  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Out With the Old I noticed better indoor coverage when AT&T upgraded this area to 3G service. I can now use my phone in the basement of my house.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
|
| |  Moved from Los Angeles CA to St Louis MO, better 3G!
But the iPhone 3G has such a small antenna and placed at bottom when held it would revert to Edge everywhere.
In St Louis it's the opposite, Egde coverage is worse than 3G. On the the iPhone 3g coverage is now great! Amaizing!
As the 3G network becomes the main network, edge network will be slowly pushed out.
Sucks if your on edge, but if your on edge chances are you will only use voice which is not as demanding as data. All data and voice at the same time users will be on the best 850 network.
Typed this on iPhone 3G w/ AT&T network  | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Moved from Los Angeles CA to St Louis MO, better 3G! 3G 850MHz has 'just' gone live in Los Angeles. This article is pretty bogus though.
Technical reason on calling it BS
1. 850MHz licenses are in 25MHz (paired) blocks. This negates the possibility of 3G consuming all 850MHz spectrum, as WCDMA carriers are 10MHz wide.
2. Most areas have deployed 3G on 1900MHz initially (hint Los Angeles, NYC, San Francisco, etc).
3. 850MHz prior to Feb 2008 REQUIRED spectrum (~5MHz min?) to be used for AMPS (analog) services - that spectrum has been reallocated to 3G 850MHz - possibly taking only 5MHz of existing spectrum from GSM for 3G
4. With more devices being deployed with 3G, having available spectrum for 3G devices keeps them from using EDGE/GSM services - which will allow your EDGE device to function better, as 3G devices won't be dropping over to GSM/EDGE due to capacity issues.
5. Spectrum starved areas (such as Los Angeles) with a TOTAL spectrum capacity of 45MHz, has 10MHz 3G 850 (Cell A block ARFCN 4385), 10MHz 3G 1900 (PCS B3 - ARFCN 512), 15MHz GSM/EDGE 850 (Cell A block) and 10MHz 1900 (PCS D Block). What would cause 'less' spectrum starved areas to push GSM / EDGE to 1900 MHz?
Even if/when a 2nd 3G 850MHz carrier channel is deployed, 5MHz of GSM/EDGE spectrum (yeah, not much) will still exist.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | No Surprise This is typical of most companies. When new technology comes out, it starts costing too much to support old technology. Sometimes some customers get screwed because they don't want to or can't upgrade (OnStar, anyone?), but it's collateral damage.
In this case, however, I think it's premature. There's simply too many EDGE users out there and too little 3G coverage for them to start phasing EDGE out. I understand that if they migrate more users to the 3G network, they can further deploy it, but as Karl said, "...there's still a lot of traditional 2G/EDGE customers under long-term contract out there (including first gen iPhone, RAZR and Blackberry users)..."
--
I'm one of those people you can't take out of context. You have to see the whole me before I begin to make any sense. | |
|
|  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70 | Re: No Surprise I didn't think they were mass pushing edge out the door but they were looking at retiring it. You are right I think. | |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Just the way it goes I do not see a real problem here. They're moving the most used services to the better spectrum and the least used and soon to be phased out services to a lesser spectrum.
We did the same thing with getting people off AMPS, we made dual mode phones, then digital only to bridge the gap between the services as we got ready to shut down analog cell services.
Same will happen with LTE, 3G will once again at some point be bumped back to the higher frequencies in markets where there are no 700mhz bands to put LTE on.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
|  ff1324Everybody Goes HomePremium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day | Re: Just the way it goes My 2G phone is only 5 months old. If they're phasing out the 2G network, why are they still selling equipment that only supports 2G? | |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | I don't understand If they are moving some edge areas from 850 to 1900 does that mean they are moving 3G in those areas to the 850 band? Why exactly would they do this? Curious. | |
|
| jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Re: I don't understand Signals on the 850mhz band tend to work better for mobile users than signals on the 1900mhz band. While the output power for EDGE signals is the same on both bands, 1900mhz is a shorter wavelength and so the signal doesn't travel long distances from cell towers.
But on the flipside, 1900mhz signals penetrates buildings more easily than 850mhz signals, so mobile users in dense buildings with lots of metallic structural elements might actually notice better coverage thanks to the shift of EDGE from 850mhz to 1900mhz. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: I don't understand said by jaminus:But on the flipside, 1900mhz signals penetrates buildings more easily than 850mhz signals, so mobile users in dense buildings with lots of metallic structural elements might actually notice better coverage thanks to the shift of EDGE from 850mhz to 1900mhz. Wrong. Try talking to a Sprint or Tmobile user and you will hear about how they enter buildings and goto 1 bar or loose service, meanwhile their Verizon and ATT friends are fine.
