New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

In article <[email protected]>, Jeff
Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Verizon has no iPhone.
>
> Verizon now has the Wi-Fi only version of the iPad:
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/ipad.shtml>

which is nothing more than a standard wifi ipad bundled with a separate
verizon mifi.

along the same lines, sprint expects to ship an ipod touch case that
has a cellular radio.

<http://www.bgr.com/2010/11/05/zte-pe...ember-14th-30m
onth-no-contract/>

---

› See More: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

"Thad Floryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11/6/2010 7:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and hills.
>> With
>> GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's challenging to
>> cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the area in question
>> but
>> Verizon has no iPhone.
>
> If you're curious where the towers are located, visit:
>
> <http://sfocellsites.com/mappageA.htm>
>
> and wait until all the pushpins are drawn.

In the guy's blog he mentions that AT&T is rather secretive about its
new tower locations ("AT&T data is only partially updated these last few
years, so some areas are current and some may be missing a few new cell
sites. It's hard to keep up with AT&T because, unlike T-Mobile, they
are not so proud of their new coverage and therefore keep their new
sites secret"), and his map proves it... AT&T has significantly upgraded
its capabilities along Skyline and the coastal areas but that doesn't
show on the map.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On 11/7/2010 8:54 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

> In the guy's blog he mentions that AT&T is rather secretive about its
> new tower locations ("AT&T data is only partially updated these last few
> years, so some areas are current and some may be missing a few new cell
> sites. It's hard to keep up with AT&T because, unlike T-Mobile, they
> are not so proud of their new coverage and therefore keep their new
> sites secret"), and his map proves it... AT&T has significantly upgraded
> its capabilities along Skyline and the coastal areas but that doesn't
> show on the map.

And ironically, T-Mobile has significantly _degraded_ their capabilities
along Skyline and the coastal areas by removing AT&T roaming
capabilities. Verizon coverage is still good in those areas, but it got
degraded when AT&T and Verizon turned off AMPS in those areas (of course
not many people had phones that could use AMPS, but I kept an AMPS
capable phone specifically because of the coverage in rural San Mateo,
Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties).

Ironically, Sprint coverage is better in those areas than in the urban
areas because you roam on Verizon where there is no Sprint coverage (in
areas with Sprint coverage, no matter how weak and unusable the Sprint
signal, a Sprint phone won't roam onto Verizon). Also, MetroPCS now
allows extra-cost off-network roaming onto Verizon, so its coverage,
which was non-existent in those areas, is now very good.

I'm not sure how secretive AT&T can be, since new towers require
approval of some government body, whether they're in a city or not.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:4cd79a1d$0$22099
[email protected]:

> I'm not sure how secretive AT&T can be, since new towers require
> approval of some government body, whether they're in a city or not.
>
>

All the towers and all the systems are in the FCC wireless bureau's
database of licenses. Noone operates cellular or PCS without an FCC
license and THAT puts them on the map with lat/long to the foot.

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...on.jsp?regKey=
117529
Here's an AT&T tower on San Clemente Island, CA, as an example. It even
gives you Michael Richno and his address and PO Box to contact about this
tower. Ol' Mike's email address at ATT.com is also provided. Drop him
an email if your service sucks on San Clemente at the beach mansion.
This tower is HIS responsibility to the FCC enforcement bureau....(c;]

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If you
have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State to
list all the towers in the state to find them.

Licensees can't hide. Verizon's system isn't Verizon. It's called
Cellco Partnership and has 1170 towers listed.

What's shocking with ATT is the number of CANCELLED/TERMINATED towers. I
think this isn't related to ATT turning off towers. I think this is
related to ATT changing the name of its system operator branch, now
called AT&T (statename here). AT&T California must be a different
company from AT&T Oregon for some legal or tax reason.

Listed are also all the modifications to a particular tower on its
record. If they move the antennas, change the equipment or power or
anything, FCC requires them to change their license for that tower, too.

It's a great resource. The bureaucrats at the stores are always shocked
if you say, "I see here" (showing them the most recent printout of the
change), "that you've moved the antennas and lowered the power on the
tower that services my neighborhood." Then, go on as if your knowledge
is normal, "This change has dropped my signal at home from 2 bars to NO
SERVICE. When are you going to correct this atrocity and restore our
service or add a new tower to properly service this portion of your FCC
licensed area?"

Be gentle. He had no idea you can easily find out what "they" are doing,
which is supposed to be a big secret. FCC thinks otherwise.

On 11/8/2010 7:50 AM, Fred wrote:
> ...
>
> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
> This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
> Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
> code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If you
> have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State to
> list all the towers in the state to find them.
>
>...

According to this database there is one tower in Gilroy, CA??

Roy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 11/8/2010 7:50 AM, Fred wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
>> This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
>> Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
>> code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If
you
>> have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State
to
>> list all the towers in the state to find them.
>>
>>...
>
> According to this database there is one tower in Gilroy, CA??
>

I know nothing of the topography or political divisions around Gilroy.
There may be other towers, but they are located across the city line by
80 feet in the next bureaucratic fiefdom over. The city name depends on
its lat/long. Too bad the database isn't connected to Google Earth by a
KML entry making it easier to find. Maybe someday FCC will get past the
reel-to-reel 9-track tape drives and join the 21st century.

On 11/8/2010 1:55 PM, Fred wrote:
> Roy<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 11/8/2010 7:50 AM, Fred wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrS...tionSearch.jsp
>>> This is the antenna tower search page. Where it says "By Registration
>>> Number", click the arrow and enter AT&T. If you enter a state or zip
>>> code it gives you all the AT&T towers in that state or zip code. If
> you
>>> have multiple zip codes...AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC...use the State
> to
>>> list all the towers in the state to find them.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> According to this database there is one tower in Gilroy, CA??
>>
>
> I know nothing of the topography or political divisions around Gilroy.
> There may be other towers, but they are located across the city line by
> 80 feet in the next bureaucratic fiefdom over. The city name depends on
> its lat/long. Too bad the database isn't connected to Google Earth by a
> KML entry making it easier to find. Maybe someday FCC will get past the
> reel-to-reel 9-track tape drives and join the 21st century.

One of the two towers is several miles outside the city.

I did do a search by Lat/Lon and came up with the same two towers. I
know of at least five others within the city limits.

Roy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I
> know of at least five others within the city limits.
>
>

Obviously not licensed for ATTWS. Must be someone else's systems, like
Motorola Trunk Radios, cops, etc.

On 11/8/2010 6:03 PM, Fred wrote:
> Roy<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I
>> know of at least five others within the city limits.
>>
>>
>
> Obviously not licensed for ATTWS. Must be someone else's systems, like
> Motorola Trunk Radios, cops, etc.

Actually the search I did showed NO towers for AT&T within six miles.
All the other towers are owned by someone else. The city's towers don't
appear either.

I suspect that older towers aren't in the database. I think towers
attached to other structures don't appear either

Roy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I suspect that older towers aren't in the database. I think towers
> attached to other structures don't appear either
>

Close. If a cell is located on an "existing structure", such as a tall
building or broadcast tower or a tower also used for other purposes, not
a new tower just for the licensed cell, I think you are correct. It has
no need for an FCC tower permit as there is no tower to permit.

So, now you need another license database, the cell licenses themselves:

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsS...rchLicense.jsp

or more specifically:

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsS...chAdvanced.jsp

Unfortunately, you may have to do several searches as we use Cellular,
PCS and some other licensed services to get sellphone service.

This license search will find virtually every radio transmitter except
broadcasting to the public in the country.....even mine!

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> And ironically, T-Mobile has significantly _degraded_ their capabilities
> along Skyline and the coastal areas by removing AT&T roaming
> capabilities.

It seems that the inverse is true, that AT&T doesn't roam onto T-Mobile,
either.
I now have an "SOS" symbol in some parts of Santa Rosa,
and checking the Mobile Network shows that it is T-Mobile.

> Ironically, Sprint coverage is better in those areas than in the urban
> areas because you roam on Verizon where there is no Sprint coverage (in

I thought Sprint folks around here roamed onto US Cellular, although if
they do roam onto both US Cellular and Verizon, that would explain why
Sprint has the best coverage.

> I'm not sure how secretive AT&T can be, since new towers require
> approval of some government body, whether they're in a city or not.

Security through obscurity. It is not easy to tell who is renting tower
space on a third party tower.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Fred <[email protected]> wrote:
> Licensees can't hide. Verizon's system isn't Verizon. It's called
> Cellco Partnership and has 1170 towers listed.

Cellco partnership might be several entities.
One tower that is used by AT&T in this area is listed as American Towers,
Inc. I suppose that you might construe that as being covert for AT&T, I
think it is a multi-use tower.

I also don't see which of these are cellular.
I am quite disappointed that the towers that I see atop Mt. St. Helena,
with Pacific Bell emblazoned on the fences and buildings, don't seem to be
cellular, at least not judging by signal strength when they are in easy
view. 38.669871,-122.633028


Cellular One had printed maps in their offices, but they wouldn't give you
coordinates over the phone.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

On 09/11/10 1:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> SMS<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And ironically, T-Mobile has significantly _degraded_ their capabilities
>> along Skyline and the coastal areas by removing AT&T roaming
>> capabilities.
>
> It seems that the inverse is true, that AT&T doesn't roam onto T-Mobile,
> either.

Yes, the inverse is also true, but there are very few areas where
T-Mobile has coverage but AT&T doesn't.

> I now have an "SOS" symbol in some parts of Santa Rosa,
> and checking the Mobile Network shows that it is T-Mobile.
>
>> Ironically, Sprint coverage is better in those areas than in the urban
>> areas because you roam on Verizon where there is no Sprint coverage (in
>
> I thought Sprint folks around here roamed onto US Cellular, although if
> they do roam onto both US Cellular and Verizon, that would explain why
> Sprint has the best coverage.

Yes, both Sprint and Verizon can roam onto U.S. Cellular. In areas with
no Sprint coverage, Sprint has very good coverage.

On 11/13/2010 1:57 PM, Brad Allen wrote:
> " It's embarrassing that in Apple's home city the iPhone can't be used
> " in large areas.
>
> That's well-deserved embarrassment. Apple should have gone with
> Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint, and never AT&T.

T-Mobile coverage is even worse than AT&T in the Bay Area, so going with
T-Mobile would not have helped Apple.

On 13 Nov 2010 22:52:18 GMT, in
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Brad Allen)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Thad Floryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>" On 11/6/2010 7:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>" > [...]
>" > It's not even terribly hilly, but there are some valleys and
>" > hills. With GSM you only connect with one tower at a time so it's
>" > challenging to cover that terrain. Verizon has no problems in the
>" > area in question but Verizon has no iPhone.

GSM works just as well as CDMA in hilly terrain.
Likewise UMTS, which both AT&T and T-Mobile use.

>Add to this that T-Mobile recently upgraded their network from
>better-than-AT&T's to the next generation (about 4x the speed as
>before), and things are golden. I'm getting consistent 3923kbps
>inbound, 1316kbps outbound, and 96ms pings with my Nexus One (by
>Google, aka HTC Passion), and newer model phones with the right
>hardware and software should go even faster since they can take
>advantage of even faster speeds.

Likewise with my own Nexus One on T-Mobile.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?