dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-02-20 10:45:04: Sprint is slowly bringing up LTE in very limited portions of New York City, DC, San Francisco and parts of Florida as those markets get closer to an official launch. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

...if for no other reason than to be able able to claim X million people covered (whether they subscribe or not). Deploying in Waco, TX doesn't do much good for the marketing front.

m3nphls

join:2012-10-02
Brooklyn, NY
Sprint does not have the resources to deploy in densely populated areas unlike VZW and AT&T. For one they will never learn how to build a network like VZW does.


Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net

HO Hum

Still waiting for something called 4G service here in the greater Bay Area as I have been paying for it on three EVO 4Gs for quite some time. I would imagine that this latest is yet another "much ado about nothing" situation. SPRINT will sell a LTE enabled phone and charge for the "functionality" and "rich Data accessibility" yet there will be no way to employ that functionality yet we will have to pay for it "just in case" and just because they can. Fool me once shame on me but I won't be fooled a second time.


Moropo
Premium
join:2002-07-28
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
·America Online
reply to m3nphls

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

said by m3nphls:

Sprint does not have the resources to deploy in densely populated areas unlike VZW and AT&T. For one they will never learn how to build a network like VZW does.

Talk about spewing ignorant shit out of your mouth...

Sprint is deploying NV on every tower throughout the whole country and they are not giving priority to any place in specific. Of course a place with only a couple towers will get done first than a dense market with hundreds of towers even if they were working at the same rate. Also, it's not the case that not deploying on small markets would speed up larger markets as they are using local contractors.

Please refer to S4GRU.com for any fact-based information but something tells me you just enjoy being ignorant for the sake of it.

Also, it will be fun to see Verizon go back to every tower and replace their release 9 hardware with release 10 in order to get LTE-Advanced whereas Sprint only needs a software update (as they are deploying release 10 hardware). But now thinking about it, it's not like Verizon will have to go back to every site as they have not and will not put LTE on every tower, whereas Sprint will convert ALL their 3G towers to LTE.
--
math PhD student (University of Miami)


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

1 edit
I'm not going to say that Sprint can't do it, but facts are facts, Sprint is doing this deployment backwards for the most part, every other carrier deploys to dense Urban Markets first, even T-mobile.
I don't know why they are deploying to such small markets first, but it's definitely strange.

Also Verizon is deploying to LTE to every 3G market, while it's possible that some areas of certain rural markets may not see LTE this year, the simple fact is that these are areas that Sprint doesn't cover either, the reason Sprint can say they are targeting every cell site for this rollout is because it's network is much smaller than Verizon's, Sprint depends on Verizon for roaming coverage in areas there network doesn't reach. As I am a former Verizon customer i know Verizon and those last cell sites will get LTE, it just might be later than 2014, Not to put down Sprint, but Verizon knows how to deploy networks and how to keep them running well.

They are too expensive for me, I use T-mobile. But we have to give props where they are due.


Moropo
Premium
join:2002-07-28
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
·America Online
Ok thanks for the coherent reply.

I agree with you, there's no denying Verizon has the better network, I just got carried away with the above poster bashing Sprint with no facts.

As I explained, Sprint is replacing all the hardware in all their towers nationwide and they are doing this with local contractors. Of course a town that has 10 towers will get done a lot faster than a large market with hundreds of towers. And like I said, they are using local contractors, so if they were to stop the deployment in smaller towns this would NOT boost the deployment rate of the larger market. Makes sense?
--
math PhD student (University of Miami)


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
It does make sense, I was just acknowledging the fact that the deployment is not the norm for most carrier's.

ssavoy
Premium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA

Better than T-Mobile

At least Sprint is deploying LTE across their entire footprint. T-Mobile's swiss-cheese refarm and LTE deployment will be no comparison to Sprint in my opinion.

