khammondnm

 

I just checked that one. It is shown as a Stealth site, but not listed as Ground Mount RRU's. So that's good news for you.

 

Robert

haha stealth site, the one I saw was clear as day regular tower.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Just drove past the tower in eubank in between comanche and Montgomery and there was a work van in front of the tower with the gate open. Hopefully I can go back today or tomorrow to snoop around.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

the tower is EP03AL042 if anyone is curious.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Just drove past the tower in eubank in between comanche and Montgomery and there was a work van in front of the tower with the gate open. Hopefully I can go back today or tomorrow to snoop around.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

Any reason why they are ground mounting the RUU vs. just going with cabinet based radios like Verizon? Also, if you are ground mounting RUUs, why not just mount one more and run the cable for ESMR as well?

 

In rural locations, it seems like the benefit of ESMR would be the highest.

 

I mean, the low utilization of the more rural sites must just not justify the large capex associated with deploying ESMR?

 

Anywho, that's my guess. I am sure sprint calculated the usage on the tower and can't justify spending the amount of money on the site relative to its utilization.

I hope you are right with the calculated risk. It will be very disappointing if there are many more sites in nm that don't receive lte.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I don't know. But I'm not willing to bank on it. There were a lot of early Ericsson deployments (like Kansas and Texas) with just one RRU per sector, and that one RRU was LTE only. And they kept CDMA on legacy. Then they added CDMA RRU's later. However, that hasn't been the case in recent Ericsson markets like in Florida, Tennessee or New Orleans. Even now new sites in Kansas and Texas have multiple RRU's.

 

With just one RRU per sector here at our ground mount sites, I'm quite concerned. If my site shows up on the NV Sites Complete list with no new panels, I will consider my site one of the No LTE sites.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Hmmm, it would interesting to challenge the engineer. I don't know how one could ever go about it, but it would seem to me that Sprint would not be taking a conservative approach and would want lte anywhere possible. I guess we will see what happens. Have you seen anything about backhaul updates at your site?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

This is possible. However, I'm thinking that most ground mounted RRU sites aren't going to get new panels. And if they utilize existing panels, no 800. And maybe even no LTE in some cases. Shentel does have a ground mounted RRU site with reused panels that has LTE 1900 coming from it. So I'm holding out hope.

 

3 of the 4 Los Alamos sites have ground mount RRU's. As well as most in the valley. It seems like the engineer who determined where ground mounts go here in our area was ultra conservative. Ground mounts are not necessary at 3/4 of these sites I've visited. Especially Los Alamos Medical Center rooftop. They could mount right to the parapet wall, like almost every other rooftop site in the country.

 

And ground mounts aren't necessary at my site for sure. But in all the ground mount locations I've visited locally they only have one RRU per sector. And to me, that means just CDMA 1900. Unless they can run LTE from the same RRU. But if memory serves, I think I remember someone once saying that only Samsung can do that with their RRU's. They can run any technology from the same band off one RRU. Other bands require other RRU's. But I believe Ericsson and AlcaLu need a separate RRU for each band and each technology.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

That really sucks. So now you think you probably won't be getting lte at your site?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I'm a little curious about why Boost Mobiles data connectivity is faster than my Sprint 3g. Here in the same city and phones near each other.

 

2x Boost SGll's - Can stream video

 

My Sprint SGlll - Can bearly load web pages

My Girls Sprint iPhone 5 - Can bearly load web pages

 

It cool that my bro in law pays less and seems to be getting more than his sister and I.

Could this be related to the hardware or the service?

 

A simple explanation will suffice. Thanks

There is no true way to say that they are actually experiencing faster speeds than you. Way too many variables, location, sector connected to,ect. The only difference you should ever experience if you were connected to the exact same tower and exact same conditions would be phone hardware related, but even then, I don't think there is really a difference there. Maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

My apologies. It did seem weird having one little dot. Something easy to miss say if someone from out of market was quickly skimming around.

no problem. Definitely is interesting to see it and I don't blame you for being interested. That being said, you guys should be seeing the real think very soon.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Anyone else notice one little blip of purple by Centennial Airport south end of Denver on sensorly?

that has been there for months. It's theorized that clip is from a Sprint administrative location and if I remember correctly people have traveled to the location and haven't picked up lte

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Ok I donated what now

check the forums, you should now be able to see the sponsor forums.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I just want to say that now that ive looked at it.. Sprint will be having a good year.

