dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1400
share rss forum feed


Flummoxed
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Saint Peters, MO

sprint 4g in St. Peters, MO.

I just now looked at my phone and it shows 4g active. it wasnt there earlier today. St. Peters, MO.my area was never announced for upcoming 4g yet.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
It could be turned on for testing. May be left on for good since it is complete. Never really know. Just dont be surprised if it goes away for periods of time now and then until it officially launches.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

criggs

join:2000-07-14
New York, NY
Reviews:
·Millenicom
And don't be surprised if the performance is poor at first. LTE has been switched on in my area, midtown Manhattan, zip 10022, but Sprint has not yet signed off on it here, and it still doesn't show up here on any Sprint maps.

And the reasons are fairly apparent; it's not performing up to spec yet. Sprint specs claim that LTE download speed should be 6-8 megs a second and upload speeds should be 2-3 megs a second, and many in this forum report that those specs are actually a bit of a lowball as compared to what they're seeing in those areas which Sprint has formally opened for LTE business.

But in my non-official LTE area, we're getting really ratty specs. Here's an example of what I've been getting here from LTE lately:




Note that the download spec is not only below Sprint's claimed LTE minimum of 6 megs; it's even below the WiMax minimum of 3 megs, truly abysmal. Curiously enough, however, my LTE upload speed is one hundred percent good to go, actually giving performance that exceeds the Sprint LTE spec maximum of 3 megs.

Meanwhile my WiMax is just about the best I've ever seen it:




(Oh, that pesky WiMax upload cap!) In general, therefore, I've been staying with WiMax, unless I need to upload something large.

In other words, my perspective is, and I suggest your perspective most usefully should be, that LTE being on in one's neighborhood is more a promise of things to come than a useful service to be used now. If you've got working WiMax there, I'd say stay with that for the time being.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
said by criggs:

And don't be surprised if the performance is poor at first.

The lower speeds could simply mean you are farther away from the tower that is actually broadcasting the LTE. Equipment can connect to one tower for voice, one for LTE, etc. What are your signal levels for LTE specifically (not wimax, 1xRTT or EVDO)?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

criggs

join:2000-07-14
New York, NY
Very strong, so I don't think distance is a factor. I've tentatively concluded that the problem is that it just plain ain't working right yet.

My signal strength is 100%, six bars out of six on the Tri-Fi. The dBm is -79 and the CINR is 9.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
said by criggs:

My signal strength is 100%, six bars out of six on the Tri-Fi. The dBm is -79 and the CINR is 9.

Oh, didnt know you had a trifi. I know on phones, the signal strength indicator does not show LTE strength, just 1xRTT (voice). You have to go into the engineering screens to get LTE strength values.

Does the trifi show signal strength for each of the technologies?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

criggs

join:2000-07-14
New York, NY
Reviews:
·Millenicom
Yes.

Currently my WiMax is at 80% signal strength, five bars out of six, a dBm of -48 with a CINR of 15. My 3G is at 100%, six bars out of six, with a dBm of -46 and an Ec/Io of -1. My 3G performance has been unimpressive but in spec, in spite of grandiose promises of 30% to 50% improvement in 3G in the wake of the Network Vision upgrade:



Curiously enough, about three weeks ago I started to see extraordinary 3G performance, precisely along the lines Network Vision promised. Alas, no more.


compuguybna

join:2009-06-17
Nashville, TN
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·HughesNet Satell..
·ooma
reply to Flummoxed

sprint LTE in Tennessee

Click for full size
pretty good here...

criggs

join:2000-07-14
New York, NY
Reviews:
·Millenicom
Has your area been officially announced by Sprint, meaning does it show up on the Sprint coverage map at »coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp?q···ge%20map ? If it does, then this sorta makes sense.

criggs

join:2000-07-14
New York, NY
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to criggs

Re: sprint 4g in St. Peters, MO.

said by criggs:

LTE has been switched on in my area, midtown Manhattan, zip 10022, but Sprint has not yet signed off on it here, and it still doesn't show up here on any Sprint maps. And the reasons are fairly apparent; it's not performing up to spec yet. Sprint specs claim that LTE download speed should be 6-8 megs a second and upload speeds should be 2-3 megs a second...But in my non-official LTE area, we're getting really ratty specs...[T]he download [speed] is not only below Sprint's claimed LTE minimum of 6 megs; it's even below the WiMax minimum of 3 megs, truly abysmal. Curiously enough, however, my LTE upload speed is one hundred percent good to go, actually giving performance[, at 6 megs,] that exceeds the Sprint LTE spec maximum of 3 megs.

