RAvirani
-
Posts
3,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
159
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Posts posted by RAvirani
-
-
Sprint eNB 747123 has been outfitted with Sprint equipment. I hope they null the southwest sector on eNB 84598/97496…
-
2 hours ago, PedroDaGr8 said:
Per Rey:
Oops - just realized I forgot to copy that PM here. My bad!
-
This seems similar to the n38/n41 issue. It might also be MFBI.
-
-
9 hours ago, red_dog007 said:
Is Dish still 100% MVNO or do customers now have the ability to use their towers?
No user access to the native 5G RAN in the Washington, Montana or Alaska yet.
-
2 hours ago, PedroDaGr8 said:
Huh, interesting. Never expected to be a first in something like that. Someone in Michigan mapped a bunch of n78 but nothing else. I guess I'm the first showing they are at least broadcasting n2/n5/n66-SA, even if you can't fully connect to it.
I’ve grabbed a good bit of SA on my AT&T iPhone SIM to date, although it’s not fully integrated into the SignalCheck DB yet…
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, PedroDaGr8 said:
Yep it does!
Just saw them! Went ahead and located the ones you mapped.
I also confirmed that AT&T is using 1024 cells per site.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, mikejeep said:
I also changed the method the app uses to identify and report connections; when the device is reporting it is out of service but still seeing cell info, it should now still record that cell info in the log. This will need some testing; issues may arise while roaming or in fringe signal areas, but we will see.
On 12/30/2021 at 5:05 PM, PedroDaGr8 said:Hi Mike, a question about gNBs to which you don't connect? I noticed if I band lock my phone to n5 or n66, I can see AT&T n5-SA and n66-SA bands. I can't connect to them but I can see them in CellMapper and in SignalCheck. That being said the IDs are different, the CellMapper gNB appears to match the eNBs in the area a bit closer than SignalCheck does (the first digit is the same).
Additionally, the Signal check results don't upload while the CellMapper results do.
Excited to see if AT&T SA NR data will upload now!
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, PedroDaGr8 said:
When I drove by the 5/405 interchange today, they had started upgrading this tower. There was a crane and workers on the Sprint rack. It looked like all of the Sprint equipment had been removed from the rack.
I was just about to post this - I drove by there today as well!
-
15 hours ago, xmx1024 said:
Forgiving the utter mess, what panels are on the bottom here? I know it's an AT&T site but there is zero documentation or references I have been able to find.
Kathrein multiband antennas.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, PedroDaGr8 said:
Ouch, if true, that means that SCP isn't calculating the gNB correctly for T-Mobile either. So all of the gNB online are incorrect. For example the Woodinvile Warehouse Site would have a gNB of 1864948 rather than 3729896.
Yup - both us and Cellmapper had it wrong.
As Mike said, we store the full NCI, not the gNB or sector, so recalculating these values is pretty easy for both of us. I’ve already done so on the map.
One of the red flags I’m surprised Cellmapper didn’t pick up on is that there are no odd gNBs when using a 25 bit gNB.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, RAvirani said:
T-Mobile is doing 2048 cells per gNB and AT&T is doing 1024 cells per gNB, I believe.
I might need to double check that though.
Apologies - T-Mobile is doing 4096 cells per gNB (12 bits per local ID and 24 bits per gNB).
Still working on AT&T…
-
2
-
-
T-Mobile is doing 2048 cells per gNB and AT&T is doing 1024 cells per gNB, I believe.
I might need to double check that though.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, PedroDaGr8 said:
There's no failure or error. Based on my testing today it appears that it never records the cells. I tested it today while driving around and despite seeing a dozen cells, nothing was recorded.
Oh gotcha - that one is a Mike question.
-
On 12/31/2021 at 7:26 PM, PedroDaGr8 said:
Ignore what I said about the gNB, yours seems to be more consistent than CellMapper when it comes to the Sector IDs. My guess is they don't have the right number of bits set for the gNB. That being said, the sites still don't upload.
When you say don’t upload, what do you mean? Can you send me the file the app spits out on failure?
-
27 minutes ago, xmx1024 said:
Can I ask what tool this is you use to generate these maps and data sources? Is this accessible to you or afforded to you by your (potential, idk for sure) involvement in the industry?
The three big RF planning softwares are Atoll, Planet and Asset. They aren’t cheap or easily accessible; I have access to them because of my industry involvement.
