1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
     
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

AT&T LTE Coverage Sucks in Portland Area

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by PortlandBass77, May 27, 2017.


  1. AT&T

    3 vote(s)
    60.0%
  2. Sprint

    1 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. T-Mobile

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. US Cellular

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Verizon

    1 vote(s)
    20.0%
  1. I wasn't expecting it to be so bad, sometimes I have just no LTE coverage at all in the major suburbs. I only get a strong signal in Downtown and inner SE / NE. I am on 3g all of the time now so I don't miss calls/texts lol. I just can't win with cellular providers...

    Sprint and T-Mobile suck outside of major metro areas
    AT&T sucks in the city
    Verizon sucks overall...
     
  2. Stumbo

    Stumbo Wherever you go, there you are. Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 11, 2008
    the Cali Intergalctic Mind Space
    Song Surgeon slow downer software- full 4 hour demo
    Ask for a micro-cell tower. See if that helps.
     
    OldDog52 likes this.
  3. OldDog52

    OldDog52 Gold Supporting Member

    Jan 1, 2011
    I had trouble getting AT&T at home. They gave me a 3G microcell for free. It works great.
     
  4. Wouldn't help me as I have good wifi at home and good 3G coverage for calls and texts. I'm just really disappointed in the LTE when I'm out and about....
     
  5. OldDog52

    OldDog52 Gold Supporting Member

    Jan 1, 2011
    Here in Eugene every proposed new cell tower causes a public outcry. AT&T coverage in the south part of Eugene is very poor. AT&T proposed a new tower, found a landowner willing and o host the tower, agreed to disguise it as a tree for aesthetics. But neighbors whine about "radiation" and property values being impacted.

    Meanwhile up on Blanton Heights, there are multiple flame throwing TV and radio transmitters only a couple hundred yards from an upscale neighborhood. Nobody complains about that. Children conceived up there should have tails and extra nipples.
     
    BadJazz, PortlandBass77 and Stumbo like this.
  6. lol people are stupid... you are still going to have the radiation whether or not a new tower is built: it exists in the existing 2G and 3G spectrums as well as the frequencies used for radio. It's been debated for years whether it's harmful or not, I think we are so far in that it doesn't matter either way.
     
    Old Garage-Bander likes this.
  7. NINBY... "Not In My Back Yard."
    But then they complain when they can't get a signal, in their back yard.

    "Why do we need those towers? Everything is wireless now."

    Federal gov't requires all radio emitters, cell, broadcast and otherwise, to meet radiation limits.
    Cell providers and broadcasters cannot install a site unless it meets the guidelines for Uncontrolled/General Population exposure limits.

    The type of radiation that causes cell mutation is called Ionizing Radiation.
    Ionization is the process of ripping electrons from atoms. This causes changes on cellular (not phone) levels.
    Nuclear bombs and power plants generate Ionizing radiation.

    Cell phones and broadcasters generate Non-Ionizing radiation.
    The effect on the body is heating. It does not affect DNA/cause mutantion of cells.

    Guess how your microwave oven works? It uses Non-Ionizing radiation to heat food.
    The radiation generated by your microwave oven is the same as that generated by broadcasters/cell providers.
    People who climb towers will experience internal body heating if they get too close to the antennas.

    If microwave ovens used Ionizing radiation, would you want to eat something heated up in there?

    No one has ever been able to attribute the installation of an antenna support structure with the lowering of property values. Most people, who are not in my line of work, don't even notice the things unless someone brings it to their attention.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  8. OldDog52

    OldDog52 Gold Supporting Member

    Jan 1, 2011
    For all the credible science on this, there's an equal or greater amount of alternative facts. It's like smart electric meters. The local utility wants to install them but there's enormous pressure from diehard opponents. They believe a smart meter on their house will give them cancer, or at minimum, be an invasion of privacy (because the meter tracks usage patterns).
     

Share This Page