Jump to content

RAvirani

S4GRU Staff
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,455

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RAvirani

  1. RAvirani
    Sent you a PM about this!
  2. RAvirani
    It's an instantaneous bandwidth limitation. The new AEHCs are much better with a limit of 194 MHz IBW/190 MHz OBW.
  3. RAvirani
    This is likely due to HPUE. Carrier aggregation gets disabled when HPUE comes on so maximum RF power laws are not exceeded. It's possible HPUE is enabled on sites in Austin but not in east Texas.
  4. RAvirani
    Looks like the Sprint site on the Apptio building in downtown Bellevue is getting converted! That's a great add both from a coverage and a capacity standpoint.
  5. RAvirani
    Here's 700 MHz vs PCS for SE02669D/WA6079. Most coverage from WA6079 is LoS, so its 1900 and 700 coverage patterns are quite similar. There's a more significant between 700 and 1900 coverage for SE02669D because it isn't much higher than most of the obstacles around it. https://imgur.com/a/9MV8Vul
  6. RAvirani
    +3dB is twice the power! And a 19% increase in outdoor cell radius if my memory serves me correctly (assuming the UE's uplink doesn't die before that).
  7. RAvirani
    The problem with keeping SE03XC157 (in my opinion) is that it will largely degrade the SNR in the downtown area. Attached are propagation maps for the standard 5x5 700MHz LTE carrier @ 5035 on both SE02669D and SE03XC157. I was able to pull the exact Sprint sector alignment/RC height, although I sort of eyeballed the T-Mobile alignment/RC height based on satellite/street view. As you can probably see, there is tremendous overlap. I also attached an SNR projection map including SE02669D and SE03XC157. For comparison, I also attached a map of SE02669D and WA6079 (using 0/180/270 azimuths). As you can see, there is massive overlap between SE02669D and SE03XC157 given current sector configurations. However, SE02669D and WA6079 complement each other much better. https://imgur.com/a/BFSyAc4 EDIT: Corrected a few grammar errors
  8. RAvirani
    Crowdsourcing is almost ready for SignalCheck!
  9. RAvirani
    Looking at it a bit more, I almost feel like the AT&T site there would be a better candidate for T-Mobile. It looks like its coverage area is more contained and would overlap less with the surrounding T-Mobile sites. Here are some 700 MHz simulations (standard 5x5 @ 5035) with Commscope FFHH-65C-R3 antennas at 0/180/270 degree azimuths: https://imgur.com/a/MIUZgrY
  10. RAvirani
    Update on this one - the team is considering colocating on Verizon's SEA Northwood instead of keeping Sprint's SE03XC157. I personally think that the Verizon site would be better fit, although it'll be interesting to see what they do!
  11. RAvirani
    They're likely either overlapping only the guard bands or blanking the physical resource blocks that overlap.
  12. RAvirani
    Yup. Now that I think about it, I should probably add the FirstNet PLMN to the AT&T map... Sorry - I read the error message wrong. You're right - it dropped the entire 512-point cluster. That should only happen if I detect a band that's not numeric (as that looks suspiciously like foul play/attempted hacking). Can you shoot me the file? I'd like to take a look at what's going on there.
  13. RAvirani
    Those upload errors come from me. I verify each recorded datapoint's band against the carrier and drop datapoints that look funky. For example, we shouldn't see an AT&T PLMN paired with B13 or a Verizon PLMN paired with B41. You might have had a suspicious looking band because SCP didn't update the PLMN quickly enough. The unsupported carrier message probably refers to your phone briefly roaming on/band scanning a rural carrier. I only support AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and US Cellular right now. Other PLMNs are dropped. If you have a PLMN/carrier you would like me to add, I can take a look at getting it spun up in my database.
  14. RAvirani
    Hmm...maybe this will replace SE02338E to the west? Not entirely sure what their game plan is here... That's a great site to keep. T-Mobile really needs a site around there. I'd be surprised if that wasn't a keep site. Speaking of SignalCheck, if you're on the BETA, be sure to run the trail logger and upload your web data in the logs section. It would be a great help as we're growing our T-Mobile site data.
  15. RAvirani
    Make sure to run your trail logger and upload data from the log menu everyone! More to come soon 😉.
  16. RAvirani
    I agree. I think AT&T site SB25 at Oksams corner would be a much better fit.
  17. RAvirani
    16 years later.
  18. RAvirani
    Off the bat, I think that site is meant to cover Juanita-Woodinville Way going south to site SE02523A. That's always been a weaker coverage area for T-Mobile. That's a good add for T-Mobile, both from a coverage and a capacity standpoint. That site is a great addition from a coverage standpoint, as it sits squarely between SE02654C and SE02628D. That being said, I was hoping they would hop on Verizon's SEA North Sammamish site (47.6019, -122.07074). I'll shoot them an email about that one.
  19. RAvirani
    They're currently building out in rural areas around Seattle.
  20. RAvirani
    Thanks!
  21. RAvirani
    Where is this map from?
  22. RAvirani
    MOCN stands for multi-operator core network (it's a well established resource sharing technology). I'm guessing MultOCN stands for the same thing.
  23. RAvirani
    Absurd is a generously nice adjective for that site location. I wish they would have just decommissioned the site.
  24. RAvirani
    Increased density, especially in suburbs/exurbs will be a big deal. It's about capacity, not coverage. For example, assume an existing T-Mobile site is at 70% capacity. Bringing Sprint users onto it will overload it because the demand for data in its coverage footprint will have greatly increased. Brining up a nearby 312-250 site will decrease the T-Mobile site's effective footprint, as certain areas will now be better served by the Sprint site. Now there is enough capacity meet the demand for data. I've observed T-Mobile bringing up 312-250 sites in this fashion a lot. I'm not sure if they're permanent keep sites or just temporary until T-Mobile makes more progress on their n41 overlay project. PCS holdings (and maybe BRS/EBS although I'm not sure) should be consolidated between T-Mobile and 312-250 sites by year end (i.e. they will be broadcasting the same PCS carrier). That's the plan until they can get T-Mobile equipment up on those sites.
  25. RAvirani
    Correct. They need to bring more 312-250 online to handle the load.
×
×
  • Create New...