Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85

Thread: iPhone X Reception

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    523
    Device(s)
    iPhone, iPad
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dandn1321 View Post
    I know this is a stupid question to ask but what is the difference between small cells and macrocells
    the tl;dr is that small cells are roughly the size of Wi-Fi routers and, accordingly, only cover small areas (like a couple of blocks in many cases)

    since they're so small, though, they're really easy to deploy, since you just stick 'em on a lamppost or something, whereas a macro cell site (aka a cell tower) is a huge construction project

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    172
    Device(s)
    iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 6s
    Carrier(s)
    Rogers, Telus, Bell
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    It is not gigabit LTE capable, I believe the missing piece of 4x4 MIMO, but I could be wrong.
    Pixel 2 does have 4x4 MIMO on bands 2,4 and some other higher frequency bands. The missing piece for gigabit is that it has 3x CA, not 4x CA

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,002
    Feedback Score
    0

    iPhone X Reception

    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    Another great post. AT&T has deployed some LAA small cells in Indianapolis. One of their engineers posted a 650 Mbps download speed from the street about a block away.
    No way dude! It has to be a trick - smoke and mirrors. Someone is pullin your chain.
    Last edited by CellGeek; 12-08-2017 at 06:23 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,128
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CellGeek View Post
    No way dude! It has to be a trick - smoke and mirrors.
    That’s one of AT&Ts 5G evolution markets.

    https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...a-indianapolis

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,958
    Device(s)
    iPhone 7+ 128 GB Jet Black
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Using an AT&T iPhone X with Verizon... so LTE only. I never see anything else but LTE with Verizon anyway so there are no issues. Seeing same results as my 7+, so far.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    iPhone 7+ on the Verizon Network
    iPad Pro 9.7 on the AT&T Network

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    I’m certainly not arguing about Verizon’s spectrum position, they definitely need to buy more and an acquisition with Dish would be ideal for them.
    Yeah, they need to buy DISH. That's a much better solution than their spending spree on small cells, IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    I strongly disagree about small cell sites being a suboptimal situation. They enable such high spectral reuse that reliably sky-high peak speeds become technically feasible. Also, they lay a strong foundation for truly mobile millimeter wave service come next decade.

    I want small cells on every street corner of every city and suburb!
    I think they're an ugly mess, and I would rather that Verizon bought DISH and stopped building small cells. I think they are a cop out to a bad spectrum position. I'm all for the densification of macro sites up to a point. Unfortunately, the industry has embraced porking massive amounts of data in order to drive ARPU up in a never ending quest for more profits. I really wish that the industry had gone towards the model of how Project Fi charges for data, as if the whole industry were doing that, average data use would be a fraction of what it is today, mobile websites would be far leaner (or people would use browsers with compression proxies to save data), and we wouldn't really need small cells.

    What I want is reliable data coverage across as much land mass as absolutely possible. I want a somewhat denser macro network, but not hugely so. I'm fine with one bar of LTE, as long as it's stable, and doesn't crap out on me inside a building or whatever. My ideal network would be spending far more on 250' lattice towers in the middle of nowhere, and far less on urban densification, combined with a pricing scheme that incentivized less data usage to make the supply and demand curves meet on an LTE network that is based on coverage, not capacity. Granted, some areas, like NYC, would need some additional capacity sites, but most markets would only need to be covered if data were charged by the MB. The inherent problem with my scheme is that data usage would drop, people's phone bills would go way down, customers would be happier, but Wall Street wouldn't be happy with lower margins against a backdrop of still fairly high fixed costs to operate a network.

