4G live in Penzance for two days - it's from the mast at Newlyn Combe - signal in Penzance town centre is quite weak and is gone by the Railway Station.
Nothing on O2 coverage widget about this.
Nothing on O2 coverage widget about this.
O2 4G Cornwall
Possibly 800MHz. I've noticed a bit more of it popping up (and seen some work happen in Truro - the Vodafone pole near Sainsburys has had a new cabinet installed). I live somewhere between Bodmin and St. Austell and notice I can pick up O2 4G here now.
I don't have a topped up SIM on either Vodafone or O2 so I can't try it out.
I don't have a topped up SIM on either Vodafone or O2 so I can't try it out.
Originally Posted by DevonBloke:
“Could it be anything other than 800??
I thought that's all they had.
Clarification?”
“Could it be anything other than 800??
I thought that's all they had.
Clarification?”
They had a bit of 1800Mhz which they ran 2g within in busy areas.. wonder whether that allocation is large enough for some 4g instead?
Originally Posted by blueacid:
“They had a bit of 1800Mhz which they ran 2g within in busy areas.. wonder whether that allocation is large enough for some 4g instead?”
“They had a bit of 1800Mhz which they ran 2g within in busy areas.. wonder whether that allocation is large enough for some 4g instead?”
5.8MHz each way, not a great deal but it would support perhaps 30Meg?
Originally Posted by Minardi:
“5.8MHz each way, not a great deal but it would support perhaps 30Meg?”
“5.8MHz each way, not a great deal but it would support perhaps 30Meg?”
Think it's 40meg max, but yeah, O2's using it in London alongside 800.
Originally Posted by DevonBloke:
“Could it be anything other than 800??
I thought that's all they had.
Clarification?”
“Could it be anything other than 800??
I thought that's all they had.
Clarification?”
Don't O2 and Vodafone still have a tiny slither of 1800 from the GSM days?
O2 around here still uses theirs for GSM, or at least they did a few months ago, as I could get an O2 signal on a single band 1800MHz phone, even though I live in a rural area
Originally Posted by moox:
“Don't O2 and Vodafone still have a tiny slither of 1800 from the GSM days?
O2 around here still uses theirs for GSM, or at least they did a few months ago, as I could get an O2 signal on a single band 1800MHz phone, even though I live in a rural area”
“Don't O2 and Vodafone still have a tiny slither of 1800 from the GSM days?
O2 around here still uses theirs for GSM, or at least they did a few months ago, as I could get an O2 signal on a single band 1800MHz phone, even though I live in a rural area”
I think you might have missed the posts above yours!
But yeah, thanks, I forgot. Several O2 2G1800 sites in Plymouth I believe.
Yes, O2 have enough to run a 2x5MHz 4G service at 1800 but this is only being used to supplement 800 in busy areas so any initial deployment will be 800.
In fact, the way it's being setup means that in areas with 4G 1800, it's only used if you have a 4G+ phone (for 800 + 1800 carrier aggregation) or a 4G phone which can't use 800 like an iPhone 5.
On the shared sites the parameter setups for O2 and Vodafone are virtually identical. So cell reselection priority for 800 is 5 and for 3G it's 4 (with Vodafone 2600 on 6 but this isn't relevant for O2). However on O2 sites with 4G 1800, the priority for O2 800 has been changed from 5 to 6 leaving a gap for 1800 to slot into.
This suggests to me that originally O2 didn't have any plans to deploy 1800 for 4G in the short term otherwise the original setup template would have been designed to accommodate it without needing to be changed. Perhaps they are feeling the heat in terms of capacity sooner than they thought they would in the busier areas.
In fact, the way it's being setup means that in areas with 4G 1800, it's only used if you have a 4G+ phone (for 800 + 1800 carrier aggregation) or a 4G phone which can't use 800 like an iPhone 5.
On the shared sites the parameter setups for O2 and Vodafone are virtually identical. So cell reselection priority for 800 is 5 and for 3G it's 4 (with Vodafone 2600 on 6 but this isn't relevant for O2). However on O2 sites with 4G 1800, the priority for O2 800 has been changed from 5 to 6 leaving a gap for 1800 to slot into.
