Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 82

Thread: AT&T Markets Without Low-Band

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    405
    Device(s)
    AT&T S8+
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by i0wnj00 View Post
    I wouldn't know if USCC maps are "too optimistic" or not.
    I can't vouch for their coverage maps either way since I haven't had experience with them. I can argue against the quality of T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless and AT&T coverage maps because I have used them before. All I see is "purple"...who am I to pass judgement when I had no experience with them?
    I didn't say USCC coverage maps, I said ALL coverage maps, though I gotta admit AT&T map is pretty accurate, and can even underestimate where coverage is, at least in my area.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,929
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8+
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroSignal View Post
    I didn't say USCC coverage maps, I said ALL coverage maps, though I gotta admit AT&T map is pretty accurate, and can even underestimate where coverage is, at least in my area.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    That’s not universal. Were it true, I would have full AT&T LTE service at my parents’ cabin.

    As it stands today it’s No Service without high gain antennas and a booster.

    Every carrier claims to have some service there but only Sprint 1x 800 and USCC 1x 850 reliably reach the area. AT&T only gets service at the tops of the hills.

    I hear AT&T may be installing a new site in the area. That should make their maps accurate haha.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Intel iPhone 8 Plus:
    AT&T Unlimited Plus

    iPad Pro 9.7:
    Verizon Unlimited (February '17 Plan)

    Rural Internet:
    Mofi 4500 on AT&T Connected Car Unlimited

    AT&T Fiber

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    405
    Device(s)
    AT&T S8+
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brobot View Post
    That’s not universal. Were it true, I would have full AT&T LTE service at my parents’ cabin.

    As it stands today it’s No Service without high gain antennas and a booster.

    Every carrier claims to have some service there but only Sprint 1x 800 and USCC 1x 850 reliably reach the area. AT&T only gets service at the tops of the hills.

    I hear AT&T may be installing a new site in the area. That should make their maps accurate haha.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Like always, it's all about location. Anyway where is this new site being built? Vermont? If so that's great!

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,929
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8+
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroSignal View Post
    Like always, it's all about location. Anyway where is this new site being built? Vermont? If so that's great!

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I’m afraid it’s quite a ways from there in rural Locust Grove, OK.

    Hopefully new sites are deployed nationwide for FirstNet although I hear now that may take a long time to see if we ever do.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,871
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brobot View Post
    They do all have band 13 deployed it’s just the sites in Cherokee county are placed away from the 850 license boundary to be extra careful not to violate the license I guess (they were built in the Alltel days).
    That's interesting that they placed towers that way on purpose. I just thought that they stomped over each other to a certain extent, like Rogers and AT&T to in Sault Ste. Marie, MI/ON where they have overlapping coverage.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroSignal View Post
    Dude Rutland is embarrassing and they have the licenses to deploy LTE 700 there! But no, they have 3G only in rutland like WTF even sprint has LTE!
    Sprint has LTE there?!? T-Mobile doesn't even have a network there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroSignal View Post
    I didn't say USCC coverage maps, I said ALL coverage maps, though I gotta admit AT&T map is pretty accurate, and can even underestimate where coverage is, at least in my area.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    There's all BS. Last summer, I was driving through MI, and the ENTIRE route was solid coverage on the map, mostly LTE. We had several stretches where we'd bounce from service to no service. I wanted to look something up on my laptop, I couldn't get a stable connection for probably 20-30 minutes.
    Happy AT&T customer and addicted Speedtester in CT
    AT&T Galaxy S7
    If you text while driving, you're an idiot. End of story.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    405
    Device(s)
    AT&T S8+
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    That's interesting that they placed towers that way on purpose. I just thought that they stomped over each other to a certain extent, like Rogers and AT&T to in Sault Ste. Marie, MI/ON where they have overlapping coverage.



    Sprint has LTE there?!? T-Mobile doesn't even have a network there.



    There's all BS. Last summer, I was driving through MI, and the ENTIRE route was solid coverage on the map, mostly LTE. We had several stretches where we'd bounce from service to no service. I wanted to look something up on my laptop, I couldn't get a stable connection for probably 20-30 minutes.
    Well, like I said at least in my area, it defiently isn't accurate everywhere, even just a county over from mine, service can be iffy.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Tijuana - Ensenada / D.F. - Puebla
    Posts
    22,111
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone 7 Plus / Apple iPhone 7 / Samsung Galaxy S8
    Carrier(s)
    Pacific Bell Wireless - AT&T MX / Movistar MX / Telcel MX
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroSignal View Post
    I didn't say USCC coverage maps, I said ALL coverage maps, though I gotta admit AT&T map is pretty accurate, and can even underestimate where coverage is, at least in my area.
    Not for me, AT&T claims that they have LTE service when in reality it’s either 3G or No Service. T-Mobile claims “Fair” when they have really have No Service and when Verizon Wireless claims LTE they really have 1x. But more often than not with either AT&T or T-Mobile, I would rather have 1x over terribly slow 3G or No Service.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    5,065
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, iPhone 7
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    The markets where one of the players owns both sides of the CLR band should have been dealt with years ago, but they weren't... Ironically, I am planning on going out to Tahlequah in the spring to visit a friend.
    They should've never been allowed to happen. It still blows my mind that VZW was allowed to acquire, instead of divest, the CLR B block from Alltel across its Ohio holdings where VZW already held most of the A block throughout the state. It really helped cement a VZW stronghold (in coverage and customers) across the state, despite that they aren't even an ILEC in the same territory. (What happened to the good old days when CLR B was for the ILEC? )

    Until 700 bands started coming online, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint had decent PCS networks that worked amazingly well outdoors, but fell apart in many buildings. Now they're fairly competitive, but pretty much everyone still has Verizon.


