On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:58:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

I get good coverage all over Denver, but it is pretty lousy inside my
house, so I have a (free) T-mobile CellSpot that provides LTE coverage
inside the house (and almost certainly improves the coverage for my
neighbors).

T-Mobile calls *all* their home devices a "CellSpot", so which one do you
have?

I have two, for example, both of which are called CellSpot but they're
quite different.

What type do you have?
How many decibels of cellular signal do you get from them?

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:45:01 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

For CDMA femtocell, the unique ID is a conglomeration of:
MCC (Mobile Country Code)
SID (System ID)
NID (Network ID)
BID (Base Station ID)

For GSM femtocell, it's:
MCC (Mobile Country Code)
MNC (Mobile Network Code)
LAC (Location Area Code)
CID (Cell ID)

Stolen from:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/other/Cellular/osm_blog
Read the footnotes, which have some Android bugs listed.

Hi Jeff,
I don't think it's that well defined in that there are two *different*
supposedly unique types of cell ids that the apps list for GSM towers.

There is a short CID and a long CID, which are completely different sets of
numbers (i.e., one is not just a longer version of the other).

Other than that confusion, the rest holds though, but my point is that
there is no such thing as a CID since there are two types of CID both of
which seem to be called CID but they're completely different numbers for
the same cell tower.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:25:27 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from
the signal, the antenna is non-directional. It has to be determined from
a map of locations. Maybe the tower gives that info, I don't know.

That non-directional antenna explanation makes a ton of sense!
Thank you for being one of the few scientifically sound people here!

That explains my observation that the antenna location is not even close to
the direction that OpenSignal points to. It's essentially fluff.

That's pretty much the last straw on this silly OpenSignal app.
The more I look at this lousy OpenSignal app, the less I like it.

I had already put it as my last choice on Android since it was basically
far less functional than every other choice, but I kept it on the list
simply because it was the only tool I found that was also on iOS.

So OpenSignal was my only 1:1 comparison with iOS.

Like all the apps listed, OpenSignal was first written for Android, so
you'd think that when they finally ported the app to iOS that it would work
better.

It turns out OpenSignal stinks on iOS even worse than it stinks on Android.

If you're on iOS, you're stuck with it, but if you're on Android, my
recommendation is to ditch OpenSignal in favor of Jeff's number one app
(which is my #2 app becasuse I'm using teh freeware while Jeff is using the
Pro version) and my number one or number two apps (as listed in the op).

01 Network Cell Info Lite, version 3.30:
http://i.cubeupload.com/HoKTav.jpg
http://wilysis.com/networkcellinfo
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...s.cellinfolite

02 Network Signal Info, version 3.63.01:
http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...android.telnet

If you want a log of the cell towers that your phone connected to, then the
app to use is my number 4 app:

04 Netmonitor, version 1.2.15:
http://i.cubeupload.com/TfDJaS.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...ene.netmonitor

You won't be able to get logging or cell tower identification from iOS
unfortunately, so we should probably drop the iOS newsgroup from this
discussion as it's not relevant to them.

On 2017-02-17 17:12:20 +0000, Stijn De Jong said:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:51:15 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

OK! In that case, I will put it bluntly; AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint
coverage, roaming aside, in the Lake Nacimiento area, ??13 miles West
of Paso Robles, California totally sucks. Conversely Verizon coverage
is actually quite good in the same area, particularly given that the
only towers in the area belong to Verizon.

Coverage maps:
https://opensignal.com/network-coverage-maps/

Dunno exactly where you are, so I have to just look at the lake itself.

If I pick the area under the words "Lake Nacimiento" on the map as the
point of reference, it seems that T-Mobile and Verizon are about the same,
while AT&T and Sprint suck by way of comparison.

AT&T: http://i.cubeupload.com/Mk740J.jpg

Sprint: http://i.cubeupload.com/oYhuXd.jpg

T-Mobile: http://i.cubeupload.com/i2SMJH.jpg

Verizon: http://i.cubeupload.com/ReQily.jpg

I am probably located just below the "C" of "Nacimiento". Those
coverage maps pretty much detail my experience.

I haven't been able to make the T-Mobile vs Verizon comparison as I
have never used T-Mobile.
AT&T has always been bad out here, as a result I have been with Verizon
since the days when they were still GTE.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:50:36 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

I haven't been able to make the T-Mobile vs Verizon comparison as I
have never used T-Mobile.
AT&T has always been bad out here, as a result I have been with Verizon
since the days when they were still GTE.

The difference between ATT/Sprint and T-Mobile/Verizon was stark.

I have good friends in a state where Verizon dominates and I helped them
get two ways to *test* out T-Mobile coverage for free.

