Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 85

Thread: iPhone X Reception

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    183
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0

    iPhone X Reception

    Quote Originally Posted by Septembersrain View Post
    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.
    Thatís one thing I never could figure out about Apple.

    That would be like buying a Porsche and the dealer saying look at how great this thing looks but donít expect to go to fast because we disabled 4 of the 8 cylinders in it. But donít worry we gave you a little bit bigger gas tank this year so hopefully it makes it where your going.

    Maybe itís just me but the thought of intentionally slowing down technology just blows my mind. I am a big Apple fan but they really dropped the ball on this one. For Christ sakes itís a cell phone so IMO the one area you donít want to skip on is the cellular modem chip that makes the thing work. Without that itís just a fancy iPod Touch.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    183
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by weskeene View Post
    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.
    I think Verizon is at a crossroad where they really need to figure out what they are going to do. They only have two choices, add capacity through spectrum or add density. As as awesome as 5G sounds the reality is because it it travels so short it will probably never be in rural areas. The way data use keeps going up they will eventually need more capacity. I think they are in an OK spot now but they wonít be soon enough with the growing data demands.

    Just think 15 years ago when 3g came out and speeds were around 1-2 Mbps people thought that was blazing fast and couldnít think of a need for any more speed. I canít even imagine what the demand will be like in 5 years for data.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,122
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    I think Verizon is at a crossroad where they really need to figure out what they are going to do. They only have two choices, add capacity through spectrum or add density. As as awesome as 5G sounds the reality is because it it travels so short it will probably never be in rural areas. The way data use keeps going up they will eventually need more capacity. I think they are in an OK spot now but they wonít be soon enough with the growing data demands.

    Just think 15 years ago when 3g came out and speeds were around 1-2 Mbps people thought that was blazing fast and couldnít think of a need for any more speed. I canít even imagine what the demand will be like in 5 years for data.
    I would of felt much more comfortable if Verizon bought nationwide Aws-3 instead of cherry picking which markets they wanted more spectrum. 40-60 MHz of band 41 would be a ton more capacity . Density only gets you so far especially with the NIMBYS of today . Throwing more spectrum out in areas where density isnít possible is ideal

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    183
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    I would of felt much more comfortable if Verizon bought nationwide Aws-3 instead of cherry picking which markets they wanted more spectrum. 40-60 MHz of band 41 would be a ton more capacity . Density only gets you so far especially with the NIMBYS of today . Throwing more spectrum out in areas where density isnít possible is ideal

    Yeah, they will need more spectrum in the future thatís for sure. It just suck that it takes so long for these things to play out. I know recently the FCC was pushing to streamline the process of adding small cells/towers so it doesnít take years to accomplish. At least by buying more spectrum getting an a pre existing site upgraded takes way less time and red tape.

  5. #50
    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 weskeene View Post
    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.
    I think the roaming deal would be more important. They've gone to AT&T for some data roaming because Verizon was charging them too much. A swap or low-cost deal of leasing spectrum and a roaming deal would be ideal for both carriers. B41 works great with micro cells, but also, unlike LAA, works fine on macro cells if they are dense enough, or near dense usage areas, freeing up capacity on B2/4/13 for the rest of the tower's coverage footprint.

    Is 12/31/2019 the end of Vz CDMA? Sprint could do VoLTE roaming on either AT&T or Verizon technically, even using CDMA on native Sprint, but they have to get the back-end for that up and running.

    Sprint has like 100mhz or more of that spectrum, and they don't need much of it. Verizon could probably get 30 or 40mhz of it in exchange for roaming with Sprint including 128kbps data. IMO, it would be mutually beneficial for both carriers if it were done as a swap, or for a small price one way or the other.
    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
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    In terms of the iPhone, the A11 is a year or two ahead of the Snapdragon 835, while the iPhone 8/X's wireless technology is more than a year behind the Galaxy S8 and other top Android phones, so unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    I would of felt much more comfortable if Verizon bought nationwide Aws-3 instead of cherry picking which markets they wanted more spectrum. 40-60 MHz of band 41 would be a ton more capacity . Density only gets you so far especially with the NIMBYS of today . Throwing more spectrum out in areas where density isnít possible is ideal
    Good point. Some places there is also physically nowhere to put more towers or sites or small cells. 40mhz of B41 would do wonders for their LTE network. Verizon has B13 nationwide, so they need capacity, not coverage, so 2600mhz would do the trick just fine.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    976
    Device(s)
    SM-G935U
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    I think the roaming deal would be more important. They've gone to AT&T for some data roaming because Verizon was charging them too much. A swap or low-cost deal of leasing spectrum and a roaming deal would be ideal for both carriers. B41 works great with micro cells, but also, unlike LAA, works fine on macro cells if they are dense enough, or near dense usage areas, freeing up capacity on B2/4/13 for the rest of the tower's coverage footprint.

    Is 12/31/2019 the end of Vz CDMA? Sprint could do VoLTE roaming on either AT&T or Verizon technically, even using CDMA on native Sprint, but they have to get the back-end for that up and running.

    Sprint has like 100mhz or more of that spectrum, and they don't need much of it. Verizon could probably get 30 or 40mhz of it in exchange for roaming with Sprint including 128kbps data. IMO, it would be mutually beneficial for both carriers if it were done as a swap, or for a small price one way or the other.
    Agreed on all counts. 41 will obviously penetrate a little less well than band 4/66, but good enough to do the trick. And they could potentially get a lot of it. It's not way up at 5GHz, and it's not limited to part 15 power levels. It's ideal. I'm .6 miles mostly line of site to my tower. I have no doubt that I would get a solid band 41 signal. Again, it's all about how you manage load balancing and CA, but in theory, if you're within about a mile of that macro (maybe a tad less), the eNB should strongly prefer to keep you on 41. That frees up just a ton of resources for those further away.

