MetroPCS Wireless begins service in L.A. region today

They're building a new store down the street from where i live, i guess they felled behind on construction in time for opening day.

 

Metro PCS has never had to undertake anything close to the challenge of covering Los Angeles. Their other markets were all much easier to do. I'm interested in looking at their current coverage map for this market.

 

By the way the coverage maps for LA and Orange County are now up on the metro pcs web site.

 

I don't think the maps look bad at all. I mean Metro has not been building sites for a long time in the L.A. area and they already have seemingly good coverage in a lot of areas. I wonder how good the coverage is though.

 

Interesting that none of those 4 maps of So. Cal on their web site really show the Eastern side of the San Gabriel Valley area of LA County such as West Covina or Baldwin Park even though I know they have some service through there. I think they messed up.

 

Don't forget that all of those areas where they already serve with the dark blue are the easiest parts of LA and OC to get antennas up because there are already plenty of monopoles they can use. Notice the traditional NIMBY areas such as Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Glendale, Manhattan Beach, Malibu and South Orange County still are lacking in coverage? Because these areas don't allow freestanding towers so everything has to be a well planned stealth site from scratch which brings out the NIMBY's and costs big $$$.

Also I wonder if the maps are overly optimistic? While they do seem to have an advantage with their 6 sector azimuth's their sites are always lower on the towers than the other carriers. So I wonder if their 6 sector arrays can overcome their height disadvantage on the towers?

 

You are right- they probably did built out the easiest and cheapest areas first, and the harder areas are going to be next to impossible for them to cover well anytime soon, BUT they did a fast and what seems to be a good job in the easy areas. Lower panel mounting means less coverage away from the site, but maybe Metro makes up for this with a lot of cell sites, and also cell spacing in most of Southern CA is so dense that it shouldn't really matter.

 

I've heard that Metro launched with around 350 sites or so. If you know the area, you'll know that most of the areas they pushed for hard are namely low income, a major business area or a major thoroughfare.

 

Only 350 sites huh? Their represenative at one of the planning meetings told me they were expecting 900 sites to launch. Maybe that was too optimistic on their part but in any event doesn't Sprint have close to 3,000 sites in this market?

 

Looking at those maps, Metro's service area is unacceptable. Too many holes. the last thing I'd want to have happen is lose coverage in southern OC, or in the eastern Inland Empire and San Fernando Valley.

There are far too many orange (future coverage) areas for them to be reliable. I don't care how cheap they are, I'm more concerned about service than price. Of course, I have absolutely NO plans on getting MetroPCS by any means.

 

Here's another link to a news article about it:

MetroPCS goes live in LA - RCR Wireless News

 

I activated MetroPCS yesterday and so far quite impressed. I wanted to get the service early so I could get a number with as many "8" as possible and I was successful that I got one ending in 0888. I am not sure if they have EVDO yet on the towers since I got the Nokia 2865i which lacks EVDO. The store has a full coverage map which does include the East San Gabriel Valley. I think MetroPCS so far has done an amazing job of putting up the sites What type of sites are they running?

 

Current plans for Metro don't include EVDO, I haven't seen a site of theirs offer it in any markets. They only resell the Sprint Aircards.

They run Lucent CDMA base stations.

 

Please keep us updated on their service as well as coverage as you play around more with your new service!
Would be interesting to get real-life experiences with Metro there.

 

Well, I have been using the service a lot this past weekend. It seems to be working amazingly well. In one city San Marino, CA 91108 Metro said I would be using travel talk but the phone did have service in the business areas but in residential areas the service was kinda weak. However, VZW & Sprint are also weak in the residential areas with AT&T & T-Mobile having full coverage in the residential areas.

It seems that some of the sites are co located with Sprint. It appears one such site is in South Pasadena, CA at Garfield / Huntington and another site is Garfield / Mission Road in Alhambra, CA.

The phone has 4 bars and the average is 2-3 bars of service. It seems the freeways have the best coverage thus far.

I have not dropped a call yet. I have had 2 hour long conversations. The battery life is quite amazing I had about 5 hour talk time.

 

Thanks for the update, please keep them coming.

 

Very nice report. I am glad to hear that the Metro Network seems to be quite usable in real life experiences. Were those hour long calls you made while traveling in a car or while in one specific area?

 

Yeah I myself thank you for the report.

 

Anyone know what SID Metro will now use in the LA area?
Someone I know who lives in the Bay Area (Palo Alto) has Metro and sometimes goes down to LA.

PRL interpretations hasn't updated Metro's list in awhile

 

Interesting. Let us know how coverage is outside of the SGV. I'd be curious to see how the SFV, OC and the IE fare as well. Thanks for the coverage report.

 

the sid used is 6509

 

Thanks for the info.

I remember flying over 6509 2 months ago west of Pahrump, NV (alt 15,000 ft))
I was checking SIDs on my phone by dialing different *228 codes.

I thought it was Cricket, since other close numbers are owned by Cricket (such as 6512, 6514)

In fact, here are all SIDs I picked up between LV & SF in flight
from http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/g...4320-checking-sids-my-phone-while-flight.html

Between Oakland & Las Vegas (8-7-07):
CH 384/425/466..SID 40
CH 50....................SID 4183
CH 925.................SID 5037 {R)
CH 1175...............SID 5007 (R)
CH 384/425..........SID 112
CH 384/425..........SID 162
CH AMPS-A...........SID 153 (R)
CH 384/725..........SID 228
CH 25....................SID 4145
CH 825..................SID 6509 (R)
CH 384/425..........SID 64
CH AMPS-A...........SID 27 (R)
CH 384/725...........SID 2
CH AMPS-A...........SID 211 (R)

 

I am traveling by car or bus when I have used the phone. During rush hour today I did drop a call going through Downtown and the call quality was kinda garbly. Over the weekend going through the same stretch the call was perfectly fine.

When I initially activated the phone it picked up MetroPCS with PRL 19 then when I upgraded the PRL I got 22.

 

Very interesting. I wonder if your dropped call during Rush Hour may suggest that Metro already has signed up quite a few users in the area that were using their phones at the time you dropped the call and had rather poor call quality....

 

LOL I doubt that Andy. I think it's because they're missing cell sites.

 

Now why am I not surprised to hear you say that.
I can't wait to hear numbers to see how well Metro is doing in their LA market.