Page 194 of 206 FirstFirst ... 94 144 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 LastLast
Results 2,896 to 2,910 of 3076

Thread: AT&T 4G LTE - Latest markets launching and speculation

  1. #2896
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    156
    Carrier(s)
    cricket
    Feedback Score
    0
    Not too bad for straight talk! It spiked at 27 but settled on 18+
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #2897
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    156
    Carrier(s)
    cricket
    Feedback Score
    0
    By the way I am surrounded by 10 hotels and at the intersection of 2 busy highways

  3. #2898
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    http://ee.co.uk/our-company/newsroom...al-communities

    What is happening with AT&T's plan to use small cells to expand and fill out their network?

    https://gigaom.com/2013/12/19/2014-t...rk-goes-small/

    AT&T's plan seemed to be geared more towards filling dead spots in urban areas instead of smaller towns and rural areas as EE is doing.

  4. #2899
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,653
    Device(s)
    6+
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    http://ee.co.uk/our-company/newsroom...al-communities

    What is happening with AT&T's plan to use small cells to expand and fill out their network?

    https://gigaom.com/2013/12/19/2014-t...rk-goes-small/

    AT&T's plan seemed to be geared more towards filling dead spots in urban areas instead of smaller towns and rural areas as EE is doing.
    They're already using them in major cities.

  5. #2900
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoUnion View Post
    They're already using them in major cities.
    Very insightful. Maybe they should start using them in other areas of the country so they can meet their year-end goal of ubiquitous LTE coverage. They could cover a lot of additional towns like EE is doing. It isn't good for covering large swaths of territory, but would be useful in dead spots where there are communities without service, and in the program launch announcement they touted it as a way they were going to be able to get to those smaller cities and towns where it was not economical to place full-fledged sites.


    via the HoFo App

  6. #2901
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Baja California / Sinaloa
    Posts
    22,391
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max / Apple iPhone 7
    Carrier(s)
    Pacific Bell Wireless / Verizon Wireless / AT&T MX / Movistar MX / Telcel MX
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    What is happening with AT&T's plan to use small cells to expand and fill out their network?
    Why use a small cell which may cover only several meters/tens of km when you can use a macro cell to provide coverage up to 100 km or even more? LTE is designed to work up to 100 km. Vendors have been able to extend the range of both GSM/WCDMA of up to 120 km so I don't see this range out of the realm of possibility for LTE. Maybe the industry and the ETSI should look into extending the range of LTE to 160 km.

    ...and in the program launch announcement they touted it as a way they were going to be able to get to those smaller cities and towns where it was not economical to place full-fledged sites.
    The only reason its uneconomical is because they're probably only trying to cover 10 km on a macro cell. Of course, it will be uneconomical to put up tons of macro cell only covering 10 km. If the wireless carriers were serious about providing coverage then they would trying to extend the range of their LTE coverage and investigate technologies to push to 120 to 160 km.

    Small cells are great for handling localized traffic, but nothing else. Only a macro site can deliver the range to truly expand coverage.
    Last edited by i0wnj00; 12-02-2014 at 10:34 PM.

  7. #2902
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    156
    Carrier(s)
    cricket
    Feedback Score
    0
    Now I have been getting b17 everywhere I had been getting 2 and 5 provided the #*0011# deal is accurate on my note i317 I suppose the tower folks are still bringing the new equipment online

  8. #2903
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by i0wnj00 View Post
    Why use a small cell which may cover only several meters/tens of km when you can use a macro cell to provide coverage up to 100 km or even more? LTE is designed to work up to 100 km. Vendors have been able to extend the range of both GSM/WCDMA of up to 120 km so I don't see this range out of the realm of possibility for LTE. Maybe the industry and the ETSI should look into extending the range of LTE to 160 km.



    The only reason its uneconomical is because they're probably only trying to cover 10 km on a macro cell. Of course, it will be uneconomical to put up tons of macro cell only covering 10 km. If the wireless carriers were serious about providing coverage then they would trying to extend the range of their LTE coverage and investigate technologies to push to 120 to 160 km.

    Small cells are great for handling localized traffic, but nothing else. Only a macro site can deliver the range to truly expand coverage.
    I agree. If you're going to cover an area, do it right, rather than piecemeal. Otherwise you'll end up with coverage that actually is what is on the left as opposed to what you promote on your coverage maps on the right.

    Attachment 118994

    Maybe they're going to power up the sites they have going right now to those higher transmit levels you mentioned so that the coverage more accurately resembles what they're claiming it to be. Right now the difference is just laughable.