    Quote Originally Posted by weskeene View Post
    I'm going to snip out and respond to just this one chunk. LAA uses *ALL* 5GHz Wi-Fi channels. Most home units (read all of them but one) only use a fraction of the 5GHz channels, because Dynamic Frequency Selection is a requirement to use the others and manufacturers don't want to bother with the cost when most 5GHz channels aren't used in a given area anyway. So in essence LAA can use every 5GHz band you can use today and a bunch you almost certain don't even have access to. It will work, and it will be good.
    Ugh. Hopefully it doesn't interfere badly with Wi-Fi. There are several DFS routers out there. I'm not sure what clients can actually connect to them though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    Great post. Small cells work wonders for Verizon’s network in my market. Even in the suburbs where a macro can’t reach a particular area, they provide excellent coverage and speeds. AT&T has started deploying ODAS nodes in Manhattan and I’ve seen a difference in performance already. In the burbs they have zero small cells and the macro network simply can’t cover areas where small cells can.
    If they can't cover with macro sites, then their macro sites are too far apart. With B13 LTE, RRHs, and, where necessary, new/taller towers, Verizon should be able to cover everything just fine without small cells. LTE improves performance at weaker signal levels, so that's a benefit too.

    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    the tl;dr is that small cells are roughly the size of Wi-Fi routers and, accordingly, only cover small areas (like a couple of blocks in many cases)
    The small cells I've seen are a heck of a lot bigger than a Wi-Fi router. More like several cabinets strapped to a telephone pole. They are ugly and poorly constructed, although they vary a lot city to city and region to region.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7513...7i13312!8i6656

    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7516...7i13312!8i6656

    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7585...7i13312!8i6656

    I'm about 95% sure those are Verizon small cells, as they are NOT AT&T, and those are the two major carriers in Warwick.

    Quote Originally Posted by crab9000 View Post
    Pixel 2 does have 4x4 MIMO on bands 2,4 and some other higher frequency bands. The missing piece for gigabit is that it has 3x CA, not 4x CA
    What about B5/12/13? That's where you'd really want it for distance performance on a weak signal.
    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.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,128
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Yeah, they need to buy DISH. That's a much better solution than their spending spree on small cells, IMO.



    I think they're an ugly mess, and I would rather that Verizon bought DISH and stopped building small cells. I think they are a cop out to a bad spectrum position. I'm all for the densification of macro sites up to a point. Unfortunately, the industry has embraced porking massive amounts of data in order to drive ARPU up in a never ending quest for more profits. I really wish that the industry had gone towards the model of how Project Fi charges for data, as if the whole industry were doing that, average data use would be a fraction of what it is today, mobile websites would be far leaner (or people would use browsers with compression proxies to save data), and we wouldn't really need small cells.

    What I want is reliable data coverage across as much land mass as absolutely possible. I want a somewhat denser macro network, but not hugely so. I'm fine with one bar of LTE, as long as it's stable, and doesn't crap out on me inside a building or whatever. My ideal network would be spending far more on 250' lattice towers in the middle of nowhere, and far less on urban densification, combined with a pricing scheme that incentivized less data usage to make the supply and demand curves meet on an LTE network that is based on coverage, not capacity. Granted, some areas, like NYC, would need some additional capacity sites, but most markets would only need to be covered if data were charged by the MB. The inherent problem with my scheme is that data usage would drop, people's phone bills would go way down, customers would be happier, but Wall Street wouldn't be happy with lower margins against a backdrop of still fairly high fixed costs to operate a network.



    Ugh. Hopefully it doesn't interfere badly with Wi-Fi. There are several DFS routers out there. I'm not sure what clients can actually connect to them though.



    If they can't cover with macro sites, then their macro sites are too far apart. With B13 LTE, RRHs, and, where necessary, new/taller towers, Verizon should be able to cover everything just fine without small cells. LTE improves performance at weaker signal levels, so that's a benefit too.



    The small cells I've seen are a heck of a lot bigger than a Wi-Fi router. More like several cabinets strapped to a telephone pole. They are ugly and poorly constructed, although they vary a lot city to city and region to region.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7513...7i13312!8i6656

    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7516...7i13312!8i6656

    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7585...7i13312!8i6656

    I'm about 95% sure those are Verizon small cells, as they are NOT AT&T, and those are the two major carriers in Warwick.



