Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 169

Thread: Will AT&T Coverage Leapfrog Over Verizon In 2019?

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    515
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    If there's an actual emergency, then they use TRS. Otherwise, they don't need data per se. I doubt that the Big 4 were totally dead, although it's common for big events for carriers not to have enough capacity and have many times/locations where data does intermittently stop working. Somebody was using up the capacity..
    Their is actually a lot of traffic that is done off TRS and via cellular. EMS services call hospitals for Med comm consults and transmit EKG’s. Police can use cellular for non emergency traffic to run names talk with dispatch ect. All public safety uses MDT’s which transmit lots of data. Also public safety is using things like drones and robotics that all use data more and more these days. TRS can’t do any of that stuff. So having some dedicated cellular space that can so that is a pretty good idea.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    515
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post

    The rural buildout aspect of it could be good for Police/Fire in very rural areas if there are gaps in their TRS, in which case the coverage could be lifesaving, but the capacity/prioritization aspect of it is irrelevant, since the tower would be nowhere near capacity anyway, and all Police/Fire would be doing is phone calls or texts to fill in for where their TRS doesn't work.
    Their is also gaps with TRS as well. They are basically a simplified cell system and need towers as well just not as many and they are still impacted by terrain. First net will help because the same areas that have no TRS signal likely won’t have cellular as well so while firstnet is expanding and building more towers then TRS repeaters can be put on the same towers. As far as capacity you are right. In rural areas it will be very difficult to use full tower capacity but in urban areas that is a different story. Public safety uses cellular service way more than you think.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Redwood Valley,NorCal/but SoCal Born and Raised/Pocatello,ID
    Posts
    29,638
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 10+, Samsung Galaxy Watch (AT&T), Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    Public safety uses cellular service way more than you think.
    They do, especially in emergency situations, like the fires we had here last year, and the year before that. Verizon got some very well earned negative publicity over it, too.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/64081...ire-chief-says

    The Ranch and River Fires were known as the Mendocino Complex, and of those two, the Ranch Fire, which started just a few miles from Redwood Valley is officially the largest wildfire in recorded California history.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    696
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ilvla2 View Post
    They do, especially in emergency situations, like the fires we had here last year, and the year before that. Verizon got some very well earned negative publicity over it, too.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/64081...ire-chief-says

    The Ranch and River Fires were known as the Mendocino Complex, and of those two, the Ranch Fire, which started just a few miles from Redwood Valley is officially the largest wildfire in recorded California history.
    Firstnet is definitely a good idea and it is already being implemented. It is always good to have more dedicated bandwidth as well as redundancy and I disagree with all those who disagree with Firstnet. They did it in an excellent way by adding more consumer as well as first responder bandwidth and everyone benefits.

    As far as Verizon vs AT&T, it all depends on which part of the country you are in. There are even pockets where Tmobile or Sprint are superior in some markets. AT&T includes their own Mexico network while Verizon is just domestic USA.

    Verizon is better for more of domestic USA as a whole. AT&T is almost as good as Verizon domestically but can be better than Verizon in some areas. Nothing will change that. Choice is Verizon (Most expensive), AT&T (less expensive) Tmobile (even less expensive) and Sprint (least expensive) for many customers, Other markets have smaller localized providers.

    AT&T would have to charge more money than it does now to match or beat Verizon and that doesn’t look like it is happening. The wireless market won’t change much from where it is today as it has been predictable for years now.

    In NYC, Verizon is still tops and all carriers are working on their networks with new antennas, upgrades backhaul including fiber optics and the like around here in preparation for 5G.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Redwood Valley,NorCal/but SoCal Born and Raised/Pocatello,ID
    Posts
    29,638
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 10+, Samsung Galaxy Watch (AT&T), Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LTENetwork View Post
    Firstnet is definitely a good idea and it is already being implemented. It is always good to have more dedicated bandwidth as well as redundancy and I disagree with all those who disagree with Firstnet. They did it in an excellent way by adding more consumer as well as first responder bandwidth and everyone benefits.

