89 replies to this topic

[lynyrd65]

regardless of the naysayers.
Robert

I didn't mean to say that Sprint won't be able to handle the demand. I'm just saying it might be higher than VZ (overall but especially per capita).

[S4GRU]

I didn't mean to say that Sprint won't be able to handle the demand. I'm just saying it might be higher than VZ (especially per capita).

And I wasn't trying to lump you into the "naysayer" category. I mean Sprint naysayers in general. But I can see why you may think I was referring to you.

And I definitely agree that Sprint will have a higher LTE adoption rate than VZW. How much higher? We are all speculating at this point. However, it is going to take some time for Sprint to catch up to Verizon's LTE deployment rate. Even if Sprint customers do it at double the rate, it will still take 12 months for Sprint to get to the same adoption level.

Robert

[bigsnake49]

I was borrowed my frinds Verizon LTE phone to use around Orlando and was not impressed with the density of coverage. While sppeds were excellent were there was coverage, the coverage was lacking overall. I hope that Sprint does a better job covering their markets than Verizon. If I was a cautious man, I would say stay away from anybody's LTE until the end of 2013.

[themuffinman]

I was borrowed my frinds Verizon LTE phone to use around Orlando and was not impressed with the density of coverage. While sppeds were excellent were there was coverage, the coverage was lacking overall. I hope that Sprint does a better job covering their markets than Verizon. If I was a cautious man, I would say stay away from anybody's LTE until the end of 2013.

I was in orlando last summer attending a family reunion. My sister has a thunderbolt which I was using and we had lte coverage where ever we went, same goes for atlanta where we both live, lte coverage is pretty consistent.

[S4GRU]

I was in orlando last summer attending a family reunion. My sister has a thunderbolt which I was using and we had lte coverage where ever we went, same goes for atlanta where we both live, lte coverage is pretty consistent.

Coverage, yes. Density , no.

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

[lynyrd65]

3g is not active in the athens/atlanta market so that would be expected I believe, I was going to map out coverage of that tower for everyone tomorrow and those LTE speeds are downright sexy.


For those worried about capacity issues with sprint Clearwire has said they can aggregate a 100mhz channel with LTE advance next year with only a software upgrade required after a tower has the LTE equipment and they have an average of 160 mhz of spectrum nationwide, about what att and Verizon have combined.

50x50 = 100mbps average download speeds on LTE!!!

For determining speeds on LTE

Average Spectral Efficiency * Bandwidth downlink = Average Data rate

2bit/hz * 50mhz = 100mbps !

Peak Spectral Efficiency * Bandwidth downlink = Peak Data rate

6bit/hz * 50mhz = 300mbps !

[jegillis]

50x50 = 1gbps download speeds on LTE!!!

yep but its td so its a big 100mhz slice not 50x50 clearwire says they can then allocate capacity to the up and down link as needed. Now just because clear can have a 100mhz slice dosen't mean they will do it. Most of what I have read from Clearwire interviews was 2 or 3 20mhz channels bonded. Apparently bonding much more than that has a drag on efficiency. The point is however that spectrum is the least of Sprints concerns. More pressing is getting the money to pay for all of this.

[ericdabbs]

Lets calm down here for a sec. I am sure Clearwire does not plan to launch more than two or three 20 MHz carriers at this time. There is no need to deploy all your spectrum when Clearwire does not have enough wholesale customers to support it.

[MacinJosh]

Lets calm down here for a sec. I am sure Clearwire does not plan to launch more than two or three 20 MHz carriers at this time. There is no need to deploy all your spectrum when Clearwire does not have enough wholesale customers to support it.

Agreed. Deploying everything now would just incur them additional launch costs that would just make it more difficult for them to survive. Clearwire still has to be cautious about how they deploy LTE and how fast they do so.

[jegillis]

I should have been more clear, sorry clearwire *is able to* As I said in my second post 2 or 3 is more likely. The 100mhz was a clearwire marketing guy trumping up what they could do with there network in response to a question about competing with the big 2.

[S4GRU]

LTE Carrier Aggregation is not the panacea its being heralded. It causes significant device battery drain and prevents the use of MIMO in smartphones.

I personally think deploying 5x5 LTE carriers is more than sufficient with Sprint spectrum. It performs more than acceptably and exceeds the needs of 95% of customers. Maybe even more. Sprint's 5MHz LTE is faster than most of their customers home ISP's! And it is way faster than smartphones can even appreciate and handle.