Here are links to more info:
https://www.forsk.com/atoll-overview
https://www.infovista.com/5g-network/planet-rf-planning-software
https://www.teoco.com/products-services/ran-solutions/planning/
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, falconhand said:
Unfortunately Sprint can't fix their deadzone at Pacific Beach, but it will certainly help on the way there!
Check your PM about this!
-
51 minutes ago, falconhand said:
81970 & 505922
505922/506064 improves service along WA-16 (especially on midband). The capacity boost is a plus, too. Using both of these locations also allows the use of narrower antennas (think three 45° antennas spaced at 90°) which tend to have better gain figures.
51 minutes ago, falconhand said:85241 & (currently yet unmigrated) Sprint 746000
Not 100% sure on the logic here...I'll have to take a look at their plan.
53 minutes ago, falconhand said:94058 and 505912
505912/506054 provides much better service along WA-3 going north (almost LoS). I think there were also capacity concerns here.
1 hour ago, falconhand said:T-Mobile is also installing a new colocation on the old inactive Clearwire site at 47.555280 -122.681103, which is right next to 85240, though at a slightly higher elevation (I presume to enhance capacity to the new neighborhood going in nearby, though this area is already covered very well by 89246.)
I'll have to take a look at the plan there. From eyeballing it, the Clear site won't improve coverage significantly and keeping both sites would destroy C/(I+N) levels.
-
1
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, falconhand said:
I suppose T-Mobile may be considering both the sprint retain and a new colocation, though the only reason I could see for that would be densification with Home Internet in mind.
4 hours ago, RAvirani said:Let me pull the azimuths/tilts and take a look when I’m home this evening.
Unlikely:
I don’t have a T-Mobile traffic map to run a Monte-Carlo simulation or anything, but I doubt there’s a capacity need in that area.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, falconhand said:
I suppose T-Mobile may be considering both the sprint retain and a new colocation, though the only reason I could see for that would be densification with Home Internet in mind.
Let me pull the azimuths/tilts and take a look when I’m home this evening.
-
Just now, falconhand said:
That's strange. 745791 is in a weak area for T-Mobile, and has been broadcasting 312-250 from the get go. (In fact, it was the site that I discovered the PLMN on in the first place). There's an outstanding permit (screenshot attached), but very limited public information.
Looks like my info was out of date - checked again this morning and that site is a listed as a conversion site.
Interestingly enough, they’re still showing a candidate at Lund & Bethell (47.51765, -122.63022), although it’s not added into the active program…
-
13 hours ago, falconhand said:
The main sites I have been avidly watching and waiting for are eNBs 746958 on Green Mountain, 747190 on Key Peninsula, and 745791.
746958 and 747190 will both be converted. 745791 doesn’t appear to be slated for conversion…I’ll see if I can figure out why.
-
On 12/19/2021 at 9:41 PM, xmx1024 said:
Any plans you know of for it's (almost) sister site near the onramp at Poplar & 196th wrt the sprint rack?
Totally missed this. That site is forecasted to be converted Q2 2022.
7 hours ago, xmx1024 said:Wow, with existing enbs:
99506/84602
DAS (I think) 82539,
84547/881750
84598/97497
PLUS the site on NB i5 onramp near Lowe's and pending migration off the power pylon, alderwood mall area will be blanketed quite well. I wonder if they are investigating n41 only small cells? Must be quite a challenge to coordinate all these low band sites near eachother.And the site mentioned above.
I’m hoping they do a good job with the optimization here (unlike what we’re seeing in the Totem Lake area).
Lowband RET is separate from midband RET on the antennas they’re deploying, and its range is 2-13 degrees. They can use that and maybe even mechanical tilt to minimize sector overlap.
No 2500 small cell plans that I’m aware of.
-
1 hour ago, mikejeep said:
A new option has also been added for non-beta users to export data files to be manually processed on the mapping site. This is a temporary band-aid until beta testing of the mapping feature is complete (and I get password authentication working from within the app). Beta users do not have this option, as the much simpler Upload option replaces it.
Non-beta users can feel free to send me their exported web data for import
.
.
Network Vision/LTE - West Washington Market (Seattle/Puget Sound Region)
in Markets
Posted
That is what I meant - oops. I guess we’ll see.
Verizon just rebuilt that area and it’s looking super nice, especially with the narrowband antennas on eNB 2305. I do wonder why they turned off low/mid CA on that site though.