When 1900 gets degraded, either through air, or brick, or wood, it degrades faster/more for the same obsticle than 850.
Same reason as 802.11A vs 802.11G.
Now you can thearetically crank up the transmit power on 1900 to be much higher than 850 to give the same reception as 850, but the cellphones can't scream back loud enough to the tower, or the 1900 signal will collide with another 1900 signal on the same channel, and nobody will have service where the 2 arcs intersect. Increasing the TX power also creates a larger marginal service area as the circle of coverage of that tower expands. | |
|
| | | | | Re: I don't understand I'm a TM user and my cell phone just fine in buildings. | |
|
| | | | Hang on.. Let me clarify this statement...
1900 MHz frequencies penetrate buildings better than 800 MHz signals do AT HIGH POWER LEVELS.
For example, a Sprint tower NEXT to a highrise will have better penetration into the building than an 800 MHz frequency would if the tower were farther away.
However, in the real world, this situation isn't always the case and 800 MHz carriers will typically dominate.
Conversely, 1900 MHz (aka. PCS) networks typically have more cell sites (dense tower spacing) in a given area than 800 MHz (aka. cellular) networks, which could make this situation more likely in certain areas. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Acanac
| said by jaminus:Signals on the 850mhz band tend to work better for mobile users than signals on the 1900mhz band. While the output power for EDGE signals is the same on both bands, 1900mhz is a shorter wavelength and so the signal doesn't travel long distances from cell towers. But on the flipside, 1900mhz signals penetrates buildings more easily than 850mhz signals, so mobile users in dense buildings with lots of metallic structural elements might actually notice better coverage thanks to the shift of EDGE from 850mhz to 1900mhz. Wrong. WRONG. WRONG !!!.
850Mhz penetrates bulidings easyer because over the same distances, the vibration is more then redused by half. As a result, it has half the chance of being absorbed by a foreign object.
The downside is that it carries half the data that 1900Mhz would due to being only half the vibrations over the same distance.
Also, i'm using very simplistic words to describe this...
Adi | |
|
| | | Markie
join:2003-07-26
Kalispell, MT | Re: I don't understand Sadly you're wrong too... 10MHz of spectrum is 10Mhz (as an example) whether 450-460 or 850-860 or 1900-1910 or 5900-5910 (just as examples, those aren't exact real assignments).
There IS more available at higher frequencies as lower frequencies have already been called for, though Feb 17th a ton of 700MHz spectrum is being freed up, most of it going to Verizon and AT&T (yay for the big getting bigger  )
The basic idea of a shorter wavelength being blocked more easily IS correct though. | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | BB 8310 Sounds like my BB 8310 would be affected. That's hardly an old model.
I'll mention this to my company's IT department for future purchase decisions. | |
|
|  Dominokat"Hi"Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I-phone Still very iffy "Edge" service here. Most of the time, "no service" or 1 bar. I can roam on to full bars "Edge" service with Unicell. My phone spend about 50/50 roaming. Definitely better roaming.....
3G service isn't available in my area.
--
"I'm just a goof, looking for my ball." | |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | 1900mhz works better in buildings The summary posted here says that the "the 850 MHz band ... provided better coverage, particularly indoors" but then goes on to link to an article that states the following:
"Sometimes 1900 will work better in a city because 1900 MHz signals tend to work better in the middle of the city with large buildings as the shorter wavelength allows the signal to go around corners easier."
»www.cellguru.net/1900.htm | |
|
| Reviews:
·Acanac
| Re: 1900mhz works better in buildings said by jaminus:The summary posted here says that the "the 850 MHz band ... provided better coverage, particularly indoors" but then goes on to link to an article that states the following: "Sometimes 1900 will work better in a city because 1900 MHz signals tend to work better in the middle of the city with large buildings as the shorter wavelength allows the signal to go around corners easier." » www.cellguru.net/1900.htm Ya, that article if full of crap. Just ignore.
Adi | |
|
Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI | I got no problem here there are so many cell towers AT&T So many towers here, one problem is 3G drops a lot around here. | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Worse? It's crap now, and you say it's going to get worse? 