I think customers will really be more than happy with 10-15 Mbps LTE speeds. Any faster than that is just a pecker size contest. Sprint should reject carrier aggregation and just focus on more carriers (and spectrum) for capacity. Clearwire should also avoid CA and just deploy 20MHz TD-LTE carriers. They will exceed VZW speeds. That should be enough for bragging rights.

What would you rather have? A fast Sprint LTE device with a battery that lasts all day? Or a blazing fast Sprint LTE device with carrier aggregation that will last half a day?

For me the choice is easy. No carrier aggregation. I just think consumers are going to reject speeds beyond 10-15Mbps soon. It will just be bragging rights on paper only. It will have no real usable difference for smartphone users.

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

[danielholt]

10mb is more than sufficient...... you can only enjoy one app at a time... something like netflix will only use 1-3mbps .... i would ask to have 1-3mbps upload for instant photo sharing of course.... but i think sprint are on to something... i look forward to seeing real world results here pretty soon in the atlanta/athens markets.

[MacinJosh]

I would love to have 3Mbps uploads on a consistent basis. Then I could upload videos to YouTube for my church without any problems creeping up anymore. Uploads on WiMax have been too unstable for me since I first got the Clear iSpot.

[bigsnake49]

LTE Carrier Aggregation is not the panacea its being heralded. It causes significant device battery drain and prevents the use of MIMO in smartphones.

I personally think deploying 5x5 LTE carriers is more than sufficient with Sprint spectrum. It performs more than acceptably and exceeds the needs of 95% of customers. Maybe even more. Sprint's 5MHz LTE is faster than most of their customers home ISP's! And it is way faster than smartphones can even appreciate and handle.

I think customers will really be more than happy with 10-15 Mbps LTE speeds. Any faster than that is just a pecker size contest. Sprint should reject carrier aggregation and just focus on more carriers (and spectrum) for capacity. Clearwire should also avoid CA and just deploy 20MHz TD-LTE carriers. They will exceed VZW speeds. That should be enough for bragging rights.

What would you rather have? A fast Sprint LTE device with a battery that lasts all day? Or a blazing fast Sprint LTE device with carrier aggregation that will last half a day?

For me the choice is easy. No carrier aggregation. I just think consumers are going to reject speeds beyond 10-15Mbps soon. It will just be bragging rights on paper only. It will have no real usable difference for smartphone users.

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

Robert, do you have some links on the effect of carrier aggregation on MIMO? I know that MIMO is a challenge at 700 and 800MHz because of the size of the antennas and the lack of real estate on smartphones, but I'd like to read the technical reason on why you can't have MIMO and carrier aggregation at 1900MHz.

[S4GRU]

Robert, do you have some links on the effect of carrier aggregation on MIMO? I know that MIMO is a challenge at 700 and 800MHz because of the size of the antennas and the lack of real estate on smartphones, but I'd like to read the technical reason on why you can't have MIMO and carrier aggregation at 1900MHz.

We are planning an article on carrier aggregation based on internal Sprint documents we've seen. My info comes from that.

Robert - Posted from my E4GT with ICS using Forum Runner

[irev210]

LTE Carrier Aggregation is not the panacea its being heralded. It causes significant device battery drain and prevents the use of MIMO in smartphones.

I personally think deploying 5x5 LTE carriers is more than sufficient with Sprint spectrum. It performs more than acceptably and exceeds the needs of 95% of customers. Maybe even more. Sprint's 5MHz LTE is faster than most of their customers home ISP's! And it is way faster than smartphones can even appreciate and handle.

I think customers will really be more than happy with 10-15 Mbps LTE speeds. Any faster than that is just a pecker size contest. Sprint should reject carrier aggregation and just focus on more carriers (and spectrum) for capacity. Clearwire should also avoid CA and just deploy 20MHz TD-LTE carriers. They will exceed VZW speeds. That should be enough for bragging rights.

What would you rather have? A fast Sprint LTE device with a battery that lasts all day? Or a blazing fast Sprint LTE device with carrier aggregation that will last half a day?

For me the choice is easy. No carrier aggregation. I just think consumers are going to reject speeds beyond 10-15Mbps soon. It will just be bragging rights on paper only. It will have no real usable difference for smartphone users.

Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner

I also think that it's a bit early to completely write-off aggregation. When EVDO came out, people complained about battery life. When LTE came out, people complained about battery life.

As chipsets mature and manufacturing processes mature, we see substantial improvements in battery life (28nm qualcomm, for example).

I always thought of aggregation as the best tool to seamlessly load balance between different bands. Do I have that wrong?

[S4GRU]

I also think that it's a bit early to completely write-off aggregation. When EVDO came out, people complained about battery life. When LTE came out, people complained about battery life.

