MrZorbatron

It is this site. Sitting in the Old Detroit Bar and Grille a few minutes ago, I got this: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/1195091267 Signal is hovering at around -102

Just spotted LTE band 41 in Orion Township. Not sure where it's coming from, but I suspect it's the site at the SW corner of Clarkston Rd and M24. B41 radios went up there a couple of months ago, but I only now have a B41 capable device.

This model doesn't work.

Yes, I really do.

On paper, it would, since it basically leverages crosstalk. More would still be better, up to a point, though. The biggest problem is still that any remotely high noise floor would totally annihilate its performance, since it can't account for any signals that it itself is not producing. Also, this technology would not lend itself to close to the same level of improvement on the reverse link. Again, this would be functional in a lab, but in the real world, it won't work. Certain people here seem to be so taken with this idea what they look straight past its obvious flaws and shortcomings, to just wholeheartedly believe in it. Perlman's proven to be full of crap more than once before, and he has successes as well. On this one, I'm leaning so far toward crap that I can barely stand up anymore. The whole point of this system is to use the RF energy that is already out there, produced by the various radios, in the location of the subscriber. Through technologies like phased antennas, beam forming, and a high degree of electronic processing, it purports to use all of its P-Cell antennas in an area in combination, in order to precisely control exactly what signal the subscriber unit sees. If the system really works as it should, the bottleneck will be the data center processing the information, since all the P-Cell radios will need will be a link sufficient for one cell site's full load on whatever bandwidth they have, at maximum spectral efficiency. If you can feed the data center fast enough, every user will have basically full speed. The more P-Cell units are installed, the smaller and more finely grained the individual pseudo cell environments can be, and the higher and higher the processing load at the computing center will be (exponential basically). By using a combination of constructive and destructive interfering signals to turn signal intended for one subscriber unit, which would normally be simple interference to all others, into signal useful to others. This level of fine-grained, area-by-area, tight control over the RF spectrum basically requires a high resolution, real time understanding of exactly the signal present in every location at the same time. This level of understanding is not possible, as some interfering signals will not be produced by the P-Cell units, and therefore not known to them. The fact that this is supposed to work with existing LTE phones tells me that there is no monitoring and reporting done by the client hardware. This is why the system is bullshit. The level of processing is a fantasy in today's world. There is no accounting for stray interference. What we will see is a multiple small cell solution, with carefully managed, mapped, and balanced sizes. The sizes may be irregular through beam forming etc. Do I think the system will work? Yes. Do I think it will work as well as Perlman says it will, by the mechanisms he says it will, not at all.

Theoretically, you just need the overlap of two or three.

Exactly

I do understand what he is claiming to com and the Methods/technologies he is claiming to use to accomplish it. as for my described wifi setup, there is little to no interference due to lack of frequency reuse by adjacent cells. Overlap is carefully managed in two to three layers, so cell sizes ancan be actively managed.

You can dramatically increase wifi capacity by having multiple (overlapping) access points on different channels, each with dynamic transmit power control. Basically, a heavily loaded cell contracts while unloaded cells expand. I really think this technology is nothing more than this, except using cellular phone technologies instead of wifi.

Not much overhead, motion projection, interpolation, and extrapolation work pretty well now. Plus, in theory, this technology can control the size of the "cell", so a faster moving device could be given a larger cell, possibly one that leads it a bit movement wise. I still think this part is bullshit, though. I wouldn't be surprised to see that network come to a crawl when they're proven to be nothing more than integrated small cell base radio/antenna units with highly flexible output power.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article9330515.html Here's what I just read about this all.

8 lines x 40 columns. I own two of them, one 8K, one 32K. Very interesting, great little machine. Runs 20-25 hours on four AA batteries. Has a built in modem, too.

Mr. Potatohead

No. Incoming connections to MVNOs are more restrictively firewalled than those to Sprint-branded devices.

Not sure about domestic vs foreign... I know that my friend's and my mom's iphone 4S's were unlocked with no questions asked, though this was for travel reasons. I didn't know it was different in the case of domestic carriers.

Sprint will probably do it for you, though. They are pretty nice about it.

Verizon 1x 850.

More photos would be necessary, but there are a lot of radio devices that could be mounted to a pole. Can you post the exact GPS coordinates of the pole? Looks much too small to be cellular equipment. Could be radio for electronic power meter reading or a number of other things. A repeater would, by nature, need more wires. Get pictures of the antenna gear always.

There is no cellular equipment here. Just a very messy, left open POTS terminal block and a couple of junction boxes.

My pings just dropped into the 20s and 30s on a major site not far from where I live.

The contract on the My Way and Framily plans sucks for the user, data-wise. I will stay Everything Share as long as I possibly can, since it (according to Sprint) does not prioritize anything selectively.

My phone used to be on LTE most of the time but it is on 3G EVDO more and more lately. That being said, my 3G is decent here, at about 7-800Kbps average, but I think that my standard of decent must be lower than most of the forum's. I am happy with 400Kbps. I do parts orders, email, reference stuff, real business work. I don't care about entertainment, and like it or not, entertainment is far more intensive than business work. This is one reason I don't mind metered billing. If tweens want to squander the company's bandwidth with their netflix and youtube movies, I have no issue with them getting big bills for this. The more they spend, the less they waste, and the faster my services run. I couldn't care less about "rich content" on my smartphone. I want my browser to be responsive. If I could find the stupid kid watching stupid songs on youtube that is keeping my last minute orders from going through on time, I would put his phone in the garbage. Youtube doesn't help the economy. Business does.

Please also get a good picture of the box mounted on the pole.

8x8 MIMO is not going to happen. The requisite antenna separation is not possible on a phone. 8x4 is the best you will likely be able to hope for.

Connections to the radios are always optical. This is one of the benefits of the remote radio, the elimination of the signal loss in the long coaxial cable going up the tower. Since optical has zero loss, the change from generally 200+ ft of antenna feed line to 6, can make a huge difference in cell site performance. You can use that difference to either save power by decreasing radio power where additional capability is not required in densely deployed areas, or to extend signal range and improve in building coverage in sparsely deployed areas. Additionally, with the reduction of interference, better radio performance should be possible.