Wonderful!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | Bunk This story is absolute bunk. I work for at&t and my job is working on cell sites. We have in no way cut our 2g 850 and made it a 1900mhz site. One there is an issue with air rights and second the cell site equipment would have to be completely changed antennas(to either dual freq or seperate antennas)/radios/combiners/multicouplers etc. its not something you can flip a switch on or change a number to make 1900mhz. While we carve out 5-10mhz+ chunk of RF for UMTS there is plenty of spectrum left over for the 2g to continue to work. This complete bogus info. | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Bunk i agree 100%. there's 3g 850 and 3g 1900 here in los Angeles and gsm 850 and gsm 1900 bogus info indeed
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | I do agree completely.
This story blows what is actually happening way out of proportion.
AT&T has been (public knowledge) adding 850 MHz WCDMA/HSPA 850 MHz CARRIER channels by cutting some of the GSM frequency allotment ONLY in certain areas (Los Angeles is a prime example).
In no instance have I ever heard that AT&T has actually MOVED all of GSM and EDGE (2G) services to PCS band (1900 MHz).
There are FAR too many GSM customers out there to even ATTEMPT a turndown of 2G services at this point. They can carve away 800 MHz spectrum for 3G if they can get it away with it though.
In my opinion, that is exactly what you are seeing and what needs to happen for 3G to become AT&T's dominant air interface. | |
|
| ff1324Everybody Goes HomePremium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| So then how come I get crap for a signal on my BB 8310 while my captain gets a great signal on his 3G phone while we're sitting right next to each other at our firehouse?
We are 1/2 mile from the antenna over flat terrain. I've called about it a dozen times and AT&T can only say they don't guarantee a signal within a building. Who only uses a cell phone outside? I don't even receive phone calls half the time in our firehouse. And it's masonry and wood, not steel.
I should have stayed with Sprint, but that Unity plan was too good to pass up.
--
Remember the 2008 firefighters and police LODD's in St. Louis:
PO Ballman, Sgt. Biggs, FF Hummert, Sgt. King, FF Riggins... all murdered...RIP brothers. | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Bunk There are many reasons why.
- GSM will 'camp' on any signal that it determines is the best, and will hop between sites/channels often as it is a TDMA/FDMA technology.
- 3G is utilizing a form of CDMA which pretty much negates the ability to connect to any other site than the nearest, as it has a 1:1 spectrum reuse.
Basically: GSM does not use 100% of its spectrum on each site, but allows for significant overlapping of coverage (like a mesh), which 3G/WCDMA allows for very little overlap.
You probably notice signal 'spikes' on GSM, while you will not see it very often on 3G. The placement of the antenna will also play into this. | |
|
| | alright.. which one of the dslr staff is reading gizmodo | |
|
|  WiFiguruTo infinity... and beyondPremium
join:2005-06-21
Los Gatos, CA
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: alright.. said by waffleburger:which one of the dslr staff is reading gizmodo This was also posted on various cellular forums. | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: alright.. Its still full of 'fluff'.
Here in Los Angeles, with Field Test (and base band selector on Samsung ZX-20)
3G 850 = 10MHz of 850MHz (ARFCN 4385 Cell A)
GSM 850 = 15MHz of 850MHz (BCCH 135, Cell A)
3G 1900 = 10MHz of 1900MHz (ARFCN 512, PCS B3)
GSM 1900 = 10MHz of 1900MHz (BCCH 587-610, PCS D)
There is technically more GSM 850 spectrum in use than 3G 850MHz spectrum
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
|  M A R SPremium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
·Optimum Online
| said by waffleburger:which one of the dslr staff is reading gizmodo Too bad i cant find the article there anymore?!?
--
See you in Villains | |
|
 Smile__Premium
join:2008-10-10
New Freedom, PA | Thank you AT&T..  | |
|
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
| I think someone was spoofed here. ...Because they're full of BS.
AT&T isn't "switching" EDGE over to 1900 exclusively. There may well be areas where they have very limited spectrum and want to run the 3G on 850 pushing EDGE to 1900, but that is the exception and not the norm.
This is the kind of sensational quasi-journalism which really, really sucks.
**At the very least, you may want to retitle "May" see a downgrade. Because it isn't nationwide and like I said, exception, not rule.** | |
|
| | Basics of phisiscs OK: 850 MHz - bigger foot print / 1900 MHz - smaller foot print.
Now, you would ask, why are they doing it? are they mad ?!
Nope...is just capacity.