  9. #2904
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,903
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro 256 GB Midnight Green
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ggore View Post
    I agree. If you're going to cover an area, do it right, rather than piecemeal. Otherwise you'll end up with coverage that actually is what is on the left as opposed to what you promote on your coverage maps on the right.

    Attachment 118994

    Maybe they're going to power up the sites they have going right now to those higher transmit levels you mentioned so that the coverage more accurately resembles what they're claiming it to be. Right now the difference is just laughable.
    you've got to remember one thing. there may be coverage everywhere in that area. the displayed sensorly coverage is only what's mapped.

    Chicago, IL
    2+46+46+46+4 (85 MHz DL, 15 MHz UL)


    Duluth, MN
    4+14 UL CA (30 MHz DL/UL)

  10. #2905
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    you've got to remember one thing. there may be coverage everywhere in that area. the displayed sensorly coverage is only what's mapped.
    There is no LTE in those gaps, I have been there, I drive all the highways in this quadrant of the state each week, and a lot of the mapped coverage is what I did. See how the traces fade out at the end of each tentacle? AT&T is wildly over-estimating the reach of their coverage. Here is an old map of AT&T's sites and I've marked the ones that have been upgraded. They don't show these maps any more, probably because they show the huge gaps between sites that illustrate how there simply could not be the blanket coverage they are showing.

    Attachment 119031

    There are actual instances on the Sensorly traces that show coverage exists where AT&T doesn't show it.

  11. #2906
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    4,255
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S10
    Carrier(s)
    LTE-A
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by i0wnj00 View Post
    Why use a small cell which may cover only several meters/tens of km when you can use a macro cell to provide coverage up to 100 km or even more? LTE is designed to work up to 100 km. Vendors have been able to extend the range of both GSM/WCDMA of up to 120 km so I don't see this range out of the realm of possibility for LTE. Maybe the industry and the ETSI should look into extending the range of LTE to 160 km.



    The only reason its uneconomical is because they're probably only trying to cover 10 km on a macro cell. Of course, it will be uneconomical to put up tons of macro cell only covering 10 km. If the wireless carriers were serious about providing coverage then they would trying to extend the range of their LTE coverage and investigate technologies to push to 120 to 160 km.

    Small cells are great for handling localized traffic, but nothing else. Only a macro site can deliver the range to truly expand coverage.
    You have to remember one thing ..... LTE data travels on both downlink and uplink. If it were a one way transmission, 100-120 km range would not be out of the question. Due to strict FCC regulations on RF exposure (SAR), and the low wattage on current handsets, UE devices could never communicate with cell sites at that range especially if you have hills, foliage, etc.

  12. #2907
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,382
    Feedback Score
    0
    The AT&T maps represent some fantasy. What might be possible with an excellent directional outdoor antenna, amplifier, no foliage or rain, the blessing of the Goddess, etc...

    They are far beyond exaggerated and so deep into the territory of blatant lie that the FTC should do something.

  13. #2908
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,632
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan T View Post
    The AT&T maps represent some fantasy. What might be possible with an excellent directional outdoor antenna, amplifier, no foliage or rain, the blessing of the Goddess, etc...

    They are far beyond exaggerated and so deep into the territory of blatant lie that the FTC should do something.
    Some of the other carriers aren't much better in some areas.

  14. #2909
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,382
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dnywlsh View Post
    Some of the other carriers aren't much better in some areas.
    Name another major carrier nearly as bad? Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are all MUCH closer to reality.

  15. #2910
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,410
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6S
    Carrier(s)
    Pioneer Cellular
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan T View Post
    Name another major carrier nearly as bad? Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are all MUCH closer to reality.
    Bingo. AT&T's maps show coverage that isn't there as well as not showing some coverage that IS there. They are a complete joke. Even with these disparities, it is quite evident that they will not be making their end-of-year total LTE coverage goal that they predicted earlier this year. I'm sure they will issue a statement that their LTE build-out is "substantially complete" though.

Page 194 of 206 FirstFirst ... 94 144 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. AT&T 3G Rollout - Latest markets launching II
    By CaptShadow in forum AT&T Network Expansion and Upgrades
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 02-12-2016, 12:39 AM
  2. AT&T 3G Rollout - Latest markets launching
    By Bpt_Flames in forum AT&T Network Expansion and Upgrades
    Replies: 3162
    Last Post: 01-01-2009, 09:51 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 01:20 PM

Bookmarks