How to locate an iBurst base station using Google Maps

[ginggs]

First, go to the iBurst coverage map and explore the area of interest.

In this example, I found the best coverage at a colleague's house (in the "not covered" white area at the top of the map) was at the South side of his property.

On the coverage map we found a dark orange patch, not too far away to the South, this is probably the location of the base station.



Next, go to Google Maps and locate the area in the iBurst coverage map by searching for a prominent street name. Now enter street view by dragging the little orange man to a spot in Google Maps that corresponds to the centre of the dark orange patch in the iBurst coverage map and look around.

Here's our base station:


An iBurst base station usually has a distinctive 12-element antenna array:

Depending on the structure the array is mounted on, it seems that sometimes it may be split into two or four sections.

It is not always possible to see the antenna array from the Google Maps street view.
In the following example, the base station is probably located on top of this tall apartment block.

[rpm]

Great post - thanks Ginngs

[bdt]

This is something LONG overdue as, for whatever passes for reason in the itBust overlord's minds, we are in no way ever to be allowed to know their precious tower locations. Even though you can SEE the damn things. Also, now I see it again, I once did a GSV 'drive' looking for that dratted tower for people that moved to Tokai. So, is this going to be a collective effort to stick it to those fools, or more of an once-off FYI?

[Saajid]

iBurst's coverage map, much like MTN's, really blows. It's about time they migrated to Google Maps. Cell C and 8.ta both use it, and Vodacom have their own, that is almost as good.

[bdt]

But there's no point to Cell C having a map ..it's not like they've done a damn thing to increase coverage for, what, the last three years now?

[Saajid]

But there's no point to Cell C having a map ..it's not like they've done a damn thing to increase coverage for, what, the last three years now?

They have. Just because it isn't reported on MyBB anymore like in the early days of their HSPA 900 launch, and because coverage in your area hasn't improved, doesn't mean they've been doing nothing.

In any case, even if they didn't improve coverage, a coverage map that is user-friendly and works well is a must.

[koeksGHT]

But there's no point to Cell C having a map ..it's not like they've done a damn thing to increase coverage for, what, the last three years now?

Just got HSPA+ in my area so they are expanding..

[ginggs]

This is something LONG overdue as, for whatever passes for reason in the itBust overlord's minds, we are in no way ever to be allowed to know their precious tower locations.

The cellular providers are just the same.
I believe this should be public information.

At least with iBurst you can get a list of their base stations from their Network status page.

So, is this going to be a collective effort to stick it to those fools, or more of an once-off FYI?

I created a thread, let's see what happens.

[ginggs]

iBurst's coverage map, much like MTN's, really blows. It's about time they migrated to Google Maps. Cell C and 8.ta both use it, and Vodacom have their own, that is almost as good.

I agree the iBurst coverage map is pretty klunky, but the information on it is very good, although slightly pessimistic.

But there's no point to Cell C having a map ..it's not like they've done a damn thing to increase coverage for, what, the last three years now?

My Cell-C coverage is actually worse than it was two years ago, and not just in one location. My theory is they've had to shrink the size of their 900MHz cells once they started getting subscribers.

In any case, even if they didn't improve coverage, a coverage map that is user-friendly and works well is a must.

No point in a coverage map that shows 100% coverage in an area and 0% a street away, no matter how user-friendly it is.

[Saajid]

No point in a coverage map that shows 100% coverage in an area and 0% a street away, no matter how user-friendly it is.

Coverage maps are estimates at best, guidelines, because:
- signals bounce around
- new buildings and structures are constantly being put up
- signals receive interference from other signals
- cells grow and shrink dynamically
- cells grow and shrink statically due to network planning
- getting 100% accurate contour maps to estimate signal coverage is impossible

Coverage maps are guidelines. If you think it's going to tell you EXACTLY how much coverage you have in a particular area or street, you're sorely mistaken. This is a problem affecting all wireless networks, of all types, all around the world.

With your attitude, we should basically ban all coverage maps, because they are not 100% accurate.

[ginggs]

With your attitude, we should basically ban all coverage maps, because they are not 100% accurate.

All I'm saying is, although the iBurst coverage map doesn't have the best user interface, it shows 6 levels of signal strength. Both Cell-C and 8ta's coverage maps have a nice user interface, but only show 2 levels of signal strength; you are covered or you are not. Radio does not work like that.

[Saajid]

All I'm saying is, although the iBurst coverage map doesn't have the best user interface, it shows 6 levels of signal strength. Both Cell-C and 8ta's coverage maps have a nice user interface, but only show 2 levels of signal strength; you are covered or you are not. Radio does not work like that.

Ahh OK. Point taken. You should have said that the first time.

[r00igev@@r]

BTW: When you look at a tall building using the satellite view you can typically see the mast and containers on the roof. Additionally, you can often pick up the mast shadow. A good example is -26.185938° 28.147231° (although that is not a building!)

[Isch]

Good informative post ginggs - as always. If you are not employed by I-burst they should put you on a monthly retainer

[Slowmow]

Thank you sooooo much for this. My download speed went from 0.05Mb/s to 0.72 Mb/s by just redirecting my antenna to another tower. Signal strength went down from ± 92% to ± 80%. But worth it.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2127869666.png