  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Redwood Valley,NorCal/but SoCal Born and Raised/Moving back to Pocatello, ID in 2018
    Posts
    29,136
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy Note 8, LG V30, Google Pixel 2, Samsung Gear S3 Frontier,
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    It was similar in Southeastern Idaho, Commnet Cellular->Airtouch->Verizon always had the B band, U.S. Cellular sold their network (A Band) there (along with Hawaii) in the early 2000's, with SE ID going to Alltel, then Verizon got that A side when they acquired Alltel, so now they own both CLR licenses there. SE ID and Hawaii (Hawaii went to AT&T) were part of USCC's Northwest Market, which currently consists of Northern California, Oregon and Washington.

    Note-Commnet Cellular provided service in the Rockies and Plains States, and was bought by Airtouch Cellular in 1999, who of course went into Verizon. They are NOT in any way related to Commnet Wireless.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA SID 40
    Posts
    536
    Device(s)
    iPhone 5
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon formerly AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blkballoon925 View Post
    They should've never been allowed to happen. It still blows my mind that VZW was allowed to acquire, instead of divest, the CLR B block from Alltel across its Ohio holdings where VZW already held most of the A block throughout the state. It really helped cement a VZW stronghold (in coverage and customers) across the state, despite that they aren't even an ILEC in the same territory. (What happened to the good old days when CLR B was for the ILEC? )

    Until 700 bands started coming online, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint had decent PCS networks that worked amazingly well outdoors, but fell apart in many buildings. Now they're fairly competitive, but pretty much everyone still has Verizon.
    This is no different than the Cingular and AT&T merger back into thousand four. AT&T kept all the 800 MHz coverage in quite a few places such as Dallas, San Antonio, and most of the Florida East Coast including Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami Fort Lauderdale.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    5,065
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, iPhone 7
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by baayers View Post
    This is no different than the Cingular and AT&T merger back into thousand four. AT&T kept all the 800 MHz coverage in quite a few places such as Dallas, San Antonio, and most of the Florida East Coast including Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami Fort Lauderdale.
    Yep, same story. Those should've been divested, as well. I think most of those markets were BellSouth. "The new AT&T" should've kept CLR B and been forced to divest A.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    746
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8+ (Intel), iPhone 6S, Galaxy S6, iPad Mini 3
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blkballoon925 View Post
    They should've never been allowed to happen. It still blows my mind that VZW was allowed to acquire, instead of divest, the CLR B block from Alltel across its Ohio holdings where VZW already held most of the A block throughout the state. It really helped cement a VZW stronghold (in coverage and customers) across the state, despite that they aren't even an ILEC in the same territory. (What happened to the good old days when CLR B was for the ILEC? )

    Until 700 bands started coming online, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint had decent PCS networks that worked amazingly well outdoors, but fell apart in many buildings. Now they're fairly competitive, but pretty much everyone still has Verizon.
    Quote Originally Posted by baayers View Post
    This is no different than the Cingular and AT&T merger back into thousand four. AT&T kept all the 800 MHz coverage in quite a few places such as Dallas, San Antonio, and most of the Florida East Coast including Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami Fort Lauderdale.
    Those carriers without the CLR licenses should have built out and densified their networks to make up for the lack of Low Band. That’s what was supposed to happen anyway. Of course, we all know how that actually played out...
    I do not represent any company or other entity. Anything I post in these forums or write on this site are my thoughts and opinions only. I make every attempt to be 100% accurate, but I am human and do make mistakes from time to time.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,871
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BMWDude49120 View Post
    Those carriers without the CLR licenses should have built out and densified their networks to make up for the lack of Low Band. That’s what was supposed to happen anyway. Of course, we all know how that actually played out...
    Sometimes you physically can't build out more towers. Look at NH pre-B17 for AT&T. It was a mess. They had 1900 on 850-spaced towers. They've been fighting about where to put cell towers near the lakes for 20+ years. Now they have B17 and they're basically on par with Verizon.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA SID 40
    Posts
    536
    Device(s)
    iPhone 5
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon formerly AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blkballoon925 View Post
    Yep, same story. Those should've been divested, as well. I think most of those markets were BellSouth. "The new AT&T" should've kept CLR B and been forced to divest A.
    In Texas I would have a greed but when it came to Florida it would have made more sense for them to keep the A band. With Alltel now Verizon having the B band in at least half of the state the A Side made more sense sense in 66 out of 67 counties Legacy AT&T already had it. Either way it’s water under the bridge now.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    De Soto
    Posts
    219
    Device(s)
    LG Phoenix 3 (with FM Radio), iPhone 4S
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Does it count if they don't have Band 12 but have Band 5 along with 2/4/30 because I noticed that the Lake of the Ozarks have Bands 2/4/5/30 only. USCC or T-Mobile or Verizon have Band 12. And yes Verizon has Band 12 in certain areas, I checked on the FCC site.

    Sent from my LG-M150 using Tapatalk

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. AT&T low band spectrum in Iowa
    By cyclones_isu in forum AT&T
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 03:39 PM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-18-2016, 11:29 PM
  3. Cingular bought AT&T market share
    By CLERiC_AJ in forum AT&T
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-21-2004, 10:39 AM
  4. Is at&t marketing asleep at the wheel?
    By Optimusprime in forum AT&T
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-29-2003, 08:48 PM
  5. AT&T Markets S55 does work in?
    By jmpage2 in forum Siemens
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-20-2003, 05:21 PM

Bookmarks