    As far as Verizon vs AT&T, it all depends on which part of the country you are in. There are even pockets where Tmobile or Sprint are superior in some markets. AT&T includes their own Mexico network while Verizon is just domestic USA.

    Verizon is better for more of domestic USA as a whole. AT&T is almost as good as Verizon domestically but can be better than Verizon in some areas. Nothing will change that. Choice is Verizon (Most expensive), AT&T (less expensive) Tmobile (even less expensive) and Sprint (least expensive) for many customers, Other markets have smaller localized providers.

    AT&T would have to charge more money than it does now to match or beat Verizon and that doesn’t look like it is happening. The wireless market won’t change much from where it is today as it has been predictable for years now.

    In NYC, Verizon is still tops and all carriers are working on their networks with new antennas, upgrades backhaul including fiber optics and the like around here in preparation for 5G.
    Coverage wasn't actually the problem with Verizon, throttling fire fighters' connections during those massive fires was. Verizon got their tales kicked over it, and rightly so, they soon relented after feeling the heat. I hope Firstnet under AT&T doesn't ever do the same thing.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    585
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    Their is actually a lot of traffic that is done off TRS and via cellular. EMS services call hospitals for Med comm consults and transmit EKG’s. Police can use cellular for non emergency traffic to run names talk with dispatch ect. All public safety uses MDT’s which transmit lots of data. Also public safety is using things like drones and robotics that all use data more and more these days. TRS can’t do any of that stuff. So having some dedicated cellular space that can so that is a pretty good idea.
    I have to agree with this. Cellular is way more important than people think. Of course with me being an AT&T customer I'm happy my coverage will improve but likewise I'm glad first responders will have a unified network to be on that will prioritize them when needed. I do IT for my city and have to constantly help officers etc with the data connections in their cars for their laptops, on their PDAs etc. Officers use cellular multiple times a day even during emergencies. They still need data connections so I definitely don't think it's a boondoggle. True there are other ways to communicate like radio etc but we are in the times now where data is crucial to operations as well. Heck we deployed hundreds of cameras throughout the city that officers at different precincts watch and those cameras all use cellular and likewise if an officer needs to access it in the field...it's done via cellular. When there were protests officers being able to access those cameras from anywhere was crucial. Firstnet is a good move.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    Their is actually a lot of traffic that is done off TRS and via cellular. EMS services call hospitals for Med comm consults and transmit EKG’s. Police can use cellular for non emergency traffic to run names talk with dispatch ect. All public safety uses MDT’s which transmit lots of data. Also public safety is using things like drones and robotics that all use data more and more these days. TRS can’t do any of that stuff. So having some dedicated cellular space that can so that is a pretty good idea.
    That all can be done over commercial LTE, or doesn't even use LTE at all (like drones, which are on unlicensed spectrum) without FirstNet. It's not stuff that is going to happen during an emergency, when emergency personnel will be actually responding to the emergency, not using cool high-tech toys that might be legitimately helpful during the normal course of business, but have no place during an actual emergency, when they are going to be relying on TRS.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    Their is also gaps with TRS as well. They are basically a simplified cell system and need towers as well just not as many and they are still impacted by terrain. First net will help because the same areas that have no TRS signal likely won’t have cellular as well so while firstnet is expanding and building more towers then TRS repeaters can be put on the same towers. As far as capacity you are right. In rural areas it will be very difficult to use full tower capacity but in urban areas that is a different story. Public safety uses cellular service way more than you think.
    Quote Originally Posted by ilvla2 View Post
    They do, especially in emergency situations, like the fires we had here last year, and the year before that. Verizon got some very well earned negative publicity over it, too.
    Yeah, I mean like I said, the coverage is great if that's the only thing available in a very, very rural area. However, there are no capacity issues to speak of there, so no need for FirstNet's prioritization, even though the coverage buildout is absolutely a good thing. In urban areas, it's not needed in emergencies, as they would be using TRS anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by LTENetwork View Post
    Firstnet is definitely a good idea and it is already being implemented. It is always good to have more dedicated bandwidth as well as redundancy and I disagree with all those who disagree with Firstnet. They did it in an excellent way by adding more consumer as well as first responder bandwidth and everyone benefits.
    The extra bandwidth is great, but the whole FirstNet core and prioritization is unnecessary. That being said, I'm glad AT&T did it, as they got a nice low-band 10x10 just for offering priority that's barely ever going to be used. The spectrum they got adds orders of magnitude more total bandwidth than FirstNet users are ever going to need prioritized. Also, AT&T doesn't have the same capacity issues that Verizon does due to their overall spectrum position, in part due to the FirstNet spectrum, so it's sort of a self-defeating mechanism, but in a very positive way for AT&T, as it also affords their commercial customers more bandwidth.