    Verizon would have no spectrum problem at all. And here's the best part: Sprint would never miss it. They don't have the customers to need that much, and they haven't deployed it nearly enough to be much of a loss. They should really make this trade happen.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2
    Feedback Score
    0
    My reception has been normal compared to my iPhone 7 Plus. I have a work iPhone 7 also on Verizon and the signal appears to be the same. I have had a few dropped calls and slow data, but thatís nothing new in my area.

  9. #54
    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 weskeene View Post
    Agreed on all counts. 41 will obviously penetrate a little less well than band 4/66, but good enough to do the trick. And they could potentially get a lot of it. It's not way up at 5GHz, and it's not limited to part 15 power levels. It's ideal. I'm .6 miles mostly line of site to my tower. I have no doubt that I would get a solid band 41 signal. Again, it's all about how you manage load balancing and CA, but in theory, if you're within about a mile of that macro (maybe a tad less), the eNB should strongly prefer to keep you on 41. That frees up just a ton of resources for those further away.

    Verizon would have no spectrum problem at all. And here's the best part: Sprint would never miss it. They don't have the customers to need that much, and they haven't deployed it nearly enough to be much of a loss. They should really make this trade happen.
    Yeah, exactly. LAA is literally useless on many macro sites, as there is nothing within their LAA range, but B41 can carry a decent distance, if a bit shorter than B2/4/66. Most towers should be able to benefit from B41, unless they're in the middle of absolutely nowhere and only cover a highway or something. Yeah, pretty much, and they would probably very much benefit from the cash saved from roaming bills, which are currently astronomical. What would be hilarious is if Verizon forced Sprint to make their phones say "Verizon Roaming" or something when they were roaming on Verizon. Talk about advertising and brand awareness. Many people would be perfectly happy using throttled roaming, and it would ultimately be a win-win-win-win.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    183
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Yeah, exactly. LAA is literally useless on many macro sites, as there is nothing within their LAA range, but B41 can carry a decent distance, if a bit shorter than B2/4/66. Most towers should be able to benefit from B41, unless they're in the middle of absolutely nowhere and only cover a highway or something. Yeah, pretty much, and they would probably very much benefit from the cash saved from roaming bills, which are currently astronomical. What would be hilarious is if Verizon forced Sprint to make their phones say "Verizon Roaming" or something when they were roaming on Verizon. Talk about advertising and brand awareness. Many people would be perfectly happy using throttled roaming, and it would ultimately be a win-win-win-win.
    I would guess about 90% of regular cell users donít even know what throttling is. They just know when they click on stuff it just comes up. The only people who would notice it are the hot spot users. If your just streaming or downloading a few songs here and there and web browsing then you really donít need more than 5-6 Mbps anyways for things to look smooth so a agreement between Verizon and sprint makes good sense and shouldnít hurt the network much. Iím sure Verizon could make good use of the extra spectrum that sprint doesnít even need.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,122
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    I would guess about 90% of regular cell users donít even know what throttling is. They just know when they click on stuff it just comes up. The only people who would notice it are the hot spot users. If your just streaming or downloading a few songs here and there and web browsing then you really donít need more than 5-6 Mbps anyways for things to look smooth so a agreement between Verizon and sprint makes good sense and shouldnít hurt the network much. Iím sure Verizon could make good use of the extra spectrum that sprint doesnít even need.
    Verizon has the density in most markets to do great things with band 41.

  12. #57
    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 JoeInPa View Post
    I would guess about 90% of regular cell users don’t even know what throttling is. They just know when they click on stuff it just comes up. The only people who would notice it are the hot spot users. If your just streaming or downloading a few songs here and there and web browsing then you really don’t need more than 5-6 Mbps anyways for things to look smooth so a agreement between Verizon and sprint makes good sense and shouldn’t hurt the network much. I’m sure Verizon could make good use of the extra spectrum that sprint doesn’t even need.
    128kbps throttling is very noticeable, and some poorly written apps, like Snapchat, won't load at all. Going up to 256kbps or even 512kbps makes it much less noticeable. If they wanted to do something like a couple mbps, then 99% of people would never notice it, and half of the other 1% are on this forum.

  13. #58
    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
    Verizon has the density in most markets to do great things with band 41.
    And you really don't need density at all. B41 can just be used to take the load off of other bands on the site, and allow B2/4/13 to work that much better for users farther away. Of course, density allows more re-use of B41, which is great if even more capacity is needed.

    Can you CA FDD and TDD LTE together?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    976
    Device(s)
    SM-G935U
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    And you really don't need density at all. B41 can just be used to take the load off of other bands on the site, and allow B2/4/13 to work that much better for users farther away. Of course, density allows more re-use of B41, which is great if even more capacity is needed.

    Can you CA FDD and TDD LTE together?
    Given that Sprint has bragged about deploying 3 carrier aggregation in the past (Google that), and they only have 3 carriers, I would say "yes".

    With respect to density, you don't need much. If 41 can handle the load .5 mile either direction from the site, that would be amazing capacity for everyone else.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    183
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    128kbps throttling is very noticeable, and some poorly written apps, like Snapchat, won't load at all. Going up to 256kbps or even 512kbps makes it much less noticeable. If they wanted to do something like a couple mbps, then 99% of people would never notice it, and half of the other 1% are on this forum.
    I meant if Verizon had a roaming agreement with Sprint and throttled those customers to 5Mbps or so then yeah the 99% would never notice. But yeah 128 kbps or even 512kbps is definitely very noticeable.

Page 4 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