I'm glad you were able to see

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

What do I have to do for Sponsorship?

 

What do I have to do for Sponsorship?

http://www.s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/1195-Information-about-S4GRU-Sponsorship-levels-and-how-to-become-a-Sponsor

 

You don't need to become a premier sponsor to see most of the information, however, I'm not discouraging becoming a premier sponsor. If you have questions you can send s4gru (Robert) a message and he will get back to you.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

Exactly but they should and can still show us what they are going to do.. a coming soon never hurt anyone haha. With almost 60 markets complete they have enough to run their first LTE commercial in my opinion as they have not run any. I am going to bet that with money so tight they have to use it only to run their deals on devices?

again, I think they are being cautious about announcing their lte until they are confident they will be perceived well. Also, if you would like to know where work has been done, is being done, and is about to be done (permits). Become a sponsor and you can see everything. I also think Sprint has way more money than you think, they are actually set up nicely to finish network vision. And based on the recent explosion of new market work, I think they are definitely turning the corner and should begin a big lte marketing campaign in the next few months.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

Well call me proud, which I am very proud of Sprint, but their competitors have been showing off their LTE networks this whole year (especially Verizon) and Sprint hasn't. I am well aware that Sprint still has lower coverage than those two (gaining, especially on ATT) but it would help them A LOT marketing wise, and I have said this before on here, to pull a Verizon LTE commercial stunt that they aired back in Dec 2010. (The barn and the lightning)

 

We all know Sprint is doing a heck of a lot to its Network at rates faster than any other carrier because they are re-doing it ALL. But what would help them consumer wise, both existing (to keep them on their network) as well as bringing new customers in is to market that they in fact have "The Network of the future underway". I would love to give Sprint Marketing department a piece of my mind as it is amazing what one commercial, done correctly, can do to the minds of American consumers. It would give Sprint the push they need in Q1 2013.

 

But to connect those two points, if all these new places are popping up, I would like to see slightly more publication about it from Sprint so all these journalists can quit bashing them about how their network will never equal that of VZWs or ATTs. Just my take on things...

I would highly recommend becoming a sponsor of this site and you can see the progress I've been talking about. I personally agree with Sprint not being to public about markets they are working on until they are complete. Sprint has to worry a lot about perception right now A's if they say a market has lte and it is very thinly lit, they may do more harm then not announcing it.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Just wondering with these 136 market production areas, when are we going to see the next batch launched? I know Sprint is behind schedule but I also remember hearing that production would be increasing, especially if SB+S is approved.

I don't know if it's just me, but there seems to be new sightings of with popping up everywhere. So I would say there have been plenty of new launches.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

Yes. I need to drive by and check things out. I'm currently at the office.

 

Robert

Do you think you will have a chance to look at the white rock tower? You said probably no 800 there either? That would be a bummer, signal penetration at my aunt and uncles house there is horrible.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

You are right. I can't believe I did that. I am Captain Geography! Man, oh man, that really hurts!!! I'm facing South now. Maybe that's why I screwed it up? That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!!

 

Robert

have they come back to work on your tower again today?

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

It would be next to impossible to limit the output to fit every customers residence. It would probably make more sense to mandate that nobody broadcast an unsecured signal.

Yeah that's what I'm getting at. Them telling people they can't share is impossible because using a Wi-Fi signal is almost always sharing beyond your property and hence your signal. I understand them making the don't share statements so they can get more customers, but with internet and Wi-Fi I think it's gets very complicated as to what is sharing and what isn't.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

So I am new to this whole thing. Does this mean we're gonna get 4G sometime soon in the Las Cruces, NM area?

it's hard to say exactly when. But, once with starts in a market its safe to say that it should spread. Being that las cruces is one of the bigger cities in nm I would guess that work should start within a reasonable time period.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

You could get away with pretty much anything when it comes to sharing your WiFi. For me 12mbps of bandwidth split among six people is already pushing it, if you can deal with roughly half the bandwith and you're cool with it go ahead I guess.