    Verizon is better for more of domestic USA as a whole. AT&T is almost as good as Verizon domestically but can be better than Verizon in some areas. Nothing will change that. Choice is Verizon (Most expensive), AT&T (less expensive) Tmobile (even less expensive) and Sprint (least expensive) for many customers, Other markets have smaller localized providers.
    AT&T is darn close to Verizon. Verizon still has the largest LTE network (at least we think they have the largest LTE network), but there are plenty of big holes that AT&T has service in, so there's really no clear winner overall. Verizon could be totally dominant if they would combine what they already have with filling in some of the giant holes, like south Texas, West Virginia, and a few others.

    In NYC, Verizon is still tops and all carriers are working on their networks with new antennas, upgrades backhaul including fiber optics and the like around here in preparation for 5G.
    NYC is interesting. In NYC there is Verizon and everything else. It certainly doesn't hurt that the other arm of Verizon owns all the ducts under the city where the fiber lines are run. They have a good spectrum position there too, almost equal to AT&T, whereas on average nationwide they have a much worse spectrum position. They also have insane density, with small macros now down to 10' AGL in some places. In many cities where they have extensive small cell networks, Verizon will reign supreme just due to density, as being closer to a tower is beneficial.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjennings2510 View Post
    I have to agree with this. Cellular is way more important than people think. Of course with me being an AT&T customer I'm happy my coverage will improve but likewise I'm glad first responders will have a unified network to be on that will prioritize them when needed. I do IT for my city and have to constantly help officers etc with the data connections in their cars for their laptops, on their PDAs etc. Officers use cellular multiple times a day even during emergencies. They still need data connections so I definitely don't think it's a boondoggle. True there are other ways to communicate like radio etc but we are in the times now where data is crucial to operations as well. Heck we deployed hundreds of cameras throughout the city that officers at different precincts watch and those cameras all use cellular and likewise if an officer needs to access it in the field...it's done via cellular. When there were protests officers being able to access those cameras from anywhere was crucial. Firstnet is a good move.
    It's a complete boondoggle. I'm glad AT&T made lemonade out of the lemons, but it was a stupid idea from the get-go that got totally watered down into what it is today. AT&T played it smartly, but their network engineers have to be looking at the whole thing and thinking how smart they are for taking advantage of the government's stupidity, since they could have just sold B14 for a ton of money instead of doing the FirstNet boondoggle.

    Officers shouldn't be using data during an emergency, they should be responding to said emergency, and using TRS sparingly as needed to communicate, and mostly, you know, doing their job. Like actually driving or walking around and policing.

    Deploying cameras on cellular was your city's stupid decision, not the federal government's problem to create FirstNet. They should have either been on some sort of other dedicated spectrum, or better yet, an actual physical hardwired fiber network. I'm not sure what the most common way to deploy them is, but it's one of those two methods, not cellular.

    That's aside from the whole creepy surveillance state video everywhere thing, but that's a whole different problem from the technical aspects of it. NYC's system is pretty incredible, and they definitely have a legitimate case to have such a system given the level of a target that they are, but when you see cameras on street corners in random small cities you start to wonder WTF is going on, and why there are cameras everywhere. It gets even sketchier when private enterprises, like apartment complexes start deploying cameras in combination with license plate reader software and soon facial recognition software. I have no problem with private businesses or homes putting up cameras on their own property, but when landlords or cities do it, there's definitely something that just feels wrong about it, and yet there is little being doing to reign in these types of uses, and make strict rules about how they are used in the big cities that really need them for counter-terrorism, or in the case of LA, making the streets slightly less like a parking lot.

