Which app do you use to scan/debug GSM/CDMA cellular tower signal strength?

[Stijn De Jong]

Simple question:

Q: Which app do you use on iOS or Android to figure out all the cellular
towers and signal strengths of the cellular signal (CDMA or GSM) in your
area?

Q: Does that app show you *all* the towers that your phone can see
(or does it only show the one tower that your phone is connected to)?

On Android, I am currently testing these GSM/CDMA signal strength apps,
where you can see my actual screenshot results in the photos below.

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

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

03 GSM Signal Monitoring, version 4.02:
http://i.cubeupload.com/V9O0Gg.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.signalmonitoring.gsmsignalmonitoring

04 Netmonitor, version 1.2.15:
http://i.cubeupload.com/TfDJaS.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.parizene.netmonitor

05 CellID Info:, version 1.2.2:
http://i.cubeupload.com/X3gsfb.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.its_here.cellidinfo

06 RF Toolbox (Cell Monitor), version 2.26:
http://i.cubeupload.com/y2YfEV.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.btapps.rftoolbox

07 WiGle WiFi Wardriving (which also reports cellular towers):
http://i.cubeupload.com/ZPva3O.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.wigle.wigleandroid

08. OpenSignal, version 5.10:
http://i.cubeupload.com/BwfSFa.jpg
https://opensignal.com/app/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.staircase3.opensignal
etc.

On iOs, I looked for similar apps, and found this:

01 OpenSignal, version 4.0.5 (but it doesn't seem to report the nearby
tower and signal strength):
http://i.cubeupload.com/rmPsVg.jpg
https://itunes.apple.com/app/opensignal/id598298030

The one bad thing is that all these apps only show one cellular tower, even
though I know I have *two* microtowers inside my house, so, I think I need
to find a better app which will show *all* the cellular towers it sees.

To that end, I ask this scientific debugging question:

Q: Which app do you use on iOS or Android to figure out all the cellular
towers and signal strengths of the cellular signal (CDMA or GSM) in your
area?

Q: Does that app show you *all* the towers that your phone can see
(or does it only show the one tower that your phone is connected to)?

[pf...@aol.com]

The Troll is back!

Please don't feed the troll!

[Whiskers]

On 2017-02-16, Stijn De Jong <stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:
> Simple question:
>
> Q: Which app do you use on iOS or Android to figure out all the cellular
> towers and signal strengths of the cellular signal (CDMA or GSM) in your
> area?
>
> Q: Does that app show you *all* the towers that your phone can see
> (or does it only show the one tower that your phone is connected to)?

[...]

> The one bad thing is that all these apps only show one cellular tower, even
> though I know I have *two* microtowers inside my house, so, I think I need
> to find a better app which will show *all* the cellular towers it sees.
>
> To that end, I ask this scientific debugging question:
>
> Q: Which app do you use on iOS or Android to figure out all the cellular
> towers and signal strengths of the cellular signal (CDMA or GSM) in your
> area?
>
> Q: Does that app show you *all* the towers that your phone can see
> (or does it only show the one tower that your phone is connected to)?

I use OpenSignal on my Android, in the UK. It currently shows '100
nearby' cell towers on the first page (where your screenshot shows '0
nearby') and they are shown as points on the map within a mile or two of
where I am (in a large busy city). But I'm pretty sure that comes from
the OpenSignal server not from the phone's own hardware. Likewise the
information it claims to have about nearby WiFi hot spots. The phone
and Google work out where you are and OpenSignal send you the data they
have for that area.

So if OpenSignal have few users in your area they'll have little or
nothing to tell you about.

Your phone will be able to tell OpenSignal about the cell tower it is
currently connected to, and OpenSignal can add that to their database.
If the operator of that cell tower has made its location public,
OpenSignal will even be able to place it accurately on the map -
otherwise they'll have to estimate its position from the signal
information their users provide.

I don't know the other apps you mention.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Zaidy036]

Works on iPhone also

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:52:24 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong
<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

>02 Network Signal Info, version 3.63.01:
>http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg
>https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.android.telnet

I use the Pro version:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.android.telnet2>
Mostly, I just need a fast responding analog signal strength indicator
for aligning antennas and testing nanocellular base stations.

>Q: Which app do you use on iOS or Android to figure out all the cellular
>towers and signal strengths of the cellular signal (CDMA or GSM) in your
>area?

I've only tested a few such apps, but I don't recall seeing any that
did that. What the apps do is query the cell phone part of the
smartphone for cellular status information. I don't believe that apps
cannot control the cell phone and have it scan the neighborhood for
other cell sites. However, I'm not a programmer and might have this
wrong.

This app looks like it might do what you want:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.parizene.netmonitor>
See the "Limitations" section. It seems that if the cell phone
section doesn't display neighboring cells, then the app also can't
display them. I don't have time right now to try it.

>Q: Does that app show you *all* the towers that your phone can see
>(or does it only show the one tower that your phone is connected to)?

Nope. Just one tower.

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

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:27:18 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> I use the Pro version:
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.android.telnet2>
> Mostly, I just need a fast responding analog signal strength indicator
> for aligning antennas and testing nanocellular base stations.

Hi Jeff,

You use my number 2 app, which validates that the app is pretty decent.

I know you know your stuff so I think it's a validation that I put those
apps in the order that I liked them, after testing them for only a few
minutes each (and after removing about as many that failed upon initial
inspection).

>>Q: Which app do you use on iOS or Android to figure out all the cellular
>>towers and signal strengths of the cellular signal (CDMA or GSM) in your
>>area?
>
> I've only tested a few such apps, but I don't recall seeing any that
> did that.

Bummer.
The app that I *think* will give me nearby towers is WiGLE (which, I think
I recall giving me more than one cellular tower, but maybe I'm wrong).

As it is, I can only get 1 tower out of each app, and that tower is always
the same company as my supplier.

So, what I *want*, I can't find, which is an app that scans for all towers,
and simply reports the unique id and signal strength of those towers (which
is how WiFi apps work).

Why can't a cellular app work like a wifi app works (e.g., InSSIDer or
Fritz! Wlan, or WiFi Analyzer, etc.)?

> What the apps do is query the cell phone part of the
> smartphone for cellular status information. I don't believe that apps
> cannot control the cell phone and have it scan the neighborhood for
> other cell sites. However, I'm not a programmer and might have this
> wrong.

WiFi apps seem to be able to scan for access points that they don't
themselves connect to, but the protocols are different.

So far, I have to agree with what you're saying, which is that I'm limited
on Android by the fact that I can only "see" the signal strength and unique
ID of a single tower at a time.

That's a bummer because I'm trying to debug why I'm not connecting to the
two micro towers I have inside my house for T-Mobile (one is a cellular
repeater while the other is connected to my router).

> This app looks like it might do what you want:
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.parizene.netmonitor>
> See the "Limitations" section. It seems that if the cell phone
> section doesn't display neighboring cells, then the app also can't
> display them. I don't have time right now to try it.

Thanks for that suggestion since I only tested each cellular network
monitor for a few minutes yesterday.

