Jump to content

SignalCheck Beta Crew Forum


mikejeep

Recommended Posts

Another SCP beta is rolling out now, should be available shortly! It took longer than I planned, but the bugs involving NR web data and importing log files have been squashed, and there are more improvements to the web data uploader. Keep the feedback coming.. thanks for all the support (and patience)!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumb question time: on B41, is the frequency listed the center of the carrier (like it is for FD?) or the bottom of the carrier? I'm convinced I'm seeing TMo overlapping n41 with Sprint B41 here but am not sure by how much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, iansltx said:

Dumb question time: on B41, is the frequency listed the center of the carrier (like it is for FD?) or the bottom of the carrier? I'm convinced I'm seeing TMo overlapping n41 with Sprint B41 here but am not sure by how much.

Short answer: I'm not smart enough to answer this with certainty. Long answer: Sent you a PM. 😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, iansltx said:

Dumb question time: on B41, is the frequency listed the center of the carrier (like it is for FD?) or the bottom of the carrier? I'm convinced I'm seeing TMo overlapping n41 with Sprint B41 here but am not sure by how much.

T-Mobile has move some Sprint b41 in Ohio from 20Mhz to 10Mhz and then using the 20Mhz for n41 meanwhile they left 20Mhz also for b41 untouched. This is being done in small city locations with 50Mhz of contigous b41 spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

T-Mobile has move some Sprint b41 in Ohio from 20Mhz to 10Mhz and then using the 20Mhz for n41 meanwhile they left 20Mhz also for b41 untouched. This is being done in small city locations with 50Mhz of contigous b41 spectrum.

This is all 20 MHz channels. Sprint is 2640, 2660, 2680. TMo is 2538, 2558. TMo NR is 80 MHz centered at 2607.75.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, iansltx said:

This is all 20 MHz channels. Sprint is 2640, 2660, 2680. TMo is 2538, 2558. TMo NR is 80 MHz centered at 2607.75.

The next step would be a spectrum analyzer.   Historically T-Mobile has been very good with using buffer zones etc which are built-in to band 41 but might be able to be adjusted.  I have seen Sprint overlap B26 3x3 and 5x5 along with 1x800 at one location with no ill effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dkyeager said:

The next step would be a spectrum analyzer.   Historically T-Mobile has been very good with using buffer zones etc which are built-in to band 41 but might be able to be adjusted.  I have seen Sprint overlap B26 3x3 and 5x5 along with 1x800 at one location with no ill effects.

They're likely either overlapping only the guard bands or blanking the physical resource blocks that overlap. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RAvirani said:

They're likely either overlapping only the guard bands or blanking the physical resource blocks that overlap. 

The question here is, are they doing either for this particular site...because 2640 completely overlaps the n41 channel. You might as well either run n41 at 60 MHz or not run the 2640 B41 carrier. Unless there's little enough traffic on both that the towers are silent most of the time, and the TDD pattern is set to avoid self-interference. Which...maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iansltx said:

The question here is, are they doing either for this particular site...because 2640 completely overlaps the n41 channel. You might as well either run n41 at 60 MHz or not run the 2640 B41 carrier. Unless there's little enough traffic on both that the towers are silent most of the time, and the TDD pattern is set to avoid self-interference. Which...maybe?

Is there an airport nearby? Certain types of radar have also caused band 41 site frequency shifts.  We have four airports each with a different focus: international/ domestic passenger, primarily cargo, university/executive, and private/hobbyist. The last one has this issue in the SW part of town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another SCP beta is rolling out now and should be available shortly. Lots of bugfixes, but also includes 2 notable changes. The existing site note lock option has been adjusted, and now locks the Location/Site/Trail icons so they can't be clicked accidentally. (Sorry @Trip, it's all one option.. for now!) A new option has also been added that allows you to change the "chunk" size of web data uploads.

Hopefully this will be stable enough for public release.. let me know!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2021 at 4:54 PM, mikejeep said:

Another SCP beta is rolling out now and should be available shortly. Lots of bugfixes, but also includes 2 notable changes. The existing site note lock option has been adjusted, and now locks the Location/Site/Trail icons so they can't be clicked accidentally. (Sorry @Trip, it's all one option.. for now!) A new option has also been added that allows you to change the "chunk" size of web data uploads.

Hopefully this will be stable enough for public release.. let me know!

Excellent! That being said the side padding made the interface much nicer on my screen! It also has reduced false touches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most have already noticed a new beta rolled out several hours ago.. only a couple of minor changes compared to the last beta. The big change was a public version was released, catching up with all of the betas over the last several weeks. Web data uploads are still limited to beta versions for now.

Thanks for all the help, I appreciate it! More improvements coming soon..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I just turned the option to display location accuracy on, and it's bleeding over into the IP address and overlapping. I can't post a screenshot until I get home later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mdob07 said:

Mike, I just turned the option to display location accuracy on, and it's bleeding over into the IP address and overlapping. I can't post a screenshot until I get home later. 

Do you have the timestamp display on? Try enabling that.. it should end up on the same line as the IP, and that puts the location info on the line below it.

I will try to come up with a better alternative. Screen space is getting tight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the m in location accuracy refer to miles or meters? Clarification in the selection would be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dkyeager said:

Does the m in location accuracy refer to miles or meters? Clarification in the selection would be useful.

The accuracy is in meters (m) because that's what Google refers to in all of its location setting descriptions. Miles would not be terribly useful, but I do plan to add feet as an option.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another SignalCheck Pro beta was released this morning! The most visible change is a message displayed at startup explaining the app's use of your location. It will only appear once per app install; you will never see it again unless you uninstall/reinstall. This is to comply with Google Play policies; there are no functional changes to the location features.

Location accuracy will now be displayed in either feet or meters, depending on your app settings.

There are also some bugfixes in this release. Invalid PLMN entries in logs should be reduced, and a frequent cause of crashes when connected to WCDMA/GSM networks should be resolved.

Feedback always appreciated!!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mikejeep said:

Another SignalCheck Pro beta was released this morning! The most visible change is a message displayed at startup explaining the app's use of your location. It will only appear once per app install; you will never see it again unless you uninstall/reinstall. This is to comply with Google Play policies; there are no functional changes to the location features.

Location accuracy will now be displayed in either feet or meters, depending on your app settings.

There are also some bugfixes in this release. Invalid PLMN entries in logs should be reduced, and a frequent cause of crashes when connected to WCDMA/GSM networks should be resolved.

Feedback always appreciated!!

Thanks, mine now says (+-45.05 ft)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another SignalCheck beta is rolling out now. There was a bug that had location accuracy being improperly saved as feet instead of meters in logs. Please do not upload any web data with version 4.66, or data points with accuracy worse than 75 feet (instead of 75 meters, approximately 3x more forgiving) will be excluded!

This version also changes location accuracy precision to one decimal place, and aligns with a public release rolling out now. Thanks for all of your testing and feedback!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having issues with SignalCheck location service freezing.  Sometimes the entire location service freezes, other times just the accuracy portion. Either way, when this happens the software stops logging information. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PedroDaGr8 said:

I'm having issues with SignalCheck location service freezing.  Sometimes the entire location service freezes, other times just the accuracy portion. Either way, when this happens the software stops logging information.

When it freezes, does the screen keep updating? Can you send a diagnostic next time you notice it happens please.. thanks!

  • 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

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I assume that any agreement is not perpetual and has an end date. - Trip
    • 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.
  • Recently Browsing

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