    In terms of protests, police could actually walk around and do their jobs and be police, and not rely on technology as a crutch to doing that. They could also use to lose the MRAPs, body armor, helmets, shields, all of that crap, and actually be human beings and go out there and police. Yes, it can be a hard job in some cities, but that's what they get paid to do.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    515
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    That all can be done over commercial LTE, or doesn't even use LTE at all (like drones, which are on unlicensed spectrum) without FirstNet. It's not stuff that is going to happen during an emergency, when emergency personnel will be actually responding to the emergency, not using cool high-tech toys that might be legitimately helpful during the normal course of business, but have no place during an actual emergency, when they are going to be relying on TRS.

    Yeah, I mean like I said, the coverage is great if that's the only thing available in a very, very rural area. However, there are no capacity issues to speak of there, so no need for FirstNet's prioritization, even though the coverage buildout is absolutely a good thing. In urban areas, it's not needed in emergencies, as they would be using TRS anyway.

    The extra bandwidth is great, but the whole FirstNet core and prioritization is unnecessary. That being said, I'm glad AT&T did it, as they got a nice low-band 10x10 just for offering priority that's barely ever going to be used. The spectrum they got adds orders of magnitude more total bandwidth than FirstNet users are ever going to need prioritized. Also, AT&T doesn't have the same capacity issues that Verizon does due to their overall spectrum position, in part due to the FirstNet spectrum, so it's sort of a self-defeating mechanism, but in a very positive way for AT&T, as it also affords their commercial customers more bandwidth.

    It's a complete boondoggle. I'm glad AT&T made lemonade out of the lemons, but it was a stupid idea from the get-go that got totally watered down into what it is today. AT&T played it smartly, but their network engineers have to be looking at the whole thing and thinking how smart they are for taking advantage of the government's stupidity, since they could have just sold B14 for a ton of money instead of doing the FirstNet boondoggle.

    Officers shouldn't be using data during an emergency, they should be responding to said emergency, and using TRS sparingly as needed to communicate, and mostly, you know, doing their job. Like actually driving or walking around and policing.

    In terms of protests, police could actually walk around and do their jobs and be police, and not rely on technology as a crutch to doing that. They could also use to lose the MRAPs, body armor, helmets, shields, all of that crap, and actually be human beings and go out there and police. Yes, it can be a hard job in some cities, but that's what they get paid to do.
    Normally i agree with you in a lot of points but IMO you can't be more wrong when it comes to public safety. You have no idea what public safety actually does on a day to day basis. Thats ok, most people don't.

    First responders can and do use high tech "toys" during emergencies. They use drones to search rubble from collapsed buildings, look for missing people, they look for drowning victims on rivers/lakes, they look for fire extension in high rise fires, they use it to set up perimeters on crime scenes where people can observe scenes with limited officers. EMS live streams actual medical emergencies to doctors for patient care consults. These things happen every day and the public should be grateful that first responders have these tools to stay so well in communication. Plus now police departments are pushing more and more for body cams and to have the ability to have to cameras live stream all the time. That will all be done over LTE.

    Having dedicated bandwidth to ensure they can do these things smoothly is essential. Take the California wildfires for example with the first responders complaining about being throttled. The dedicated bandwidth will help solve these issues. And yes in rural areas capacity is often not an issue but let's also remember that carriers aren't throwing up every bit of spectrum they own on a rural tower as compared to an urban site. Its not impossible to get sub 2 Mbps speed tests and that's without an active emergency.

    The government was actually smart when it came to FirstNet. They realized that setting up its own network would cost well over 100 billion dollars vs giving away the spectrum along with a measly 6-7 billion dollars and getting the contract taker to also expand rural coverage at the same time, effectively killing 2 birds with one stone was way more cost effective. AT&T was just smart enough to scoop up the contract for the extra spectrum, give the first responders the priority that they need and then give that spectrum/capacity to regular users when not in need.