As chipsets mature and manufacturing processes mature, we see substantial improvements in battery life (28nm qualcomm, for example).

I always thought of aggregation as the best tool to seamlessly load balance between different bands. Do I have that wrong?

I don't disagree with your logic and conclusions. But when you consider that there is no capacity gain with carrier aggregation, there is only speed gain, why bother? This is just my opinion of course. Just one lone voice of many. But I don't have any interest in losing battery life for more speed that I don't need.

3-5Mbps meets my needs. 10-15Mbps is just gravy, to me. 30Mbps wireless speeds? It's hyperbole in my opinion. Why should carriers pay so much money for the extra speeds? Customers are not going to pay more for it. That's for darn sure.

Look at home ISP's. When there is a la carte pricing based on speed, the lion share of customers purchase speeds less than 10Mbps. If we did the same with mobile and institued speed based a la carte pricing, I bet consumers would not care one peep about 20, 30, 50Mbps mobile speeds. They would pick something that meets their needs. Like 5 to 10 Mbps.

If I owned a wireless company, I would go with 5x5 carriers and just keep adding for capacity. Market why it's better to have an unlimited 10Mbps network that meets your needs and avoid CA. All just my opinion.

Robert

[S4GRU]

I would love to have 3Mbps uploads on a consistent basis. Then I could upload videos to YouTube for my church without any problems creeping up anymore. Uploads on WiMax have been too unstable for me since I first got the Clear iSpot.

You raise an interesting conundrum that I don't think Sprint has fully thought through. And this could possibly derail unlimited for the long run, but...

With unlimited LTE, Sprint LTE speeds are going to be faster than approx. 75% - 80% of their customers home ISP's. Many people may try to abandon their Home ISP's and try to exploit Sprint LTE for home service, or like in your case, why use a local ISP limited to 600k or 1.5Mbps upload speeds? Many people will jump on the Sprint LTE to do uploads with their 5-10Mbps upload speeds. Even I might be tempted. I only have 600kbps upload at my home myself.

I expect Sprint to crack down on unauthorized tethering on their new LTE network. The new network has ample controls to indentify tetherers. I don't see the status quo being maintained. And they are going to have to implement something to preserve the new network. Sprint does not have the spectrum resources to be a Home ISP for even 20% of its data customers.

Robert

[irev210]

I don't disagree with your logic and conclusions. But when you consider that there is no capacity gain with carrier aggregation, there is only speed gain, why bother? This is just my opinion of course. Just one lone voice of many. But I don't have any interest in losing battery life for more speed that I don't need.

3-5Mbps meets my needs. 10-15Mbps is just gravy, to me. 30Mbps wireless speeds? It's hyperbole in my opinion. Why should carriers pay so much money for the extra speeds? Customers are not going to pay more for it. That's for darn sure.

Look at home ISP's. When there is a la carte pricing based on speed, the lion share of customers purchase speeds less than 10Mbps. If we did the same with mobile and institued speed based a la carte pricing, I bet consumers would not care one peep about 20, 30, 50Mbps mobile speeds. They would pick something that meets their needs. Like 5 to 10 Mbps.

If I owned a wireless company, I would go with 5x5 carriers and just keep adding for capacity. Market why it's better to have an unlimited 10Mbps network that meets your needs and avoid CA. All just my opinion.

Robert

That's a good point. I always just assumed that LTE advanced allowed for seamless hand-off. I don't want to go back to the days of getting stuck on 1x while streaming radio, heh.

So, without LTE-Advanced, would it be possible to do seamless hand-offs between different 5x5 carriers? It seems like there would be no point to LTE-Advanced if Sprint could manage traffic with seemless handoffs (IE I am streaming radio outside, walk inside, seamlessly hand-off to ESMR from PCS to have an uninterrupted listening experience).

[S4GRU]

That's a good point. I always just assumed that LTE advanced allowed for seamless hand-off. I don't want to go back to the days of getting stuck on 1x while streaming radio, heh.

So, without LTE-Advanced, would it be possible to do seamless hand-offs between different 5x5 carriers? It seems like there would be no point to LTE-Advanced if Sprint could manage traffic with seemless handoffs (IE I am streaming radio outside, walk inside, seamlessly hand-off to ESMR from PCS to have an uninterrupted listening experience).

With buffering ahead in a streaming experience, there should be no issues handing off between LTE carriers, or even LTE Advanced carriers, from a streaming performance standard. However, if you are in a position where you were not buffered ahead very far, you may notice handoffs.

Robert