Which app do you use to scan/debug GSM/CDMA cellular tower s

[nospam]

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

 

[Savageduck]

On 2017-02-18 02:21:29 +0000, Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@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

 

[sms]

On 2/17/2017 5:23 PM, Stijn De Jong wrote:

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.

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.

 

[Lewis]

In message <o888eq$6kg$1@gioia.aioe.org> Stijn De Jong <stijndekonlng@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]

In message <2qnknd-n16.ln1@minas-tirith.valinor> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:

On 2017-02-18 02:37, Lewis wrote:
In message <nkoind-hkg.ln1@minas-tirith.valinor> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@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.

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.

 

[nospam]

In article <ejhv69c7avlw$.1rhuccx6q8qpi.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@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 <jeffl@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

 

[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!).

 

[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).

 

On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 9:24:29 AM UTC-5, Lewis wrote:

In message <2qnknd-n16.ln1@minas-tirith.valinor> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
On 2017-02-18 02:37, Lewis wrote:
In message <nkoind-hkg.ln1@minas-tirith.valinor> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@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.

No no, orange juice isn't from oranges!

Correct. Its from water, other molecules, elements and sunlight absorbed by the Orange Tree.

 

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:52:24 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong wrote:

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?

Summary of the freebie app selected after a few days of testing.

I've dumped the freeware version of Network Signal Info because it kept
hanging, and opted to use as my primary real-time app "Network Cell Info
Lite" (The best logging app was NetMonitor).

One nice thing about Network Signal Info payware is that it reports not
only the current (aka registered) cell, but also the neighbor cell
strengths.
http://wilysis.com/networkcellinfo

Here are some screenshots of today's scan to help you see what it reports.

The good news is that I've brought my signal strength in the mountains,
miles from the nearest T-Mobile tower, up from around minus ninety to minus
one hundred decibels to consistently better than minus fifty-five to minus
sixty-five decibels (which is astounding!).

Here are the results of a scan this morning from my new "gsm" folder:
http://i.cubeupload.com/lgDafB.jpg

In this scan are the unique cell tower identification numbers:
http://i.cubeupload.com/5H7qmX.jpg

The second tab shows the ever-changing raw data in text format:
http://i.cubeupload.com/3gMofW.jpg

While the third tab shows a time-sequence graph showing consistency:
http://i.cubeupload.com/3rDsHX.jpg

There are multiple plots of multiple types of signal strengths:
http://i.cubeupload.com/4HQqh8.jpg

And a quick table of DATA ON/OFF connection percentage statistics:
http://i.cubeupload.com/NQ0xJU.jpg

You can export the entire database in multiple file formats:
http://i.cubeupload.com/W1AAaK.jpg

And there is a nice summary page of the device & sim card information:
http://i.cubeupload.com/hCXKXJ.jpg

I may end up getting the payware if I can't find a freeware app that
reports the neighbor cell strengths, which would also be useful
information.

But there are plenty of freeware apps to explore, e.g., this MIT app:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bkph/CellTracker.shtml

 

[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.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

 

[nospam]

In article <flzlm4pfb3is$.10u4v64wxkd0y.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@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
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

 

[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.

 

[Stijn De Jong]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:52:24 +0000 (UTC), Stijn De Jong wrote:

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?

This is a question and initial observation for Jeff Liebermann.

QUESTION:
Does a cellular booster propagate the original cell tower identification?
(Or does the boosted signal have its own cell tower identification number?)

OBSERVATION:
1. I can range my cellular signal strength by almost half a million times:
http://i.cubeupload.com/zN4Dkb.jpg

2. I ran an experiment, starting with a stead very good signal strength:
http://i.cubeupload.com/TPLLXF.jpg

3. Then I unplugged, one by one, the two micro towers in my house:
http://i.cubeupload.com/ciKH3h.jpg

Interestingly, when I unplugged the router-connected micro tower, I could
see the unique cell tower ID change immediately to a set of cell towers
that are known to be within a few miles of me.

Yet, when I unplugged the cellular booster, the signal dropped, but the
cell towers simply went to a much larger set of cell towers, some of which
are known to be ten or fifteen miles away. However, I could still see the
set of towers in the prior step in the makeup.

My initial assumption (which needs to be tested) is two fold:
a. It seems the router-connected micro tower has its own unique cell id.
b. It seems the booster may simply propagate the "real" cell tower cell id.

Does that make sense?