Jump to content

mystica555

S4GRU Member
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About mystica555

  • Rank
    Member Level: Smoke Signals

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    Moto G5Plus; Moto G4; LG G5-H830(TMO); LG-LS777(Boost)
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denver, Birmingham, Atlanta, Other places
  • Here for...
    4G Information
  • Twitter Handle
    @mystica555
  • Favorite Quotation
    I am White and Nerdy.
  • Interests
    Wireless, wireless, wireless, computers, Linux, Networking, wireless...Cellmapper!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting. I thought that CoMP allowed different GCIs to CA. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0359028.html seems Nokia made a patent on this. https://csit.am/2017/Proceedings/TN/TNp1.pdf Perhaps Nokia's inter-eNB CA is required because of the inability to coordinate every frequency/sector within a single eNB in Nokia equipment. Ooh, just found a Samsung patent on similar: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014098520A1/en
  2. Firstly, I'll start by saying "Bloody ImageBB" and I forget what photos those were to repost them elsewhere. Secondly, it would appear around June 20 different Samsung 8x8 sites went from displaying 2.6GHz as a separate eNB from the legacy 1900/860 eNB, to combining all frequencies on the same number. Any ideas why? Just to make things less confusing? https://www.cellmapper.net/map?MCC=310&MNC=120&type=LTE&latitude=39.72439320486837&longitude=-104.86670570076001&zoom=17&showTowers=true&clusterEnabled=true&tilesEnabled=true&heatMapEnabled=false&showOrphans=false&showNoFrequencyOnly=false&showFrequencyOnly=false&showBandwidthOnly=false&DateFilterType=Last&showHex=false&showVerifiedOnly=false&showUnverifiedOnly=false&showLTECAOnly=false&showBand=0&mapType=custom_map&showSectorColours=true The tower at 6th and Havana I've not yet deleted the now-legacy eNB ID of 546330 but can definitely see the same sectors now populated in eNB ID 541130. And one where I have removed the old eNB: https://www.cellmapper.net/map?MCC=310&MNC=120&type=LTE&latitude=39.74153015313759&longitude=-104.87450556457532&zoom=17&showTowers=true&clusterEnabled=true&tilesEnabled=true&heatMapEnabled=false&showOrphans=false&showNoFrequencyOnly=false&showFrequencyOnly=false&showBandwidthOnly=false&DateFilterType=Last&showHex=false&showVerifiedOnly=false&showUnverifiedOnly=false&showLTECAOnly=false&showBand=0&mapType=custom_map&showSectorColours=true Other sites in the vicinity have 'last seen' dates of around June-August, and the new 2.6Ghz sectors have all appeared between June-now comparatively. Just sort of curious on this one
  3. This is the Xcel Energy's "Field Area Network" WiMax, at 3.65GHz. Yes, WiMax - LTE with its multiple layers of 'oldschool telephone stuff' was too complicated initially, and apparently Mimosa TD-LTE-in-a-box weren't cheap enough, so they went with a pure-IP simpler-to-implement WiMax network. If they're put _inside_ substations, Xcel owns them. Xcel even mentions the fact they want to put up a new tower inside of their substation as it is property they already own, in my linked Adams County document below. I've only ever seen commercial carrier antennas ontop of geographically important power transmission-line towers, always either in the middle of a neighborhood, or near a freeway, and nothing else but those towers is tall enough to cover the area needed. Again, all legacy high-voltage power transmission towers. A lot of the "power-line" cellsites I've seen have gone away too, replaced by on-building sites for density. http://www.adcogov.org/sites/default/files/PRA2017-00002_Request_for_Comments.pdf has an example site view, signal overlay, etc, of a substation north of DIA. There are also a lot of FCC and Public Utilities Commission filings, and such if you google for "Xcel Energy" and/or "PSCO" and "wimax" and even "LTE" as one document they published explains why they decided on wimax instead, you will find a treasure trove of testimony explaining what you are seeing being constructed. Look closely enough, I bet you'll find the County proposal for the tower you've photographed. https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Company/Rates & Regulations/CO-advanced-grid-direct-testimony-Wendall-Reimer.pdf On pages 58-60 of this rather enlightening document it explains why they chose WiMax, and the alternatives investigated are represented by other questions answered within close proximity of these pages. In explaining why not commercial Cellular networks, a clear future design of their network is detailed: "Under the chosen solution (Company-owned WiMAX and WiSUN networks), substations will effectively become miniature, remote data centers where field data is aggregated at the substation for remote decision-making, and only that subset of data that is needed for the head-end data center applications will be transmitted there via the WAN. For example, by using WiMAX and WiSUN, data will reach the substation in less than one second." Welcome to #SmartGrid
  4. Well I'll be. This made me re-try the highlight and quote.. And I seem to have totally missed the popup button that shows up right at the selection, and instead tried hitting the big "Quote" link and "+" button under the whole reply! Now we both have a faster way to quote!
  5. No, Chrome 66 desktop browser. I think the problem is my expectations of how a reply should be able to work. Often (most times) in a forum, if I highlight a piece of text, and then hit quote, it'll copy only that bit of text into the reply, vs the whole message. Or, if I have the full message to work with, I can then edit indents, etc. Hitting the full quote multiple times, then deleting the irrelevant bits in each section seems moderately unintuitive, but is still easier than my first attempt at using the " button and copying/pasting text manually, reorganizing the quote sections, and inserting multiple lines of placeholder text to then be able to reorganize the quote section above or below to then type (I like bulk processes; quote everything first, reply to each inline second). Thanks for the info!