I think Sprint will be a serious contender in 2014.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to Twaddle

Re: HO Hum

It happens, I waited for over a year to get LTE after buying a thunderbolt on Verizon for 4G to get to me. Buying a 4G phone before LTE is deployed to your area is a gamble, how close you are to a urban area normally makes your chances better.

I sold my thunderbolt 6 months after LTE because of bad battery life and upgraded, you never know


mob
On the next level..
Premium
join:2000-10-07

I had LTE in December when I was in Northern California

Not full coverage, however it was enough to work in most cases.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to ssavoy

Re: Better than T-Mobile

I wouldn't be so quick to downplay T-mobile, there refarm is in process just like Sprint's LTE deployment and as far as percentage of deployment, T-mobile is farther along in their deployments.
Not to mention that for many T-mobile customer's LTE really isn't a huge deal on this network, I get 15mbps down and 2 up in my area of NJ, it's routinely faster than Verizon LTE connections in this area.
granted Verizon has more users.

Sprint desperately needs LTE, as their 3G network is slow as molasses, and the deployment hasn't been very fast and has frequently been called patchy.

Both carriers need work, T-mobile's weak spot is it's existing edge network in many parts of the country, though for us who live near big urban areas on the east or west coasts, it's rarely affects us.

I hope they both get stronger this year, Verizon and AT&T need serious competition.


Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR
Reviews:
·Paragould.net
·Paragould.net
reply to Twaddle

Re: HO Hum

While I have been victim to that 10$ fee since my first EVO4G almost 3yrs ago (now on the Note II), even with that fee it's still cheaper than VZ or AT&T. I'm willing to wait it out. Sprint will have LTE everywhere eventually. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
--
Ever try stuffing a melted marshmallow up a wildcat's ass? It can be done, but you have to like your job. - This Is The Way The World Ends by James Morrow - Join a DC club, it can't hurt you!


Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR
Reviews:
·Paragould.net
·Paragould.net
reply to ssavoy

Re: Better than T-Mobile

I agree. If Sprint can keep their pricing below AT&T and VZ and continue to offer true unlimited, AND get LTE across their entire footprint, I think they'll see some serious uptick in their customer base.
--
Ever try stuffing a melted marshmallow up a wildcat's ass? It can be done, but you have to like your job. - This Is The Way The World Ends by James Morrow - Join a DC club, it can't hurt you!

ssavoy
Premium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA
Reviews:
·Anveo
reply to MovieLover76
True. I do use T-Mobile but live in an iffy market. Luckily I get 3G at home and on my campus so it's not a huge deal...and routinely 15-20mbps down and 3mbps up. LTE is not important to me...what is important is overall coverage, and coupled with Sprint's lower spectrum, I think they will be in a better place than T-Mobile in terms of overall coverage.

I think T-Mo just needs to stop cheaping out on where they put their antennas. There's a few "popular" cell sites in my market still on copper, barely pushing 100kbps on HSPA+ because they can't get fiber to them easily. All the other carriers have no problem because they share towers. T-Mobile rarely shares the same sites.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to MovieLover76

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

Setting your self a part from every one else is often what works.


Moropo
Premium
join:2002-07-28
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
·America Online
reply to MovieLover76
said by MovieLover76:

Also Verizon is deploying to LTE to every 3G market, while it's possible that some areas of certain rural markets may not see LTE this year, the simple fact is that these are areas that Sprint doesn't cover either, the reason Sprint can say they are targeting every cell site for this rollout is because it's network is much smaller than Verizon's, Sprint depends on Verizon for roaming coverage in areas there network doesn't reach. As I am a former Verizon customer i know Verizon and those last cell sites will get LTE, it just might be later than 2014, Not to put down Sprint, but Verizon knows how to deploy networks and how to keep them running well.

