Jump to content

Network Vision/LTE - Missouri Market (includes St. Louis)


riddlebox

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said 141 and 270. I was thinking he meant 141 and 44. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I am finding an abundance of permits for AMF a lot of the ones from a couple weeks ago were the sites that were recently accepted. I am going to post a list in a bit. Like the Grover site, Permit was issued on 8/12/13 and it was accepted 8/14-8/15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These Sites have recent AMF permits issued. Most of the permits I checked are for sites that were recently accepted. So these probably have work done.

South Lindbergh and Lemay Ferry(Mehlville)

I-44 & Antire

I-170 and Clayton Rd

Old Lemay Ferry and Lemay Ferry

Vinita Park

Old Halls Ferry near Argonne Forest Dr.

Gravois Rd near Sappington

I-44 and I-270

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These Sites have recent AMF permits issued. Most of the permits I checked are for sites that were recently accepted. So these probably have work done.

South Lindbergh and Lemay Ferry(Mehlville)

I-44 & Antire

I-170 and Clayton Rd

Old Lemay Ferry and Lemay Ferry

Vinita Park

Old Halls Ferry near Argonne Forest Dr.

Gravois Rd near Sappington

I-44 and I-270

Interesting - mostly down south of the metro (with the exception of 170 & Clayton). I wonder how the vendors have been segmented in the market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, just wow...

 

At least it wasn't on with LTE.

Whats weird is the contractor who completed the original work is Wigdahl. Which is the contractor that I have seen do work here in Collinsville and Godfrey.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the unlicensed contractor pulled the panels off and the inspector caught them would they have to put them back so the licensed company could take them off and put them back?

 

Hopefully they have a license that's valid over by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the unlicensed contractor pulled the panels off and the inspector caught them would they have to put them back so the licensed company could take them off and put them back?

 

Hopefully they have a license that's valid over by you.

I would hope so.

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

    • T-Mobile has saved its 28Mhz mmWave licenses by using the point to point method to do environment monitoring inside its cabinets. The attachment below shows the antennas used: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applAdmin.jsp;JSESSIONID_APPSEARCH=LxvbnJuvusmIklPhKy6gVK7f9uwylrZ8LiNf3BqIKlDp3_5GxoBr!300973589!225089709?applID=14787154#   Here are the sites for Franklin county OH: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/attachments/attachmentViewRD.jsp?applType=search&fileKey=66518254&attachmentKey=21989782&attachmentInd=applAttach
    • Yep, there is a label on the side of the box but it doesn't provide any useful info that the city doesn't already provide (Crown Castle Solutions is the franchisee). You can see my graphical interpretation of the city's dataset here.
    • T-Mobile UScellular agreement links from SEC filings: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/821130/000110465924065665/tm2415626d2_8k.htm Look inside for main link. Credit mdav-dos1 on reddit
    • Totally agree.  In my county and surrounding counties, TM did not place n-41 on every site.  When I look at the sites in question, I probably would have not placed it there either.  I can find just a few with n-71 only and in most of those cases if you live there and know the probable usage of the residents, you would not do a full upgrade on those sites.  One site in particular is set up to force feed n-71 through a long tunnel on the Turnpike.  No stopping allowed in the tunnel. No stores, movie theaters, bathrooms, so n41 would be a waste.    n25 is not really needed either, so it is not there.  The tunnel is going through & under a mountain with more black bears than people.  TM was smart.  Get good coverage in the tunnel but do not waste many many thousands of dollars with extra unused spectrum. I also see sites with only n71 & n25.  Again this makes sense to me.  Depending on what county we are talking about, they moved much of their b25 from LTE to nr.  Some counties have more n25 than a neighboring county, but luckily, it is plenty everywhere.   When you are in a very rural area, n41 can run up the bills and then be barely used.  I am NOT finding sites that should have had n41 but TM failed to provide it.  They may have to come back later in a few years and upgrade the site to n41.  However, we just may eventually see the last little piece on Band 25 leave LTE and move to n25. I am not sure if the satellite to phone service is using band 25 G block as LTE or nr. We also can possibly have at least some AWS move from LTE to nr at some point.  Yes, everybody wants n41. it is not justified in some cases.  When I travel, I desire some decent service along the entire route but it does not have to be 1 or 2 gig download.   If I can get 50/5 on a speedtest with data that will flow and not stutter, I am very happy. Yes, they will swap out the USC gear.  TM needs to match their existing network. The USCC equipment did the job for years, but it is time to retire it.
  • Recently Browsing

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