| JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>: Feb 17 04:12PM -0500 On 2017-02-17 14:44, nospam wrote: > t-mobile's coverage is steadily getting *better*, not worse. Unfortunately, T-mobile was abandonned for a few years, while waiting to be absorbed into AT&T, and AT&T didn't want t-mobile to fix areas where AT&T had existing coverage. Once the merger was killed, then t-mobile had no choice but to fend for its survival and start investing to fix its network instead to of preparing to shutdown every area where AT&T was already covering. So yes, T-mobile has improved significantly since the merger was killed, but those years of abandonment are still felt because it hasn't caught up fully yet. As a note of comparison: in 1998/1999, at a motel in upstate NY, I had Omnipoint coverage on a Nokia 1900-only phone. In 2010, I had none. Nothing. Nada. (T-Mobile bought Voicestream which had bought Omnipoint). I reckon T-Mo had shutdown that antenna because AT&T was already covering the area. Unfortunately, AT&T SIMs disable the ability to manually check for available networks on iphone, so with an AT&T SIM I can't check if T-Mobile has regained coverage there. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 05:21PM -0500 In article <58a7672f$0$9555$b1db1813$e2fc9064@news.astraweb.com>, JF > Unfortunately, T-mobile was abandonned for a few years, while waiting to > be absorbed into AT&T, and AT&T didn't want t-mobile to fix areas where > AT&T had existing coverage. there was no abandonment. > Once the merger was killed, then t-mobile had no choice but to fend for > its survival and start investing to fix its network instead to of > preparing to shutdown every area where AT&T was already covering. that's a bit of revisionist history. t-mobile got a chunk of cash as a result of the merger not going through, which they used to expand their network. they also refarmed their network so that aws is not required anymore. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Feb 17 02:27PM -0800 On 02/16/2017 07:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > is the cell site. You won't get any ID numbers, but you can get those > from any phone that can display the field service mode. > Marketing research: How much would pay for such a device? Nothing. I've been hooked on 'free' for a long time, especially since the paid version is rarely significantly better than the free version. Exception: EBookDroid. The guy is in Russia and can't take PayPal directly. We bought the paid version and even wanted to send him some money, but we can't. He responds to email and fixes stuff if it needs fixing or improving. Just what hubby used to do when he was selling software. -- Cheers, Bev "If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than if you just drank gin straight from the bottle." - Garrison Keillor |
| JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>: Feb 17 06:12PM -0500 On 2017-02-17 17:21, nospam wrote: > that's a bit of revisionist history. > t-mobile got a chunk of cash as a result of the merger not going > through, which they used to expand their network. Prior to the merger being blocked, T-Mo had throun in the towel. T-Mobil (DE) had signaled it wanted out of US business amd T-Mo (USA) had stopped investing since it knew its customers would fall onto AT&T's network Once deal was killed by FCC, T-MO did get cash and spectrum, and that allowed it to bring itself back to life. But it does not negate the fact that they had thrown in the towel before, hoping to be bought by AT&T. > they also refarmed their network so that aws is not required anymore. The refarming should have been done way before. But wasn't because T-Mo was expeciting to shutdown its network and move its customers over to AT&T, at which point, the iPhone would work. At time of abandonment, T-Mo had 2G on 1900 and 3g on 1700 (aws). No LTE. Once it got the jolt to bring it back to life, the refarming allowed it to put 3G on 1900 and LTE on 1700. The big guys lobbied to limit 1700 to LTE. That left T-Mobile as an orphan trying to put 3G on 1700, limiting equipmnent and handset support. (hence no iPhone for so long). Once FCC killed AT&T purchase of T-Mo, the iPhone magically became available for 3G on 1700 (benefiting canadian new entrants who only have 1700) and the influx of spectrum allowed T0Mo to start shifting 3G from 1700 to 1900 so it could start to deploy LTE on 1700. But the only reason it didn't do that before was that it was expecting to shutdown its network so there was no point spending money to refarm your spectrum if it will be shutdown not long after AT&T signs the deal on dotted line. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 06:21PM -0500 In article <58a7834e$0$61762$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>, JF > Prior to the merger being blocked, T-Mo had throun in the towel. T-Mobil > (DE) had signaled it wanted out of US business amd T-Mo (USA) had > stopped investing since it knew its customers would fall onto AT&T's network no towel was thrown. > Once deal was killed by FCC, T-MO did get cash and spectrum, and that > allowed it to bring itself back to life. But it does not negate the fact > that they had thrown in the towel before, hoping to be bought by AT&T. it did get a boost from the cash and spectrum but it was hardly dead. > The refarming should have been done way before. But wasn't because T-Mo > was expeciting to shutdown its network and move its customers over to > AT&T, at which point, the iPhone would work. nope. > At time of abandonment, T-Mo had 2G on 1900 and 3g on 1700 (aws). No > LTE. there was no abandonment. > Once it got the jolt to bring it back to life, the refarming > allowed it to put 3G on 1900 and LTE on 1700. nope on that too. t-mobile uses lte bands 2, 4 & 12, which are 1900, 1700 & 700 mhz, respectively. note that at&t and verizon also use band 4, the band that's at 1700 mhz. > The big guys lobbied to limit 1700 to LTE. That left T-Mobile as an > orphan trying to put 3G on 1700, limiting equipmnent and handset > support. (hence no iPhone for so long). nope. t-mobile got aws because it was cheaper. > available for 3G on 1700 (benefiting canadian new entrants who only have > 1700) and the influx of spectrum allowed T0Mo to start shifting 3G from > 1700 to 1900 so it could start to deploy LTE on 1700. nope. > to shutdown its network so there was no point spending money to refarm > your spectrum if it will be shutdown not long after AT&T signs the deal > on dotted line. nope. there was no planned shutdown. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Feb 17 03:34PM -0800 On 02/17/2017 08:45 AM, Stijn De Jong wrote: > the market, where they'd charge me 1/24th the phone on the bill. I didn't > even have to tell them what phone I was using. Everything about T-Mobile > was different than Verizon & AT&T. I've used T-Mobile for years just because of their (now defunct, but grandfathered in for us previous customers) $10/year unused-minutes-rollover plan. Coverage is limited to interstates and big cities, but I can live with that. My Verizon friend gets coverage on the ski slope, but I have to drive to 2 miles away in town before I can get signal. Minimal, but the incremental jump to a better plan is far bigger than I'm willing to make. -- Cheers, Bev "It is never fallacious to properly cite Donald Knuth in lieu of providing your own argument." --Sun Tzu |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 06:37PM -0500 In article <o8816k$3nj$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev > grandfathered in for us previous customers) $10/year > unused-minutes-rollover plan. Coverage is limited to interstates and > big cities, but I can live with that. t-mobile coverage, even on that plan, is *much* more than just 'interstates and big cities'. > My Verizon friend gets coverage > on the ski slope, but I have to drive to 2 miles away in town before I > can get signal. then why keep it at all? > Minimal, but the incremental jump to a better plan is > far bigger than I'm willing to make. only because you haven't researched what options exist. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Feb 17 04:01PM -0800 On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:27:15 -0800, The Real Bev >> Marketing research: How much would pay for such a device? >Nothing. I've been hooked on 'free' for a long time, especially since >the paid version is rarely significantly better than the free version. Oh well. It's rather difficult to build a company based on a free product (unless one sells advertising). Once the DF method is established by me or someone else, I'm sure it will be cloned, copied, or distributed as "open hardware". That's why I haven't done anything with the idea for several decades. Enjoy free while it lasts. I'm thinking more of a Kickstarter, Indiegogo, or other crowdfunding project. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>: Feb 17 04:03PM -0800 On 2/17/2017 3:34 PM, The Real Bev wrote: <snip> > I've used T-Mobile for years just because of their (now defunct, but > grandfathered in for us previous customers) $10/year > unused-minutes-rollover plan. I have one T-Mobile phone with that plan still. I hate to let it go because it's only $10 per year. > on the ski slope, but I have to drive to 2 miles away in town before I > can get signal. Minimal, but the incremental jump to a better plan is > far bigger than I'm willing to make. I recall driving to Yosemite in the winter one year. It was snowing. We arrived at the place we were staying and they hadn't left the key out for us. I called the caretaker who brought over the key. No big deal. But in this area there is only Verizon coverage (native Sprint customers can roam though). There is no AT&T coverage and no T-Mobile coverage. A pay phone was probably a 30 minute drive away. This was not out in the middle of nowhere, it was in a residential development just off one of the main park roads. Glad I had a phone that worked on Verizon's network. Even though there apparently is some spotty AT&T coverage nearby, it would not be practical to drive around searching for it. See the map at <http://oi66.tinypic.com/nywmrn.jpg>. Now, even though I am on an AT&T MVNO, with roaming, I take along a Verizon network phone on trips. It's worth the $30 per year to keep it active. I have found several areas in Oregon and California, that are not terribly remote, where only Verizon works. Speaking of ski slopes, my wife once foolishly decided that she was going to ski some moguls at Homewood Ski Area. She injured herself. She was able to call me to call the ski patrol to come fetch her. On other carriers, i would not have been possible for her to call me, but on Verizon it was. That might have saved her life. So remember, if life is valuable, use Verizon. |
| sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>: Feb 17 04:11PM -0800 On 2/17/2017 1:12 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > So yes, T-mobile has improved significantly since the merger was killed, > but those years of abandonment are still felt because it hasn't caught > up fully yet. In the west, there were roaming agreements that T-Mobile had with AT&T that expired and were not renewed. So coverage that had been available to T-Mobile customers disappeared. T-Mobile has improved coverage in urban areas, but they have little interest in building expensive infrastructure in lightly populated areas, and AT&T demands exorbitant amounts for roaming and it's not clear what the outcome was of the FCC ruling <https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/12/t-mobile-wins-fight-against-att-and-verizon-over-data-roaming-charges/>. If it's a rural carrier other than AT&T then there is often T-Mobile roaming. For users that never travel outside of urban areas T-Mobile is usable, but if you like to travel to, or through, rural areas, it's not a good choice. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Feb 17 04:26PM -0800 On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:02:54 +0100, Mikko OH2HVJ >number etc. of all 'visible' base station. >Apparently even some USB dongles can do this, so you could connect some >cheap SDR+modem+GPS to an RPi and do your magic. Thanks. To be uncharacteristically honest, I haven't really thought about the cellular data extraction and collection aspects. I do RF, not programming. If this becomes a real project, I'll probably do the system design, DF antenna, and RF, while someone else is either hired or invested as the programmist. I did some light weight Googling and found: <http://www.rtl-sdr.com/tag/cell-phone/> <http://www.rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-cell-phone-imsi-tmsi-key-sniffer/> <http://www.rtl-sdr.com/analyzing-td-lte-rtl-sdr/> >There are also cell tower location databases like Opencellid. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCellID> Yep. That will certainly be useful. Mostly, what I want is to find a new cell site with the direction finder, and then determine which services and vendors are on the tower, building, pole, whatever. A tower ID to lat-long database will certainly be useful, but the real problem is what frequency to use. For example, for LTE: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LTE_networks> the bands in use world wide are many and varied. Same with TDM vs FDM, full duplex vs half duplex, odd splits. Then, there are sub-bands for each vendor. Notice the number of question marks in above tables. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Feb 17 05:12PM -0800 On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:16:06 +0100, "Carlos E. R." >I know. We installed them at a small company I worked with. >But the antenna on the mobile phone is not. The mobile can not know the >direction of the signal from the signal alone, that's what I said. Not exactly. The handset has to pass an SAR (specific absorption rate) test in order to convince the FCC that the handset is not going to fry the users brain with too much RF. To make that work, handset antennas are usually located on the side away from the users head, at the bottom of the phone, or backed by a metal shield. On simulations and in an RF anechoic chamber, the antenna pattern is somewhat directional favoring the directions away from the users head. "Mobile Phone in Vicinity of Human Head - SAR calculation" <http://www.wipl-d.com/applications.php?cont=emc/sar-calculation> See Fig 8: As for the tower antenna patterns being direction, it's a matter of what you consider directional. In the typical 3 sided tower configuration, the sector antennas have a horizontal beamwidth of about 60 degrees. The tower can and does indicate which sector is being used, but that has a granularity of 120 degrees, which is hardly accurate enough to determine anyones position. On systems that use various forms of AGPS (augmented GPS) using TDOA (time difference of arrival), two different towers can obtain a location fix of a handset. That requires double the number of available receivers, two towers that can hear the handset, and the necessary technology. That's why I've only seen it on demonstration projects. It's also useless for locating the tower, which I believe was the topic of discussion prior to this topic drift. The vertical beamwidth of sector antennas is very sharp. The vertical beamwidth and downtilt angle are the major contributors to what determines the coverage area of a cell site. Too narrow, and signal will go over the heads of users close to the tower. Too wide, and the tower will be talking to gophers and airplanes, not users on the ground. For example, a common Andrew HBXX-6517DS-VTM antenna: http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/product_details.aspx?id=15654 has a horizontal beamwidth of 66 degrees, and a vertical beamwidth of 4.7 degrees. Draw a 5 degree angle on a piece of paper and you'll see the problem. It's bad enough that there are products to vertically align sector antennas to about +/-0.1 degrees. <https://sunsight.com> <https://sunsight.com/index.php/products/95-sunsight-instruments/products/199-antenna-alignment-tool> However, that's also useless for locating handsets, unless you want the altitude. Dinner... gotta run. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 01:23AM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:35:54 -0500, nospam wrote: >> The difference between ATT/Sprint and T-Mobile/Verizon was stark. > that depends where. I agree. My comment was only in relation to the locale that Savageduck reported, which was Lake Nac...Naci......eh ... Lake N-something. > in major urban areas, there's no significant difference among any of > the carriers, while in rural areas, one might be better than another, > and which carrier that is will vary. Yup. I just ran an Opensignal report for Cupertino, California, and T-Mobile arguably is slightly better than AT&T & Verizon, but they're effectively the same. AT&T http://i.cubeupload.com/2NuF7b.jpg T-Mobile http://i.cubeupload.com/o8kiZ9.jpg Verizon http://i.cubeupload.com/dcfRhq.jpg > even verizon has dead spots. all carriers do. All three maps show holes in the coverage, even in Cupertino, which is essentially near the heart of Silicon Valley. |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 01:23AM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:11:10 -0800, sms wrote: > For users that never travel outside of urban areas T-Mobile is usable, > but if you like to travel to, or through, rural areas, it's not a good > choice. I travel a decent amount around northern California, given I have grandkids in various schools and kids scattered about with family. T-Mobile is fine. Since none of us are gonna run our own tests with three phones in our hands for weeks on end, I would guess the coverage maps are what we'll have to use. What's the best coverage map site that covers all three carriers? We can arbitrary pick where you live and where I live and see how the coverage goes. Here is OpenSignal for, say, the middle of Cupertino, for example. All I did was: 1. Go to https://opensignal.com/network-coverage-maps/ 2. Pick the carrier 3. Type in "Cupertino, CA" I left the zoom level and everything else exactly as it was found. AT&T http://i.cubeupload.com/2NuF7b.jpg T-Mobile http://i.cubeupload.com/o8kiZ9.jpg Verizon http://i.cubeupload.com/dcfRhq.jpg Looking at those maps, they're about the same, although I could argue there are fewer holes in T-Mobile than in either AT&T or Verizon, but I'll just say they're about the same which is a tenable assertion. |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 01:26AM On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:53:26 -0500, JF Mezei wrote: > woudln't know the orientation of the antenna. Propagation delays might > give you estimate of how far you are from antenna. But that would > represent a circle all around antenna. As a somewhat related aside, in one article I read about tower cell ids, the first number tells you which sector antenna you're using. So, you can, with a bit of effort, narrow down the tower and the sector that you're connected to. But it takes work. |
| Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: Feb 18 01:25AM >> neighbors). > T-Mobile calls *all* their home devices a "CellSpot", so which one do you > have? The one that provides LTE coverage. As far as I know, they only have one of those. > How many decibels of cellular signal do you get from them? In the basement (cellspot is in the garage) I have -78dB currently. If I go into the garage it's about -60dB-65dB, IIRC. -- 'Luck is my middle name,' said Rincewind, indistinctly. 'Mind you, my first name is Bad.' --Interesting Times |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 01:36AM On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:25:52 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > The one that provides LTE coverage. As far as I know, they only have one > of those. I have two completely different types of CellSpot devices, both of which say LTE. Here is a photo of one type in my house, called "CellSpot" and "LTE": http://i.cubeupload.com/uNXXgZ.jpg Here is a photo of another type alongside it, also called "CellSpot" and "LTE": https://u.cubeupload.com/WoN2gQ.jpg They are extremely different, even though the T-Mobile MARKETING calls both of them a "CellSpot" and "4G LTE". https://u.cubeupload.com/dIGbMo.jpg Which type do you have? The whole reason for this thread was to distinguish between the two. >> How many decibels of cellular signal do you get from them? > In the basement (cellspot is in the garage) I have -78dB currently. If I > go into the garage it's about -60dB-65dB, IIRC. That's absolutely astoundingly high cellular signal strength (RSSI). All the articles put the range at -50 to -110 or -120dBm. Are you getting that from your T-Mobile micro tower? How do you know? (Because that's the entire reason for this thread.) |
| Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: Feb 18 01:36AM > in major urban areas, there's no significant difference among any of > the carriers, while in rural areas, one might be better than another, > and which carrier that is will vary. Depends on the "major" urban area. For example, T-Mobile is absolutely unusable in Omaha, which is a pretty decent sized city (about a million for its CSA). I could sometimes get signal if I was outside and stood quite still. OTOH, I looked at it as just one more shitty thing about Omaha. > even verizon has dead spots. all carriers do. Sure. At my Mom's house there was no signal at all for Sprint and only "standing in the backyard" signal with Verizon, while both AT&T and T-Mobile were fine. However, I will say that up until a few years ago it sure seemed like Verizon had fewer than the others. Now I feel like T-Mobile has caught up. > or just ask people who actually use t-mobile in the same area. That seems like the best plan. -- 'Is it heroic to die like this?' said Conina. 'I think it is,' he said, 'and when it comes to dying, there's only one opinion that matters.' |
| Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: Feb 18 01:37AM >> or expansive windows overlooking the valley below. > There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from > the signal, Sure they can. The signal include Latitude and Longitude for the tower. -- One by one the bulbs burned out, like long lives come to their expected ends. |
| Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: Feb 18 01:44AM > T-Mo had shutdown that antenna because AT&T was already covering the > area. Well, at least it's not just with Apple that you pull this sort of shit. -- When men talk to their friends, they insult each other. They don't really mean it. When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other. They don't really mean it. |
| Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@nlnet.nl>: Feb 18 01:53AM On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: > unusable in Omaha, which is a pretty decent sized city (about a million > for its CSA). I could sometimes get signal if I was outside and stood > quite still. Here is the coverage map after typing a search for "Omaha, NE" and not changing anything else about the results, not even the zoom level. https://opensignal.com/network-coverage-maps/ AT&T: http://i.cubeupload.com/o8tcQ1.jpg T-Mobile: http://i.cubeupload.com/9hAnt7.jpg Verizon: http://i.cubeupload.com/Jp4zQB.jpg Overall, for the center of Omaha, Verizon looks better than AT&T which looks better than T-Mobile. |
| sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>: Feb 17 06:00PM -0800 On 2/17/2017 5:23 PM, Stijn De Jong wrote: > Looking at those maps, they're about the same, although I could argue there > are fewer holes in T-Mobile than in either AT&T or Verizon, but I'll just > say they're about the same which is a tenable assertion. Those maps don't really show the coverage holes, nor are they up-to-date. I.e. Verizon just put in a tower right next to Cupertino City Hall (a fake tree) that has improved coverage. But the issue is not in urban and suburban areas, it's outside of those areas. Vast areas of California with no T-Mobile coverage at all, and a lot of those places are places that we like to go. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Feb 17 09:06PM -0500 In article <o889s8$ur7$1@dont-email.me>, sms > But the issue is not in urban and suburban areas, it's outside of those > areas. Vast areas of California with no T-Mobile coverage at all, and a > lot of those places are places that we like to go. vast areas of california have no att, sprint or verizon coverage. no carrier covers *everywhere*. if where *you* go lacks t-mobile, then get another carrier. for others, t-mobile works just fine, even in out of the way areas. |
| Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net>: Feb 17 08:37PM -0500 On 02/17/2017 03:55 PM, Benderthe.evilrobot wrote: > I regularly include SMD parts in dead-bug prototypes. With a bit of > thought and planning they can reduce wire links instead of increasing > them, they also tend toward adding rigidity to the assembly. Sure, me too. I disagree about rigidity though. RN60C resistors are pretty rigid. ;) I've recently done a mid-air proto using 0402s--like five in a row in mid air--but that was a 100-ps sampler, so it was worth the trouble. Ordinary dead bug is good to 1 GHz or so, and it's a lot easier. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.neth |
| Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>: Feb 17 11:36AM -0700 On 2/15/17, 11:08 AM, in article o825ea$vvb$1@dont-email.me, "Danny D." > B. The newsgroup (alt.home.repair) > C. The penultimate ID > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ + alt.home.repair/ + PENULTIMATEID Any good method to go from Message-ID to a Google Groups link? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment