AT&T's 2G Customers See A DowngradeSwitch from 850 MHz to 1900 MHz may mean worse coverage ( old news - 06:18PM Saturday Jan 03 2009) tags: business · wireless · hardware · alternatives · telco · networkingTimothy Butler of Open For Business e-mails us to note he's done a little digging, and found that AT&T has been downgrading its EDGE/2G service to the weaker 1900 MHz band. While 3G/HSDPA customers won't care, EDGE/2G was previously using the 850 MHz band, which provided better coverage, particularly indoors. Sure, upgrading your network to faster speeds is great, but there's still a lot of traditional 2G/EDGE customers under long-term contract out there (including first gen iPhone, RAZR and Blackberry users) who may find they're now seeing slightly less robust coverage. AT&T's solution, of course, is to push customers toward newer gear that supports HSDPA. Update: An AT&T tech writes in with his thoughts: "I can say that this story is complete bunk. I work for at&t as a cellular network tech and we are in no way making an 850 site a 1900 it is far to costly there is plenty of spectrum for both sites to use the 850mhz. While there may be a few sites out there that have moved to a 1900mhz sites they would be few and far between. The issue is air rights for one and second our sites are far to costly to change bands on. We are talking radios/antenna's/tower mounted amps/combiners/multicouplers etc... I love how holding two phones together is his testing. UMTS cell phones use multiple sites at once and that improves things greatly (just like good ol CDMA) I cant see how this guy can make such a huge generalization." Update 2:Author Timothy Butler responds: Regarding the update: For what it is worth, I also received an e-mail from the said AT&T tech and we talked a briefly. To confirm, the changes stated in the article were based on direct confirmation by AT&T technicians and we never tested the network by somehow "holding two phones together" and seeing what happens.
Related:- Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
- How To Tether The 3G iPhone
- Sprint Launches Airave Service
- The Year For FemtoCells is 2010
- AT&T Femtocells in 2009
- AT&T Looking For Femtocell Testers
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
- AT&T Femtocell Service Website Goes Live
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
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! | |
| | |  | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| 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 | |
| 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA
·CableOne
| 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. | |
| | 
David
Last man standing
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs: | 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. | |
| 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| 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 | |
| | 
ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
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
| 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. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: I don't understand I'm a TM user and my cell phone just fine in buildings. | |
| | | | | | 
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
·Look Communications
| 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. | |
| 
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | 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
clubs:
·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 | |
| |
adisor19
join:2004-10-11
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
·Videotron
·Look Communications
| 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. | |
| 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Worse? It's crap now, and you say it's going to get worse? 
Wonderful!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| amdmaddness
join:2006-10-16
Greenville, SC
| 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. | |
| |
en102
Canadian, 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 | |
| | | |
ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
| 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. | |
| | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| 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. | |
| 
waffleburger
join:2008-08-22
Blairstown, NJ | alright.. which one of the dslr staff is reading gizmodo | |
| | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| 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 K
St. Ides Heaven
Premium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
clubs:
| 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
Baltimore, MD | Thank you AT&T..  | |
| pabster
join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA
·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.** | |
| 
RadioAktivitet
@charter.com
| 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. | |
| | forefun
join:2004-04-21
Austin, TX
| 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. | |
| | |
RadioAktivitet
@charter.com
| 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. | |
| | | gunther_01
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
| 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. | |
| 
TCub
Premium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
clubs:
·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 Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
| 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 | |
| 
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | 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? | |
| | 
SterlingJ85
Obama 2008
join:2000-11-19
Millville, NJ
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·TowerStream
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. | |
| | | | |
|
|
·
Moved from Los Angeles CA to St Louis MO, better 3G!
·
3G
·