Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 85

Thread: iPhone X Reception

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    298
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by weskeene View Post
    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.
    You could almost set it up like a 2 part safety net for the network. Use small cells/LAA then band 41 then after that let the normal 2/4//13 handle the rest. You wouldn’t even need to re-farm spectrum for band 5 at that point and just leave 1x up as a last resort emergency network.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    298
    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.
    Also maybe I’m just being negative but I also don’t have much faith in LAA in general. First off the range is crazy short. Second not to many devices can support it. Love or hate iPhones but there are millions of them in congested urban areas that can’t take advantage of LAA so all that traffic will still fall on the regular network. Yeah maybe in 3-4 years when a lot more devices have it then you may notice a difference. With band 41 or 66 you would notice an immediate difference and it would take a ton of traffic of the main bands at a much greater range than LAA.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,329
    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?
    Yes , now it’s possible to aggregate FDD and TDD. LAA band 46 is TDD

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,329
    Feedback Score
    0

    iPhone X Reception

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    Also maybe I’m just being negative but I also don’t have much faith in LAA in general. First off the range is crazy short. Second not to many devices can support it. Love or hate iPhones but there are millions of them in congested urban areas that can’t take advantage of LAA so all that traffic will still fall on the regular network. Yeah maybe in 3-4 years when a lot more devices have it then you may notice a difference. With band 41 or 66 you would notice an immediate difference and it would take a ton of traffic of the main bands at a much greater range than LAA.
    We’ll see how it all evolves. Not everyone uses an iPhone so if this is deployed effectively those users will help to get off the network faster. According to a well known source on here , AT&T has 60 LAA small cells deployed in downtown Indianapolis on every other block . Once all carriers deploy these sites in dense urban areas, it will take stress off other sites.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,329
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    We’ll see how it all evolves. Not everyone uses an iPhone so if this is deployed effectively those users will help to get off the network faster. According to a well known source on here , AT&T has 60 LAA small cells deployed in downtown Indianapolis on every other block . Once all carriers deploy these sites in dense urban areas, it will take stress off other sites.
    https://www.rcrwireless.com/20170804...eployment-tag4

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,023
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by weskeene View Post
    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.
    OK, that makes sense. Agreed on capacity and density. The old 850 CDMA spacing doesn't really work well anymore, but they wouldn't need to densify just for B41.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    You wouldn’t even need to re-farm spectrum for band 5 at that point and just leave 1x up as a last resort emergency network.
    It would take the time crunch off of B5 refarming, but CDMA needs to go away. The equipment is old and expensive to maintain/power, just like AT&T's now dead GSM network.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    Also maybe I’m just being negative but I also don’t have much faith in LAA in general. First off the range is crazy short. Second not to many devices can support it. Love or hate iPhones but there are millions of them in congested urban areas that can’t take advantage of LAA so all that traffic will still fall on the regular network. Yeah maybe in 3-4 years when a lot more devices have it then you may notice a difference. With band 41 or 66 you would notice an immediate difference and it would take a ton of traffic of the main bands at a much greater range than LAA.
    New bands can make a difference with even a small proportion of devices supporting them, but I have much more fundamental problems with LAA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    We’ll see how it all evolves. Not everyone uses an iPhone so if this is deployed effectively those users will help to get off the network faster. According to a well known source on here , AT&T has 60 LAA small cells deployed in downtown Indianapolis on every other block . Once all carriers deploy these sites in dense urban areas, it will take stress off other sites.
    Then LAA is stupid and pointless. They have so much density that they don't need LAA, or probably even half of their licensed spectrum. That's the whole problem with LAA. If you densify enough to do anything with it, you've densified so much that you don't need half your licensed spectrum, much less LAA.
    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. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    557
    Device(s)
    iPhone, iPad
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Then LAA is stupid and pointless. They have so much density that they don't need LAA, or probably even half of their licensed spectrum. That's the whole problem with LAA. If you densify enough to do anything with it, you've densified so much that you don't need half your licensed spectrum, much less LAA.
    Strongly disagreed. While maximum density would provide consistently USABLE speeds, only LAA can get a carrier to consistently GIGABIT speeds without millimeter wave spectrum.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,329
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    OK, that makes sense. Agreed on capacity and density. The old 850 CDMA spacing doesn't really work well anymore, but they wouldn't need to densify just for B41.



    It would take the time crunch off of B5 refarming, but CDMA needs to go away. The equipment is old and expensive to maintain/power, just like AT&T's now dead GSM network.



    New bands can make a difference with even a small proportion of devices supporting them, but I have much more fundamental problems with LAA.



    Then LAA is stupid and pointless. They have so much density that they don't need LAA, or probably even half of their licensed spectrum. That's the whole problem with LAA. If you densify enough to do anything with it, you've densified so much that you don't need half your licensed spectrum, much less LAA.
    What’s the matter with 60 MHz of unlicensed spectrum that’s free to use? The more capacity, the better....