OK - recap: if I give you a footprint of say 8 miles radius, the user x, at the fringe of the foot print can grab channels and use up a lot of capacity - internet voice, etc. - ( I will not enter here in EDGE / GPRS channel and resources allocation). You, user y closer to the tower, at times, you will not be able to connect, due to lack of resources, because of user(s) x. Enters 1900 MHz. In order to provide coverage for the licensed area of AT&T there are needed more 1900 MHz cells - so is no brainer that is not a good deal for AT&T to switch and move users to 1900. Still, why are they doing it??? Reason - more cells, more users. Now is true that the indoor penetration is not that great like 850, but between having blocked calls and no service for users, and having lower speeds, guess who wins ?!
So, here you have it. | |
|
| | | Re: Basics of phisiscs I really don't understand what you are trying to say. ATT is moving 3G users to 850MHZ in some areas because they have more 850MHZ bandwidth in those areas. In most cases(not all), 850MHZ is the best spectrum to use for voice and data. It makes sense that ATT is moving the majority of their users to the most reliable spectrum where necessary. | |
|
| | | | Re: Basics of phisiscs You don't get it....that's why I didn't entered the GSM / UMTS specs (read David Lee's books). One other thing, in some states they have sufficient 850, in some they don't.
850 is good for propagation. Capacity wise may not be the best in urban areas. "Voice and data" ....is all radio !!!! never mind, you won't get it any way. | |
|
| | | | Even more basic..
You have one tower in the middle of a heavily populated town (obviously not the norm, but for this purpose assume)
They would use the 850Mhz band for the far away customers. And then use the 1.9Ghz band for the close-in customers.
If you only use one band you can only have so many overlapping channels with an antenna array. Say 100 customers per antenna with 4-5 antennas per band/Tower (I have no idea about cell spacing or capacity) So that's 400-500 customers that can use that tower so to speak.
Now add the 1.9Ghz to that same tower. It doesn't go as far (i.e. customers in buildings around tower), but adds capacity for more customers/tower. Now you have a single tower capacity of 800-1000 customers. Get it??
#### Numbers are BS and not for argument, just illustration. | |
|
 TCubPremium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
kudos:4
·Cox HSI
| moving forward As long as its in an effort to expand their 3G network, perhaps upgrade towers or anything to improve overall customer experience then I'm okay with it. Recently I noticed a slight increase in 3G coverage in the only area I've found to get very little to no 3G service at all.
--
And if you go, furious angels will bring you back to me. | |
|
|
 RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | AT&T uses ONLY 1900 in some areas. A correction, in some areas AT&T uses 1900 exclusively. My area being one example, it's a former Edge Wireless area (AT&T Affiliate, served CA,OR,ID,WY), who AT&T bought out late last year and absorbed in April of this year, and Edge used 100% 1900, as those are the only licenses they had. The two 850 carriers here are US Cellular and Verizon, so AT&T will probably never have 850 in their former Edge Wireless areas. I get very good coverage on EDGE and 3G here with their 1900.
--
»www.amtrak.com
»www.amtrakcalifornia.com
»www.metrolinktrains.com
»www.narprail.org
»www.freightrailworks.org
»www.up.com
»www.bnsf.com
»www.northcoastrailroad.org
»www.sonomamarintrain.org | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | Whats good for the goose... If the FCC can mandate a similar change for most television. Then why not a corporate entity be able to do it, for whatever reason? | |
|
|
2 edits | Re: Whats good for the goose... Because this is not the same thing...
The FCC decided years ago that they wanted to reclaim the licenses (spectrum) that broadcast TV was using. This was done for many reasons, but mostly because it was a completely inefficient use of valuable spectrum resources.
To do that, they issued new spectrum allocations for digital transmissions and ordered all analog TV broadcast frequencies to be vacated in February 2009.
The FCC does NOT dictate what air interfaces cellular companies can use with their licenses.
They ONLY time the FCC has ever done this was to mandate that existing AMPS (Analog) towers were prohibited to be removed from service until February 2008 so emergency services, and those that relied on AMPS would have ample time to migrate to new services. This date has passed, and AMPS (along with TDMA) has been ripped out of many MANY tower sites. | |
|
 SolarPupHardware GodPremium
join:2002-03-07
Greeley, CO | great.. What about the people that live on the edge of 3G and EDGE both, and it constantly swaps between 3G and EDGE? Where I live, the coverage map says the whole area is 3G covered... but in reality, far from it. It constantly swaps between 3G, GSM, and EDGE yet with 5 bars of service..
--
...I don't have a 8mb speedy connection, I fly through the net at low altitudes! | |
|
|
|
·
·
3G