Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Are these Tiny Narrow Antennas Sprint Antennas

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    700
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    There's a god awful ugly tower in Strasburg that I thought was Verizon, although upon closer inspection, it doesn't look like a Verizon site to me.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9867...7i13312!8i6656

    They really shouldn't allow towers around that area, as there are plenty of existing structures to put sites on that blend into the countryside a lot better. CT's process require proof that there is no existing structure adequate for a site before you can build one, which PA's obviously doesn't (or doesn't function).
    Last edited by SoxFan76; 07-16-2019 at 06:28 PM. Reason: Clarity

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,088
    Feedback Score
    0

    Are these Tiny Narrow Antennas Sprint Antennas

    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    There's a god awful ugly tower in Strasburg that I thought was Verizon, although upon closer inspection, it doesn't look like a Verizon site to me.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9867...7i13312!8i6656

    They really shouldn't allow towers around that area, as there are plenty of existing structures to put sites on that blend into the countryside a lot better. CT's process require proof that there is no existing structure adequate for a site before you can build one, which PA's obviously doesn't (or doesn't function).
    Nice ride on the Strasburg Railroad! I wouldn’t want to discourage them from building towers, but I see your point that the silo blends in a whole lot better.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    700
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by techfranz View Post
    Nice ride on the Strasburg Railroad! I wouldn’t want to discourage them from building towers, but I see your point that the silo blends in a whole lot better.
    I wouldn't want to discourage the building of towers if they were needed for good coverage. In that case, they are unnecessary, especially in that location, as there are plenty of other structures around to build on. I first I thought that's a lazy T-Mobile job to blast out as much coverage with a single tower as possible instead of doing it right with multiple silo-based sites. However, based on their coverage maps, it's definitely not T-Mobile, it doesn't look like Sprint from their coverage maps, I recall looking at my phone and not seeing strong AT&T, so it looks like it's Verizon.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,088
    Feedback Score
    0

    Are these Tiny Narrow Antennas Sprint Antennas

    Quote Originally Posted by SoxFan76 View Post
    I wouldn't want to discourage the building of towers if they were needed for good coverage. In that case, they are unnecessary, especially in that location, as there are plenty of other structures around to build on. I first I thought that's a lazy T-Mobile job to blast out as much coverage with a single tower as possible instead of doing it right with multiple silo-based sites. However, based on their coverage maps, it's definitely not T-Mobile, it doesn't look like Sprint from their coverage maps, I recall looking at my phone and not seeing strong AT&T, so it looks like it's Verizon.
    AntennaSearch reports it as a Cellco Partnership Tower and the Sprint Towers are further North of that location, except this new one which I have figured out where it is located yet.

    So you could be right, but Cellco towers around here can host other Carriers besides Verizon. There is another Cellco tower nearby that was AT&T for years and recently had a Verizon Rack added.

    As far as silos go they are seldom over 120ft tall where’s this Cellco tower says it is 250 feet tall.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    700
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by techfranz View Post
    AntennaSearch reports it as a Cellco Partnership Tower and the Sprint Towers are further North of that location, except this new one which I have figured out where it is located yet.

    So you could be right, but Cellco towers around here can host other Carriers besides Verizon. There is another Cellco tower nearby that was AT&T for years and recently had a Verizon Rack added.

    As far as silos go they are seldom over 120ft tall where’s this Cellco tower says it is 250 feet tall.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nice find. I couldn't find that one anywhere. I got that right, by process of elimination.

    So apparently it's a lazy coverage job by Verizon as opposed to T-Mobile. There's plenty of 120' silos around there to get the same coverage. The carriers have also done a crap job in places like Ohio, where in many areas each carrier has separate towers. They should be fully co-located, it just makes so much more sense on so many levels.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,261
    Device(s)
    N/A
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    You should see Iowa City... US Cellular apparently for quite a long while (if not still today...) would not allow anyone else on the towers they own.. US Cellular and some Verizon Wireless predecessor* (I assume? Maybe a tower company..) built out the towers here in the 1980s, so all over town you'll see a nearly-empty tower, with a second like 1/2 full tower right across the street from it, or on the same side like 100 feet apart. Out in the countryside they aren't right next to each other, but you'll also see roughly twice the number of towers you'd probably need, so 1 with US Cellular and then one like a mile away or whatever with some combination of Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and IWireless (now T-Mobile) and various microwave backhauls all mounted to it.