    Lastly in terms of policing during protests. The way the younger generation/protestors are, they have no respect for police/authority (you can argue till you are blue in the face as to why people feel like that but its irrelevant) that policing is very dangerous. Police do get paid to protect and serve the public not get jumped by a group of unruly protestors for following orders. That being said, throwing a drone up in the air and watching for fights, vandalism, and monitoring crowd movement is much safer and cost effective than having a large group of officers following around people who are already agitated.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    Normally i agree with you in a lot of points but IMO you can't be more wrong when it comes to public safety. You have no idea what public safety actually does on a day to day basis. Thats ok, most people don't.
    It depends a lot on the area. Small town cops do, well, not much of anything. City cops run around like crazy dealing with all sorts of problems and end up trying to do 15 things at once. Some of the small town cops have spillover issues from some of the cities. At least that's how it is here in CT. Some fire departments are volunteer and get called out now and then, the cities and larger towns are full time and do all sorts of things. Then you've got the big cities like NYC where FDNY and NYPD have to deal with all sorts of problems all the time that arise from a highly dense, dynamic, and energetic city.

    First responders can and do use high tech "toys" during emergencies. They use drones to search rubble from collapsed buildings, look for missing people, they look for drowning victims on rivers/lakes, they look for fire extension in high rise fires, they use it to set up perimeters on crime scenes where people can observe scenes with limited officers. EMS live streams actual medical emergencies to doctors for patient care consults. These things happen every day and the public should be grateful that first responders have these tools to stay so well in communication. Plus now police departments are pushing more and more for body cams and to have the ability to have to cameras live stream all the time. That will all be done over LTE.
    Flying around drones has nothing to do with LTE, since normal drones don't use LTE (I'm sure someone has rigged up a drone to use LTE, but that's not the norm). Isolated SAR types of activities don't need priority on the network, since they aren't done in a highly dense environment where the network is overloaded. Body cameras are a great idea, and should be on every police officer everywhere, but live streaming is a pipe dream. LTE doesn't work everywhere as it is, and never will, and the amount of data traffic that would create is utterly insane.

    Having dedicated bandwidth to ensure they can do these things smoothly is essential. Take the California wildfires for example with the first responders complaining about being throttled. The dedicated bandwidth will help solve these issues. And yes in rural areas capacity is often not an issue but let's also remember that carriers aren't throwing up every bit of spectrum they own on a rural tower as compared to an urban site. Its not impossible to get sub 2 Mbps speed tests and that's without an active emergency.
    You're conflating two different issues. They didn't have the right plan for what they were doing, and while Verizon should have let it slide in the moment and adjusted their plan to the correct one after the fact when the fires were out, that had nothing to do with an overloaded network, it was some sort of hard throttle that was put on the plan since they used too much data.

    Verizon has some issues with not throwing up spectrum, although AT&T now is putting up all their spectrum on every rebuild. I guess you could say that ironically that is only because of FirstNet, so FirstNet is making itself obsolete because AT&T is going back and rebuilding towers that had far less capacity before.

    The government was actually smart when it came to FirstNet. They realized that setting up its own network would cost well over 100 billion dollars vs giving away the spectrum along with a measly 6-7 billion dollars and getting the contract taker to also expand rural coverage at the same time, effectively killing 2 birds with one stone was way more cost effective. AT&T was just smart enough to scoop up the contract for the extra spectrum, give the first responders the priority that they need and then give that spectrum/capacity to regular users when not in need.
    They realized that the whole idea was idiotic, and needed a way out. Giving it to AT&T while creating a QoS'ed network that wasn't really needed in the first place, but could only benefit AT&T's network anyway was a clean solution out of the whole thing and to save face for the government, and AT&T got a great deal out of it. They can market the whole thing as this great network, even though no one really asked for it or needed it in the first place, and in the process AT&T got a juicy 10x10 of low-band spectrum which will be mostly be used for their commercial network. Police and fire don't need the bandwidth to begin with, but AT&T did a good job of capitalizing on the boondoggle and making something productive out of what otherwise was headed for being a total idiotic failure, and I credit AT&T with that.

