere to be found. Only the short ones are on the tower. Back when I first saw the AT&T guys they mentioned an incorrect part being sent. Could that have been the longer antennas, and could it explain why one of the sectors is running legacy antennas?

 

On a semi-unrelated note, I visited my home site for the first time in nearly a month. I found this:

 

M86qJAU.jpg

 

qAT57Vt.jpg

 

Some newer model combiner? Did the old one break? The other two old ones are still there. http://imgur.com/a/v7msu

 

And this was on one of the PCS RRUs

knxCIiM.jpg

 

The sticker is smaller than the "real" correct ones. Anyone know how this could have happened?

 

And last but not least, do we have any 2-antenna-per-sector Clearwire sites on record?

 

dSyqXYz.jpg

 

It's an old picture, but the contrast is decent. I can get wayyy better photos if necessary. The Clearwire rack has looked this way as long as I can remember, but I always forget to ask about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what AT&T is doing -- rip/replace with new CommScope SBNHH-1D65C tri-band antennas to create a penta-band LTE network.

 

Antenna 1 (new)
Port 1 - GSM 850
Port 2 - GSM 1900
Port 3 - LTE WCS
 
Antenna 2 (new)
Port 1 - LTE 700
Port 2 - LTE 1900
 
Antenna 3 (legacy)
Port 1 - UMTS 850
Port 2 - UMTS 850
Port 3 - UMTS 1900
Port 4 - UMTS 1900
 
Antenna 4 (new)
Port 1 - LTE 850
Port 2 - LTE AWS

 

http://www.commscope.com/catalog/andrew/product_details.aspx?id=3767

 

 

YATlAP7.png

 

MU8Dntp.png

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update: Found a recent AT&T penta-band LTE permit that has everything, including UMTS, on new tri-band antennas and RRUs. This one doesn't mention GSM at all, so unless it's coming out of the UMTS RRUs, it's not there.

 

nZ6ogf2.png

There was a rumor at some point in the last 2 years that AT&T was going to stop broadcasting GSM and stick to UMTS and LTE only.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a rumor at some point in the last 2 years that AT&T was going to stop broadcasting GSM and stick to UMTS and LTE only.

AT&T is sunsetting their 2G GSM/GPRS/EDGE network on January 1, 2017. Like Sprint did with iDEN, I would not be surprised if they begin to more aggressively thin out that network next year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a rumor at some point in the last 2 years that AT&T was going to stop broadcasting GSM and stick to UMTS and LTE only.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

It's not a rumor. AT&T has been putting up sites that are UMTS/LTE only as of late. Expect the density of GSM sites to fall over time.

  • Like 1
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

    • I think it is likely that T-Mobile will be forced to honor any existing US cellular roaming agreements in those areas as a condition of them taking over the spectrum.  In that case, there would be no improvement of service unless T-Mobile improves the service offering in those areas.
    • My understanding is the MNO carriers are the one who have objected to the use of cell phones in commercial planes.  I understand that it ties down too many cell phones at once, thus I can not see this changing. However this depends on how it is structured. Use of a different plmn for satellite service might make it possible for planes only to connect with satellite. Private pilots have been using cellphones in planes for many decades. Far fewer phones at a lower altitude.
    • 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.
  • Recently Browsing

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