Jump to content

Network Vision/LTE - Colorado Market (Denver/Colo Springs/Fort Collins/Pueblo/Grand Jct)


Craig

Recommended Posts

So is sprint using microwave signal to some of the towers?

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

 

Yep, I've seen one in Fort Collins that uses a microwave signal.  Also, I got LTE in old town Fort Collins today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under 3 minutes? 116ms isn't that bad. Though it's usually under 100ms, that particular site may be fed by microwave.

Yeah not bad. Not microwave I saw them drag the fiber in there. Not fine tuned yet I'm guessing. This was a hard launch, no testing 123 stuff so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good question. I don't have the answer to that. I'm sure Google would have something to say though. :ninja:

I had Sprint high speed internet in the 90s it went from south of Boulder to Berthoud. The signal was barely changed by blizzards and heavy rain. So I'd say, not really. Just bad pings/latency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Sprint high speed internet in the 90s it went from south of Boulder to Berthoud. The signal was barely changed by blizzards and heavy rain. So I'd say, not really. Just bad pings/latency.

I wonder if that signal was microwave tho

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do microwave signal gets affected by weather?

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

A properly engineered microwave path should be extremely resistant to rain/snow fade. Likely it would take a 100 year storm to affect it, and it would be just at few moments when the worst of the storm is directly in the path. If it does fade the signal would just drop off a cliff, it wouldn't be a gradual slow down....Edit. Actually, the error rate in the data path would climb when the signal gets close to it's threshold until whatever error correction is in use couldn't cope any more and the receiver just gives up and mutes. Much like what happens when OTA HDTV is at the limits of its coverage area.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone hear anything on the status in Durango? Curious as to where the closest tower is located to take a look on the work being done. Merlin had once said late spring, so of course anxious to see some LTE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone hear anything on the status in Durango? Curious as to where the closest tower is located to take a look on the work being done. Merlin had once said late spring, so of course anxious to see some LTE.

 

No time estimate on LTE. Unfortunately, we're waiting on one of the few things Sprint doesn't have control over. Backhaul to the site. They put in an order to the local ISP for high speed internet, and then have to wait until it happens. 

 

Also, many of the things Merlin said were flat out wrong. That is why he isn't here anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Durango is a CenturyLink backhaul market. That's typically not good news.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't really know where that is. Do you know what band of LTE you were getting before?

DTC area is around the cities of Greenwood Village and Centennial. I too have not been able to connect to band 41 forcing LTE. Lately data has been sketchy, it will switch between 1X and eHRPD. I just attributed this to towers in the area being worked on. Haven't seen any crews though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody think the Denver Metro area will meet the "June" launch month for LTE as stated a few months back by a Sprint Representative?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, the way they're moving I don't see it happening [emoji20][emoji20][emoji20]

 

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody think the Denver Metro area will meet the "June" launch month for LTE as stated a few months back by a Sprint Representative?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's possible still this summer, but June looks pretty unlikely at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they felt the need to announce it for the Denver Post then. I was confident once I read that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Construction dates always slip. And there's no telling if the person quoted was even knowledgeable enough to make such a statement, or was just trying to make people happy like some of the CSR people you get on the phone.

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...