    And ironically, it will make the LTE network better for all governmental users, FirstNet or not, since AT&T is adding more capacity and towers for everyone, and the benefits to AT&T's network are far in excess of what little capacity FirstNet will ever need or use from it.

    Lastly in terms of policing during protests. The way the younger generation/protestors are, they have no respect for police/authority (you can argue till you are blue in the face as to why people feel like that but its irrelevant) that policing is very dangerous. Police do get paid to protect and serve the public not get jumped by a group of unruly protestors for following orders. That being said, throwing a drone up in the air and watching for fights, vandalism, and monitoring crowd movement is much safer and cost effective than having a large group of officers following around people who are already agitated.
    Police need to be on the ground with their own eyes and ears. Drones are fine in that use case as a supplemental tool, but not to replace actual police work on the ground. Also, drones don't generally use LTE, and wouldn't in a commercial/government application, so that has no bearing on FirstNet.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    515
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    It depends a lot on the area. Small town cops do, well, not much of anything. City cops run around like crazy dealing with all sorts of problems and end up trying to do 15 things at once. Some of the small town cops have spillover issues from some of the cities. At least that's how it is here in CT. Some fire departments are volunteer and get called out now and then, the cities and larger towns are full time and do all sorts of things. Then you've got the big cities like NYC where FDNY and NYPD have to deal with all sorts of problems all the time that arise from a highly dense, dynamic, and energetic city.

    Flying around drones has nothing to do with LTE, since normal drones don't use LTE (I'm sure someone has rigged up a drone to use LTE, but that's not the norm). Isolated SAR types of activities don't need priority on the network, since they aren't done in a highly dense environment where the network is overloaded. Body cameras are a great idea, and should be on every police officer everywhere, but live streaming is a pipe dream. LTE doesn't work everywhere as it is, and never will, and the amount of data traffic that would create is utterly insane.

    You're conflating two different issues. They didn't have the right plan for what they were doing, and while Verizon should have let it slide in the moment and adjusted their plan to the correct one after the fact when the fires were out, that had nothing to do with an overloaded network, it was some sort of hard throttle that was put on the plan since they used too much data.

    Verizon has some issues with not throwing up spectrum, although AT&T now is putting up all their spectrum on every rebuild. I guess you could say that ironically that is only because of FirstNet, so FirstNet is making itself obsolete because AT&T is going back and rebuilding towers that had far less capacity before.

    They realized that the whole idea was idiotic, and needed a way out. Giving it to AT&T while creating a QoS'ed network that wasn't really needed in the first place, but could only benefit AT&T's network anyway was a clean solution out of the whole thing and to save face for the government, and AT&T got a great deal out of it. They can market the whole thing as this great network, even though no one really asked for it or needed it in the first place, and in the process AT&T got a juicy 10x10 of low-band spectrum which will be mostly be used for their commercial network. Police and fire don't need the bandwidth to begin with, but AT&T did a good job of capitalizing on the boondoggle and making something productive out of what otherwise was headed for being a total idiotic failure, and I credit AT&T with that.

    And ironically, it will make the LTE network better for all governmental users, FirstNet or not, since AT&T is adding more capacity and towers for everyone, and the benefits to AT&T's network are far in excess of what little capacity FirstNet will ever need or use from it.

    Police need to be on the ground with their own eyes and ears. Drones are fine in that use case as a supplemental tool, but not to replace actual police work on the ground. Also, drones don't generally use LTE, and wouldn't in a commercial/government application, so that has no bearing on FirstNet.
    A quick 2 second google search and you will see drone's that have been converted to LTE (Although this wasn't the normal in the past it is becoming more and more common). You will also see a new body cam that was just certified with AT&T on FirstNet. These things can and DO operate on LTE therefore they would have a direct impact on FirstNet. You are correct that these aren't the norm everywhere but they are starting to be way more common than you think and these things take bandwidth.

    SAR efforts are actually not uncommon in urban areas. Buildings can and do collapse, earthquakes and tornadoes do happen and people have to search the rubble.