Your suggestion was my #4 choice in the original post:

04 Netmonitor, version 1.2.15:
http://i.cubeupload.com/TfDJaS.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.parizene.netmonitor

Looking more closely at that app, I see there are four icons at the bottom,
where clicking on the "pencil and paper" icon shows a page full of
something.

That something is about a score of towers, with color codes of yellow and
red (and presumably green) with a time on the right and a description of
their location.

Here is one such line:

(green round dot) 40483 45813 2304 (yellow satellite icon)
California, USA, San Jose, CA 95121, 1656 Prime Place

I have to run out the door, so I'm not at all sure what this "pen and
pencil" page is trying to tell me, but I'll spend some more time on this
one app to see if it can show me *all* the towers it can see, and what
their signal strength is.

>>Q: Does that app show you *all* the towers that your phone can see
>>(or does it only show the one tower that your phone is connected to)?
>
> Nope. Just one tower.

I think you found the app (NetMonitor) that shows "something" about more
towers; so I will dig further into what it is trying to tell me.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:36:42 +0000, Whiskers wrote:

> I use OpenSignal on my Android, in the UK. It currently shows '100
> nearby' cell towers on the first page (where your screenshot shows '0
> nearby') and they are shown as points on the map within a mile or two of
> where I am (in a large busy city). But I'm pretty sure that comes from
> the OpenSignal server not from the phone's own hardware. Likewise the
> information it claims to have about nearby WiFi hot spots. The phone
> and Google work out where you are and OpenSignal send you the data they
> have for that area.
>
> So if OpenSignal have few users in your area they'll have little or
> nothing to tell you about.
>
> Your phone will be able to tell OpenSignal about the cell tower it is
> currently connected to, and OpenSignal can add that to their database.
> If the operator of that cell tower has made its location public,
> OpenSignal will even be able to place it accurately on the map -
> otherwise they'll have to estimate its position from the signal
> information their users provide.
>
> I don't know the other apps you mention.

Thanks for that information, as I have only been using these apps for one
day, so, I have only formed an initial impression out of the apps.

My selection process was simple:
1. I googled and read articles for the best iOS/Android cellular scanners.
2. I downloaded all the viable suggestions (about a score of apps)
3. I deleted, on sight, the obnoxious ones (I have an eye for that)
4. I then tested what was left and ordered them in best to worst (so far)

At that point, I noticed that all the apps had only a single tower listed,
so, that's when I asked you guys for assistance and expertise.

Jeff Liebermann confirms that most (if not all) only show one tower, which
is unfortunately because I'm trying to debug my house where I have 3 towers
at the bare minimum, to choose from (two of which are inside the house, one
of which is brand new).

However, Jeff found that my number 4 choice, NetMonitor, does list a page
of towers, so, I'm gonna explore that further.

I put OpenSignal *last* on my list, because it didn't seem to be all that
functional (it was actually completely non functional on the iPad, which
has a SIM card and a T-Mobile cellular data plan but not a voice plan, so
that might be the reason).

The one nice thing about OpenSignal is that it *points* to the connecting
tower, which is interesting in my case because my lookup of the tower shows
it to be in a different direction than which is pointed to by OpenSignal.

The rest of the OpenSignal information was, as you noted, all from a
database on the net, which isn't what I'm after here since I'm trying to
find my own cellular towers which are inside my own house, so they're not
likely to be on any OpenSignal database.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:54:17 -0500, Zaidy036 wrote:

> Works on iPhone also

In my first post I placed OpenSignal last on the list of Android apps
simply because OpenSignal mostly seemed to be a lookup to Internet
databases, which isn't what I'm after.

I'm seeking a real-time scanner, and particularly I'm trying to see how my
two cellular micro towers are doing inside my house compared to the
cellular signals from outside (from towers that are a few miles away).

Since I'm out in the boonies, sort of where Jeff Liebermann lives, the
towers are few and far between and we know where they are (for the most
part).

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.

I do know that the seemingly errant OpenSignal pointer is consistent, so,
it pointed in (what seems like) the wrong direction yesterday, and it's
pointing in the same direction today.

On the iPad, OpenSignal fared miserably, but that might be solely due to
the fact that the iPad has T-Mobile for cellular data only. The iPad does
not have a voice service on the SIM card. So maybe these apps only work
with phones and not with tablets?

[nospam]

In article <o853oi$127$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong

<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

> On the iPad, OpenSignal fared miserably, but that might be solely due to
> the fact that the iPad has T-Mobile for cellular data only.

that's not why

> The iPad does
> not have a voice service on the SIM card. So maybe these apps only work
> with phones and not with tablets?

no.

[Carlos E. R.]

I can mention one app that apparently finds all towers in the vicinity,
but the only info it says about them is an identifier code.

It is "MyProfiles". The goal of the app is to adjust phone settings
according to rules. A rule can trigger on a variety of things, and one
of them is location. The location can be done by GPS, but the app can
instead do it based on which towers it can detect. You can tell it to
trigger "home" if it sees the five towers near home.

This is not the tool you need, but proves that other towers can be
found. The app lists all towers found, and timestamps them. Apparently
only one is active, but somehow it displays how many are within range,
and in another window lists them.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Savageduck]

On 2017-02-16 20:57:54 +0000, Stijn De Jong <stijnd...@nlnet.nl> said:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:54:17 -0500, Zaidy036 wrote:
>
>> Works on iPhone also
>
> In my first post I placed OpenSignal last on the list of Android apps
> simply because OpenSignal mostly seemed to be a lookup to Internet
> databases, which isn't what I'm after.

I have OpenSignal on my iPhone and it located two Verizon towers in
the vicinity of my home out at Lake Nacimiento. It also provides usage
and signal data. I manages to do all I need of it.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/File%20Feb%2016%2C%2014%2010%2045.png>
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opensignal-speed-test-3g-4g/id598298030?mt=8>

--


Regards,

Savageduck

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:44:09 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong wrote:

> You use my number 2 app, which validates that the app is pretty decent.

BTW, Jeff ... the main reason your number one cellular-scanning app
selection wasn't my number one choice was that Network Signal Info has an
obnoxious "Parthian Shot" full-screen ad, which has to be x'd out in order
to truly quit out of the app.

Since you have the Pro version of that Network Signal Info app, you
probably don't see that Parthian Shot (some call it a "parting shot").

Without that Parthian Shot ad, it would have been my number one selection,
so, others reading this thread will know that it's a very functional app,
even with the obnoxious parting shot ad.

I liked the way they did the map feature of the Network Signal Info app
because tapping on a tower on the Google Map gave the cell id easier than
did most of the other apps which had similar Internet-based location-lookup
maps.

http://i.cubeupload.com/uHE3lA.jpg

The only problem is that I'm not sure how accurate those maps are since I
found multiple towers in different locations with the same supposedly
unique cell id.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:35:35 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> I can mention one app that apparently finds all towers in the vicinity,
> but the only info it says about them is an identifier code.
>
> It is "MyProfiles". The goal of the app is to adjust phone settings
> according to rules. A rule can trigger on a variety of things, and one
> of them is location. The location can be done by GPS, but the app can
> instead do it based on which towers it can detect. You can tell it to
> trigger "home" if it sees the five towers near home.
>
> This is not the tool you need, but proves that other towers can be
> found. The app lists all towers found, and timestamps them. Apparently
> only one is active, but somehow it displays how many are within range,
> and in another window lists them.

Thanks for the suggestion of MyProfiles.
There seems to be one from "Llab01 Inc."
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fancy01.myprofiles.lite

It certainly asks for a *lot* of permissions upon installing
(luckily, each one can be turned off individually)
- Device & app history
- Cellular data settings
- Identity
- Calendar
- Contacts
- Location
- SMS
- Phone
- Photos/Media/Files
- Wifi Connection information
- Bluetooth connection information
- Device ID & call information

But after using it for an hour, I can see that it's a powerful tool that
can "do stuff" (I'm not sure what yet) depending on what towers it is near.

I'll play with it a bit more, because it seems overall like a powerful
autoamtic doer of things. However, it's not a scanner, at least not only a
scanner.

[Carlos E. R.]

No, it certainly is not a scanner, but it uses scanning to do its own
stuff. I think the phone tries to connect to each tower, till it finds
the most appropriate one, and this tool records the activity to find the
approximate location with the minimal battery usage.

I just meant it as a proof that scanning all towers is possible.

I use it to turn off automatically the WiFi when I get out of home, or
when it detects the car bluetooth. Previously I also used it to
temporarily disable Internet while sleeping, for 8 hours, say.
Unfortunately this is no longer possible on Android 6, no permission to
turn off the data network.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:14:49 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> I have OpenSignal on my iPhone and it located two Verizon towers in
> the vicinity of my home out at Lake Nacimiento. It also provides usage
> and signal data. I manages to do all I need of it.
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/File%20Feb%2016%2C%2014%2010%2045.png>
> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opensignal-speed-test-3g-4g/id598298030?mt=8>

I think, as Jeff Liebermann noted, that the apps only query the phone to
figure out what signal strengths and tower iD information the phone has.

So that seems to be why all the apps can only see one tower at a time, and,
that one tower is only the tower of the current cellular provider.

If I popped in an AT&T SIM card, then I'd see the one AT&T tower I'm
connected to. I don't know if a phone can connect to two towers at once
though.

Can it?

[nospam]

In article <o85hs3$8mc$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong

<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

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

it can and does.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:25:36 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> No, it certainly is not a scanner, but it uses scanning to do its own
> stuff. I think the phone tries to connect to each tower, till it finds
> the most appropriate one, and this tool records the activity to find the
> approximate location with the minimal battery usage.

I think you're right that the suggested app is a very nice app as it has
been running for a few hours now, where the list of 8-digit and 14-digit
"cell tower IDs" is growing, even though I have been in the same location
all this time.

> I just meant it as a proof that scanning all towers is possible.

I thank you for bringing up that app, as it does seem to locate more towers
than most of the other apps do.

The app that Jeff Liebermann suggested, Netmonitor, also seems to list a
ton of cell towers by number.

So, those two apps seem to do "something" different than the rest of the
apps seem to do, as the

> I use it to turn off automatically the WiFi when I get out of home, or
> when it detects the car bluetooth. Previously I also used it to
> temporarily disable Internet while sleeping, for 8 hours, say.
> Unfortunately this is no longer possible on Android 6, no permission to
> turn off the data network.

I think the app is a decent app which seems to be focused toward "doing
something" when it encounters a specific tower.

It's all new to me, so, it takes a while to correlate the 14-digit and
8-digit numbers it reports for cell towers to actual towers though.

The 14-digit numbers it reports seem to be composed of two components:
a) The 5-digit LAC (local area code)
b) The 9-digit CID (long cell id)

I'm not yet sure what the 8-digit numbers are since the short cell id is
only 5 digits (at least the one I'm currently connected to is).

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:18:06 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I don't know if a phone can connect to two towers at once
>> though.
>>
>> Can it?
>
> it can and does.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:18:06 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I don't know if a phone can connect to two towers at once
>> though.
>>
>> Can it?
>
> it can and does.

Thanks.

Figuring out what these apps report is a bit confusing for the apps that
report more than one tower.

The bulk of the apps only report the one tower they're connected to at the
moment. They report that tower with a variety of (supposedly unique)
numbers.

For example, using Network Signal Info, at this moment, I have:
1. T-Mobile (both the net operator and the sim operator)
2. HSPA * 14.4 Mbps (sometimes it reports "EDGE * 220kbps")
3. -103dBm * 4ASU
4. 5-digit Cell ID, short
5. 9-digit Cell ID, long
6. 3-letter mobile network code
7. 3-letter mobile country code
8. WLAN IP address
9. WiFi IP address

Slowly I'm correlating that blizzard of numbers with the ones reported by
the two apps that report multiple cell towers.

I think the only difference between the apps that report one number and the
ones that list multiple numbers is logging.

Is there an easy way, with freeware, to self-video the screen?

[nospam]

In article <o85li4$ijb$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Stijn De Jong

<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

>
> Is there an easy way, with freeware, to self-video the screen?

use a gopro

[The Real Bev]

I just installed it, but as soon as the opening black-text-on-white
screen (I guess I need to give some sort of permission) appears it
blinks out and the 'OpenSignal has stopped..." error message pops up.

I emailed the OpenSignal people, who want to know specifics...

I really want to know WHERE the cell towers are. T-Mobile has piss-poor
coverage in out-of-the-way places and rather than driving around in
circles I'd like to at least head toward a tower. Will this do what I want?

--
Cheers, Bev
Self Test for Paranoia: You know you have it when you can't
think of anything that's your own fault.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:44:09 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong
<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

>So, what I *want*, I can't find, which is an app that scans for all towers,
>and simply reports the unique id and signal strength of those towers (which
>is how WiFi apps work).
>
>Why can't a cellular app work like a wifi app works (e.g., InSSIDer or
>Fritz! Wlan, or WiFi Analyzer, etc.)?

Your smartphone is an SDR (software defined radio) that is capable of
receiving all of the worlds cellular bands and sub-bands, and can
demodulate most any flavor of cellular protocol. However, this is not
a feature that the cellular providers find worthy of providing. Were
they to do so, you would have the equivalent of a hand held spectrum
and protocol analyzer. Such devices do exist, but not built onto a
smartphone platform, which lacks the horsepower to do the job:
<http://www.gl.com/protocol-analyzer-for-wireless-and-ip-networks.html>

So, you're stuck with only hearing what your smartphone is programmed
to hear, which I think means your cellular providers mode
(GSM,UMTS,CDMA, etc) and possibly filtered to limit reception to your
cellular vendors SID and NID numbers. I gotta play with Netmonitor
later to see if my Verizon phone will "see" Sprint sites. Verizon
roams onto Sprint when desperate. Both are CDMA, but on different RF
sub-bands. So far, I'm only seeing Verizon, but that might be because
I'm in a lousy location.

Also, the reason you can see any wi-fi access point that is
broadcasting its SSID, is that as newer and faster protocols are
added, compatibility with hearing management packets from the older
slower protocols is written into the spec so that the slower protocols
won't collide with the faster protocols. However, that can be
disabled with the Greenfield mode:
<http://www.summitdata.com/blog/wi-fi-and-greenfield-mode-functionality/>
where an AP can only hear other 802.11n AP's. There have also been
some casualties among the slower protocols, such as where 802.11n
requires that 802.11 and 802.11b speeds NOT be supported. However,
since the broacasts are always sent at the slowest speeds for that
protocol, a higher speed 802.11n AP can always hear if an 802.11 or
802.11b AP is present.