This suggests to me that originally O2 didn't have any plans to deploy 1800 for 4G in the short term otherwise the original setup template would have been designed to accommodate it without needing to be changed. Perhaps they are feeling the heat in terms of capacity sooner than they thought they would in the busier areas.
I didn't realise O2 even had plans to use 4G 1800 so I suspect it may have been a recent decision, this is the first talk of it I've seen. My local O2 site is 2G1800, so O2 must be running a program of clearing these down and pushing it all onto 900? Can't be that much space on 900, seeing as the old E-TACS chunk is now used for 3G900.
Originally Posted by japaul:
“Yes, O2 have enough to run a 2x5MHz 4G service at 1800 but this is only being used to supplement 800 in busy areas so any initial deployment will be 800.
In fact, the way it's being setup means that in areas with 4G 1800, it's only used if you have a 4G+ phone (for 800 + 1800 carrier aggregation) or a 4G phone which can't use 800 like an iPhone 5.
On the shared sites the parameter setups for O2 and Vodafone are virtually identical. So cell reselection priority for 800 is 5 and for 3G it's 4 (with Vodafone 2600 on 6 but this isn't relevant for O2). However on O2 sites with 4G 1800, the priority for O2 800 has been changed from 5 to 6 leaving a gap for 1800 to slot into.
This suggests to me that originally O2 didn't have any plans to deploy 1800 for 4G in the short term otherwise the original setup template would have been designed to accommodate it without needing to be changed. Perhaps they are feeling the heat in terms of capacity sooner than they thought they would in the busier areas.”
“Yes, O2 have enough to run a 2x5MHz 4G service at 1800 but this is only being used to supplement 800 in busy areas so any initial deployment will be 800.
In fact, the way it's being setup means that in areas with 4G 1800, it's only used if you have a 4G+ phone (for 800 + 1800 carrier aggregation) or a 4G phone which can't use 800 like an iPhone 5.
On the shared sites the parameter setups for O2 and Vodafone are virtually identical. So cell reselection priority for 800 is 5 and for 3G it's 4 (with Vodafone 2600 on 6 but this isn't relevant for O2). However on O2 sites with 4G 1800, the priority for O2 800 has been changed from 5 to 6 leaving a gap for 1800 to slot into.
This suggests to me that originally O2 didn't have any plans to deploy 1800 for 4G in the short term otherwise the original setup template would have been designed to accommodate it without needing to be changed. Perhaps they are feeling the heat in terms of capacity sooner than they thought they would in the busier areas.”
Excellent info as usual.
Just a general question...
Does LTE have any built in way to push handsets between frequencies?
For example, say a cell's 2600 was swamped but the 1800 (or 800) was only under 50% load, can the network move the handset to 1800?
Or is this controlled entirely by the handset and it will stick doggedly to an overloaded carrier as it's the higher priority.
Yes it does but there's a few things to bear in mind.
I think I've mentioned here before that when we talk of cell reselection priority it's relevant for idle mode only i.e. when you aren't doing anything the phone gets to decide which cell to camp on based on parameters like crp supplied by the network. In theory the network could serve up different parameters if it knew a cell was congested but you could argue why bother if you aren't doing anything.
Once you start doing something you shift to active or connected mode and the network takes over the decisions (based on measurements sent back by the phone) and changing cells becomes handover (network controlled) as opposed to reselection (handset controlled). Now there's the possibility of doing handover based load balancing to do what you are asking. However there are still drawbacks as handovers take quite a long time once you take into account measurements and the actual process itself. It also increases unreliability as any handover is an opportunity for data interruption or a call drop.
The best solution is for us all to be using carrier aggregation as you get really fast load balancing as part of the packet scheduler. Some dismiss CA because they deem the higher theoretical speeds unnecessary (including a few posts I've seen here) but it also provides capacity benefits separate from the extra spectrum used because of the efficient load balancing and so helps out the network and end users (including those who don't have CA capable phones who benefit because of the more efficient allocation elsewhere).
I think I've mentioned here before that when we talk of cell reselection priority it's relevant for idle mode only i.e. when you aren't doing anything the phone gets to decide which cell to camp on based on parameters like crp supplied by the network. In theory the network could serve up different parameters if it knew a cell was congested but you could argue why bother if you aren't doing anything.
Once you start doing something you shift to active or connected mode and the network takes over the decisions (based on measurements sent back by the phone) and changing cells becomes handover (network controlled) as opposed to reselection (handset controlled). Now there's the possibility of doing handover based load balancing to do what you are asking. However there are still drawbacks as handovers take quite a long time once you take into account measurements and the actual process itself. It also increases unreliability as any handover is an opportunity for data interruption or a call drop.
The best solution is for us all to be using carrier aggregation as you get really fast load balancing as part of the packet scheduler. Some dismiss CA because they deem the higher theoretical speeds unnecessary (including a few posts I've seen here) but it also provides capacity benefits separate from the extra spectrum used because of the efficient load balancing and so helps out the network and end users (including those who don't have CA capable phones who benefit because of the more efficient allocation elsewhere).
Originally Posted by brillopad:
“Nothing on O2 coverage widget about this.”
“Nothing on O2 coverage widget about this.”
That's because O2 updates their coverage data and maps less than once a month.
If it's a Cornerstone mast it's better just to use the Vodafone coverage checker. I find it's a lot more accurate and gets updated every Thursday without fail.
Originally Posted by M1kos:
“Excellent post Japaul thanks for the info”
“Excellent post Japaul thanks for the info”
Hey, what about my excellent question???
Originally Posted by japaul:
“Yes it does but there's a few things to bear in mind.
I think I've mentioned here before that when we talk of cell reselection priority it's relevant for idle mode only i.e. when you aren't doing anything the phone gets to decide which cell to camp on based on parameters like crp supplied by the network. In theory the network could serve up different parameters if it knew a cell was congested but you could argue why bother if you aren't doing anything.
Once you start doing something you shift to active or connected mode and the network takes over the decisions (based on measurements sent back by the phone) and changing cells becomes handover (network controlled) as opposed to reselection (handset controlled). Now there's the possibility of doing handover based load balancing to do what you are asking. However there are still drawbacks as handovers take quite a long time once you take into account measurements and the actual process itself. It also increases unreliability as any handover is an opportunity for data interruption or a call drop.
The best solution is for us all to be using carrier aggregation as you get really fast load balancing as part of the packet scheduler. Some dismiss CA because they deem the higher theoretical speeds unnecessary (including a few posts I've seen here) but it also provides capacity benefits separate from the extra spectrum used because of the efficient load balancing and so helps out the network and end users (including those who don't have CA capable phones who benefit because of the more efficient allocation elsewhere).”
“Yes it does but there's a few things to bear in mind.
I think I've mentioned here before that when we talk of cell reselection priority it's relevant for idle mode only i.e. when you aren't doing anything the phone gets to decide which cell to camp on based on parameters like crp supplied by the network. In theory the network could serve up different parameters if it knew a cell was congested but you could argue why bother if you aren't doing anything.
Once you start doing something you shift to active or connected mode and the network takes over the decisions (based on measurements sent back by the phone) and changing cells becomes handover (network controlled) as opposed to reselection (handset controlled). Now there's the possibility of doing handover based load balancing to do what you are asking. However there are still drawbacks as handovers take quite a long time once you take into account measurements and the actual process itself. It also increases unreliability as any handover is an opportunity for data interruption or a call drop.
The best solution is for us all to be using carrier aggregation as you get really fast load balancing as part of the packet scheduler. Some dismiss CA because they deem the higher theoretical speeds unnecessary (including a few posts I've seen here) but it also provides capacity benefits separate from the extra spectrum used because of the efficient load balancing and so helps out the network and end users (including those who don't have CA capable phones who benefit because of the more efficient allocation elsewhere).”
Thank you. as above, excellent answer. Very clear.
Yeah got the idle/active bit in your previous explanations.
So if a handset is on CA 2600/1800 and the 2600 or 1800 suddenly becomes crowded, the network can just kind of "seesaw" between them.
I know what I mean by that, kinda hoping you do!
Effectively leaning the connection more towards one side than the other dynamically which in turn means no handover shenanigans?
Suddenly CA makes sense!