 

When it comes to broadcasting beyond your home I SERIOUSLY doubt you have any risk whatsoever in doing that and it would take one hell of a study on the part of the cable company's legal team to enforce otherwise even if they wanted to.

I agree that the isp probably would never come upon someone sharing their signal, but others on this forum pointed out that it is technically against most isps tos to do so. I guess what I'm pondering is, if they wish to be so strict about sharing internet, then any broadcast beyond ones property lines is technically opening up the possibility of sharing a signal.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

You are right. I can't believe I did that. I am Captain Geography! Man, oh man, that really hurts!!! I'm facing South now. Maybe that's why I screwed it up? That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!!

 

Robert

I wouldn't know directions without my precious mountains. They always guide my way, can't imagine getting around without them

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

I think the only intent of ISP's TOS prohibiting your neighbors from using your WiFi even with your permission is completely economical. They want your neighbors money too.

 

Robert

yeah, I guess it would be interesting to read the nitty gritty details. I understand their intention, but I wonder if their language leaves loopholes.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

It's really tall. About 300'. And the gauge of materials feels kind of wimpy for such a boomer. Also, winds can be ferocious in the area. I live between two tall parallel mountain ranges. The Sangre de Cristos to the West get above 13,000 feet, and the Jemez Mountains to the East are over 11,000'. Winds from the North get funneled in between the ranges. Especially in late Winter and through the Spring.

 

Additionally, my cell is very small for a rural site. The seam to the next cell to the north is 3/4 of a mile and the seam to the south is about 2 miles. My sector only covers about 30 homes and 2 miles of rural highway. And all my neighbors use Verizon. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person on my sector. That's another reason why I'm shocked to see my site up first. I figured it would be last. It has to be one of the least used sites in New Mexico.

 

Anyways, even at the seam edge of my site, signal is still -82dBm or better for 1x and EVDO. We don't need 800MHz on this site at all. Don't need it for capacity, penetration or distance. I'm sure I will never see a TD-LTE hotspot at this site either. As wonderful as 90Mbps speeds would be.

 

Also, I would prefer LTE where I go, not at my house. I have WiFi at my house. But it will aid in LTE device testing. That's for sure. But I am not going to look a gift horse (gift Hesse) in the mouth!

 

It actually may make sense to kick off deployment at a site in a new market in one of the least used sites. That way, as workers are in the learning curve and more prone to make mistakes, they will affect the least amount of customers. I look forward to all the pains everyone has encountered with NV deployment so far.

 

I'm still shocked. But smiling from ear to ear. I would have expected 12/27/2013 before 12/27/2012.

 

Robert

I think you have your mountains mixed up, sangres should be east and jemez west just to keep informed the rest of the forum who care about the exact location

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

How far does 1 LTE tower stretch to?

there is no clear answer to that question. It depends a lot on the geography around the tower and the angle at which the panels are mounted, I would imagine that if you are in Brooklyn that towers will not cover as large of a block of area as a tower in a more rural area due to the population density of your area (more users on the tower) and geography (lots of buildings).

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Since we were in the topic earlier of sharing a Wi-Fi connection it got me thinking. Firstly, this thread isn't meant to condone sharing of Wi-Fi signals or violating tos of any provider. Taking a purely educational and hypothetical approach. First I would like to reiterate what I understand from earlier, sharing an internet connection with a neighbor violates most isps tos. If this is the case, then doesn't it inherently violate said tos by broadcasting a Wi-Fi signal that reaches beyond your property? If that is the case, I find it contradictory that most isps, centurylink in my experience, push all customers to buy/lease a wireless capable dsl modem that had enough power to distribute internet beyond the average households property line. I'm just wondering if anyone has a comment on whether or not broadcasting Wi-Fi beyond ones property is inherently in violation of most isps tos.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2