Ok here's what I mean that Verizon is not deploying LTE to every tower like Sprint. Verizon has 3G on the 1900 MHz frequency while they are deploying LTE on the 700 MHz frequency. An advantage of the 700 MHZ frequency is that with a single tower you cover a lot of area and because of this Verizon can match their 3G footprint with LTE by cherrypicking towers and not upgrading all of them. However, there are downsides to this. First of all while the lower frequency provides a lot of coverage in area, it also provides a lot less throughput. Combine this with Verizon's large amount of customers and you can see the trouble: a single tower covers A LOT of people (because of its large coverage area due to low frequency and lots of customers) and with less throughput, soon you will see Verizon's LTE slowing down significantly (if it hasn't already happened) and all of this because Verizon is cherrypicking their towers in order to thinly match their 3G footprint and not upgrading every tower like Sprint (Sprint is upgrading every tower, not just matching their 3G footprint)
--
math PhD student (University of Miami)


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
In their second phase, they will be adding 1700Mhz LTE, particularly to address this issue. Verizon is good at maintaining a network, and when it comes down to it. I'd trust Verizon to maintain it's network, better than Sprint, whose 3G network is extremely slow, due to overselling it.

Not that I'm advertising for Verizon, I actually use T-mobile and I'm satisfied with it. I just think some Sprint users are getting very excited by press releases, let's wait until they really have it deployed, that's when Sprint will prove itself.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to battleop
In this case I don't see that arguement, urban markets = more customers that are satisfied and higher earning from the investment. small markets first seems like they are still struggling to get a handle on these upgrades and they don't want to risk the bad press they'd get on a nyc deployment that wasn't up to par.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to ssavoy

Re: Better than T-Mobile

said by ssavoy:

True. I do use T-Mobile but live in an iffy market. Luckily I get 3G at home and on my campus so it's not a huge deal...and routinely 15-20mbps down and 3mbps up. LTE is not important to me...what is important is overall coverage, and coupled with Sprint's lower spectrum, I think they will be in a better place than T-Mobile in terms of overall coverage.

I think T-Mo just needs to stop cheaping out on where they put their antennas. There's a few "popular" cell sites in my market still on copper, barely pushing 100kbps on HSPA+ because they can't get fiber to them easily. All the other carriers have no problem because they share towers. T-Mobile rarely shares the same sites.

T-Mobile does share many of the same sites as other carriers, albeit possibly not in your market. Similarly, T-Mobile isn't exactly "cheaping out". They literally can't get the gear quick enough from their suppliers Nokia-Siemens Networks and Ericsson. Obviously lower spectrum is ideal for coverage, but $billions invested in AWS licenses tend to be a pretty good incentive for them to upgrade their coverage. Additionally their 2g network is aging and the equipment is no longer supported. The importance here is that when old 2g equipment fails it is being replaced with either at least 3g capable equipment. Moreover, if T-Mobile doesn't want to lose AWS licenses it already paid for across the nation, then by 2015 they'll have to expand their 3g+ coverage. This is already in their gameplan and falls in line with their 1900 refarm and LTE deploy. At the VERY least T-Mobile's existing 2g coverage base will get upgraded to 3g. Beyond that, for T-Mobile to keep its AWS licenses they'll need to deploy LTE or (more likely) HSPA+ in quite a few places where they only have roaming agreements.

T-Mobile seems to be quite aware of what they need to do, and are spending to do it. Between their new CEO, the cash infusion thanks to ATT, the 1900mhz refarm for HSPA+ deployment, and LTE deployment on the AWS band I think they're very much on a good track. It's quite a bit going on, and very involved to boot. Figuring in that the biggest delay at this point are on the supply-side, it's hard to complain with where they're at today and what looks to be in store over the next 2 years.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara


buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to MovieLover76

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

said by MovieLover76:

small markets first seems like they are still struggling to get a handle on these upgrades and they don't want to risk the bad press they'd get on a nyc deployment that wasn't up to par.

