From what I've read that US leads in LTE deployment. In concentrated areas like NYC, Chicago, SF and Dallas that have large deployment, they have poor performance because the infrastructure can't handle the load. Apparently, the CEO of Verizon recently said that Verizon is at capacity in these areas -- and cannot add additional bandwidth.
VZW is now using AWS for performance improvements.
From what I've read that US leads in LTE deployment. In concentrated areas like NYC, Chicago, SF and Dallas that have large deployment, they have poor performance because the infrastructure can't handle the load. Apparently, the CEO of Verizon recently said that Verizon is at capacity in these areas -- and cannot add additional bandwidth.
VZW is now using AWS for performance improvements.
I wonder how much time that will buy Verizon .... How long before they saturate the AWS spectrum in dense usage areas?
And, the capability is only available on some recent (2013 & later) LTE phones.
I live in a metro area, and, ironically, two blocks from a T-Mobile store. The T-Mobile coverage here is not good, according to those I know who have T-Mobile. ATT, otoh, is awesome. I've considered switching in the past, since ATT costs more. But it isn't worth it.
There are definitely places, though, where there are fewer trees than people. Heck, I lived in one of those places for a year: Tempe, AZ. There were probably more people in my dorm* than there were trees in all of Tempe.
* = my dorm had 15 floors, btw.
Are you including palm trees as trees or grass because I recall there are plenty at Palm Walk alone. The internet says 111.
I love when they do that because it's so visually appalling. That said, that is the nicest looking fauxliage (I may have just coined that*) I've seen for cell phone towers. The palm and conifer fauzliage trees are easily found when you know what to look for.
* Nope! Not even close, but I will say all the uses I noticed seem to refer to a band name.
I wonder how much time that will buy Verizon .... How long before they saturate the AWS spectrum in dense usage areas?
And, the capability is only available on some recent (2013 & later) LTE phones.
Barring some new tech I wouldn't be surprised if they take a page out of AT&T's play book, and offer free wifi in the areas where usage is highest.
Wouldn't that be just another delaying tactic? As I understand it WiFi networks are subject to similar capacity, interference and saturation problems as cell radios.
We live in the suburbs and here's the WiFi bands I detect on my Mac:
As you can see, there are at least * 20 WiFi routers within range -- creating interference and degrading each others performance. Note that many have switched to the 5 GHz band to avoid interference on the 2.5 GHz band.
* The number differs depending on time of day and day of week.
Here are some charts from a video I posted -- AFAICT the same problems will/are affecting WiFi:
I love when they do that because it's so visually appalling. That said, that is the nicest looking fauxliage (I may have just coined that*) I've seen for cell phone towers. The palm and conifer fauzliage trees are easily found when you know what to look for.
* Nope! Not even close, but I will say all the uses I noticed seem to refer to a band name.
I love the term fauxliage -- it fits here, perfectly!
I also ran across this bit of wisdom while surfing for fauxliage:
“A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way"
-Mark Twain.
The point was made above that some US locales have too few cellular towers. (Probably not New Jersey, which is littered with the eyesores, even including the faux-tree towers.) But virtually every US town is populated by a vast number of utility poles--heck, we've deforested our mountains and re-forested our towns with their embalmed trunks. It is insane that these poles, which already carry both power and communication wiring, are not being utilized as mini-cell towers. They're already an eyesore, and adding another antenna on top would not make it much worse.
I don't know how they got away with it, but In some areas Verizon installed their FiOS fiber optic cables from pole to pole is big plastic pipes. The wires were bad enough. The service is still very expensive as they didn't pass the savings to their customers.
In the wealthy hill communities in the Los Angeles area from Hollywood, to Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Malibu there is very little or no cellular service and it's 2014.
As a frequent traveller to Europe, I've never seen those speeds in Italy, UK, and Germany. From my experience, the speeds here in the U.S. are much faster compared to every European country I've been in. A lot of countries in Europe don't even have an LTE network yet. Places like the UK have just recently started adding LTE networks across the country.
I don't know how they got away with it, but In some areas Verizon installed their FiOS fiber optic cables from pole to pole is big plastic pipes. The wires were bad enough. The service is still very expensive as they didn't pass the savings to their customers.
In the wealthy hill communities in the Los Angeles area from Hollywood, to Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Malibu there is very little or no cellular service and it's 2014.
Verizon lost big on FiOS. They've already given up the plans they had for expanding the service into other regions. Any future improvements entail filling in network gaps for the areas where they've already installed FiOS service, and milking their existing infrastructure for whatever revenue they can squeeze from it.
Wealthy areas are also the likeliest to mount stiff opposition to additional cell towers. In Palo Alto, AT&T (and others) has had spotty cell coverage for years. They proposed installing a cell site hidden inside of a church building clock tower, and nearby residents went ballistic, threatening lawsuits, and pressuring the City Council not to approve them. Then AT&T decided to go with a distributed system of multiple cell antennas mounted on utility poles. Opposition shot that proposal down as well. Another system of dispersed antennas wound up finally getting City Council approval, but this took a four-year process and cell coverage is still not great.
Verizon lost big on FiOS. They've already given up the plans they had for expanding the service into other regions. Any future improvements entail filling in network gaps for the areas where they've already installed FiOS service, and milking their existing infrastructure for whatever revenue they can squeeze from it.
Verizon didn't lose, they just got tired of all the hoops they had to jump through in order to offer TV. The current CEO came from the wireless side, and concerns himself more with that than the landline side.
Comments
VZW is now using AWS for performance improvements.
I wonder how much time that will buy Verizon .... How long before they saturate the AWS spectrum in dense usage areas?
And, the capability is only available on some recent (2013 & later) LTE phones.
I live in a metro area, and, ironically, two blocks from a T-Mobile store. The T-Mobile coverage here is not good, according to those I know who have T-Mobile. ATT, otoh, is awesome. I've considered switching in the past, since ATT costs more. But it isn't worth it.
Barring some new tech I wouldn't be surprised if they take a page out of AT&T's play book, and offer free wifi in the areas where usage is highest.
Sweet Jesus, is nothing sacred:
I love when they do that because it's so visually appalling. That said, that is the nicest looking fauxliage (I may have just coined that*) I've seen for cell phone towers. The palm and conifer fauzliage trees are easily found when you know what to look for.
* Nope! Not even close, but I will say all the uses I noticed seem to refer to a band name.
As a word that applies to what it actually means, yes. But who cares about some band, anyway.
Wouldn't that be just another delaying tactic? As I understand it WiFi networks are subject to similar capacity, interference and saturation problems as cell radios.
We live in the suburbs and here's the WiFi bands I detect on my Mac:
As you can see, there are at least * 20 WiFi routers within range -- creating interference and degrading each others performance. Note that many have switched to the 5 GHz band to avoid interference on the 2.5 GHz band.
* The number differs depending on time of day and day of week.
Here are some charts from a video I posted -- AFAICT the same problems will/are affecting WiFi:
I love the term fauxliage -- it fits here, perfectly!
I also ran across this bit of wisdom while surfing for fauxliage:
“A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way"
-Mark Twain.
Here ... You pick-em:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tree+cell+towers&qpvt=tree+cell+towers&FORM=IGRE
My God, what kind of planet/values are we leaving behind us!
-Mark Twain.
Oh, that reminds me of another one.
“Only when a mosquito lands on your testicles do you realize that all problems can be solved without violence.”
– Unknown
LOL Too true!
Edit: reminds me of the classic cure for crabs involving a razor, gasoline and an ice pick:
I too love the term. Looking through the pics, and they're not bad. It beats the eyesore a cell tower can be amongst such lovely trees.
More BS.
In the US there are approximately 247 billion trees. The population of the US is 314 million
You must live in New Jersey.
First, I jokingly made that up, and second, I didn't mean the entire country I meant rural areas.
If you look to the sky at night and don't see any stars, you live in the ghetto.
There are plenty of rural ghettos.
If you look to the sky at night and don't see any stars, you live in the ghetto.
There are plenty of rural ghettos.
I was just presenting the equivalent of your false dilemma of the "sticks"
The point was made above that some US locales have too few cellular towers. (Probably not New Jersey, which is littered with the eyesores, even including the faux-tree towers.) But virtually every US town is populated by a vast number of utility poles--heck, we've deforested our mountains and re-forested our towns with their embalmed trunks. It is insane that these poles, which already carry both power and communication wiring, are not being utilized as mini-cell towers. They're already an eyesore, and adding another antenna on top would not make it much worse.
I don't know how they got away with it, but In some areas Verizon installed their FiOS fiber optic cables from pole to pole is big plastic pipes. The wires were bad enough. The service is still very expensive as they didn't pass the savings to their customers.
In the wealthy hill communities in the Los Angeles area from Hollywood, to Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Malibu there is very little or no cellular service and it's 2014.
This article disagrees with you: http://www.zdnet.com/the-state-of-lte-4g-networks-worldwide-in-2014-and-the-poor-performance-of-the-us-7000026594/
As a frequent traveller to Europe, I've never seen those speeds in Italy, UK, and Germany. From my experience, the speeds here in the U.S. are much faster compared to every European country I've been in. A lot of countries in Europe don't even have an LTE network yet. Places like the UK have just recently started adding LTE networks across the country.
I don't know how they got away with it, but In some areas Verizon installed their FiOS fiber optic cables from pole to pole is big plastic pipes. The wires were bad enough. The service is still very expensive as they didn't pass the savings to their customers.
In the wealthy hill communities in the Los Angeles area from Hollywood, to Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Malibu there is very little or no cellular service and it's 2014.
Verizon lost big on FiOS. They've already given up the plans they had for expanding the service into other regions. Any future improvements entail filling in network gaps for the areas where they've already installed FiOS service, and milking their existing infrastructure for whatever revenue they can squeeze from it.
Wealthy areas are also the likeliest to mount stiff opposition to additional cell towers. In Palo Alto, AT&T (and others) has had spotty cell coverage for years. They proposed installing a cell site hidden inside of a church building clock tower, and nearby residents went ballistic, threatening lawsuits, and pressuring the City Council not to approve them. Then AT&T decided to go with a distributed system of multiple cell antennas mounted on utility poles. Opposition shot that proposal down as well. Another system of dispersed antennas wound up finally getting City Council approval, but this took a four-year process and cell coverage is still not great.
Verizon didn't lose, they just got tired of all the hoops they had to jump through in order to offer TV. The current CEO came from the wireless side, and concerns himself more with that than the landline side.