  6. Lots of interesting stuff in the post above, and I don't feel like quoting it like I did before - can you perhaps let me know what steps you take to get the multiple "person said X time ago" thing ? My multiple quotes simply said "quote:" before : - ( I've gone and taken a few more photos of the tower, and twilight seems to work but I know there could be a better photo.. Maybe sometime. In looking at the tower very closely, I see a relatively low-gain e-band or perhaps even 60ghz backhaul dish, pointing due north. This seems to fit with me seeing 3 more MiniMacro eNB IDs north of that tower, which seems to concur with one of the apartment buildings north of this tower, 3 of which have 'rooftop additions' for cellular equipment, and both visible and shrouded antennas. More shrouded though than visible. And definitely only 2x2 MIMO on the 2.5GHz panels, and the MiniMacro itself Quite interesting stuff. Knowing the MiniMacro eNB ranges now, I am more aware of what to look for, and the usual distances involved with 2.6GHz also help triangulation
  7. Inline quoting here.. Its method of action is rather unintuitive, but I may have it working... Very interesting! I didn't know that they even had the Nokia mini-macros deployed anywhere in Denver.. Samsung market and all, and me not keeping up on the latest news for the past .. 5 years or more.. So 4 ENB/GCI IDs but still only 3 cardinal directions the antennas point? Or are there actually 4 cardinal directions everything points? I'll have to look close to Mile High again. I didn't even know there was a 16port tri-band antenna style. I imagine its amazingly expensive, as the beamforming is still there so it shouldn't diminish capacity... And cost being the reason they don't just deploy the single antennas everywhere. Also interesting! As soon as I have a job again, I'll consider it. Lots of interesting info here! Hmm my guess is at that point in time, Sprint was doing WiMax on their own towers, of their own volition, without Clear's help, and Clear was overbuilding. At some point, the networks joined WiMax forces. I'm not sure if historically Clear devices could connect to Sprint's own WiMax network.. Nor am I sure of the reverse.. But, from what I remember, there were relatively few "entirely Clear" looking towers in my general vicinity.. Sucks that these maps/lists of sites aren't public. Makes me wonder how S4GRU obtained them. Legally obtained filings with the FCC? Leaked from inside Sprint? I would imagine not crowd-sourced.. FCC filings also aren't done, that I can see, for a majority of sites here, due to being on buildings and not stand-alone towers. I assume Sprint knows y'all have these? Finally, I'm heading over to the peoria/14th tower for some new pix. Hopefully twilight sun won't make them come out horrible.
  8. Good to know! I actually was wondering what precisely was done with the towers I know were previously Clearwire. Thing is, with exception to some old Nextel locations, Clearwire seemed to be colocated with Sprint on most standalone macro towers and many building tops. I was under the impression that the Clearwire stuff went away, and we were left with the Samsung equipment that would provide all B41 sectors. Clearly I've not been keeping up! This tower in question definitely was a Sprint/Clearwire tower for ages; you can check out Street View history: https://goo.gl/maps/tD4QUdgNZyE2 ; the 2011 view Clearly (heh) shows Clearwire, Sprint, and what appears to be Cricket colocated on this one tower (I don't see the small antennas anymore, and Cricket definitely had a fairly un-evolved CDMA/EVDO network and thus didn't really have money to add Diversity antennas for reception purposes. 2017 shows the Clear antennas in use with (my mistake as I originally typed) only 1 antenna worth of other equipment. I wasn't aware they were doing combined cells with the old antennas. 2 towers that also had Clear equipment, now don't: https://goo.gl/maps/YRHRET8Ui2z https://goo.gl/maps/4JMPywuCae72 I wonder what I will get in the end for a coverage map of each of these MiniMacro sectors; The macro samsung cells seem to reach far enough, and I wonder about overlap/interference if the beamwidths aren't, for example, 60deg and instead are still 120deg. Would this perhaps be a case of 'samsung and 8t8r antenna for distance' and 'nokia minimacro for closer-in' ? As I notice that my initial look at the tower seems to only have the PCS/800 panel, I will make a trek over there soon to verify just which antennas are actually on the tower, and take a more up to date photo.
  9. Not sure if this should go here, but I'm cellmappering in Denver and figure it probably should. I'm seeing sites that appear to have more than 3 sectors... At one point, I *think* I hit a total of 6 to 8 different eNB IDs surrounding Peoria and Colfax. Although, some sites may be further distant and I haven't pinpointed them yet. I know of precisely 1 tower just South of Colfax, nearest 14th and Peoria. Some, with the 1-million decimal range or FA hex range, seem to be Magic Boxes: 2558MHz frequency. Ringing true on 'using our wide spectrum to our advantage' or something like that. The usual 3CA frequencies here are 2628.8 2648.6 and 2668.4 and "usually" I see a 2.5G macro with all of these on north, southeast and southwest facings. Cells 0,1,2 2628 ; 3,4,5 2648 ; 6,7,8 2668. So, how many of these cell IDs should be considered on the same tower? All of them? Am I looking for something else nearby instead? I'll walk more of the neighborhood soon, and have a bit better coverage mapped of each of them .. Right now, most of these eNBs are showing up at relatively small points. eNB 84A1C Cell 50 0x32 2628.8 Cell 58 0x3A 2648.6 eNB 84A1E Cell 51 0x33 2628.8 Cell 59 0x3B 2648.6 eNB 84A3A Cell 49 0x31 2682.8 Cell 57 0x39 2648.6 eNB 84A37 Cell 51 0x33 2628.8 Cell 59 0x3B 2648.6 eNB 84A39 Cell 50 0x32 2628.8 Cell 58 0x3A 2648.6 ENB 85732 - looks like the 'normal' 3-sector eNB ID but ive not mapped all sides yet. Cells 1, 2, 2628 ; 4 2648 ENB 841B3 - PCS/CLR 'normal' 3 sector 0,1,2 E-PCS; 5 - seems to be a secondary Band 2 channel I sometimes see. 15,16,17 all E-CLR.
×