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

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?

Reply to
Stijn De Jong
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
Stijn De Jong

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:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
02 Network Signal Info, version 3.63.01:
formatting link
formatting link

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:
formatting link
formatting link

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.

Reply to
Stijn De Jong

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
Reply to
Savageduck

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)

Reply to
Stijn De Jong

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.

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.

that doesn't do much good if there's no t-mobile coverage in the places where someone wants to use it.

the easiest way is pop in a t-mobile sim.

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

Reply to
nospam

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.

Reply to
JF Mezei

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.
Reply to
Carlos E. R.

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

cancelled it about a month after we got back because it was so horrible.

Reply to
sms

they're all about the same.

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

that has more to do with the frequencies used than the carrier.

Reply to
nospam

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.

Reply to
JF Mezei

there was no abandonment.

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.

Reply to
nospam

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 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Real Bev

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.

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.

Reply to
JF Mezei

no towel was thrown.

it did get a boost from the cash and spectrum but it was hardly dead.

nope.

there was no abandonment.

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.

nope. t-mobile got aws because it was cheaper.

nope.

nope. there was no planned shutdown.

Reply to
nospam

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 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Real Bev

t-mobile coverage, even on that plan, is *much* more than just 'interstates and big cities'.

then why keep it at all?

only because you haven't researched what options exist.

Reply to
nospam

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     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I have one T-Mobile phone with that plan still. I hate to let it go because it's only $10 per year.

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 .

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.

Reply to
sms

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 . 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.

Reply to
sms

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.