Bottom line. Wi-Fi downward compatiblity and scanning works because
it was designed to work that way. Not so with cellular frequencies,
modes, protocols, vendors, and instruments.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:07 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I really want to know WHERE the cell towers are. T-Mobile has piss-poor
>coverage in out-of-the-way places and rather than driving around in
>circles I'd like to at least head toward a tower. Will this do what I want?

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.

I used to design direction finders, so I have more than an average
clue as to how this MIGHT be done. I'm not up to speed on cellular,
but I think I can catch up. Basically, an SDR receiver that scans,
looks for a signal direction, identifies it by RF sub-band and service
area, draws a line on a map, and records the line. Drive around a
little and soon you'll have many lines that cross at one point, which
is the cell site. You won't get any ID numbers, but you can get those
from any phone that can display the field service mode.

Marketing research: How much would pay for such a device?

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:23 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> So, you're stuck with only hearing what your smartphone is programmed
> to hear, which I think means your cellular providers mode
> (GSM,UMTS,CDMA, etc) and possibly filtered to limit reception to your
> cellular vendors SID and NID numbers. I gotta play with Netmonitor
> later to see if my Verizon phone will "see" Sprint sites. Verizon
> roams onto Sprint when desperate. Both are CDMA, but on different RF
> sub-bands. So far, I'm only seeing Verizon, but that might be because
> I'm in a lousy location.

Thanks Jeff for that detailed explanation of why I seem to only see the one
tower's cell id that I'm currently connected to.

My problem set is that I installed two different types of local microtowers
and I just wanted to know which ones I'm connected to, and at what
strength.

I have both iOS and Android devices, so it doesn't matter to me which I use
(the iOS devices have far larger screens, so they're preferable).

After running the various programs since last night, I can say that there
are two ways, overall, to get a "survey" of local towers.

1. The real-time apps, such as Network Signal Info, will constantly change
their cellid as they move from tower to tower, so, with screenshots, I can
capture that information for later use. (The tower changes seem to happen
more when I have lousy signal strength than when I have stronger signal
strength.)

2. The logging apps, such as Netmonitor & MyProfiles, seem to log the
various celltower IDs so that we can see a history over time of the cell
towers we have connected to.

Since they only show towers as numbers, it's hard at the moment to
correlate these logs to the two microtowers I have installed. So I'm going
to have to run a few surveys, near home (with and without the microtowers
powered up) and away from home (to remove from the logs the towers that
aren't within 1,000 feet or so of the house).

Over time, I should be able to figure out what the unique cellid of the
microtowers is (which may be a function of their MAC address or serial
numbers for all I know).

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:07 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> I really want to know WHERE the cell towers are. T-Mobile has piss-poor
> coverage in out-of-the-way places and rather than driving around in
> circles I'd like to at least head toward a tower. Will this do what I want?

Following up on what Jeff Liebermann had suggested, and depending on your
operating system, the Network Signal Info app seems to show you what
cellular tower you're connected to, which then can be found on the maps
within the app.

There are two important tabs:
1. Mobile tab
2. Cell Location tab

Here's the "Mobile" tab original screenshot:
http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg

And here's a screenshot of the "cell location" tab:
http://i.cubeupload.com/uHE3lA.jpg

Given the unique tower cell id, you can also look up its location
independently on the web, even down to the specific sector antenna that
you're connected to.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:21:40 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> 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.
>
> I used to design direction finders, so I have more than an average
> clue as to how this MIGHT be done. I'm not up to speed on cellular,
> but I think I can catch up. Basically, an SDR receiver that scans,
> looks for a signal direction, identifies it by RF sub-band and service
> area, draws a line on a map, and records the line. Drive around a
> little and soon you'll have many lines that cross at one point, which
> is the cell site. You won't get any ID numbers, but you can get those
> from any phone that can display the field service mode.
>
> Marketing research: How much would pay for such a device?

Jeff,
As an aside, I know extremely well a long-ago retired entrepreneur who made
a few dozen millions on Google stock who lives a couple homes away who
often funds enterprising people.

He runs a successful company that makes, sources, and sells technooid
things, so, he might be interested in funding you (for a cut, I would
guess). He also runs a local entrepreneur group that meets weekly on the
peninsula and he's always invited by Google to the Google fairs.

He's extremely technical, if a bit liberal in his politics, so he'll
understand everything technically that you'll be doing. At the very worst,
he'll give you suggestions for improvement.

If you're interested, just say so, and I'll drop you an email.
Otherwise, just ignore.

[Savageduck]

On 2017-02-17 03:06:07 +0000, The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> said:

> On 02/16/2017 02:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2017-02-16 20:57:54 +0000, Stijn De Jong <stijnd...@nlnet.nl> said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:54:17 -0500, Zaidy036 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Works on iPhone also
>>>
>>> In my first post I placed OpenSignal last on the list of Android apps
>>> simply because OpenSignal mostly seemed to be a lookup to Internet
>>> databases, which isn't what I'm after.
>>
>> I have OpenSignal on my iPhone and it located two Verizon towers in
>> the vicinity of my home out at Lake Nacimiento. It also provides usage
>> and signal data. I manages to do all I need of it.
>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/File%20Feb%2016%2C%2014%2010%2045.png>
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opensignal-speed-test-3g-4g/id598298030?mt=8>

I
>>
> just installed it, but as soon as the opening black-text-on-white
> screen (I guess I need to give some sort of permission) appears it
> blinks out and the 'OpenSignal has stopped..." error message pops up.

I have not had any issues running OpenSignal.

> I emailed the OpenSignal people, who want to know specifics...
>
> I really want to know WHERE the cell towers are. T-Mobile has
> piss-poor coverage in out-of-the-way places and rather than driving
> around in circles I'd like to at least head toward a tower. Will this
> do what I want?

I can only tell you that while Verizon has good coverage with at least
two towers where I live, T-Mobile is mediocre and shows no towers, and
both AT&T and Sprint are poor to non-existant, also showing no local
towers. This leads me to believe that T-Mobile, At&T, and Sprint are
actually roaming in my location, using the Verizon towers.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2017021619553985684-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> I can only tell you that while Verizon has good coverage with at least
> two towers where I live, T-Mobile is mediocre and shows no towers, and
> both AT&T and Sprint are poor to non-existant, also showing no local
> towers. This leads me to believe that T-Mobile, At&T, and Sprint are
> actually roaming in my location, using the Verizon towers.

sprint probably is, but att/tmo aren't.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:58:07 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I can only tell you that while Verizon has good coverage with at least
>> two towers where I live, T-Mobile is mediocre and shows no towers, and
>> both AT&T and Sprint are poor to non-existant, also showing no local
>> towers. This leads me to believe that T-Mobile, At&T, and Sprint are
>> actually roaming in my location, using the Verizon towers.
>
> sprint probably is, but att/tmo aren't.

The Network Signal Info app has three fields that may indicate which
carrier "owns" the network you are using:
1. Net operator (that has two fields currently T-Mobile / T-Mobile)
2. Sim operator (that has one field currently T-Mobile)

Here's a screenshot from the original post of those three fields:
http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg

All three of those fields, currently, are showing T-Mobile on my phone,
but, it might be that the net operator could show roaming by showing
different carriers in the first two fields?

There is also a "Roaming" section at the bottom, where, in mine it says:
Roaming: Roaming is OFF

It may be that, when you're roaming, you can see that roaming is on, and
then you might see a net operator of something like:
Verizon / Sprint
Instead of
Verizon / Verizon

[Savageduck]

AT&T coverage out here at Lake Nacimiento, West of Paso Robles, is
mostly bad to non-existant. That was my reason to not having an iPhone
until Verizon came onboard, and I seriously doubt that they are making
any effort to solidly establish their presence here in any competitive
way.
T-Mobile does have much better rural coverage than AT&T, but nowhere as
good as I get with Verizon.
As to whether or not any of them are using Verizon towers for roaming,
that is only conjecture on my part.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2017021620135464924-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> I can only tell you that while Verizon has good coverage with at least
> >> two towers where I live, T-Mobile is mediocre and shows no towers, and
> >> both AT&T and Sprint are poor to non-existant, also showing no local
> >> towers. This leads me to believe that T-Mobile, At&T, and Sprint are
> >> actually roaming in my location, using the Verizon towers.
> >
> > sprint probably is, but att/tmo aren't.
>
> AT&T coverage out here at Lake Nacimiento, West of Paso Robles, is
> mostly bad to non-existant. That was my reason to not having an iPhone
> until Verizon came onboard, and I seriously doubt that they are making
> any effort to solidly establish their presence here in any competitive
> way.
> T-Mobile does have much better rural coverage than AT&T, but nowhere as
> good as I get with Verizon.
> As to whether or not any of them are using Verizon towers for roaming,
> that is only conjecture on my part.

it's not conjecture on my part.

sprint/verizon have roaming agreements, as does att/t-mobile.

historically, sprint/verizon used cdma while att/tmo were gsm/hspa. the
two air interfaces are not compatible, so they *can't* roam on each
other's network.

now that all four carriers support lte, it's technically possible,
except that each carrier uses their own set of lte bands and not all
phone models have all of them (i can think of only 3-4 that do), so
it's not a realistic option. if they did offer it, most people would
not benefit.

roaming is usually just for voice/text, not data, however, it depends
on the specific plan, and there may be additional fees in some cases.

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.

[Lewis]

In message <2017021619553985684-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> This leads me to believe that T-Mobile, At&T, and Sprint are actually
> roaming in my location, using the Verizon towers.

That is not possible.

--
I thank my lucky stars I'm not superstitious.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:37:57 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong
<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

>Over time, I should be able to figure out what the unique cellid of the
>microtowers is (which may be a function of their MAC address or serial
>numbers for all I know).

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.

[Savageduck]

On 2017-02-17 06:31:19 +0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

> In message <2017021619553985684-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> This leads me to believe that T-Mobile, At&T, and Sprint are actually
>> roaming in my location, using the Verizon towers.
>
> That is not possible.

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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Lewis]

Of course you have to choose your mobile carrier based on your own
coverage needs. Traditionally Verizon has had the largest coverage area,
though t-mobile has been making large gains in recent years.

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).

--
Not all who wander are lost

[Carlos E. R.]

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, 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.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Mikko OH2HVJ]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> 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.

There are also cell tower location databases like Opencellid.

--
mikko

[Stijn De Jong]

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).

< off topic observation >
I dropped Verizon when they added a two-year contract just for replacing a
Kyocera phone that broke which I had under an insurance plan. That's where
I learned the insurance plan had gotchas they don't tell you about; so the
second that the additional two years were up, I went to AT&T (and saved a
few bucks, as it turned out).

I kept AT&T for about 4 or 5 years until I needed a plan sans data for my
family plan. The Blackberry was grandfathered, but AT&T wouldn't allow me
to have what they called a "smart phone" without data, even though they'd
happily block data (saying it was for "my protection"). I dropped AT&T like
a hot potatoe like I dropped Netflix when they changed their plan, and
never looked back on either one.

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.

And the coverage was about the same (sucky in the mountains, great in the
valley) for all three.

< / off topic observation >

[nospam]

In article <nkoind-...@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.

<robin_...@invalid.es> 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.

they do.

long ago, i used to put an old flip phone into service mode and see the
lat/long of the towers as it handed off.

[nospam]

In article <o879br$nht$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong

<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

> < off topic observation >
> I dropped Verizon when they added a two-year contract just for replacing a
> Kyocera phone that broke which I had under an insurance plan. That's where
> I learned the insurance plan had gotchas they don't tell you about; so the
> second that the additional two years were up, I went to AT&T (and saved a
> few bucks, as it turned out).
>
> I kept AT&T for about 4 or 5 years until I needed a plan sans data for my
> family plan. The Blackberry was grandfathered, but AT&T wouldn't allow me
> to have what they called a "smart phone" without data, even though they'd
> happily block data (saying it was for "my protection"). I dropped AT&T like
> a hot potatoe like I dropped Netflix when they changed their plan, and
> never looked back on either one.
>
> 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.

you can buy your own phone with any carrier.

until recently, the carriers would have preferred that since you would
have been paying a subsidy for a phone they did not subsidize. that's
more money for them.

now that they've mostly separated the phone price and the plan price,
they don't really care. sure, they'd love it if you bought it from them
but if you bring your own that's fine too (as long as it's compatible
with the network).

> 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.

you don't have to tell any carrier what phone you're using.

they already know.

[Stijn De Jong]

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

[Stijn De Jong]

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?

[Stijn De Jong]

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.

[Stijn De Jong]

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/details?id=com.wilysis.cellinfolite

02 Network Signal Info, version 3.63.01:
http://i.cubeupload.com/2zK8Ys.jpg
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.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/details?id=com.parizene.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.

[Savageduck]

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

[Stijn De Jong]

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)

[nospam]

In article <o87eo6$12cr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong

<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> 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.

[JF Mezei]

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.
A level at a tower rented by carrier will have a number of antennas each
pointing different directions.

Carriers spend oddles of time and sofphisticated software for
propagation analysis to precisely orient antennas to maximise re-use of
frequencies and maximize coverage.

If you have 2 nearby towers, the beams aimed to cover the area betwene
the 2 twoers will have different frequencies. But beams facing away from
each other can use the same frequencies since they won't interfere with
each other.

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.

If your phone can see signals from another antenna, then this may be
able to narrow that circle to only the part that faces the other antenna.

However, since modern phone have built-in GPS, they already know their
location.

[Carlos E. R.]

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.

[sms]

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.

[nospam]

In article <o87jb6$hnn$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> 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.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-02-17 14:44, nospam wrote:

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

Unfortunately, T-mobile was abandonned for a few years, while waiting to
be absorbed into AT&T, and AT&T didn't want t-mobile to fix areas where
AT&T had existing coverage.

Once the merger was killed, then t-mobile had no choice but to fend for
its survival and start investing to fix its network instead to of
preparing to shutdown every area where AT&T was already covering.

So yes, T-mobile has improved significantly since the merger was killed,
but those years of abandonment are still felt because it hasn't caught
up fully yet.

As a note of comparison:

in 1998/1999, at a motel in upstate NY, I had Omnipoint coverage on a
Nokia 1900-only phone.

In 2010, I had none. Nothing. Nada. (T-Mobile bought Voicestream which
had bought Omnipoint). I reckon T-Mo had shutdown that antenna because
AT&T was already covering the area.

Unfortunately, AT&T SIMs disable the ability to manually check for
available networks on iphone, so with an AT&T SIM I can't check if
T-Mobile has regained coverage there.

[nospam]

In article <58a7672f$0$9555$b1db1813$e2fc...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> 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.

[The Real Bev]

On 02/16/2017 07:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:07 -0800, The Real Bev
> <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I really want to know WHERE the cell towers are. T-Mobile has piss-poor
>>coverage in out-of-the-way places and rather than driving around in
>>circles I'd like to at least head toward a tower. Will this do what I want?

>
> 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.
>

> I used to design direction finders, so I have more than an average
> clue as to how this MIGHT be done. I'm not up to speed on cellular,
> but I think I can catch up. Basically, an SDR receiver that scans,
> looks for a signal direction, identifies it by RF sub-band and service
> area, draws a line on a map, and records the line. Drive around a
> little and soon you'll have many lines that cross at one point, which
> is the cell site. You won't get any ID numbers, but you can get those
> from any phone that can display the field service mode.
>
> Marketing research: How much would pay for such a device?

Nothing. I've been hooked on 'free' for a long time, especially since
the paid version is rarely significantly better than the free version.

Exception: EBookDroid. The guy is in Russia and can't take PayPal
directly. We bought the paid version and even wanted to send him some
money, but we can't.

He responds to email and fixes stuff if it needs fixing or improving.
Just what hubby used to do when he was selling software.

--
Cheers, Bev
"If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than
if you just drank gin straight from the bottle."
- Garrison Keillor

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-02-17 17:21, nospam wrote:

> that's a bit of revisionist history.
>
> t-mobile got a chunk of cash as a result of the merger not going
> through, which they used to expand their network.

Prior to the merger being blocked, T-Mo had throun in the towel. T-Mobil
(DE) had signaled it wanted out of US business amd T-Mo (USA) had
stopped investing since it knew its customers would fall onto AT&T's network

Once deal was killed by FCC, T-MO did get cash and spectrum, and that
allowed it to bring itself back to life. But it does not negate the fact
that they had thrown in the towel before, hoping to be bought by AT&T.

> they also refarmed their network so that aws is not required anymore.

The refarming should have been done way before. But wasn't because T-Mo
was expeciting to shutdown its network and move its customers over to
AT&T, at which point, the iPhone would work.

At time of abandonment, T-Mo had 2G on 1900 and 3g on 1700 (aws). No
LTE. Once it got the jolt to bring it back to life, the refarming
allowed it to put 3G on 1900 and LTE on 1700.

The big guys lobbied to limit 1700 to LTE. That left T-Mobile as an
orphan trying to put 3G on 1700, limiting equipmnent and handset
support. (hence no iPhone for so long).

Once FCC killed AT&T purchase of T-Mo, the iPhone magically became
available for 3G on 1700 (benefiting canadian new entrants who only have
1700) and the influx of spectrum allowed T0Mo to start shifting 3G from
1700 to 1900 so it could start to deploy LTE on 1700.

But the only reason it didn't do that before was that it was expecting
to shutdown its network so there was no point spending money to refarm
your spectrum if it will be shutdown not long after AT&T signs the deal
on dotted line.

[nospam]

In article <58a7834e$0$61762$c3e8da3$e074...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> 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.

[The Real Bev]

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

[nospam]

In article <o8816k$3nj$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> 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.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:27:15 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashl...@gmail.com> 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 je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[sms]

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.

[sms]

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.

[Jeff Liebermann]

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]

Not exactly. The handset has to pass an SAR (specific absorption
rate) test in order to convince the FCC that the handset is not going
to fry the users brain with too much RF. To make that work, handset
antennas are usually located on the side away from the users head, at
the bottom of the phone, or backed by a metal shield. On simulations
and in an RF anechoic chamber, the antenna pattern is somewhat
directional favoring the directions away from the users head.

"Mobile Phone in Vicinity of Human Head - SAR calculation"
<http://www.wipl-d.com/applications.php?cont=emc/sar-calculation>
See Fig 8:

As for the tower antenna patterns being direction, it's a matter of
what you consider directional. In the typical 3 sided tower
configuration, the sector antennas have a horizontal beamwidth of
about 60 degrees. The tower can and does indicate which sector is
being used, but that has a granularity of 120 degrees, which is hardly
accurate enough to determine anyones position. On systems that use
various forms of AGPS (augmented GPS) using TDOA (time difference of
arrival), two different towers can obtain a location fix of a handset.
That requires double the number of available receivers, two towers
that can hear the handset, and the necessary technology. That's why
I've only seen it on demonstration projects. It's also useless for
locating the tower, which I believe was the topic of discussion prior
to this topic drift.

The vertical beamwidth of sector antennas is very sharp. The vertical
beamwidth and downtilt angle are the major contributors to what
determines the coverage area of a cell site. Too narrow, and signal
will go over the heads of users close to the tower. Too wide, and the
tower will be talking to gophers and airplanes, not users on the
ground. For example, a common Andrew HBXX-6517DS-VTM antenna:
http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/product_details.aspx?id=15654
has a horizontal beamwidth of 66 degrees, and a vertical beamwidth of
4.7 degrees. Draw a 5 degree angle on a piece of paper and you'll see
the problem. It's bad enough that there are products to vertically
align sector antennas to about +/-0.1 degrees.
<https://sunsight.com>
<https://sunsight.com/index.php/products/95-sunsight-instruments/products/199-antenna-alignment-tool>
However, that's also useless for locating handsets, unless you want
the altitude.

Dinner... gotta run.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:35:54 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The difference between ATT/Sprint and T-Mobile/Verizon was stark.
>
> that depends where.

I agree.
My comment was only in relation to the locale that Savageduck reported,
which was Lake Nac...Naci......eh ... Lake N-something.

> in major urban areas, there's no significant difference among any of
> the carriers, while in rural areas, one might be better than another,
> and which carrier that is will vary.

Yup. I just ran an Opensignal report for Cupertino, California, and
T-Mobile arguably is slightly better than AT&T & Verizon, but they're
effectively the same.

AT&T http://i.cubeupload.com/2NuF7b.jpg
T-Mobile http://i.cubeupload.com/o8kiZ9.jpg
Verizon http://i.cubeupload.com/dcfRhq.jpg

> even verizon has dead spots. all carriers do.

All three maps show holes in the coverage, even in Cupertino, which is
essentially near the heart of Silicon Valley.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:11:10 -0800, sms wrote:

> For users that never travel outside of urban areas T-Mobile is usable,
> but if you like to travel to, or through, rural areas, it's not a good
> choice.

I travel a decent amount around northern California, given I have grandkids
in various schools and kids scattered about with family.