One is that T-Mobile will actually lend you a phone for a period of time (a
month? two weeks? I forget) where you can use the phone all you want to
test out the coverage.

The other is that T-Mobile will give you a SIM card (generally that costs a
nominal one-time fee) for any tablet, which will have a 200MB/month plan,
which I'm sure you're aware of.

Either of those options should give you plenty of time to test out T-Mobile
coverage, side to side with your current Verizon phone.

And you won't even have to fake your own death to get off the Verizon
contract! (jk)

In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote:


I haven't been able to make the T-Mobile vs Verizon comparison as I
have never used T-Mobile.
AT&T has always been bad out here, as a result I have been with Verizon
since the days when they were still GTE.

The difference between ATT/Sprint and T-Mobile/Verizon was stark.

that depends where.

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.

even verizon has dead spots. all carriers do.

I have good friends in a state where Verizon dominates and I helped them
get two ways to *test* out T-Mobile coverage for free.

One is that T-Mobile will actually lend you a phone for a period of time (a
month? two weeks? I forget) where you can use the phone all you want to
test out the coverage.

that's not unique to t-mobile.

most providers (either direct or mvno) offer a 'test drive' where you
sign up and can get a full refund (other than usage fees outside of
your plan) within a week or two if you're not satisfied. in some cases,
certain usage patterns indicates acceptance, even within the trial
period. read the fine print.

The other is that T-Mobile will give you a SIM card (generally that costs a
nominal one-time fee) for any tablet, which will have a 200MB/month plan,
which I'm sure you're aware of.

that doesn't do much good if there's no t-mobile coverage in the places
where someone wants to use it.

Either of those options should give you plenty of time to test out T-Mobile
coverage, side to side with your current Verizon phone.

the easiest way is pop in a t-mobile sim.

or just ask people who actually use t-mobile in the same area.

On 2017-02-17 19:53, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-02-17 03:25, Carlos E. R. wrote:

There is no way the phone can determine the location of the tower from
the signal, the antenna is non-directional. It has to be determined from
a map of locations. Maybe the tower gives that info, I don't know.


Cell antennas are very directional.

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.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2/17/2017 8:45 AM, Stijn De Jong wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:41:10 -0500, nospam wrote:

tl;dr - coverage varies. choose the carrier who has coverage in the
areas in which you travel and at a fair price. do not count on roaming.
there is no single 'best' for everyone.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:13:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

T-Mobile does have much better rural coverage than AT&T, but nowhere as
good as I get with Verizon.

I've had all three, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.

Out here in the Silicon Valley, coverage seems about the same for each,
although I had them in series, and not sequentially (except for a few
concomitant burner phones).

OMG. No way. Verizon is far superior in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area.
T-Mobile is useless outside the urban and suburban core, and their rural
coverage is far inferior to AT&T or Verizon, and it's gotten worse as
they've dropped roaming onto AT&T in the surrounding areas.

If you want coverage up in the surrounding hills and mountains of
Silicon Valley you need Verizon. I currently have AT&T, having migrated
from Verizon, and the difference is stark. I have an iPad on Verizon,
provided to me, and Verizon was chosen because it's the only carrier
that works in the civic center area of Cupertino. One day I had to make
a call from there and I couldn't use my AT&T phone so I used Hangouts on
the iPad and used Google Voice. Looks pretty ridiculous using an iPad
Air as a phone, but it worked.

In San Francisco, my sister-in-law works at a major hospital close to
the Castro, and only Verizon works inside.

Once you leave the Bay Area and travel out toward the center of the
state, and gold country and the Sierras, T-Mobile is essentially
unusable. They don't even try to duplicate the coverage of AT&T, let
alone Verizon. Verizon bought out Golden State Cellular which did a very
good job of covering rural areas.

Try driving over 152 out to I-5. You lose T-Mobile coverage just about
the time you can no longer smell the garlic in Gilroy and head up over
Pacheco pass. Then on I-5 south, T-Mobile coverage is very spotty. We go
on that route several times a year since a child-unit is in college in
San Diego. We had T-Mobile briefly in 2015 because we were in Europe and
I wanted the included SMS, low speed data, and 20¢/minute voice, and I
cancelled it about a month after we got back because it was so horrible.

In article , sms
wrote:


Out here in the Silicon Valley, coverage seems about the same for each,
although I had them in series, and not sequentially (except for a few
concomitant burner phones).

OMG. No way. Verizon is far superior in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area.

they're all about the same.

T-Mobile is useless outside the urban and suburban core, and their rural
coverage is far inferior to AT&T or Verizon, and it's gotten worse as
they've dropped roaming onto AT&T in the surrounding areas.

t-mobile's coverage is steadily getting *better*, not worse.




In San Francisco, my sister-in-law works at a major hospital close to
the Castro, and only Verizon works inside.

that has more to do with the frequencies used than the carrier.

In article om, JF
Mezei 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.

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.

In article om, JF
Mezei 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

nope.

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.

nope. there was no planned shutdown.

On 02/17/2017 08:45 AM, Stijn De Jong wrote:

Moving to T-Mobile, I loved that they did everything differently. I mean
everything. I could buy my own phone. No contract. No data overage charges
ever. Calling Europe was 20 cents a minute. Data is unlimited in Europe. No
roaming charges. And, I didn't have to have data if I didn't want it. I
could get phones from them for an additional $50 over what I could get on
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

In article , The Real Bev
wrote:

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.

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.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:27:15 -0800, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 02/16/2017 07:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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.

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.

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.

On 2/17/2017 1:12 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
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.

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.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:02:54 +0100, Mikko OH2HVJ
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann writes:

I've been thinking of building (and selling) such a device. It can be
done if:
1. You have an RF direction finder.
2. You know the sub-band where to expect the vendors transmissions.
3. You know the SID (system ID) of the vendor.
4. You have a map or database of the vendors service areas.

You could also add some LTE/UMTS module, some of these can do a network
scan with an AT-command and give you the cell id, technology, channel
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
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:16:06 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 2017-02-17 19:53, JF Mezei wrote:
Cell antennas are very directional.

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/wir....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
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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.

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.

In message Stijn De Jong wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:58:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

I get good coverage all over Denver, but it is pretty lousy inside my
house, so I have a (free) T-mobile CellSpot that provides LTE coverage
inside the house (and almost certainly improves the coverage for my
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

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:53:26 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

While you would know the ID of the antenna/radio to which your phone
connected, and the GPS location of tower that holds that antenna, you
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.

In message nospam wrote:
In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote:


I haven't been able to make the T-Mobile vs Verizon comparison as I
have never used T-Mobile.
AT&T has always been bad out here, as a result I have been with Verizon
since the days when they were still GTE.

The difference between ATT/Sprint and T-Mobile/Verizon was stark.

that depends where.

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 ****ty 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.'

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.)

In message Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2017-02-16 21:57, Stijn De Jong wrote:
The one potentially nice thing that OpenSignal provided on Android was a
compass-like pointer toward the tower it's connected to; however, that
pointer doesn't seem even remotely aligned with where I know that tower to
be, so, I'm not sure if that compass-like pointer is fluff or if there is a
major reflection of radio waves going on off of someone's solar panel array
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.

In message om JF Mezei wrote:
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 ****.

--
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.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

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.

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.

On 2/17/2017 5:23 PM, Stijn De Jong wrote:
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.

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.

In article , sms
wrote:


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.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:44:12 -0500, nospam wrote:

OMG. No way. Verizon is far superior in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area.

they're all about the same.

I've had all three, although not concurrently.
I go camping a lot, and skiing, where I'm with a bunch of guys, all of whom
are on the various carriers.

Over the years, it's been getting better and better on all the carriers,
but sometimes Verizon is the lousy one, sometimes AT&T, and sometimes
T-Mobile.

As nospam said, they're all about the same.
And I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (in that order) in the same
location.

However, the only true test would be to have all three similar phones in
your hands at the same time for the tests, which nobody is gonna do.

So everyone is just guessing with bad data (sort of like how climate change
debates go).

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:06:50 -0500, nospam wrote:

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.

For once, nospam and I agree in principle and in practice.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:00:11 -0800, sms wrote:

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.

I completly understand that the data I showed (which implied that the
coverage was about the same) could be bad data.

But you have to realize I've heard a lot of bs on the net where people who
have one brand think it's better than the other two brands (of anything),
even though they, themselves, have never even tested brand B or C. (It just
happened on the digital photo group, for example, where people said
"preview" was better at X than Paint.NET and then we find out that all
those people who said that had NEVER even used Paint.NET once in their
entire lives).

My point is that anyone who claims that cellular data sucks for one carrier
than the other generally has lousy data points since almost nobody (not
even me) carries three similar phones with them everywhere they go.

So if the OpenSignal coverage maps suck, the question simply becomes where
can we get good trustworthy coverage data for any particular USA area?

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.

This may or may not be true.
My experience is with Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, but while I have had all
three (and while I find them about the same in coverage where I live), I
had them sequentially, so the only real comparison was the last day with
the prior carrier and the first day with the next (which isn't all that
scientific).