    *Don't know WHICH predecessor -- eastern Iowa had Bell Atlantic Mobile, US West, I think NYNEX and Primeco PCS coverage depending on which county you were in, which all merged into Verizon Wireless when it formed. Roaming must have been pure hell before that.
    Last edited by hwertz; 07-19-2019 at 08:52 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    700
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hwertz View Post
    You should see Iowa City... US Cellular apparently for quite a long while (if not still today...) would not allow anyone else on the towers they own..
    I'm not sure how exactly it's done here, but carriers are forced to co-locate on suitable existing structures by the state citing council. I'm pretty sure that very few of our towers in CT are owned by the carriers, most are Crown Castle or SBA. We've got a few situations where there are two towers, but most are a single tower. One I know of was consolidated a few years back from 3 to 2 larger towers, but I think that's a microwave donor site as it's on top of a hill next to a major highway and along a major road with tons of fiber. Some of ours are up to 7 decks, as there used to be 7 carriers, Pocket/MetroPCS, AT&T Wireless, and Nextel are now defunct and got rolled into their respective merged networks.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    700
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Some of ours also have a bunch of microwave or other unidentifiable stuff on them in addition to many that carry local police/fire whip antennas at the very top for trunked radio systems. In the area I'm in now we weirdly have a bunch of towers with 2 carriers in various combinations as they must have had differently spaced cell grids at one point in time. AT&T now awkwardly is a tenant on a tower that Frontier sold to some other company that is literally at the central office.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,261
    Device(s)
    N/A
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm not sure how exactly it's done here, but carriers are forced to co-locate on suitable existing structures by the state citing council. I'm pretty sure that very few of our towers in CT are owned by the carriers, most are Crown Castle or SBA.
    Yeah most of these towers around here are from the 1980s, so I suppose they're grandfathered in. I don't know if Iowa enforces any rules on cell sites, but in actuality the cell cos here prefer to use existing towers and buildings, I don't recall ever seeing a new tower type site come up around here, but plenty of taller buildings here have a variety of antennas hanging off the sides.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    700
    Device(s)
    Note9
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, Google Fi, Mint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hwertz View Post
    Yeah most of these towers around here are from the 1980s, so I suppose they're grandfathered in. I don't know if Iowa enforces any rules on cell sites, but in actuality the cell cos here prefer to use existing towers and buildings, I don't recall ever seeing a new tower type site come up around here, but plenty of taller buildings here have a variety of antennas hanging off the sides.
    Yeah, it depends on the market. I would think it would be cheaper in the long run to co-locate, but in some markets each carrier seems to have their own towers on their own grid spacing. I'm not sure how that has effected Verizon, which has had to get sites closer together for VoLTE to work properly, whereas VoLTE works a lot better on GSM-spaced sites on AT&T.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,088
    Feedback Score
    0
    Ok so I finally got over to this area again confirmed it was a Sprint tower with some incredible download speeds and band 41.

    With these great speeds and Tri-Band sites around I am definitely glad I came back to Sprint.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    5,600
    Device(s)
    iPhone X
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by techfranz View Post
    Ok so I finally got over to this area again confirmed it was a Sprint tower with some incredible download speeds and band 41.

    With these great speeds and Tri-Band sites around I am definitely glad I came back to Sprint.
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nice! A few small cells have popped up in Philly, but no real Sprint activity in years in this market. Sprint actually had a great cdma network in Delaware, but hasn't added a site since the Nextel conversions in 2005.
    AT&T: 2003 (gophone) & 2008-2009 & 2013-Present
    Cingular: 2003-2006
    Sprint: 2006-2007 & 2009-2011
    Verizon Wireless: 2001-2003 & 2011-2013

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-12-2017, 08:33 PM
  2. What are these antennas?
    By DRNewcomb in forum General Wireless Industry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2015, 05:29 PM
  3. Help me identify these Sprint antennas
    By irev210 in forum 4G LTE Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 08:57 AM
  4. are these good antennas? vx7000
    By luke23 in forum LG
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-20-2005, 01:59 PM
  5. Are these cellular antennas on the CN Tower?
    By AndyLHoang in forum General Mobile Questions and Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-10-2003, 01:32 PM

Bookmarks