Well, it's beginning to look like the LTE implementation itself actually has been done in my area, and may have been completed several weeks ago. I deduce that from the fact that it appears that this neighborhood's LTE is perfectly capable of good performance under ideal circumstances; furthermore, it appears that my normally poor LTE performance is keyed almost entirely to the time of day. Right now, for example, it is the small hours here in Manhattan on a weekend, --

-- and it's one of those rare moments when the LTE performance is totally within spec, in fact ABOVE spec:




Just to nail this home, Sprint specifies an LTE download speed, under the Speeds tab of their spec sheet at shop2.sprint.com/en/shop/why_sprint/4g/4g_lte_plan_details.html#tab_where?INTNAV=NET:MS:013113:4GLTE , of 6-8 megs; I'm getting almost 9 megs. They specify an upload speed of 2-3 megs; I'm getting 7 megs.

So, since it appears to be the case that performance in this area is controlled by the amount of usage, and since we know that there are very few LTE users in this area (Sprint hasn't even admitted that the LTE is on here, and refuses to sell LTE devices to folks in this zip code), that means that the setup is extraordinarily fragile, with very few users required to knock it off its game.

But, and here's the key, it's perfectly capable of performing quite well, when there are almost no users on line.

I'm not an expert on this; others are far more so on this forum. But a few have suggested that the problem with the LTE implementation in my area, and why it's below spec about 90% of the time, is due to the fact that the backhaul here is quite weak for the LTE. If I properly understand what backhaul is, then the conclusion is that sufficient backhaul would insulate the service from these extraordinary swings in quality, apparently being triggered by very small differences in the number of users.

I invite others to chime in if they think this kind of performance, excellent when there are almost no users and below spec when there are even a small number of users, tends to confirm the backhaul theory or, alternately, throw doubt on it.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
said by criggs:

(Sprint hasn't even admitted that the LTE is on here, and refuses to sell LTE devices to folks in this zip code),

That is where the rub is. Until you have an official market launch it isnt really fair to be critical of a network that is not officially "operating". Being allowed to use it while construction continues I see as just a bonus, but unfortunately it is used against them by many. They may have been better off simply getting it to 80-90% complete in any given market and then allowing users to connect.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

criggs

join:2000-07-14
New York, NY
Reviews:
·Millenicom
Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily criticizing; I'm more asking the question as to whether this kind of performance, excellent when there are no users but poor when there are even a small number of users, is typical of a network with incomplete backhaul. Obviously I'm hoping, indeed tentatively expecting, that Sprint is in the process of fixing up the new place and unveiling a spanking new home shortly. I wouldn't have taken the plunge of upgrading my equipment and paying the bucks for a new provider if I wasn't betting in Sprint's favor rather than against it.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
said by criggs:

I wouldn't have taken the plunge of upgrading my equipment and paying the bucks for a new provider if I wasn't betting in Sprint's favor rather than against it.

I wonder if they possibly throttle / traffic shape third party offerings during times of high usage? I believe the new equipment running gives them more tools to do this. Some have even said it will allow them to detect unauthorized tethering of smart phones and such.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

criggs

join:2000-07-14
New York, NY
Reviews:
·Millenicom
Hmmm. I doubt that. If they had that capability, would not I have seen it already as a Millenicom customer? Would not I be seeing it now not only on LTE but on WiMax?

Also, if you take a look at people's reports on their LTE experience thus far, both on this forum and elsewhere, my experience does not appear typical, indicating that there are probably unique circumstances caused by the as-yet incomplete LTE rollout here in Manhattan, rather than systemic mischief being perpetrated by Sprint.