Thats pretty much what I took from the entire announcement on Sprints LTE deployment form the begining.
Verizon (and ATT to a small extent) went fast and furious with basic LTE deployment in urban areas, were as I see Sprint starting of on LTE advance equipment that has not been proven reliable by any carrier in the US. Sprint Starting off in more smaller less dens areas so if a problem arises it can be handles quicker and without major publicity then in a major metro.
Sometimes when your starting off you have to walk ( maybe even crawl) before you run.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
Ok, I accept that. just call it was it is, slow testing of very new gear, not trying to puff it up as deploying to areas without discrimination or pretending it's somehow better than the standard cellular deployment, once they get it down, which they may already have since they are starting in nyc and dc. I'm sure they will start concentrating deployments in urban areas first just the same as any carrier.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to skeechan
Small markets need LTE more than a City.


buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to MovieLover76
Interesting, did not know Verizon was going to launch part of there LTE on the 1700mhz band, I wonder if there will be a roaming agreement between them and T mobile. This would be very interesting and possibly help drive roaming competition prices as Currently the only major player TMO can roam of is ATTs GSM network ( also now some of ATT hspa 1900mhz band). pit ATT against Verizon for best roaming agreement package/ coverage and lowest cost and see what happens.

This assumes ATT and Verizon will play ball however.

tivoboy

join:2004-05-10
Menlo Park, CA

user reports

This is all user reports and nothing validated by Sprint. I have been seeing LTE in San Francisco, and Redwood city, and Mountain View for about 2.5 months now. It's nothing new and I don't find it more coverage than before yet.

I'll wait till Sprint says something like "our SanFran users can now access LTE for unlimited data" or something to that effect before I get excited with my couple Sprint LTE devices.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
reply to battleop

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

True, unless what sets you apart makes you worse than everyone else.

pkorx8

join:2003-06-19
San Francisco, CA

NIMBY and wimax compare

btw, San Francisco and San Francisco Bay Area probably has the biggest NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) crowd in the country, due to the high real estate values.
Funny how the same people who complains about their iphone (ATT) reception are the same people who goes to city planning meetings to reject additional towers.

If the sprint/clearwire deal goes thru, I hope sprint will put LTE on the existing clearwire towers. Clearwire actually has a lot of towers in the San Francisco and Peninsula area, probably they had to in order for WIMAX to work.

Does anyone know how sprint LTE and WIMAX compare in terms of coverage, specifically building penetration? My experience with WIMAX is that I have to be next to a window when I'm inside a building in order to get a WIMAX connection.
I'm still waiting for 800Mhz sprint LTE and corresponding phones to kick in before I'm jumping on the LTE bandwagon.
Besides, the under utilized WIMAX is great, I'm getting 8-10mbps down in most places I go. My old school EVO 4G can't actually render websites fast enough to use that speed.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to skeechan

Re: Seems you would want to deploy in densely populated areas

people have made lots of money servicing a niche.

clos000

join:2012-12-31

Check Sensorly.com for the current 4G coverage in your area!

Sprint LTE has been up in the Bay Area since last year. Check Sensorly.com and they can give you a user updated view of the current coverage. While it's not as big as Verizon, it is growing pretty rapidly.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by clos000:

Sprint LTE has been up in the Bay Area since last year. Check Sensorly.com and they can give you a user updated view of the current coverage. While it's not as big as Verizon, it is growing pretty rapidly.

Sensorly data has a major failing. Very few people put it on their phones, so the maps are highly inaccurate.
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders.


bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Orlando, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
reply to Twaddle

Re: HO Hum

said by Twaddle :

Still waiting for something called 4G service here in the greater Bay Area as I have been paying for it on three EVO 4Gs for quite some time. I would imagine that this latest is yet another "much ado about nothing" situation. SPRINT will sell a LTE enabled phone and charge for the "functionality" and "rich Data accessibility" yet there will be no way to employ that functionality yet we will have to pay for it "just in case" and just because they can. Fool me once shame on me but I won't be fooled a second time.

Why does everyone think that the premium data charge is for 4g? It's for unlimited data on a smartphone! Even 3g only phones pay the extra $10.
--