T-Mobile is fine.

Since none of us are gonna run our own tests with three phones in our hands
for weeks on end, I would guess the coverage maps are what we'll have to
use.

What's the best coverage map site that covers all three carriers?
We can arbitrary pick where you live and where I live and see how the
coverage goes.

Here is OpenSignal for, say, the middle of Cupertino, for example.

All I did was:
1. Go to https://opensignal.com/network-coverage-maps/
2. Pick the carrier
3. Type in "Cupertino, CA"

I left the zoom level and everything else exactly as it was found.

AT&T http://i.cubeupload.com/2NuF7b.jpg
T-Mobile http://i.cubeupload.com/o8kiZ9.jpg
Verizon http://i.cubeupload.com/dcfRhq.jpg

Looking at those maps, they're about the same, although I could argue there
are fewer holes in T-Mobile than in either AT&T or Verizon, but I'll just
say they're about the same which is a tenable assertion.

[Stijn De Jong]

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.

[Lewis]

In message <o87b2f$riu$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Stijn De Jong <stijnd...@nlnet.nl> 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

[Stijn De Jong]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:25:52 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> The one that provides LTE coverage. As far as I know, they only have one
> of those.

I have two completely different types of CellSpot devices, both of which
say LTE.

Here is a photo of one type in my house, called "CellSpot" and "LTE":
http://i.cubeupload.com/uNXXgZ.jpg

Here is a photo of another type alongside it, also called "CellSpot" and
"LTE":
https://u.cubeupload.com/WoN2gQ.jpg

They are extremely different, even though the T-Mobile MARKETING calls both
of them a "CellSpot" and "4G LTE".
https://u.cubeupload.com/dIGbMo.jpg

Which type do you have?
The whole reason for this thread was to distinguish between the two.

>> How many decibels of cellular signal do you get from them?
>
> In the basement (cellspot is in the garage) I have -78dB currently. If I
> go into the garage it's about -60dB-65dB, IIRC.

That's absolutely astoundingly high cellular signal strength (RSSI).
All the articles put the range at -50 to -110 or -120dBm.

Are you getting that from your T-Mobile micro tower?
How do you know? (Because that's the entire reason for this thread.)

[Lewis]

In message <170220171335545844%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <o87eo6$12cr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong
> <stijnd...@nlnet.nl> 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 shitty thing about Omaha.

> even verizon has dead spots. all carriers do.

Sure. At my Mom's house there was no signal at all for Sprint and only
"standing in the backyard" signal with Verizon, while both AT&T and
T-Mobile were fine.

However, I will say that up until a few years ago it sure seemed like
Verizon had fewer than the others. Now I feel like T-Mobile has caught
up.

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

That seems like the best plan.

--
'Is it heroic to die like this?' said Conina. 'I think it is,' he said,
'and when it comes to dying, there's only one opinion that matters.'

[Lewis]

In message <nkoind-...@minas-tirith.valinor> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@invalid.es> 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.

[Lewis]

In message <58a7672f$0$9555$b1db1813$e2fc...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> 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 shit.

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other. They don't
really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other. They don't
really mean it.

[Stijn De Jong]

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.

[sms]

Those maps don't really show the coverage holes, nor are they
up-to-date. I.e. Verizon just put in a tower right next to Cupertino
City Hall (a fake tree) that has improved coverage.

But the issue is not in urban and suburban areas, it's outside of those
areas. Vast areas of California with no T-Mobile coverage at all, and a
lot of those places are places that we like to go.

[nospam]

In article <o889s8$ur7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> 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.

[Stijn De Jong]

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).

[Stijn De Jong]

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.

[Stijn De Jong]

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?

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2017-02-18 02:37, Lewis wrote:
> In message <nkoind-...@minas-tirith.valinor> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@invalid.es> 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.

[nospam]

In article <o88ahl$99g$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong

<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> 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.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:37:03 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <nkoind-...@minas-tirith.valinor> Carlos E. R. <robin_...@invalid.es> 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.

[nospam]

In article <tjcfacpudfdh1vf3s...@4ax.com>, Jeff

Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> 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.

[tlvp]

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.

[Savageduck]

On 2017-02-18 00:03:15 +0000, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> 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

[Savageduck]

On 2017-02-18 02:21:29 +0000, Stijn De Jong <stijnd...@nlnet.nl> 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

[nospam]

In article <ejhv69c7avlw$.1rhuccx6...@40tude.net>, tlvp

<mPiOsUcB...@att.net> 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.

[Mikko OH2HVJ]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:

> 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.

You could use GPS coordinates or just scan all the frequencies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands

LTE is a pain, we're just moving from a global 3G/UMTS product to LTE.
This means a different antenna design, LTE module version and whatever
for each region and even operator specific ones :-(

--
mikko

[Lewis]

In message <o888eq$6kg$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Stijn De Jong <stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:
> 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

that's the only LTE CellSpot I've seen. It has blinkenlights.

> Here is a photo of another type alongside it, also called "CellSpot" and
> "LTE":
> https://u.cubeupload.com/WoN2gQ.jpg

Those are 4G LTE signal boosters which I've never seen before. They were
not on offer from T-Mobile when I asked about a CellSpot for my home.

>> 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.

-50 is the maximum possible, and below -120 there is no signal.

> Are you getting that from your T-Mobile micro tower?
> How do you know? (Because that's the entire reason for this thread.)

my iPhone displays the dB in the upper left corner. I's at -78 again.

--
I mistook thee for thy better Hamlet Act III scene 4

[Lewis]

No no, orange juice isn't from oranges! First you have to peel the
orange, and then you have to squeeze it. It's not part of the orange!

Whatever.

--
I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having.

[tlvp]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:21:15 -0500, nospam wrote:

> they also refarmed their network so that aws is not required anymore.

Smoking some good stuff, eh? Clue: Amazon Web Services was never required.

[nospam]

In article <flzlm4pfb3is$.10u4v64w...@40tude.net>, tlvp

<mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

>
> > they also refarmed their network so that aws is not required anymore.
>
> Smoking some good stuff, eh? Clue: Amazon Web Services was never required.

clue: don't comment about things you don't understand.

clue#2: don't smoke whatever it is you're smoking.

[tlvp]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:23:56 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong wrote:

> Since none of us are gonna run our own tests with three phones in our hands
> for weeks on end,

Right. No three phones, just two. And no tests "for weeks on end," just
casual observations. T-Mo vs. VZW:

* Most places in NE I check signal, they're both present and adequate.
* Some places I find T-Mo service utterly absent, but VZW strong enough to
* use (in some of those, at&t is accessible, but won't allow T-Mo roaming).
* Some places I was hoping to find VZW, that one's absent, but T-Mo is OK.
* Still other places neither is usably present.

Others' experiences are almost sure to differ. Cheers, -- tlvp

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-02-17 23:36, tlvp wrote:

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

In that scenario, you really have 2 phones and each attaches itself to
only 1 antanna/radio.

Just because a phone can SEE signals from multiple antennas does not
mean that it has concurrent active communication to multiple antennas.

[The Real Bev]

On 02/17/2017 04:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:27:15 -0800, The Real Bev
> <bashl...@gmail.com> 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).

Fine with me. Just how much can a person make from app-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.

And yet people do it...

--
Cheers, Bev
"My dad used to say: Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you.
Cry, and I'll give you something to cry about you little
bastard." -Jeff Goldblum

[nospam]

In article <o8ad3c$8ru$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> 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).
>
> Fine with me. Just how much can a person make from app-advertising?

a lot.

<http://www.adweek.com/digital/googles-ad-revenue-hits-19-billion-even-m
obile-continues-pose-challenges-172722/>
During the second quarter of 2016, Alphabet's revenue hit $21.5
billion, a 21 percent year-over-year increase. Of that revenue, $19.1
billion came from Google's advertising business, up from $16 billion
a year ago.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:12:20 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> 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.

Hi Jeff,

This article describes the three 120-degree sectors:
Alpha is the North FACING vertical antenna on the cell tower
Beta is the Southeast FACING vertical antenna on the cell tower
Gamma is the Southwest FACING vertical antenna on the cell tower
http://www.evdoforums.com/thread15374.html

There is a way to tell which sector antenna you're connected to from the
cell id. Also, the newer Android APIs now seem to expose the frequency
bands:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/cellular_repeater_inside.shtml

[Stijn De Jong]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>> Here is a photo of one type in my house, called "CellSpot" and "LTE":
>> http://i.cubeupload.com/uNXXgZ.jpg
>
> that's the only LTE CellSpot I've seen. It has blinkenlights.

Thanks for confirming which one, because there is an entire thread on the
various very different "things" that T-Mobile MARKETING calls a "Personal
CellSpot" which they also call a "4G LTE CellSpot" such that saying those
words is rendered meaningless.

If someone says they have a CellSpot, or a "Personal CellSpot", all they're
definitively saying is that they have a micro tower, but there are multiple
types of similarly branded micro towers, each of which is quite different
in operation.

1. One type is a signal booster, which is purely cellular.
2. Another type is a microtower connected to your Internet router.
3. A third type is a router (I have not tested this type yet).
4. A fourth type is an access point (I haven't tested this either, yet).
5. And, while we're at it, there is WiFi calling (which isn't a "cellspot")

>> Here is a photo of another type alongside it, also called "CellSpot" and
>> "LTE":
>> https://u.cubeupload.com/WoN2gQ.jpg
>
> Those are 4G LTE signal boosters which I've never seen before. They were
> not on offer from T-Mobile when I asked about a CellSpot for my home.

Yes, but my point is that they also are branded by T-Mobile MARKETING as a
"Personal CellSpot" and they all say "4G LTE".

The only difference in branding is in the final word *after* the
meaningless "CellSpot" brand name (and in the case of the one you have,
they don't even put a final word after the meaningless "CellSpot" brand
name).

>>> 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.
>
> -50 is the maximum possible, and below -120 there is no signal.
>
>> Are you getting that from your T-Mobile micro tower?
>> How do you know? (Because that's the entire reason for this thread.)
>
> my iPhone displays the dB in the upper left corner. I's at -78 again.

I knew how you got the decibel RSSI (received signal strength indication),
but the question was how do you know which "tower" you're getting your
current signal from.

As far as anyone can tell, it's impossible to get the cell id tower from
the phone on an iOS device, so you have to use an Android device to figure
that out.

I have a similar setup to yours, except that I have at least three (and
maybe more) towers for my phone to choose from (two of which are inside my
own home).

So just having a decibel reading doesn't tell me *which* tower I'm
connected to (since there are at least three or more to choose from).

The good news is that my decibel readings are now in the -50dBm to -60dBm
range (instead of the minus 90 to minus 100 decibel range as they were
before I hooked up the micro towers!).

[nospam]

In article <o8adfn$1c5u$5...@gioia.aioe.org>, Stijn De Jong

<stijnd...@nlnet.nl> wrote:

> >>> 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.
> >
> > -50 is the maximum possible, and below -120 there is no signal.
> >
> >> Are you getting that from your T-Mobile micro tower?
> >> How do you know? (Because that's the entire reason for this thread.)
> >
> > my iPhone displays the dB in the upper left corner. I's at -78 again.
>
> I knew how you got the decibel RSSI (received signal strength indication),
> but the question was how do you know which "tower" you're getting your
> current signal from.

based on what you've written, no, you did not know that.

> As far as anyone can tell, it's impossible to get the cell id tower from
> the phone on an iOS device,

wrong.

> so you have to use an Android device to figure
> that out.

maybe you do, but the rest of the world doesn't, assuming they even
care what the tower id is.

everyone *other* than cellular engineers don't care, and the cellular
engineers have *far* more sophisticated equipment to find out than by
using an android or ios phone.

[Stijn De Jong]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:43:40 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> My GSM phones show a valid lat-long. My CDMA phones show no data.

Hi Jeff,
I'm still trying to figure this stuff out, but I noticed this MIT app
(CellTracker) "attempts" to show both what the GPS says and the latitude
and longitude for Verizon.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/images/Screenshot_2013-04-16-15-29-00

CellTracker:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/CellTracker

[Stijn De Jong]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 03:23:29 +0100, 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.
>
> 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.

This finding-where-the-tower is stuff is all new to me, but from what I've
been reading, it's impossible to do on an iPhone, and, the directional
pointer on OpenSignal is, at best, a wild-assed guess.

I'm still trying to figure all this out, but, it seems that OpenSignal is
likely a phony app that simply uses your cellular connection to *guess*
which cell tower you're connected to (based purely on your signal strength
and carrier).

The actual location of the tower is well known to be wrong, since it's
merely an average location of the *cell phones*!

Yup. They don't locate the tower.
They simply average the location of the cellphone locations!

Says so here:
"In OpenSignal ... the tower locations reported are not the actual
antenna coordinates but the average of coordinates where cell phones were
when they connected to that antenna"
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/cellular_repeater_inside.shtml

Here's a classic result of the OpenSignal inaccurate averaging algorithm:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/images/20111130072559.png

[Stijn De Jong]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:22:35 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>> 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.
>
> No no, orange juice isn't from oranges! First you have to peel the
> orange, and then you have to squeeze it. It's not part of the orange!
>
> Whatever.

I had never used these apps before a couple of days ago, but now, after
using a dozen of these cellular reporting apps, I'd assess OpenSignal to be
almost non-functional compared to the apps that actually report correct
information.

As a "toy" app, OpenSignal is fine; but for correct and accurate
information, OpenSignal appears to be a veritable bust.

Still, it's one of the only related apps that my iOS device can run, so,
even a toy app such as OpenSignal appears to be (compared to, say, Network
Cell Info Lite) is better than nothing I guess.

[Stijn De Jong]

The great news is that I've gotten my cellular signal up from around
-100dBm to consistently better than -60dBm, which is an astoundingly
astronomical improvement in signal strength!

For example, here is a reading, just now, of -53dBm on my cellphone:
http://i.cubeupload.com/GEYEzS.jpg

From what I've read, cellular signal doesn't get much better than that.

However, there is so much data that each of these apps output that I'm
still going through all the useful information to figure out exactly which
device is doing what (since I have an old micro tower and a new femto tower
in my house).