What we really need is a *reliable* trustworthy coverage map.
Does that exist?

Where can we find it?

On 2017-02-18 02:37, Lewis wrote:
In message Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2017-02-16 21:57, Stijn De Jong wrote:
The one potentially nice thing that OpenSignal provided on Android was a
compass-like pointer toward the tower it's connected to; however, that
pointer doesn't seem even remotely aligned with where I know that tower to
be, so, I'm not sure if that compass-like pointer is fluff or if there is a
major reflection of radio waves going on off of someone's solar panel array
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.

That's not the signal.

That's decoding the data on it, and reading it. Then finding via GPS the
exact location of the terminal, then calculating the direction of the tower.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article , Stijn De Jong
wrote:


OMG. No way. Verizon is far superior in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area.

they're all about the same.

I've had all three, although not concurrently.
I go camping a lot, and skiing, where I'm with a bunch of guys, all of whom
are on the various carriers.

Over the years, it's been getting better and better on all the carriers,
but sometimes Verizon is the lousy one, sometimes AT&T, and sometimes
T-Mobile.

you left out sprint.

As nospam said, they're all about the same.
And I've had Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile (in that order) in the same
location.

However, the only true test would be to have all three similar phones in
your hands at the same time for the tests, which nobody is gonna do.

some do.

So everyone is just guessing with bad data (sort of like how climate change
debates go).

mostly.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:37:03 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message Carlos E. R. wrote:
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.

My GSM phones show a valid lat-long. My CDMA phones show no data.
This is with multiple phones on AT&T (GSM), T-Mobile (GSM), Verizon
(CDMA) and Sprint (CDMA) in the Monterey Bay area of California. Your
experience may be different in other parts of the country or with
other system operators.

Finding CDMA towers has been somewhat of a challenge. I tried to map
local sites in the late 1990's and gave up in about 2003 (for medical
reasons):
http://802.11junk.com/cellular/
Yeah, I know it's old, awful, ugly, incomplete, and inaccurate, but it
was acceptable for something built 15 years ago using just a text
editor.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article , Jeff
Liebermann wrote:

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.

My GSM phones show a valid lat-long. My CDMA phones show no data.
This is with multiple phones on AT&T (GSM), T-Mobile (GSM), Verizon
(CDMA) and Sprint (CDMA) in the Monterey Bay area of California. Your
experience may be different in other parts of the country or with
other system operators.

sprint towers include lat/long everywhere i've tried. not all phones
will show it, however.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:58:44 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong wrote:

I don't know if a phone can connect to two towers at once
though.

Can it?

A dual SIM phone, with both SIMs active, and using different carriers, not
only *can*, it *must* :-) . 'Zat help? Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On 2017-02-18 00:03:15 +0000, sms said:

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.

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.

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.

Was this at Fish Camp, and I guess at some place other than Tenaya
Lodge or the Narrow Gauge Inn?

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.

Usually if I take the Southern route (41) to Yosemite I will spend one
night at either Tenaya Lodge or the Narrow Gauge Inn, both technically
in Fish Camp on hwy 41. I get good Verizon coverage there and both have
free in-house WiFi. In Yosemite, depending on my actual plan and time
of the year I spend one or two nights at the Yosemite Valley Lodge,
which also has free in-house WiFi and Verizon coverage.

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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-02-18 02:21:29 +0000, Stijn De Jong said:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:00:11 -0800, sms wrote:

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.

I completly understand that the data I showed (which implied that the
coverage was about the same) could be bad data.

But you have to realize I've heard a lot of bs on the net where people who
have one brand think it's better than the other two brands (of anything),
even though they, themselves, have never even tested brand B or C. (It just
happened on the digital photo group, for example, where people said
"preview" was better at X than Paint.NET and then we find out that all
those people who said that had NEVER even used Paint.NET once in their
entire lives).

Boy! You misrepresent the content of a thread and what folks actually
wrote too much.

Did you actually think that I wouldn't challenge what you wrote above?

As I said in rec.photo.digital, I never used the words "better" or
"best" with regard to Preview. I did say that it met my needs for
simple annotation work, including what you claimed was tough to
achieve, "curved arrows". I even provided examples.

I didn't say that I had never used Paint.Net, but since I don't use a
Windows machine I guess you could imply that. Other than that
implication the paragraph above is a twisted rendition of the truth.
Perhaps, a part of your alternate reality.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , tlvp
wrote:


I don't know if a phone can connect to two towers at once
though.

Can it?

A dual SIM phone, with both SIMs active, and using different carriers, not
only *can*, it *must* :-) . 'Zat help? Cheers, -- tlvp

this isn't about dual sim phones.