    The biggest impact that FirstNet has is on the standard AT&T user with the added capacity/density. The instances where networks get bogged down to a point where severe congestion does not occur that often but it still does happen. In a metro area you can have amazing service 90% of the time but if you go down the wrong street you can still find sites that are under full capacity and struggling and that's where priority will help with public safety. So in turn the general public will see the impact with faster speeds and better coverage along with public safety's priority.

    Lastly as i stated before, yours or anyones opinion of how a police department should work vs how they actually operate is irrelevant. Police operate in a way that it is safest for the public and for themselves at the same time. Police departments don't have an unlimited amount of money and people so often using technology is not only quicker but more cost effective. A police dept near me sets up temporary cameras that use LTE at community events/carnivals in addition to using officers for security. They can quickly monitor the entire area and send an officer to the exact area needed as quickly as possible so instead of providing security with 12 officers they can use 6 instead.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    A quick 2 second google search and you will see drone's that have been converted to LTE (Although this wasn't the normal in the past it is becoming more and more common). You will also see a new body cam that was just certified with AT&T on FirstNet. These things can and DO operate on LTE therefore they would have a direct impact on FirstNet. You are correct that these aren't the norm everywhere but they are starting to be way more common than you think and these things take bandwidth.
    You could ADD LTE to a drone, but I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be, as I believe FAA regs have some requirements for being relatively near the drone in order to control it anyway. You can't, however, RELY on LTE, as often LTE doesn't work, or there just isn't any LTE to rely on, so there would still have to be a provision for a direct RF link, which would work more reliably than an overly congested cellular network anyway, making that potential application of FirstNet not actually useful in the real world.

    SAR efforts are actually not uncommon in urban areas. Buildings can and do collapse, earthquakes and tornadoes do happen and people have to search the rubble.
    In which case they'll have TRS. Rural/remote SAR would actually need satellite communications as well, since LTE doesn't work everywhere, but LTE could be much more convenient and faster when and where it works.

    The biggest impact that FirstNet has is on the standard AT&T user with the added capacity/density. The instances where networks get bogged down to a point where severe congestion does not occur that often but it still does happen. In a metro area you can have amazing service 90% of the time but if you go down the wrong street you can still find sites that are under full capacity and struggling and that's where priority will help with public safety. So in turn the general public will see the impact with faster speeds and better coverage along with public safety's priority.
    I don't think they're adding site density just for FirstNet, but they are adding rural coverage.

    Lastly as i stated before, yours or anyones opinion of how a police department should work vs how they actually operate is irrelevant. Police operate in a way that it is safest for the public and for themselves at the same time. Police departments don't have an unlimited amount of money and people so often using technology is not only quicker but more cost effective. A police dept near me sets up temporary cameras that use LTE at community events/carnivals in addition to using officers for security. They can quickly monitor the entire area and send an officer to the exact area needed as quickly as possible so instead of providing security with 12 officers they can use 6 instead.
    Many police departments don't function properly. There are the overly aggressive MRAP-driving, people-shooting, nutso robo-cops, there are the donut-eating, do-nothing cops, and then there are the ones who aren't on either of those extremes and actually do good police work, with boots on the ground, officers in neighborhoods, talking to real people, investigating crimes, etc.

    All cops usually do at public events is create massive traffic jams that otherwise wouldn't be so bad, or stand around and get paid, which can be effective as a deterrent, although it's a costly one. If there needs to be a network of security cameras, that can be done by the event venue itself with their own security staff that cost far less than police.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    696
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    You could ADD LTE to a drone, but I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be, as I believe FAA regs have some requirements for being relatively near the drone in order to control it anyway. You can't, however, RELY on LTE, as often LTE doesn't work, or there just isn't any LTE to rely on, so there would still have to be a provision for a direct RF link, which would work more reliably than an overly congested cellular network anyway, making that potential application of FirstNet not actually useful in the real world.



    In which case they'll have TRS. Rural/remote SAR would actually need satellite communications as well, since LTE doesn't work everywhere, but LTE could be much more convenient and faster when and where it works.



    I don't think they're adding site density just for FirstNet, but they are adding rural coverage.