    What about B5/12/13? That's where you'd really want it for distance performance on a weak signal.
    Even if Verizon was able to grab a portion of dish spectrum ( like nationwide 20x20 AWS-4). That would really help areas where density isn’t possible. In the NYC metro they have both density from macros and small cells , so the combination is quite effective in most areas. They cover extremely well and have very quick speeds. How would you compare the big two in CT where you travel ?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,446
    Device(s)
    s6 note 4 and 5s
    Carrier(s)
    T Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    the tl;dr is that small cells are roughly the size of Wi-Fi routers and, accordingly, only cover small areas (like a couple of blocks in many cases)

    since they're so small, though, they're really easy to deploy, since you just stick 'em on a lamppost or something, whereas a macro cell site (aka a cell tower) is a huge construction project
    That’s understandable. I think I see is a small so near one of my cell phone retail stores. I do know is Verizon because when I stand near it I get full LTE service. The signal strength goes to -68 dbm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    183
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    I strongly disagree about small cell sites being a suboptimal situation. They enable such high spectral reuse that reliably sky-high peak speeds become technically feasible. Also, they lay a strong foundation for truly mobile millimeter wave service come next decade.

    I want small cells on every street corner of every city and suburb!
    I also want to see more small cells.

    It’s pretty clear that for the most part coverage is not the issue in metro areas it’s capacity that’s the problem and small cells resolve that issue.

    First of all small cells are usually crazy fast when your connected to one. I think the most overlooked benefit of small cells is the impact they have on macro sites (actual cell towers). Macro sites can only handle so much data at once and small cells can have a huge impact on the performance on the macro site. Think about it, if you can throw up a few small cells in a mall it will pull all those people off the macro site which also makes the macro site faster for everyone else.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    183
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    Strongly agreed. I'd like to see carrier-agnostic LAA in my local shopping malls, schools, universities, and hospitals, for example.
    My only complaint about LAA is that for now so few devices support it so it will take a while to see the broad impact of LAA.

    The more people you can get off regular spectrum and onto LAA and it will benefit everyone. But it really is simple math and when you get into those heavy use areas that you described there is only so much regular spectrum available and data use is only going to increase. Pretty soon LAA will no longer be a “cool new feature” and it will be essential for a network to maintain stability.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    Even if Verizon was able to grab a portion of dish spectrum ( like nationwide 20x20 AWS-4). That would really help areas where density isn’t possible. In the NYC metro they have both density from macros and small cells , so the combination is quite effective in most areas. They cover extremely well and have very quick speeds. How would you compare the big two in CT where you travel ?
    Yeah, the extra spectrum would help a lot, and reduce the need for small cells a lot. In CT, AT&T is king, although by a razor thin margin against Verizon. T-Mobile has really good coverage where they have really good coverage (i.e. better density in cities), and then paper-thin LTE in other places. I've also anecdotally heard about much worse T-Mobile coverage than what the maps might suggest in rural areas. Verizon is heavily invested in Fairfield County, since it's part of the NYC metro market. AT&T and T-Mobile have led in getting new sites online the most quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    First of all small cells are usually crazy fast when your connected to one. I think the most overlooked benefit of small cells is the impact they have on macro sites (actual cell towers). Macro sites can only handle so much data at once and small cells can have a huge impact on the performance on the macro site. Think about it, if you can throw up a few small cells in a mall it will pull all those people off the macro site which also makes the macro site faster for everyone else.
    Yeah, if you're Verizon, and you don't have enough spectrum or macro density. Some or either or both would solve the problem without small cells. And it's really not "enough" or "not enough", it's relative to what the other providers have. If all the carriers only had 40mhz, then they'd all be on a level playing field and would have densified their sites and restricted mobile data usage years ago. Because AT&T, Sprint and now T-Mobile have such rich spectrum portfolios, Verizon is playing catch-up.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    My only complaint about LAA is that for now so few devices support it so it will take a while to see the broad impact of LAA.

    The more people you can get off regular spectrum and onto LAA and it will benefit everyone. But it really is simple math and when you get into those heavy use areas that you described there is only so much regular spectrum available and data use is only going to increase. Pretty soon LAA will no longer be a “cool new feature” and it will be essential for a network to maintain stability.
    LAA is mostly a nothingburger except in extremely high density areas, like stadiums and concert venues, and even then, it's just a way to make the DAS cheaper by not needing the same density of antennas. For outdoor small cells, malls, airports, etc, they already have plenty of bandwidth, and with the limited range of LAA and the small cell itself, even with just the core licensed bands, it will have more bandwidth than is needed. AT&T was running one DAS on HSPA+ until the last year or so in a huge casino, and because of spectrum re-use, it never had bandwidth issues with just B2/5 HSPA+. Macro sites are the ones that need the spectrum, and LAA does't help them, as LAA's range often wouldn't even get to the bottom of the tower, if there is even anything at the bottom of the tower.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    523
    Device(s)
    iPhone, iPad
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    While I agree that Verizon desperately needs more spectrum, I also concur with their stance that densification is the better long-term move, since it's a lot easier to add spectrum later than it is to add density later, so if they're going to invest in just one, it should be density.

    Imagine how solid Verizon's densified grid will be once they finally get more mid-band spectrum, or if they manage to get millimeter wave spectrum to perform similarly to mid-band. Whew.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    While I agree that Verizon desperately needs more spectrum, I also concur with their stance that densification is the better long-term move, since it's a lot easier to add spectrum later than it is to add density later, so if they're going to invest in just one, it should be density.

    Imagine how solid Verizon's densified grid will be once they finally get more mid-band spectrum, or if they manage to get millimeter wave spectrum to perform similarly to mid-band. Whew.
    I'm still a lot more of a fan of building a denser network of macro cells, and getting more spectrum to complement that network. They should explore a purchase of DISH, as well as a favorable VoLTE roaming deal with throttled data that Sprint needs so desperately and would cost Verizon effectively nothing in exchange for leasing some of that B41 spectrum that they've got oodles of.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    993
    Device(s)
    SM-G935U
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    I'm still a lot more of a fan of building a denser network of macro cells, and getting more spectrum to complement that network. They should explore a purchase of DISH, as well as a favorable VoLTE roaming deal with throttled data that Sprint needs so desperately and would cost Verizon effectively nothing in exchange for leasing some of that B41 spectrum that they've got oodles of.
    Yes. I've started wondering about such a deal with Sprint as well. That 41 can't sit idle forever, and Sprint will need cash to fund the massive buildout they want to do. With the 12/31/2019 date looming, Sprint needs a plan going forward. They can find a good trade partner in Verizon, who needs spectrum more than they need exclusivity on voice in rural areas. I'd like to see VZW shoot for 40MHz of the stuff. But call it a success if you get 20. Remember, TDD doesn't force you to allocate as much for upload as download. So even 20MHz could act effectively like a 15MHz on DL.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    33
    Device(s)
    LG V30, Samsung Galaxy Note 3, iPhone 7 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Considering that Apple crippled the Qualcomm modem in the Verizon/Sprint models to match performance on their Intel, I wouldn't be surprised if there are issues. The X16 modem originally had antennas for 4x4 MIMO/256 QAM. It is capable of gigabit LTE in any other device that modem is used in.

    Gigabit doesn't necessarily mean you'll get those speeds but it can make the difference between having just enough signal to use data or make a call and having nothing.

    This is why I switched back to Android from iPhone personally.

    Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk Pro.
    ƸӜƷ•°*””*°•.I'm lost. If you find me, Please return me to myself.•°*””*°•.ƸӜƷ

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

Similar Threads

  1. iPhone 3G Reception SUCKS!!!
    By migs in forum Apple
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 02:56 PM
  2. iPhone 3G reception issues
    By MyA in forum Apple
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 01:02 AM
  3. iPhone 3G Reception SUCKS!!!
    By migs in forum Rogers Wireless
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2008, 03:28 PM
  4. Unlocked 1.1.1 iPhone: Horrible reception/lose of network
    By HardHitter in forum iOS Jailbreaking and Unlocking
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 01:12 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 11:56 PM

Bookmarks