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,023
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VVivian View Post
    Strongly disagreed. While maximum density would provide consistently USABLE speeds, only LAA can get a carrier to consistently GIGABIT speeds without millimeter wave spectrum.
    Great. Speedtest e-penis envy. Or gaming Speedtest averages. If this kind of crap keeps going on, then all the testing institutions are going to have to switch entirely to the binary 5mbps/not 5mbps method of testing that one of them is currently using so that ridiculous speeds don't end up skewing the results. Cell phones need consistent connectivity, not gigabit speeds to the device.

    I know at least for me, most of the time I'm nowhere near a cell site, I probably spend more time at 1-2 bars than anything else, and I care a lot more about coverage than high speeds in the middle of a city somewhere. If I am in a city, then consistent coverage is far more important than raw speeds, as long as I can sustain a 5mbps connection. If apps and sites hadn't bloated so badly in the past few years, than even 5mbps wouldn't be necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    What’s the matter with 60 MHz of unlicensed spectrum that’s free to use? The more capacity, the better....
    The problem is that it only works with small cells if they are extremely dense, and if they're that dense, then they don't need the extra spectrum anyway, except to get ridiculously high speedtests.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,329
    Feedback Score
    0

    iPhone X Reception

    Quote Originally Posted by GSMinCT View Post
    Great. Speedtest e-penis envy. Or gaming Speedtest averages. If this kind of crap keeps going on, then all the testing institutions are going to have to switch entirely to the binary 5mbps/not 5mbps method of testing that one of them is currently using so that ridiculous speeds don't end up skewing the results. Cell phones need consistent connectivity, not gigabit speeds to the device.

    I know at least for me, most of the time I'm nowhere near a cell site, I probably spend more time at 1-2 bars than anything else, and I care a lot more about coverage than high speeds in the middle of a city somewhere. If I am in a city, then consistent coverage is far more important than raw speeds, as long as I can sustain a 5mbps connection. If apps and sites hadn't bloated so badly in the past few years, than even 5mbps wouldn't be necessary.



    The problem is that it only works with small cells if they are extremely dense, and if they're that dense, then they don't need the extra spectrum anyway, except to get ridiculously high speedtests.
    Tell that to the engineer who claims it’s useful on here and is being deployed heavily in Indianapolis . I get your point though, I rather have consistent coverage and speeds than true speed islands.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,023
    Device(s)
    SGS 7
    Carrier(s)
    MSV 10GB plus 10GB free, 4 lines
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Checker79 View Post
    Tell that to the engineer who claims it’s useful on here and is being deployed heavily in Indianapolis . I get your point though, I rather have consistent coverage and speeds than true speed islands.
    It's an arms race. If AT&T deploys small cells with LAA and pulls their average up, then Verizon has to as well. I'd rather they spend the money building out the map in east middle of nowhere, as long as there is decent macrocell coverage and network management in urban areas. There is still a lot of landmass of the US that lacks coverage from one or both of the big two.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,035
    Feedback Score
    0

    iPhone X Reception

    The lack of coverage in a lot of areas is really a problem as is the lack of adequate density. The issue with density especially in urban areas is the NIMBYs. Many folks incorrectly assume that the cell phone providers don’t want to densify or are dragging their feet, but in reality the lack of densification is due to NIMBYs and legal battles that result in years of delay.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    1,631
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, Nexus 6P
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, Google Fi, VZW Wi-Fi
    Feedback Score
    0
    Pixel 2, Galaxy Note 8 Beat iPhone on LTE
    https://www.pcmag.com/news/358104/ex...-iphone-on-lte
    Monopine construction progress near Lake Tahoe, Sep-Dec 2003.



    Check out my Reno Area Wireless Information & Cellular Guide website for more pictures, cell site location maps & more http://renowirelessinfo.com


  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    298
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CellGeek View Post
    The lack of coverage in a lot of areas is really a problem as is the lack of adequate density. The issue with density especially in urban areas is the NIMBYs. Many folks incorrectly assume that the cell phone providers don’t want to densify or are dragging their feet, but in reality the lack of densification is due to NIMBYs and legal battles that result in years of delay.
    Exactly. In the Pittsburgh area good luck getting anything done in less than 2 years. Which honestly I can understand for things like macro towers. But yo would think small cells should be something that can be done in just a few months but the political BS drags things along. Then by the time things have been approved technology has already changed.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,035
    Feedback Score
    0
    Small cells are still a very large problem. The NIMBYs and HOAs oppose citing radiation issues.

Page 5 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, 01:56 PM
  2. iPhone 3G reception issues
    By MyA in forum Apple
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 12:02 AM
  3. iPhone 3G Reception SUCKS!!!
    By migs in forum Rogers Wireless
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2008, 02:28 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, 12:12 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 10:56 PM

Bookmarks