    Many police departments don't function properly. There are the overly aggressive MRAP-driving, people-shooting, nutso robo-cops, there are the donut-eating, do-nothing cops, and then there are the ones who aren't on either of those extremes and actually do good police work, with boots on the ground, officers in neighborhoods, talking to real people, investigating crimes, etc.

    All cops usually do at public events is create massive traffic jams that otherwise wouldn't be so bad, or stand around and get paid, which can be effective as a deterrent, although it's a costly one. If there needs to be a network of security cameras, that can be done by the event venue itself with their own security staff that cost far less than police.
    AT&T is adding a huge amount of fiber optics in NYC by me in Queens with loads of new permits. They had fiber here already in parts but they seem to be adding a lot more all over. Verizon has a lot more fiber optics here than AT&T as it started earlier and that included fiber to the home builds as well. AT&T is now playing catchup wih fiber optics and openly deploying more to increase fiber optics density. At this pace, AT&T will even have more fiber optics than RCN eventually in town which essentially had a greater fiber optics density than the incumbent cable company but still laid copper for last mile which covered numerous properties in the area. Yes I know AT&T has more business class fiber in NYC but RCN did homes and multidwellings that AT&T didn’t wire up. AT&T should be able to reach 100% coverage with 5G+ as they don’t need building or home permission to wire and perhaps they run some direct fiber optics as well. RCN doesn’t have the spectrum portfolio that AT&T has in wireless nor has a deal like Altice has with Sprint.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Red Pocket (VZ)
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LTENetwork View Post
    AT&T is adding a huge amount of fiber optics in NYC by me in Queens with loads of new permits. They had fiber here already in parts but they seem to be adding a lot more all over. Verizon has a lot more fiber optics here than AT&T as it started earlier and that included fiber to the home builds as well. AT&T is now playing catchup wih fiber optics and openly deploying more to increase fiber optics density. At this pace, AT&T will even have more fiber optics than RCN eventually in town which essentially had a greater fiber optics density than the incumbent cable company but still laid copper for last mile which covered numerous properties in the area. Yes I know AT&T has more business class fiber in NYC but RCN did homes and multidwellings that AT&T didn’t wire up. AT&T should be able to reach 100% coverage with 5G+ as they don’t need building or home permission to wire and perhaps they run some direct fiber optics as well. RCN doesn’t have the spectrum portfolio that AT&T has in wireless nor has a deal like Altice has with Sprint.
    That's good to hear. NYC has been a tough market for them, and still hurts their reputation to this day as people joke about AT&T's service, even though they are referring to their network circa 2011 in NYC. AT&T doesn't have a great spectrum position in NYC, but with B14/30/66 it's getting better. Banding matters a LOT in NYC since they have relatively little B2/5/17 and no B4 at all. In most of the country, they have a huge spectrum advantage over Verizon, but in NYC they are relatively equal, and Verizon has crazy density.

    5G mmWave could be interesting in NYC if there are multiple players doing it, unlike in most markets where AT&T has enough spectrum to avoid mmWave and small cells.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,965
    Feedback Score
    0

    Will AT&T Coverage Leapfrog Over Verizon In 2020?

    Now that 2020 is right around the corner, could it be the year that AT&T coverage exceeds Verizon coverage in the United States?

    I still use Total Wireless (Verizon MVNO) day to day, but I also have some AT&T service as a backup. I doubt that I will be changing that this year, but time will tell.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    4,684
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim1348 View Post
    Now that 2020 is right around the corner, could it be the year that AT&T coverage exceeds Verizon coverage in the United States?

    I still use Total Wireless (Verizon MVNO) day to day, but I also have some AT&T service as a backup. I doubt that I will be changing that this year, but time will tell.
    They haven’t even started building macros on a wide scale and they’re many behind Verizon. I doubt it’ll be 2020. Maybe 2022 or beyond.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 778
    Last Post: 03-01-2017, 02:45 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-11-2016, 09:50 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-07-2016, 09:39 AM
  4. What will AT&T do to compete with verizon
    By PETE2674 in forum AT&T
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 05:51 PM
  5. What will AT&T do to compete with verizon
    By PETE2674 in forum Apple
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 12:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks